ThreeGeek.com

A deeper look into "Dream House"

2011-10-06T10:59:00.002-05:00

Richard takes a deeper look into "Dream House" specifically the flaws that kept a good movie from greatness. WARNING: Clicking "Read More" contains just about every spoiler in the film. Reader beware!

Those of you that have seen the film know that Will Atenton is Peter Ward. Five years before the start of the film Daniel Craig's character witnessed the shooting death's of his wife and daughters before being accidentally shot in the head as he struggled with the killer by his wife. I have no problem with this. I personally think that the build up would have paid off more had HE been the one to kill his wife and daughters, but that would be very hard to pull off in American cinema. The biggest problem is how they got there.

So much of the film is dedicated to showing how much Will loves his family. How happy they are. I understand what Jim Sheridan and David Loucka were trying to accomplish, but it resulted in the film tragically underusing Naomi Watts as the neighbor Ann, Marton Csokas as Ann's ex-husband, Jack and Elias Koteas as Jack's hired killer Boyce.

There was an entire subplot only hinted at until the climax of the movie between Ann and Jack. After what I assume was a very nasty divorce Jack is murderously angry at Ann over the fact that he lost the house and his money and has to share custody of their daughter with Ann. Somewhere jumbled in the mix is the fact that Jack is having money problems and Ann has (what I am assuming) a large life insurance policy. The only reason the audience is even aware of this is because of an out of place scene near the beginning of the film that comes from left field, and after the reveal where we learn Jack hired Boyce to kill his wife, but screwed up and killed the Ward family instead.

That had the potential to be a wonderful story arc. Jack could be wracked with guilt over the screw-up. If not Jack then Boyce. Instead we have two massively underdeveloped sociopaths that only regret the wrong house being targeted.

On that note I find it hard to believe that Jack hired a man to kill his wife without showing a picture of her (No one can confuse Rachel Weisz with Naomi Watts) or even giving an address to Boyce. Instead the plot of the movie hinges on the fact that Boyce hit the third house on the left instead of the right.

Moving past Jack and Boyce we come to Ann. Ann was Libby's best friend. Ann and the Wards are shown together in pictures drinking, laughing and having fun. Trish and Dee Dee are implied to be close childhood friends of Ann's daughter Chloe. Ann was even the only person to come visit Peter Ward/Will Atenton in the mental home. So why is she so under developed. The few times she is on screen there is a wonderful chemistry between Ann and Will. It might not be romantic, but the friendship she wants to share with Will is painful to watch. Why waist that and instead focus on another scene where Will runs around the yard chasing shadows and ghosts.

That brings me to the car. Near the middle of the film a red Buick peels out in the show in front of the Ward/Atenton house. Will jumps in front of it and man and car play an awkward game of chicken. No one is hurt. The car is never seen from again and the view never finds out who was in it. The scene added nothing to the film other than reinforcing the notion that there are problems with the house. The director wasted his time on this instead of flushing out other characters.

In the beginning of the film the Real Estate agent that sold Will Atenton his dream house before the start of the movie drives Will to the house. Once the reveal happens this creates a continuity problem. Will was living a fantasy in his head where his family was still alive. His doctors and other patients at the mental home became Co-workers and bosses. They explain that once he realizes he went insane. Yet what mental worker would willingly drop a delusional man that may have murdered his family back at the crime scene which happens to also be condemned?

The last rant is the amnesia/fake life itself. No one knows why Peter created will. The only theory is that watching his wife and children die pushed him over the edge and he created a new persona to escape the guilt. Not once did anyone think to themselves, "Why is Peter crazy? Oh yeah. HE WAS SHOT IN THE FUCKING HEAD!" This film embraces so many tropes already. Amnesia, the I didn't kill my wife, countless horror tropes of characters running off when they should stay inside, yet the one they avoid is the one that would close one of the biggest plot holes.

In closing this movie could have been great. There were places where they could have played with flashbacks and only revealed they were flashbacks at the end. They could have made at least one of the villains sympathetic instead of evil caricature tropes. They could have made Ann have a flaw or two which would explain why Jack hated her so much. Hell, they could have made Peter/Will the killer and have the douchebag ex-husband save Ann and Chloe from the crazy homicidal protagonist instead of vice versa. And the ending. After Jack and Boyce kill each other as Peter's dream home burns to the ground we cut to Peter looking through a bookstore window at the International bestseller "Dream house." From the word GO Peter/Will is made out to be an aspiring writer. We know he has been working on a manuscript and from the composition tablets with "Dream House" scribbled in them we know the idea is sloshing around in his head. The ending could have been great. Did he write about his experiences or was the entire thing in his head and we lived out his writing process. The ending so so beautifully open and potentially meta. The only flaw was that the movie could not get me to care enough to wonder.

"Dream House" fails to live up to the dream (2.5/5)

2011-10-06T10:19:00.002-05:00

Every few years or so a psychological thriller changes the landscape of the game. "The Usual Suspects" "The Sixth Sense" "Primal Fear" This is not one of those movies.

Don't get me wrong. Jim Sterling's thriller "Dream House" is not a bad movie. It could just be so much more.

Daniel Craig stars as Will Atenton, a supposed hotshot editor who quits his job and moves into his "dream house" to be closer with his wife, Libby (The Amazing Rachel Weisz) and daughters Trish and Dee Dee. Everything seems peaceful and overly tranquil until they start seeing shadows in the windows and Will finds a cult of teenagers worshiping in his basement. It's then that he finds out his dream home is the site of a brutal killing spree from five years ago, where Peter Ward went crazy and killed his wife and two daughters before being shot in the head by his wife. As Will starts to uncover more about the crime scene he starts to suspect that his new neighbor Ann (Naomi Watts) knows more about the case than she lets on.

The acting is solid in parts and wooden in others. I know Craig has the acting chops to carry a movie like this but seemed to be disinterested some of the time. This is never more prominent than times of great stress to the characters. When they fear the recently released from a mental home Peter ward is outside their house Weisz understandably seems panicked and scared, while Craig seems to almost roll his eyes and command her to, "just go inside."

Besides some wooden acting the film suffered from some serious plot holes. When the reveal of the film happens, earlier characters that could contradict the twist found their dream homes in "mandyville" and there are entire scenes that add nothing to the overall story.

The greatest sin in my eyes lays with the use of the antagonists in the film. Without giving away too much (that comes in my next post) I can only say that I am hard pressed to find an antagonist so forced upon the audience without plot, story or character development as I am in Dream House.

Still, it was a good time if only a bit mindless. I can still see what the film COULD have been in my head though, which makes this average film hurt worse than a truly horrible one.

-Richard

Richard is back

2011-10-06T10:14:00.002-05:00

Thousands of years ago Richard Posted on ThreeGeek.Today I have come... to stay?

I don't know about The Sherm and Thaddo, but I have "that writtin' bug" creeping back into my life so you should see some more updates, at least for the time being. Later today should be the first new content in over a year.

"The Wrestler" -- Movie Review

2009-01-29T19:25:00.003-06:00

Thaddeus:

"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
-Samuel Johnson

"The Wrestler" is a backstage peek, not just at the titular profession, but at life and the harsh, gritty sadness it can hold; at what happens when your give yourself so fully to one aspect of yourself that everything else withers up and dies, leaving only the aching strangeness of a phantom limb or, in this case, a phantom life.

Seeing the man behind the curtain is one of the pervading themes of "The Wrestler," and Mickey Rourke deserves the highest possible marks for not only bringing burnt-out wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson to Ram-Jamming life, but also for revealing the rickety clockwork of humanity ticking away beneath the blustering facadé of muscles and spandex.

Randy, a former pro-wrestling super star, lives a life of scraping by between weekends headlining small-circuit matches. He works part-time unloading trucks, sleeps in a crummy trailer park -- or in his van, when he can't make rent. Basically, he stumbles through the day to day, not in a literal, clumsy way, but as a man who only know how to live one kind of life: the life he has in the ring. Camaraderie, showmanship and the cheering of the crowd.

But it's not all huge men in tight clothes -- far from it. We also have Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), an aging stripper whom Randy obviously has a thing for -- though, for some bizarro-logic reason, he seems to be the only one. Unlike Randy, Cassidy has no love for the person she pretends to be, choosing that life, not for any kind of satisfaction, but merely to provide for her son. An unsavory but necessary sacrifice.

And beyond peeling away the layers from the main players, even the very scenery of "The Wrestler" is all about looking beyond the familiar surface. Randy picks up his part-time work at a supermarket, and we follow him through the storage areas, cramped hallways and backrooms behind those universally familiar, fluorescent aisles. The woods around his trailer park aren't any kind of Hollywood landscape, either. They're brown and broken, littered with tangles of brush and thin, weak examples of plant-life. Grounded and familiar for anybody who's lived the scrape-by lifestyle, I'd wager. Indeed, it's the regularity of this world that helps draw us in, leaving us that much more impacted by the lives we watch unfold.

"The Wrestler" is deep, human drama played out on an odd, but familiar stage. It shouldn't be missed by any who consider themselves moviegoers.

5 / 5

As a quick postscript: Randy "The Ram" Robinson's real name, we discover, is actually Robin Ramzinski, which makes this a clear case of "Boy Named Sue" Syndrome. Give a guy a girlish name and he'll become a giant ball of muscle and machismo. Try and give them an overly manly name, and they'll likely end up wearing spandex for an entirely different reasons. Hooray for movie tropes.

-Thad out

Jeremiah:
This film is a tragedy of great magnitude performed on a microscopic stage. The resulting contrast is an unbelievably moving opus on regret, loss, love and the masks we wear in our lives -- and how, tragically, some confuse the mask for themselves... if that makes sense. If not, don't worry. I'll try to make myself clear as the review goes on.

If you have been reading the reviews on Darren Aronofsky's newest offering you would have undoubtedly read such blurbs as “Mickey Rourke's come-back performance,” “a one in a lifetime marriage of actor and role,” and, my personal favorite, the overly melodramatic “...witness the resurrection of Mickey Rourke.” I can't imagine where these people were when Rourke turned loose his brilliant interpretation of Marv in “Sin City.” His Marv was one of the best performances in prosthetics since Ron Perlman's Hellboy.

Semantics aside, Rourke does give the performance of his career. He's a force of pure, physical nature in this film. He takes the hits and the falls in the arena, while outside he conveys the emotional hits and falls from life. Randy “The Ram” Robinson is a cyclone of brutality, sportsmanship, loneliness, ache and determination who ultimately realizes that life is a play which holds no part for him.

Marissa Tomei's stripper with a heart of gold may well be a cliché, but Tomei manages to pull a rabbit out of that hat by infusing her with simple, down-to-earth sweetness and confusion at her genuine feelings for Randy. Tomei, at 45, is only getting sexier and more fearless with age. Her scenes with Rourke are the true wrestling scenes, as she tries to comprehend her growing affection for this beaten old man.

What they both fail to understand is that both of them are actors in a part, Randy is “The Ram” and Cassidy is merely a stage name hiding Pam, the single mother. Both play a part, and both try to discover what are pieces of the persona, and what is truly genuine.

At the same time, you get the sense that both characters are more comfortable in their stage persona. For they only truly mess up when they leave their characters and try to inhabit the world outside of their respective arenas -- Tomei's stripper realizes she is in love with a man who can no longer operate in the real world, while Rourke's wrestler who is forced, in his silver years, to re-enter society and finds he is not entirely welcome. He learns that his years away from a real life have left him unable to live life without screwing up.

And now I would like to take some time/space to address a certain grievance I've noticed with other critics: that Evan Rachel Wood is the the films only hiccup, and that she hits mostly false notes. This, in my opinion, is untrue.

True, Wood's performance as Randy's daughter, Stephanie, is not of the same mood as Tomei's or Rourke's -- possibly because, out of the trio, she is the only one without a stage persona. She lives, breathes and operates totally in the real world. Her “overly melodramatic performance” could be attributed to a young girl letting loose on her father for his transgressions against her, both past and present. Out of the three, oddly enough, she's the most well-adjusted. To me, her performance rings true, and just as close to the bones as her co-stars.

I must confess something, before I wrap up. This is my first, but certainly not my last, Darren Aronofsky film. I'm aware of his others and have added them in my Netflix Queue. From what I know of his other films though, this is the most simple, yet subtle, movie of his career. There is plot and story, but the attention to these three characters as they live and love is astounding. This is a film filled with rage, regret and yearning. For being his fourth feature film, it is simply startling.

“The Wrestler” is a film much like “Slumdog Millionaire” and “Gran Torino” that will linger with you among your subconscious. The length and intensity of that lingering is what separates merely great movies from all-out masterpieces. I'm not quite sure which one “The Wrestler” is, but I have a sneaking suspicion it might be the latter. If nothing else, Randy “The Ram” Robinson belongs in the great pantheon of cinematic characters, of that much I'm certain.

/5

"Gran Torino" -- Movie Review

2009-01-24T12:00:00.005-06:00

Jeremiah:
More and more I'm convinced I was in right in a thought I had four years ago: Clint Eastwood is a modern John Ford. That is to say, much like the forgotten great, his style is subtle and surprisingly touching. Unlike Danny Boyle with “Slumdog Millionaire,” Eastwood feels no need to pull out the stops. You'll find no wild cuts, zooming camera movements or any other flashy stylistic choices. Eastwood prefers to sit his camera down and let the characters and story do all the heavy lifting.

Don't get me wrong, “Slumdog Millionaire” is still one of the best films of the year. And another is “Gran Torino.”

Eastwood paints a subtle, complicated and incredibly moving portrait about a man who is far from ready for his generation to hand over the reigns of the world. He doesn't understand what the fast-paced, spoiled, lazy rabble the present generation -- including his own family -- has to offer.

With his increasingly concave features, grizzled expressions and unmistakable growl, Eastwood dominates the screen. This is the meanest we have ever seen Eastwood. It's also the best we've ever seen him, acting wise. A bittersweet landmark, as Eastwood has since announced that he is retiring from acting.

For those who still don't know, “Gran Torino” is about Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) a Korean War veteran who, after his wife dies, is left alone and embittered against... well, people in general. To top it all off, his neighborhood consists largely of Hmong (an ethnic group hailing from Southeast Asia), which irks Walt to no end.

After he inadvertently saves a young boy next door, Thao (Bee Vang), from a local gang one night, Walt finds himself inundated with unwanted attention. Thao's sister, Sue (Anhey Her), begins to realize -- along with the rest of us -- that Walt, while spouting slurs left and right, is really anything but a racist. He's just an old man who is disappointed with the entire human race, and doesn't care much about the decorum of political correctness.

As the movie progresses, a friendship begins to form between Walt and his neighbors. Despite whatever else happens in the movie, these three are the core. It is to the credit of both Bee Vang and Anhey Her that they manage to shine, even while being encased in the shadow of Eastwood's performance.

Eastwood outdoes himself with every film he directs, his work growing more textured and vibrant with each passing year. It must be said that, even at 78, he shows absolutely no sign of slowing down. For the second year in a row, he has managed to put out two movies a year, while directors half his age do well if they crank out one.

For those who point to Eastwood's retirement from acting as a sure sign of the mega-talent starting to slow, I counter with this: It is my belief that he is retiring from acting so he can bump his quota to three films a year.

Mark my words, the only thing stopping this guy is death, and from what I saw in "Gran Torino," Clint could probably make the reaper crap his pants and move right along to the next person. Masterpiece!

/ 5

Thaddeus:
Walt Kowalski is not racist.

It may be easy to confuse him with the like, what with the constant stream of ethnic epithets he issues forth to anyone who pauses in front of him for too long. As my former room mates and I often said, old guys can do whatever they want. And Walt doesn't want to mince words. So yeah, maybe he buys into stereotypes, but he also gives credit where it's due... it's just that most of the people in his life haven't earned shit. And nothing hacks a man off more then dumbass entitlement.

"Gran Torino," which I totally knew beforehand was also the name of a car, is a film about people that the world doesn't want. Specifically, Walt and Thao.

Walt's family -- his two sons and their respective families -- don't see him as a person. To them, he's more like leftovers. Grumpy, gravely leftovers. A relic of a world that doesn't exist anymore. Utterly dismissible. As we grow to know the man, we see this callousness of those who should be closest to him as utterly terrible. And yet, these aren't terrible people. They're normal... which may be the most horrible part of all.

Thao is also dismissed by his family. Quiet and introverted, he's easily pushed around by pretty much everyone, from his well-meaning sister to his bastard cousin Spider (Doua Moua). After Spider and his gang 'protect' Thao from the bullying of another, Hispanic gang, he pushes Thao to join them. The initiation: steal the Gran Torino.

With Sue as the catalyst, Walt and Thao strike up an odd relationship. Walt finds family for the first time -- not counting his departed wife, whose funeral opened the film -- and Thao learns how to be a man... though Walt's teaching methods are far from orthodox. His teaching Thao "how men talk," with help from his barber (John Carroll Lynch) was absolutely hilarious.

Actually, there was a lot of humor in "Gran Torino," even among the grit and harshness and sadness and drama.

Not to be pigeonholed, "Gran Torino" is a movie about life and death and rebirth. It's about the things we should pass on and the things we should learn. It's about the meaning of being a man, and of family. It's about sweet, American-made muscle car.

5 / 5

Do not miss this movie.

-Thad out.

"Seven Pounds" -- Movie Review

2009-01-24T07:00:00.001-06:00

Jeremiah:
“Seven Pounds” is designed to make you cry and, depending on who you are, it probably succeeds. It's a little hard to review a movie like “Seven Pounds,” where so much of the purpose of the movie is trying to solve the puzzle that it lays out. To be armed with too much knowledge, in this case, will do you more harm than good.

Ben Thomas (Will Smith) is an I.R.S. Agent. Ezra (Woody Harrelson)is a blind telemarketer. Emily (Rosario Dawson) is a woman with severe heart problems. Dan (Barry Peppers), a friend of Ben's seems, emotionally distraught over a deal he made with Ben. There's a social worker Holly, (Judyann Elder), who's happy to see Ben. Connie Tepos (Elpidia Carrillo), a mother trapped in an abusive relationship, wishes only to escape with her children to a new life.

Discovering who these people are and how they are connected is the joy of “Seven Pounds.” It is so integral, in fact, that I'm not sure how enjoyable the movie would be on repeat viewings. Suffice to say, if you were to ask me what the movie was about, I'd say it was about sacrifice... and jellyfish.

The movie has been charged with being manipulative, and it is unquestionably guilty. Yet, when it's done well, I have absolutely no problem with being manipulated. I don't think you will either.

/ 5

Thaddeus:
There are many movies where the overall quality is so grand and appealing that even when all the great twists have been revealed, you'd still be full-willing to watch it all over again. I had the endings of "Fight Club," "The Sixth Sense," and "The Matrix" spoiled for me before I ever saw them, but that didn't keep me from enjoying them the first time or any of the enumerable, subsequent times.

"Seven Pounds" is not any of those movies.

Not to say it's bad, but I heartily agree with Jeremiah on the point of... well, most of the things he said, to be honest. It manipulates you -- but in a charming way, as opposed to a psychotic ex-significant other sort of way. A solid story, with some top-notch talent, but it just doesn't have the clout to make it any kind of enduring classic.

"Seven Pounds" is a movie for people who enjoy feeling ways about stuff. If you tend to shun emotions, because they are for sissies and meatbags, you would likely be happier trading your money for a ticket to a different movie. If, however, you enjoy smiling and crying; stories of a more limited, human scope; and watching as pieces fit together into a full picture, this is probably just the ticket for you.

In a season of Must-See Movies, "Seven Pounds" just doesn't quite measure up. But if you've already seen the heavy-hitters, or you just want a good cry or something, you could do a lot worse.

3.5 / 5

-Thad out.

"Slumdog Millionaire" -- Movie Review

2009-01-15T23:30:00.001-06:00

Jeremiah:
Danny Boyle's “Slumdog Millionaire” is a life-affirming, emotional roller-coaster of a fairy tale, filmed with such ferocity and virtuosity that it will leave you, quite frankly, breathless at its beauty. The plot is straight out of Dickens, yet told in a fashion that feels as new as the last breath you took.

Jamal (Dev Patel) is a poor Indian boy who has grown up in the slums of Mumbai: a slumdog. After managing to become a contestant on an Indian version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?”, he defies the odds as he pushes closer and closer toward the top of the million-dollar heap. He's not a genius, not particularly educated at all. But nevertheless, he has each answer -- because each question relates to the traumatic or dramatic moments of his life.

As we follow him back through these moments, we meet Jamal's older brother Salim (Madhur Mittal) and the love of Jamal's life, Latika (Freida Pinto). There are many more, but much like Dickens's, they are too numerous to mention -- though their roles are equally crucial to the the movie.

Boyle and co-director Loveleen Tandan show you the whole beautiful, miserable mess that is India, boils and all. The effect is a dizzying visual poem of that nation and its people. All in all, a true cinematic feat of joy, longing, regret and the magic of that lofty idea of true love.

It is written, after all.

/ 5

Thaddeus:
For me, the beauty of "Slumdog Millionaire" is in how well the story and the characters and the world are woven together into one beautiful, continuous tapestry of love, struggle and the unbearable condition that is human life.

Fancy words aside, I was pleasantly surprised by the actors (and actress) playing Jamal, Salim and Latika from youth to adulthood. Normally, children -- with their minute stature, greasy hands and banshees' wail -- are to be avoided at all costs... in film. Or retail.

Anyway: Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Rubiana Ali steal your heart as the youngest Jamal, Salim and Latika, respectively. From the brothers' bittersweet first meeting with Latika, through the growing bonds of friendship and on to their tragic separation, they pull you into their world and simultaneously beat the living guts out of foolish, lesser child-actors... figuratively speaking, of course.

This leads us to Tanay Chheda, Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar as the teen-years trio, and to describe what these characters go through in their reunion, which is any way but what you expect, would be a crime to those yet to see it.

And while I'm playing the name-game, I'd like to throw an honorable mention up to Anil Kapoor, who portrays gameshow host Prem Kumar -- imagine a parallel universe where Regis Philbin is Indian, and slightly more sinister, and you wind up with a surprisingly accurate picture of his performance... but I mean that in the nicest way.

Beyond gushing accolades on the acting and directing, it's important to note the appearance of M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" on the soundtrack. I dig that song. She's also featured in an original piece by the film's composer, A. R. Rahman. So if you're a fellow M.I.A. fan, that's another little treat for you in what I could only describe as a holiday-huge meal of a movie... only no matter how much you eat, you never get full or throw up. Fantastic.

So, yeah -- see "Slumdog Millionaire."

5 / 5

And don't you dare miss the credits.

-Thad out

"Transporter 3" -- Movie Review

2009-01-04T20:57:00.007-06:00

Due in part to a rash of recent temporal anomalies, but largely to the tawdry lifestyle of The Editor, the following review is well beyond recent... but if you haven't read it, it's new to you! And so, ONWARD!

I haven't decided whether I should recommend “Transporter 3” to you or not. It's a fantastically fun movie to be sure, and yet parts will push you back in your chair and just about roll your eyes for you -- but, oddly enough, the scenes I'm talking about will not be the ones where the filmmakers blatantly, and with unrepentant joy, rape the laws of physics on the screen. The guilty scenes are found in the subplot of blossoming romance between Frank Martin (Jason “Bad Ass” Statham) and his cargo Valentina (Natalya “Making Freckles Ungodly Sexy” Rudakova).

Those scenes press the audience's level of suspension of disbelief, not because of the age difference, but because the dialogue was written by what must have been a hopelessly romantic junior-high-schooler, with such gems as: “No, that's what you're thinking. I'm talking about what you're feeling.”

And yet, when the movie is not concerning itself with blasé emotion or focusing on the sizzling sex appeal of its stars -- as both of them are undeniably pretty people -- it's giving you a healthy dose of impossibly unrealistic action sequences that hark back to the days of “Commando.” It's a fine way to wile away an hour and forty minutes on a Saturday night.

Now, a word about the action sequences: I enjoyed the way the director, the fantastically named Olivier Megaton, used a steady cam for certain action scenes. Sure there are cuts, but they're there only to switch views and done entirely without our old foe The Shaky Cam. Not to mention that he seems to be just as in love with Rudakova as the audience is.

There were times where I couldn't shake the sense, both from Rudakova and Statham, that they could be doing better. They were simply not pushed to do so. That, I blame on the script, co-written by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. But since I love Luc Besson, I'll credit him with the the good stuff and blame the other guy for the stuff I didn't like. Is that not professional? Then you're going to hate this next line.

For those of you who might scoff at the non-realism displayed by Frank Martin and his Audi, might I remind you to blow it out your ass? (Told ya.) It's a “Transporter” movie. The previous entry into this series had Statham breaking a dude's back in an underwater fight inside the hull of a recently submerged airplane.

Should any human being ever one-arm a rocket launcher? Arnold Schwarzenegger, I'm looking your way. No. Do I need to see Stallone, in a business suit, standing in front of an oncoming bus, almost daring the bus to hit him? No.

But that's the fun of a great bad action movie, and “Transporter 3” is just that. Stuff 'splodes; impossibly sexy girls from Czechoslovakia get themselves into distress; and our hero will sit in his car, all steely eyed, on a bridge with both exits blocked, surrounded by machine-gun-toting henchmen. And yet miraculously, amid the hail of bullets, no one will be hit -- even though the bad guys stand on opposite sides of the hero, unloading ungodly ordinance and their enemy and each other. Trapped, our hero has only one option left to him: he must drive...

And if you need me to finish that sentence, this movie is not for you.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

ThreeGeek Presents: Watch These Movies On Christmas!

2008-12-24T18:00:00.002-06:00

I must admit, I've not seen many of Christmas movies, especially older ones, and the ones I have seen tend to fall between "A family-fun-filled holiday romp" (a.k.a. boring shlop) or "An adult take on the holidays" (see also: crude shlop) So, Sherman has a one-up on me here... and I would not be surprised if Thad does as well. That being said...

Richard's Holiday Picks:

"National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" (Dir. Jeremiah S. Chechik, 1989) -- 4/5

"Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Frank Shirley, my boss, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, fore-fleshing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit. Where's the Tylenol?"

This movie has all you could want in a comedy: sight gags, falls and tumbles, witty dialog... and it's just crude enough to be funny without turning into a Farrelly Bros. film.

Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) and his wife Ellen (Beverly D'Angelo) are hosting the extended Griswold family Christmas. This means bringing in their parents (the stellar John Randolph and Diane Ladd as Clark's parents and E.G. Marshall and Doris Roberts as Ellen's), senile Aunt Bethany (Mae Questel) and snarky Uncle Lewis (William Hickey) as well as the lovably dysfunctional Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid) and his family. It also features the third set of kids to play Russ and Audrey (Johnny Galecki and Juliette Lewis), and top it all off with the snobbish neighbors played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Nicholas Guest.

In typical old Lampoon fashion, little goes according to plan. Christmas trees burn, turkeys fry and Santas fly through the air in a blaze of methane glory. And yet the comedy comes from how true-to-life most of it feels.

Besides a great Christmas, filled with enough lights to cause a blackout, Clark wants to surprise his family with news of a new pool he will be installing thanks to his Christmas bonus. He and his family count down the days to Christmas (and the bonus) as the family arrive. Yet life, and family, throw them a curve.

I can't pick a favorite moment from this film. Is it the sled racing across hill and highway and into the shack? Or perhaps the squirrel running rampant in the house? And there are always the Christmas lights, and Clark's eventual meltdown near the end...

One thing is for sure, this movie is funny the whole way though.

"Die Hard" (Dir. John McTiernan, 1988) -- 4.5/5

"Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho."

Fuck yeah, "Die Hard!" What Christmas list would be complete without the greatest Christmas (and Action) Movie of all time. I could go into detail about the plot and the actors... but why? If you haven't seen this movie, you fail as an American. And, beyond that, as a human being.

John McClane (Bruce Willis, for all of you dirty, unAmerican pinkos out there) is the greatest action hero to ever live. Why? Because he is. This cop flies back from working the streets of New York City to spend time with his ungrateful wife (Bonnie Bedelia), who would rather have a good job than be with this baddest motherfucker of all time. Still, John misses her and the kids so he goes to her lame corporate Christmas party at Nakatomi Plaza. Little did he know that Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) plans to fuck all kinds of shit up in one of the most elaborate heists of the 1980s.

As Hans and his crew start to fucking murder Japanese businessmen and cocky cokeheads, does John run away? No! He drags his shoeless ass through miles of ventilation and kills him some terrorist thieves.

John McClane is a real man. He is not invincible, like some pansy "I'll be back" action heroes, nor does he feel the need to jump out of a helicopter while shooting a tripod mounted gun or yelling "It's ok, I don't shop here!" to supermarket bombers. HE FEELS PAIN, AND HE PUSHES ON. Why does he do it? To save his wife? Because he is a cop? NO! He does it because if he doesn't some German asshole gets away with countless millions in bonds as well as killing a building full of chumps.

Watch Die Hard. DO IT NOW! Then try to tell me it is not the greatest motherfucking Action/Christmas/Love Story ever told.

Jeremiah's Christmas Cavalcade:

“It's a Wonderful Life” (Dir. Frank Capra, 1946)

This holiday classic is loved by millions and stands as a television staple this time of year. It's one of Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra's most celebrated cinematic offerings. In addition to that though, it just so happens to be one of the greatest American movies ever made.

"It's a Wonderful Life" is considered by todays' cynical masses to be "too corny," while simultaneously being hailed by a select few as a dark portrait of failure and repressed rage at life. Personally, I think the former are not giving the film the credit it deserves, while the latter may be reading to much into bad acting by some of the side characters while also misreading the main character's reaction to and towards certain others. Still, that's why I love movies... and art in general. We all saw the same movie, yet we all interpreted that movie in different ways.

In this reviewers' opinion, it is an amalgamation of the two theories. I believe it is a dark portrait about failure and repressed rage -- rage at the injustices one believes were unfairly dealt to us. At the same time it is corny... wait, no. No, it's not. And I'll tell you why: “It's a Wonderful Life” is sincere, through and through. It actually believes in the precepts put forth to the viewer.

Every time I watch “It's a Wonderful Life,” I cry. But not always at the same thing. Sometimes I will cry at the end, as most people do -- overwhelmed by the sheer humanity and sacrifice displayed. There are times, though, that I've shed a few tears during the scene where George Bailey defends his Dad to the board of Trustees and Potter, after his father's death. The monologue where Stewart rails against capitalism has moved me beyond words. Yet, still there are times where the tears come with George telling his father how he feels about him over supper on his last night home before college.

In short, “It's A Wonderful Life” is a masterpiece that I will review at length some other time. It's one of my favorite Christmas movies and, hell... it just may be one of my favorite movies, period.

“The Shop Around the Corner” (Dir. Ernst Lubitsch, 1940)

Many of you may have seen the less sublime, less witty, less human, and in all other ways inferior remake of this movie, starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, known as “You've Got Mail.” Please be so kind as to ignore the movie altogether. There are better movies with Tom Hanks. There are better movies with Meg Ryan. Hell, there are better movies with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan (my vote is for “Joe Versus the Volcano”), but I digress.

Lubitsch's film is not about two people who work together in a shop called Matuschek and Co., who start out hating each other only to discover they were made for one another -- well, it is, but that's not all it's about. Lubitsch dares to populate Matuschek and Co. with other employees as well and, furthermore, dares to give you glimpses into their lives as well!

These are not stock characters put in the movie to be the wacky and sage advice dispensing best friend, the tempestuous boss, the smarmy kid who fires off one liners whenever he's on screen, or various other cliches. That's who they are in other, lesser movies, but in “The Shop Around the Corner,” they are people with hopes and dreams and loved ones who live off-screen, but who we feel must exist because they makes us believe they do.

This movie has a very Altman feel to it. By that, I mean it feels like that we are merely peeping into these characters' lives, getting the gist of it and moving on . There are side stories -- in fact the Stewart/Sullivan romance doesn't even take center stage until the latter half of the film.

I have much more to say about this movie, but all that's for another time. Until then, take my word for it: this is a Christmas classic worth seeing.

Thaddeus's Technically-Valid Christmas Film Favorites:

"Lethal Weapon" (Dir. Richard Donner, 1987)

To be honest, I'd forgotten that the original "Lethal Weapon" took place during Christmas until I caught in on the tube recently. Maybe that's stupid of me, I don't know. Either way, it always makes for a good time. I mean, who doesn't love Buddy Cop movies?

North Africans, that's who. Heh... "It's just been revoked."

Yeah, yeah... I know. That's from the second one. But that's the thing about "Lethal Weapon" movies. They're like delicious potato chips: you can't eat just one*. One reminds you of things from the others, and on and on...

Watching the four-piece set has you following these characters through over a decade, all told (with rumors of more to come). Riggs (Mel Gibson) gets less crazy... kinda, Murtaugh (Danny Glover) consistently proves that, while he may sometimes say so, he is decidedly not too old for this shit and they transition from partners to friends to family. And isn't that some kind of heart-felt, holiday thingy.

It may start with a drugged-up hooker taking a high-rise nose-dive, but it ends somewhere far more special... Gary Busey getting the crap smacked out of him in a thunderstorm. Hallelujah!

"Ghostbusters 2" (Dir. Ivan Reitman, 1989)

If you've met me before, you may have picked up on the fact that "Ghostbusters" is my Favorite Movie of All Time and Through All Other Dimensions, Including Ones Where It Was Never Even Created. But its sequel's tenuous connection to the holiday season is not the only reason I meantion it here. "Ghostbusters 2" is a fine, fun and heartfelt film that deserves some holiday acolades, dammit!

Also, I used it to save myself from watch "A Christmas Story" for the googolplexth time when I was helping my mom wrap presents last year and she insisted we watch Christmas movies while doing so.

But enough of that. What I find so engaging about "Ghostbusters 2" is that, after the first film, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) did not get the girl (Dana Barrett, as re-portrayed by Sigourney Weaver). Instead, their relationship eventually disolved and she had a son with some other guy, who we never see. One of the most important things, for me, is the scene wherein Venkman tags along with Ray and Egon (co-writers/renaissance men Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis) to investigate Dana's possibly haunted apartment, only to share a moment with the baby, Oscar (William T. Deutschendorf/Henry J. Deutschendorf II):

"Y'know, I shound've been your father. I mean, I could've been..."

Then he shakes the little baby's hand. It's sweet, damn you! If you want to argue, I'll be hiding behind that thing Sherman said about art and perception.

And let's not forget that, in the end, it's the city coming together in the joy of the season that breaks through the wicked Jello-shell erected by Vigo the Carpathian (Also known as Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, and Vigo the Unholy... and Wilhelm von Homburg). There's your Christmas (or, y'know... New Year's) spirit -- weilding joy as a mighty weapon against an undead sorceror.

Happy Christmas (or whathaveyou)!

*Do not eat the movies.

The Queen Nixon -- Double Movie Review

2008-12-02T06:30:00.004-06:00

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" - Henry IV, Part II

That line is presented to the audience on a black screen, followed by Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) sitting for a portrait. The painter and the Queen have a little back-and-forth about the election that has just seen Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) elected to Prime Minister. After the conversation, the Queen looks the camera directly in the eye and the title flashes onto the screen.

This is the opening to Stephen Frears's "The Queen" -- a quiet film, with masterful performances. There were times when I felt lost, or a bit like an outsider looking in, but that's more to my being an American than the fault of the film. It's quite difficult to sympathize with the Royal family, simply because we've been taught that they are unnecessary. Yet, with that in mind, it is an interesting look inside British tradition and government.

Granted, the movie is not about either of those things. Instead, it's about England and the Royal Family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana. In reality, what we get is an astonishing portrait of how someone like the Queen handles grief. Not over Diana, for we all know how she felt about her, but for her grandsons who have lost their mother.

The movie swings between the Royal Family, Tony Blair's administration, and the varying reactions. Blair, in the beginning, is bemused and somewhat taken aback by the Queen's apparent stubbornness against listening to her public. By the end, though, he too begins to empathize with her. Being someone with great power, it's hard to decide when one should bow to the people's will and when they should stand up against it.

Mirren does a superb job at portraying someone who is alive and well and still in the public eye. She plays her without trying to imitate her, choosing rather to imbue her with a restrained humanity. And James Cromwell as Prince Phillip is pitch perfect as always. It is, after all, James Cromwell.

The images, both blatant and subtle, are no less than astounding at times. There are moments when the view is absolutely sweeping, as the camera glides through the acres of Balmoral, the Queen's private residence. If you're not careful you'll miss the instances where the movie will subtly symbolize itself. In one scene we see a picture of Princess Di in one of the papers. Later, we see a deer slaughtered and hanging, with the floor about it looking curiously like the background of the picture from the papers. Whether this was intentional or merely the fevered imagination of this reviewer, I can not say. But if it is intentional, then it's absolutely marvelous.

I also noted times, especially in scenes with Tony Blair, where the film quality changed for the worse. But while listening to the commentary, (yes, I'm one of those people), I heard the director explain that he used different film stocks to present the different classes. Brilliant! If what I've described so far interests you in the slightest, then I'd highly recommend this movie...

/ 5

If not, then perhaps the next film will be right up your alley:

“What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”- Matthew 16:26

From the crown to the President. Oliver Stone's “Nixon” is a bombastic Greek tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, with allusions to “Citizen Kane” sprinkled in here and there. In short, it's everything “The Queen” is not. "The Queen" is a great movie, but “Nixon” is a somewhat-flawed masterpiece. Where Frears is quiet, subtle and restrained, Stone is loud, blatant and totally unhinged.

That's not to say it's bad -- it's just American. And don't get me wrong, there are times where Stone is absolutely everything I credited to Frears... if that makes any sense.

Richard Nixon (Anthony Hopkins) is portrayed as a man with the potential for greatness, with his biggest flaw being himself. There are moments where Nixon's paranoia and slow descent into madness is almost heartbreaking to behold. Hopkins, well... it almost goes without saying how good he is. Almost.

Visually, Stone never lets up. The editing is amazing -- when Nixon is giving his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Stone imposes newsreel footage over the set, to foreshadow the soon-to-be-broken promises throughout.

Filled with an all-star cast and a story of epic proportions, Stone proves a master of his craft. The story weaves in and out of chronological order, giving you a Time Lord perspective of Nixon's life.

After watching this film, one gets a little mad at Stone for not giving “W” the full Stone treatment. Sure, “W” was good... but not great and certainly not near the epic “Nixon” is. One wonders why Stone decided to try and finish “W” before the election, effectively dumping out a gutless biopic. Whereas in "Nixon" it's nothing but guts, as Stone asks you to understand this wounded soul.

Was Richard Nixon a crook? Undoubtedly so. But thanks to Oliver Stone, you also realize he was also a man cursed by his own psychosis. I can't think of a good way to end this review so I'' just leave off he--

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Quantum of Solace" -- Movie Review

2008-11-21T06:30:00.003-06:00

Last Thursday, I saw the newest installment in the 007 anthology. There were cars, guns and girls, oh my! There were foot-chases on roof tops, hotels in the middle of the desert that exploded and time enough left over to take in an opera. But I'm getting ahead of my self -- first thing's first...

“Quantum of Solace” is not so much a sequel as it is an epilogue, a coda of sorts, while at the same time setting up plot points for future installments and hinting at the grander scheme of things.

The film starts off, as Bond films must, with an action scene. Right here is where the film's been taking a beating from other critics. Let me pause for just a moment to say my piece.

The director, Marc Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction," "Monster's Ball") is a brilliant director. Ask any of we Three Geeks about “Stranger Than Fiction” and you'll hear us say, in no uncertain terms, that it is one of the top, under-rated masterpieces of the past decade. That being said, the man cannot direct an action scene.

Sure, the action was riveting, but only because action scenes, by their very existence, are inherently riveting. I found myself asking “How did that happen?” or “Wait...did he just... what?” These queries arose because of the bane of my existence (not counting Ashton Kutcher): the shaky-cam. The shaky-cam diminishes the raw badassitude of action by replacing suspense and awe with confusion and annoyance.

So, where were we? Ah, yes: the beginning of the film. 007 (Daniel Craig) and M (Judi Dench) and a few nameless others (*cough* red shirts) are interrogating Mr. White, the gentlemen Bond shot in the leg at the closing of “Casino Royale.” They are attempting to find out who was behind Le Chiffre and, in doing so, stumble upon a secret and obscenely powerful organization bent on, well... the usual stuff: exploitation of natural resources, the simple-minded masses, the poor and pretty much anything else you can abuse for wicked profit. I believe this organization, known as Quantum, is poised to become the modern analog of SPECTRE, the evil organization previous 007s combated.

While interrogating Mr. White, one of the red shirt nobodies suddenly attacks Bond and M, White escapes and a hefty body count is left behind. And the double agent, as it turns out, was M's personal bodyguard. After a foot chase, Bond kills the traitor. The fact that Bond can not keep from killing his targets, instead of interrogating them like a proper agent, is sort of a running gag throughout the movie.

"Quantum of Solace" is mainly about Bond coming to terms with the death of Vesper Lynd, from the previous film, and avenging the attempt on M's life... though she'd never hear that from Bond. What's most fun about the new Bond is that he's complex. We're never quite sure where the rage is coming from.

Not to mention the new Bond seems to be of the old world thinking. There are good guys and there are bad guys. He can not fathom this new trend amongst his peers to do business with the bad guys simply because it is more profitable. He is at a loss at the “It's the cost of doing business.” philosophy.

On top of that there is a new Bond Girl, Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a feisty Russian who is on a vengeance quest of her own. She seeks the Dictator General who killed her family and burned her home, scarring her as a child. Here's where the movie is smart. Bond and Camille do not become lovers. We do start to see Bond the womanizer, but with Camille he finds more of a kindred spirit -- a fellow wounded soul -- and instead of bedding her, helps her. Probably because her target is doing business with his target, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a sort of business man/eco-terrorist?

In reality, it doesn't matter. The far more interesting thing, other than the interplay with Camille, or even M, is the return of Mathis (Giancarlo Gianni), one of Bond's ex compatriots from “Casino Royale.” If you recall, Bond believed him to be in league with Le Chiffre and allowed him to be tortured for information by MI6. If Camille is a kindred spirit, I believe Bond sees Mathis as what he will become. They form a quite touching friendship, with glimpses of fascinating dimensions. There is a moment in the movie where Bond says goodbye to Mathis, and it is one of most touching moments in Bond history. It bears a slight resemblance to the shower scene in “Casino Royale,” where he holds Vesper in comforting embrace. It has that kind of resonance.

I haven't touched on the plot all that much simply because the plot, while good, is not the reason to see the movie. Well, not the real reason, anyway. Marc Forster may have failed at the action scenes, but more than makes up for it in the character interaction and development of Bond. Of course, it doesn't hurt that he has one of the best Bonds in the franchise to work with. Daniel Craig once again shows that, at the very least, he's the best-acted Bond on record.

Is it as good as “Casino Royale?” No. “Casino Royale” was, on the whole, a better film. Yet “Quantum of Solace” has the most compelling character relationships and developments of the series. See “Quantum of Solace” for the action, remember it for it's characters.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Letter From The Editor

2008-11-18T17:38:00.003-06:00

Return of content? Professionally-designed website? Robots that fight crime?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

ThreeGeek.com will, over the next couple months, be reborn into something that not only actually exists, but also includes new, improved and vastly expanded content.

But until the dawning of this glorious new day, we'll be reviewing things once again, starting off with Sherman's forthcoming review of "Quantum of Solace" and a few overly whiny essays from myself about Superman and/or Batman.

Kloiber might do something to? I dunno... we're learning these things together.

-Thad out

Sherman's Annual October Movie Marathon

2008-10-07T19:38:00.009-05:00

Well it's that time of year again: October. Time for the annual October Movie Marathon, where I attempt to watch, at the very least, 31 horror movies. This ranges from the outright terror of “The Exorcist” to the total schlock of “The Unnameable II.”

The important thing to remember about the October Movie Marathon is that we welcome all comers. I'll be watching anything and everything under the sun as long as it was made with the intent to scare, lock you in an uncomfortable level of suspense, shock you with gore or make just you squirm.

“Why?” you may ask? Because I love movies, goddamn it! I love them to the point where, when a genre is overly criticized, I want to come to it's defense... and horror movies have long been the bane of existence to critics and overtly zealous Christians. They have good reason, don't misread. There are a lot of severely bad and exploitative horror films out there -- but you can say that about any genre. Horror movies have the potential to be hauntingly beautiful, such as Guillermo Del Torro's "Devil's Backbone," or downright frightening, like "The Exorcist."

The problem with horror movies is the same basic problem with all movies, only more so: they are extremely subjective. What scares me is not the same thing that scares you, or vice versa. Sadly, another problem is the over-commercialization of the genre. Long gone are the days with interesting ideas, characters you genuinely feel for, monsters that are actually original, and the greatest loss of all -- the absence of subtext!

For the most part, the best horror movies are not about what you think they're about. Rather, there's an underlying film behind it. You can have a truly horrifying movie with strong social commentary, just look at "Candyman" or the original "Wicker Man." More than that most horror movies deal with the two things that scare us the most: death... and sex. Take the 1939 “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” or “Candyman,” “Hellraiser,” “Dracula” in any of incarnations -- the list seems endless. The genre has been so co-opted that the sex has been used as “sexy” as opposed to “uncomfortably sexy”, such as in sex scene from “Don't Look Now.” These sex scenes used to be a statement about our innate fear and uneasiness with the openness of the subject. Oh sure, we're advanced and far more open, but you cannot tell me the topic no longer taboo. Sure we can joke about it, but as for talking seriously about sex -- we're a long way from that. But that's one reason why I love horror movies, they use sex as a way to make you queasy as opposed to aroused; they actually pervert your perversions... awesome.

Then there are the slasher films -- these are hit and miss as well. Jason, Micheal, Freddy and a few other low budget rip-offs are dead, but there's still another string of rip-offs going strong. Why? Simple: it's what you could call our “Gladiator complex.” We enjoy watching pretty stupid people get, not just killed, but slaughtered. Does this make us bad people? No, not really. These people are so unreal it's not even funny. A five-year-old could write better characters. Yet, it's a way to work out our frustrations on our fellow man... to watch them be brutally beaten in a sleeping bag against a tree.

And let us not forget the truly great thing about horror movies: besides being wonderful social commentary about race, sex and socio-economic issues, they're also terrific indicators of the times in which they're made. Go back and watch horror movies from 20-30 years ago. You may not be scared by some of them -- they were made in a different era, with their own set of phobias, stresses, world policy issues and views on the opposite sex or, once again, sex in general. The original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” in comparison to today, is not really all that gory, partly due to it being so low budget, but also because Toby Hooper knew the audience was already over-saturated with images of violence from news footage of the Vietnam War. Society's mind was so conditioned to think violently that all Hooper would have to do would be to suggest the act and the audience's imagination would take them to a place he wouldn't even think of.

By and large, horror movies -- along with westerns -- are on the decline. Mainly because I believe filmmakers have forgotten the potential for imagery the genre holds: Frankenstein's monster in his cell, kneeling and reaching towards the light; the scene from “Creature From the Black Lagoon” where The Creature is swimming underneath Julie Adams and there's this moment of breathtaking empathy of the creature; any scene from “Nosferatu,” the original or Werner Herzog's remake; the same for Del Torro's “Devils Backbone” or Ingmar Bergman's “Hour of the Wolf”; Lee Remick falling off the railing in Richard Donner's “Omen" or, hell... Patrick Troughton becoming priest-ka-bob during a storm after trying to warn Gregory Peck. All this, and I haven't even touched Hitchcock yet.

In summation, this marathon is a classic one and is very dear to my heart. There will be the ones I watch every year: “Evil Dead”, “Sorority House Massacre II,” “Re-Animator” and others. Then there will be those I've never seen, such as “Saw,” “Hostel” and “John Carpenter's Vampires.” There will be some crapter-pieces, to be sure, but there should also be some gems to be unearthed. All in all, it should be interesting. Here's hoping that decapitations, topless sorority girls, monsters, characters we care about and awesome ideas will be abound.

Probably not so much on those last two, but hey... on the whole decapitation and topless sorority girls thing, rest assured it's a done deal.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Help! We've been swallowed by the Internet!

2008-10-01T12:00:00.000-05:00

A combination of relocation, schedule shifts and cosmic radiation storms have paralyzed the workings of the ThreeGeek Machine.

Things should even out in a few days, if you'll be kind enough to bare with us. October holds some interesting movie and game releases... and those guys at DC are still trying to kill Batman. Believe me, you'll be hearing about that.

That's right, now that my work schedule is deflating, you'll definitely be getting more yap from me -- suckers!

-Thad out

"Burn After Reading" -- A ThreeGeek Review

2008-09-18T15:56:00.014-05:00

Richard:
"It's what he does, he is a spy... but you can be a spy too."
It's what a divorce lawyer tells Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton) when she approaches him about her husband, and that just so happens to be the plot of the latest Coen Bros. film, "Burn After Reading," as well as the downfall of everyone in the film.

A CIA analyst
A doctor
An ex-Treasury agent
A children's author
3 personal trainers

These are the main players in the film.

Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), the analyst, just quit his job. Katie, the pediatrician, is married to Osborne but not really happy about it. Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), the ex-Treasury agent, is married to children's author Sandy (Elizabeth Marvel), but is sleeping with Katie -- and whoever he can find -- on the side. Meanwhile, personal trainer Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) thinks that she needs copious amounts of plastic surgery to find a man.

Osborne starts his memoirs, Katie makes a copy of his finances to take to the lawyer, and Linda puts an add out on an adult personal site. The copy of the finances ends up at the gym that Linda works at, Harry ends up meeting Linda online and hit things off and her co-worker Chad (Brad Pitt) uncovers "The Shit" inside the finances. "The Shit" is believed to be state secrets that Linda and Chad decide to blackmail Osborne with in order to to pay for her plastic surgery.

That's right, two gym junkies try to blackmail an ex-CIA operative for information they don't even understand.

From this point on, all hell breaks loose. Everyone starts fucking everyone -- in more ways than one -- and the CIA can only sit back and wonder just what the hell is going on.

I loved this film, but it does have its flaws. The dialog is brilliant, but a bit convoluted at times. The acting is brilliant, and the cinematography is brilliant. The Coen's do a fantastic job, but it's not their best work. (Still, a "bad" Coen brothers' film is usually one of the best movies of the year, so pay no mind to that. Not everything is "Lebowski.")

In typical Coen fashion the audience has no idea what's coming next. After a 20 minute long farce act, someone will be shot in the head, or after a heartfelt speech, Harry unveils his "contraption" to change the mood. It's like a big "What If?" comic, and that is the real brilliance.

See it; you will thank me.

4/5

Jeremiah:
The Coen Brothers latest opus is a foolish odyssey into the lives of fools behaving foolishly. Make sense? If not, then I would suggest passing on this and see something else, I hear “Step Brothers” is a fine film. For those of you who did understand that first sentence, and who know that the one after was a lie, then drive to your nearest multiplex for the closest thing to mindless fluff the Coens have come to.

I say “closest” because, while it is fluff, it is neither mindless nor without pathos. "Burn After Reading" is populated with stupid, greedy people who, of course, don't realize just how selfish they are. So busy is everyone at believing they're unfairly put upon, none of them realize just how good they have it. They're all so inept that their greed and obtuseness to the beauty in front of them is both sad and hilarious.

Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) is PR lady at a fitness gym called Hardbodies. Her best friend and co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) is a giant doofus: inept, but sincere. He cares about Linda as a friend and his only serious flaw is that he lacks any grasp of the potential gravity of the situation. The fool in a Greek tragic-comedy.

Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is a CIA analyst who's just been demoted for being an alcoholic. He has, shall we say, anger issues. He believes he is trapped in a world of morons. His flaw is that he does not consider himself one of them, which he so clearly is -- just somwhat smarter. A brilliant moron. His wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), does not take the news well. Osborne and Katie are having troubles in their marriage. In fact, Katie wants a divorce. She's been thinking about it for some time, while simultaneously having an affair with Harry (Geroge Clooney), an ex-Treasury Agent.

Osborne plans to write a memoir exposing the bureaucracy and hypocrisy of the CIA. Meanwhile, Katie, planning for the divorce, needs to know their financial status. In doing so, she accidentally copies information from said memoir and, through an ingenious incident of coincidence, the disk is be found by a janitor at Hardbodies. And Linda starts to date Harry -- who, if you recall, is sleeping with Katie.

As one CIA Agent says to his superior, played beautifully by J.K. Simmons (who has perfected the part of being funny behind an office desk), “It's a bit hazy. It seems they are all sleeping with each other.”

One of the pleasant surprises of “Burn After Reading” is that it's really a sexual satire embedded into a comedy of Espionage. What happens when self-serving, cynical people screw over other self-serving cynical people? They get screwed.

The film is not bereft of innocents, though. There's Chad, who genuinely does not understand what's going on, and there's Ted (Richard Jenkins), Linda's manger, who truly loves Linda for who she is -- even if Linda doesn't love herself that much. As is typical of the Coens, you don't see things coming and, even if you do, you don't foresee their inherent tragedy.

I said earlier that the film has pathos, and it does. The brothers do a wonderful job of letting us know that, while these people are selfish, they are not without redeeming qualities. Harry, it turns out, really does love his wife... even if he does repeatedly cheat on her. His true testament of love, her “gift” that he built himself, is one of the best laughs in the movie.

Even Linda is really a nice person, she has just listened too much to society and believes she needs to be perfect looking. One also senses the Coens poking fun at the Hollywood obession with youth in McDormand's line" “With this body, I would be laughed out of Hollywood.” To which her manager, Ted, replies, “I dunno, some men find your body sexy.”Linda's reply and Ted's hurt expression in his eyes are perfect examples of the pathos I'm talking about.

While it's pretty straight-forward and shallow in plot, the characters' emotions of longing and hope are deep, even if their thinking isn't. Joel and Ethan Coen, more than most directors today, have the ability to create an entire reality within their frame. More than a world, it's as if they exist in a parallel dimension, just slightly outside of our own. Even if their characters are caricatures, their worlds never are. I was moved almost as much I was laughing, which is fantastic -- but not surprising, considering it is the Coens, after all.

There is a line toward the end of the movie that I think sums things up pretty well. J.K. Simmons's character asks his underling, “What have we learned from this? Anything? If we have I don't know what it is.”

I'm perfectly okay with that.

/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Thaddeus:
Somewhere between infidelity, espionage and good old-fashioned human stupidity, something magical lies -- or, if not, "Burn After Reading" sure makes it look that way. If you've followed the Coen Bros. film career, it should be obvious that they do misunderstandings like nobody's business, "The Big Lebowski" being the favorite example -- but if that's all you've seen, you're doing your entertainment-hungry brain a disservice. The Coens are like good movie machines.

If you've reached this part of the review stack, you have to know the plot by now: Some airheads (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) stumble across the memoirs of a disgruntled, ex-CIA agent (John Malkovich) and hatch a blackmail sceme. Lechery abound. Everybody involved thinks they know what's going on, while the people observing (such as J.K. Simmons as the nameless CIA Superior) look on in awe at the sheer absurdity of it all.

The bottom line is that it's a smart, stupid comedy -- or a stupid, smart comedy? Either way, its something special. If you're a fan of film noir conventions turned sideways, you'll have a blast. I certainly did.

Scenes were stolen more than the mcguffin in your average James Bond movie, as tends to happen when you put this many thoroughly entertaining actors on one strip of celuloid. Brad Pitt's lovably idiotic Chad was, well... he was the perfect doofus. The ultimate Zen Master of nitwits. George Clooney, on the other hand, played the man many women likely wish he was -- the guy who will, and does, sleep with anyone. And J.K. Simmons ties the whole film together with the best possible ending line.

I can't pick a favorite performance out of the bunch, and it's not just the ones above: Frances McDormand as the cheerful, image-obsessed non-mastermind; Richard Jenkins as her unrequitedly loving boss; John Malkovich as the drunk and cheerless ex-CIA number-cruncher; and Tilda Swinton as, well... an icy bitch. Helluva cast.

Full of hard-gear shifts between comedy and stark seriousness (and murder), "Burn After Reading" is the weird, satirical, black comedy/drama to see in theaters right now.

So do that.

4 out of 5

-Thad out.

"Traitor" -- A Several-Geek Movie Review

2008-09-15T21:25:00.018-05:00

Jeremiah:
I love Jeff Daniels. I'm saying that right off the bat. He has a way of making his characters seem natural, complex and, most importantly, sincere. I consider Mr. Daniels, along with the other Jeff (Bridges), Danny DeVito and Brian Dennehy as the most criminally underused big-name actors working today. And then there's Don Cheadle, who is everything I said above and more.

There are times in Jeffrey Nachmanoff's "Traitor" when Cheadle blows everyone off the screen with just a look that hints at his character's sense of longing and regret, while at the same time simply making sure he's not being followed. The Paul Giamatti syndrome if you will -- everyone is fantastic, but then you get this one guy in the group who makes everyone else look better, while at the same time totally out-acting them.

You're probably wondering about the movie right about now, as well as you should. It's great. Hell, I'd venture to say "Traitor" is a good bet for at least one Oscar nod -- it's just that good. Nachmanoff and his co-writer, Steve Martin -- yes, THE Steve Martin -- have not only managed to cobble together one of the best spy movies in general, but also presenting one of the best spy movies in the post 9/11 climate. All this while daring to craft the whole movie with no real bad guy; it's done from a humanistic angle. The main thesis you could say is "Not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists."

The plot concerns itself with Samir (Don Cheadle), a Sudanese Muslim who sells explosives to terrorists. Or does he? During one of his business transactions he meets Omar (Saïd Taghmaoui), a fellow Muslim. The meeting is raided and the two are arrested. Samir and Omar form an unlikey bond of friendship and Samir is recrutied into Omar's orginazation. Or does he? If you've seen a preview for this movie then you already know the answer. The movie's biggest surprise is that that's is not what the movie is about. It's what moves the movie along, but it's not the why.

Samir quotes the Qur'an several times throught the film, questioning the legitimacy of his new freind's methods, all the while asking himself: "Why?", "Why do people have to die for this?" and, if so, "How many?" I don't know the answer and frankly neither does the movie. "Traitor" is not interested in the answer; the answer is different for everyone. Sometimes the beauty comes just from the question being posed.

There are also two FBI agents who have a parallel story, bent on intertwining with Samir's: Agents Roy (Guy Pearce) and Max (Neal McDonough), whose mission it is to seek out and stop terrorism. Roy has a Phd in Arabic studies and goes for the less popular, but always more effective, route of knowing and understanding your enemy. Max is the muscle; a man who punches first asks questions later, only to wonder why Samir didn't kill Roy when he had the chance. Roy simply answers, "Probably because I didn't hit him."

Pearce and McDonough do fantastic jobs.

The five of you out there who watched "Boomtown" will be happy to see McDonough again doing a fantastic job as his partners foil. He has the thankless job of asking Roy questions so the audience can get the answers, and yet he does so gladly. For his part Guy Pearce does an amazing job of reminding us that he is, in fact, a badass. He plays Roy Clark with subtlety, yet there is a seething flamboyance threatening to erupt in a moments notice. You can see it in his eyes. His ability to convey this with how he sits and the looks he gives is on par with, well... everyone else in this movie.

Even Saïd Taghmaoui as Omar manages to almost convert you to Islam extremism, such is the magnetism of his charm. He's like an Arabic George Clooney. I kid, of course, but he does an amazing job of letting you inside the mind of a terrorist. It's the age old maxim, "The best villains are the hero in their own stories."

The dialogue, at times, succeeds wonderfully at being Mamet-esque. The story is solid and transforms into a lovely Shakespearean spiral toward the end. By that, I mean actions with the perceived hope of one outcome have a tragic and opposite outcome causing the characters great agony and propelling the plot to it's inevitably tragic conclusion.

Jeffrey Nachmanoff has not exactly set the film world on fire with his previous films, which include the likes of "The Day After Tomorrow," a movie unseen by me... and most other people as well. Yet with "Traitor" he shows that maybe all he needed was a chance. Or this could be the law of averages working into his favor; even Joel Schumacher made a couple of decent flicks. Either way, I anxiously await Nachmanoff's next project.

I fear this review has not done the movie justice and the fault is mine. Regardless, I urge you to see "Traitor." It's the smartest, slickest and the most human movie in theaters at this time.

/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Thaddeus:
It's hard for me to say much at all about "Traitor" now that Sherman has the bases so thoroughly covered. Seriously... this will be criminally short.

The main thing I want to underline is the point about terrorism shown from the human angle. The terrorists are human beings with their own motivations coupled with a disturbingly unshakable certainty that their path is correct. In reality, like in a good story, everyone is the hero from their own point of view -- especially the villains. Assumption of right causes more problems than just about anything else in the world, and nowhere is that more apparent than here... at least in regards to entertainment.

Also, much like "The Departed," "Traitor" highlights the grim cost of undercover work. How far is too far when it comes to saving lives... especially when it starts to cost them?

Deep stuff. "Traitor" is definitely a film for all those who love to think long and hard about the dark, complicated world we all cling to.

4 out of 5

-Thad out

"Whatever Happened to ThreeGeek Review?"

2008-09-10T01:13:00.007-05:00

Those handful of you that still swing by from time to time must have noticed a marked decrease in output as of late. As ~~Lord and Master~~ Editor of this domain, any delay in the delivery of content is at least somewhat my fault (though the percentage tends to vary widely), so for my part I apologize.

But nuts to that; let's talk updates.

Sherman and I caught "Traitor" last weekend and soon we shall spread tales of its glory. I'd do it tonight, but I just gt off a 13 hour shift -- and you ain't the boss of me.

Plus, a Super Cohen Bros. movie lurks just past yonder horizon. If there are any other movies coming out this week, I couldn't care less*.

And preparing yourselves for an onslaught of superhero-related commentary in the near-future might not go amiss.

My hyper-overtime deathschedule is winding down, so prepare to see some life breathed into this shoddy shell of a website.

...

Just not, y'know... right now.

-Thad out

* It really frays my nerves when people say "I could care less" to mean "I don't care." If you could care less, that means you do care. Are we too lazy to even use contractions now. I swear, sometimes it's like I'm watching you people devolve yourselves right back to grunts and chest thumps.

Sherman: UP All Night -- "Bad Girls From Mars"

2008-08-27T12:07:00.002-05:00

In my last review I found that I had prophetically typed the words “... I've found my stinker to beat.” As the self-fulfiller of prophecies that I am, I decided my next movie was to be “Werewolf in a Girls' Dormitory” -- "was" being the operative word, because the movie arrived broken, so I was forced to watch the other cinematic excrement that came via Netflix. It definitely had promise. The title alone gave off a repugnant stench of celluloid failure.

“Bad Girls From Mars” was the title and Fred Olen Ray was the man responsible -- the very same man who gave us “Star Slammer.” Suffice to say, my flesh crawled with anticipation. Oh, my friends... had I only heeded the warnings of my DVD player. Indeed, modern technology itself tried to save me from my hubris by refusing to play the movie by flashing a “Disc Error.”

Sadly, for you and me, the player eventually relented to its true master, which loosely translates into me wiping the disc on my shirt, blowing into the DVD player ala 1980s Nintendo revival technique and opening and closing the DVD tray numerous times. That exercise out of the way, it was time for the hell to begin... and boy did it. Try as I might, there was no way I could fight this surround-sound hell, even with my sidekick, Samuel Adams, by my side to numb the pain. It wasn't enough my friends, IT WASN'T ENOUGH!

What would you say if I were to tell you that there exists a movie that has an average of two tits every three seconds? Mind you, that's a rough estimate -- could be less, or possibly more, but we'll go with that estimate... and it doesn't even matter. IT DOESN'T MATTER! The movie is one giant black hole to anything remotely entertaining. I denounced humanity as a whole at least twice during this nightmarish experience.

I know, I know... you're saying: “Okay Jeremiah, we get it, it sucked, but what was the movie about?”

What was the movie about? Go fuck yourself, that's what the movie was about.

Sorry, I was little angry there... with myself more than anyone.

So where were we? Ah, the point of this torturous, tedious, hell. It is, in point of fact, a movie within a movie. (Ha-ha! Double the hell!) A bad, softcore-ish, sophomoric, Z-budget movie about making a bad, softcore-ish, sophomoric, Z-budget movie. As fate would doom it, the movie within the movie is entitled... (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) “Bad Girls From Mars.” That's right. And beyond that, it's a supposed sequel to Ed Wood's “Plan 9 From Outer Space” -- historically, one of the worst movies ever made.

To reiterate, the shit within the shit is actually a sequel to an even bigger pile of shit, throw it all together and... EWWWWWW!

The movie concerns itself with the fact that production of “Bad Girls From Mars” is fraught with peril, disaster, and muuurrder. The main actresses (actressi?) can't seem to keep their tops on... or their heads (wah-wahhhh). One of the precious few saving graces of the film is the amount of deaths it contains.

I know it's a movie, and I know those are actors playing a part, but I took a certain sadistic glee in imaging that the actors themselves were being slaughtered -- with the exception of Oliver Darrow, who plays director T.J. McMasters, and his secretary. They're the only two things about this movies that kept me from applying for a gun license. Darrow seems to be the only actor on screen with a modicum of talent and his secretary was the hottest girl in the movie, because she looked comparatively realistic. Then again, that could be the Boston Lager talking, so don't hold me to it.

I could tell you more about the movie, but I just don't care enough. Quite frankly, neither should you. Movies like this make baby Jesus cry. Fucking Piece Of Shit.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Death Race" -- A Multi-Geek Review

2008-08-26T14:53:00.009-05:00

Jeremiah:
“Death Race” isn't a film so much as it is pure, testosterone-fueled insanity. There are races, there's death and more racing, followed by more death, fighting, racing, death again and, oh yeah, plenty of what one might call “jiggly” women. They jiggle... all the time. In fact, I was actually kind of disheartened when I was informed that women really don't exit vehicles like they do in this movie.

It's hard to hate “Death Race” for the simple fact that "Death Race" knows it's "Death Race" and wastes little time in getting things started.

The opening informs us that the movie takes place in the future and that the economy has fallen due to massive inflation, thus causing crime rates to skyrocket. The result being an overcrowded prison system, run by private corporations who concoct ingenious plans for both decreasing the surplus population and lining their pockets with fat stacks of cash. Now, before some of you start to get interested in the possible social commentary, the movie quickly forgets this and focuses on Jason Statham's ethnicity which, for the unfamiliar, is full-blooded badass.

Statham plays Jensen Ames, a former race car driver turned steel mill worker who ends up losing his job when the plant closes down. Later on that night, a masked man breaks into his house, murders his wife and frames the Statham. Before you can say, “Thank goodness it wasn't a one armed man,” he's in prison, where Warden Hennessey (Joan Allen) forces him to race. On top of that, they want him to assume the identity of the incredibly popular and recently deceased masked driver, Frankenstein, what with him being the hero to both the prisoners and the population at large, ala, “Rollerball.”

We meet his pit crew, headed up by Coach (Ian McShane) who, while not really doing anything at all, manages to make everyone else look like little girls -- sort of like Samuel L. Jackson in “XXX.” We also meet Frankenstein's co-pilot/navigator, Case (Natalie Martineez). At this point, I would like to applaud the filmmaker Paul W.S. Anderson (Please God do NOT confuse him with the brilliant Paul Thomas Anderson, who is also not to be confused by the transcendent Wes Anderson) for filming his exploitative opus on what most assuredly is fire-proof celluloid. I say this because Natalie Martinez is, well... you know... she's hot.

Anyhow, suffice to say there are other racers as well, but the creme de le crème is the track itself, for in order to activate the vehicle guns and defense mechanisms (oil slick, smog, tacks and such) they have to run over these huge buttons in the ground -- a plot point that had me and the other Two Geeks making no end of Mario Kart jokes throughout the film.

See “Death Race,” don't see “Death Race,” ultimately it really makes no difference. It's a high-octane exploitation flick that exploits everything from your emotions, women, cars, violence, cheesy writing and just film in general. I'm fine with that, really. When you walk into a movie with a title like “Death Race” starring someone like Jason Statham you should only be looking for three things: death , racing and Statham kicking someone's ass to a pulp. This movie has all three of those things in mass quantities. It made me giggle.

Am I a better person after this movie? Maybe... but probably not. Yet I'm strangely okay with that.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Thaddeus:
We need bad movies. And I don't mean bad like "X-Files: I Want to Believe" bad or last year's violently tragic "Dragon Wars" bad, I mean like Schwarzenegger bad. Notoriously, classically and endlessly, entertainingly bad.

The formula should be easily recognizable by now: the future sucks, government corporations control everything and people are placated by prepackaged, live-broadcast murder. "The Running Man" will always be my favorite example of the genre, but there are plenty more: "Rollerball," "Robot Jox" and, of course, "Death Race 2000."

While I hate to admit it, I've never seen the original "Death Race 2000" movie -- even though it combines gladiatorial vehicular homicide with the combined, insurmountable acting prowess of Sylvester Stallone and David Carradine under the dismal backdrop of a futuristic America in the far-off year 2000.

Damn... why haven't I seen that movie?

Anyway, it came as quite a shock when "Death Race" brought a lot more quality to the screen than this particular genre is used to. I mean, c'mon... Jason Statham has, at times, been a real actor (See: "Snatch" -- no jokes, please)... even if his emotional range is somewhat limited by the fact that he always looks kinda angry.

"Death Race" is an excellent use of a tub of popcorn and an hour and a half of your time. What do you want? If you can't appreciate a good, high-speed, action extravaganza... what are you doing at the movies? You must be the kind of people who didn't like "Grindhouse." Don't talk to me.

The plot is, as Sherman previously described, not overly cerebral, but the world is populated by so many cool characters and crazy situations that it hardly matters. The whole "Frankenstein" garage crew is pretty entertaining: particularly Ian McShane as the grizzled Coach and Frederick Koehler as Lists, the nerdy whiz-kid who makes me wonder why he was incarcerated in the first place. Joan Allen's Warden Hennessey is perfectly on-key as the icy, heartless master-villain and I spent the whole movie wanting Hennessey's sadistic lackey/prison guard Ulrich (Jason Clarke) to die horribly... so I guess that means he did his job, right?

The only real problem I had was the utter lack of Stallone and/or Carradine. Catch "Death Race" if you get a chance. It's fun.

3 out of 5

-Thad out

"Tropic Thunder" -- A Nearly Three Geek Review

2008-08-18T20:11:00.013-05:00

Thaddeus:
"Tropic Thunder" was packed with comedically brilliant performances. It was both totally stolen by the side characters and completely dominated by the principals.

I don't even understand how that works.

But the bigger point here is that I'm about to gush about a Ben Stiller movie -- this is huge!

Don't get me wrong... I don't harbor the same roiling animosity for young Stiller's work as I do for Will Ferrell's brand of "comedy," but let's just say that flicks like "Zoolander" and "Meet the Parents" have never come near drawing this many laughs out of me. It was fantastic.

Aside from starring, Ben Stiller also co-wrote, directed and called in every famous person he'd ever met to pop up in cameo roles, making "Tropic Thunder" into the definition of what a big-budget comedy should be.

The fake trailers and commercials at the opening of the film were almost worth the trip by themselves, if it wasn't for the rest of the movie. After the strong opening, the movie may take a few minutes to fully win you over, but there's one particular explosion in the jungle that basically lines up the rest of the movie as a home-run hit.

As for the main guys: Stiller's vapid action star character, Tugg Speedman, manages to come off as endearingly idiotic, rather than just the regular type, and actually grows through the course of the movie... sort of; Robert Downey Jr. steals as many scenes as he can get his hands on as the over-the-top and obviously mentally unbalanced "serious actor," ~~Russell Crowe~~ Kirk Lazarus; Jack Black makes drug withdrawal even funnier than it already is as fart-comedian Jeff Portnoy; Brandon T. Jackson has to deal with Downey Jr.'s insane attempts to bond with him as sell-out rapper Alpa Chino; and Jay Baruchel plays the other guy... whose character name escapes me. He's great, though. Basically the straight-man and, considering who he's surrounded by, that's a helluva load to carry.

And we're not even to the brilliant bit-players yet -- and I mean that with all due deference. How can we even hope to list them all? Matthew McConaughey becomes the best agent an actor could ever hope for in the role of Rick Peck, "Pineapple Express's" Danny McBride blows up everything in sight as Cody, the half-cocked pyrotechnician; Steve Coogan seems to be teasing us about his upcoming "Hamlet 2" headline role as the movie-within-the-movie's director, Damien Cockburn; and Tom Cruise just... man, you gotta see it.

The Summer of Adventure downshifted into a roaring Late-Summer of Comedy. Good comedy, even. Between "Tropic Thunder" and "Pineapple Express," there is literally no reason to consider seeing "Disaster Movie" whenever it comes out.

4 out of 5

-Thad out.

Jeremiah:
The most amazing thing about “Tropic Thunder”is that it's directed by Ben Stiller. I tell you this because “Tropic Thunder” is a solid movie. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's just as good as “Pineapple Express.” But if you want a definitive "Which is better?" answer, all I can say is it depends entirely on my mood.

Both movies require a basic knowledge of movie cliches for their particular genres. “Pineapple Express” had action movies, while Stiller's “Tropic Thunder” covers the whole Hollywood machine. The more familiar you are with how seriously Hollywood takes itself, the more you will appreciate the genius of this movie. In retrospect, it shares a lot in common with the brilliant, yet under-appreciated, “Bowfinger.”

I shan't be going into detail about the plot. If you want to see “Tropic Thunder,” you already know what it's about. Also, I don't feel like giving you exposition. Anyhow, everyone does an outstanding job. The movie takes some odd left turns, but they do so with aplomb and talent (Critic speak for "really good twists").

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Robert Downey Jr., as Kirk Lazarus, does a fantastic job. The person who really surprised me was Ben Stiller. I'm not a huge Stiller fan. Oh, I like him alright, it's just that his presence in a movie is not a factor in my decision making process when it comes to seeing said movie or not.

Suffice to say, this is his most enjoyable work.

Yet it's the side characters that steal most of the thunder. Danny McBride -- who some of you may remember as Saul's supplier, Red, from “Pineapple Express” -- and “Undeclared” alum Jay Baruchel. Both of whom manage to upstage their counterparts: McBride with Nolte and Baruchel with, well... an amazingly talented ensemble. I guess upstage is the wrong word. More like they glean laughs from their fellows. In a way, that's what's most surprising: it's an ensemble piece.

There are cameo's galore, with big-name actors lending their times to give you fully fleshed-out side characters. I will say only two things: 1.)How can anyone not like Matthew McConaughey? Seriously, he's like a stoner version of Tom Hanks. 2.) JENNIFER LOVE HEWITT!

For those of you don't know me: before there was Salma Hayek, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, Tyra Banks, Penolpe Cruz, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Christina Ricci, Selma Blair, Summer Glau, Eliza Dushku, Chraisma Carpenter, Kristen Bell, Lauren Ghram, Billie Piper, etc., etc., etc., there was the ever-lovely Jennifer Love Hewitt.

The moment I saw her on screen, I clapped -- [Warning: "Dark Knight" plot info ahead] and I haven't clapped that hard since a certain police commissioner revealed that he was, in fact, NOT dead. I know... it's a sad, lonely, pathetic life I lead. Could be worse. I could be the guy who reads the writings of said sad, pathetic, lonely guy.

Ouch! Did that hurt!?

Back to the business at hand: “Tropic Thunder” is a really good movie. It's part of a trend I'm hoping to see more of: funny comedies. Common sense dictates that the phrase is redundant and assumed -- but take into account the numerous, tragically unfunny “American Pie” straight-to-video sequels; or the (Insert Genre Description Here) Movie movies; or, sadly, even the National Lampoon offerings that have been thrown at us in the past few years and you'll see what I mean.

Thankfully, movies like “Pineapple Express” and “Tropic Thunder” are around to reassure us that it's okay to laugh and be stupid while still maintaining some competence, not just in film-making, but comedy in general.

Thank you, Ben Stiller, for continiuing this streak. God speed, Speedman.

/ 5 Hewitts

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Richard:
[Update to come(?)]

Sherman: Up All Night -- "Star Slammer"

2008-08-15T15:00:00.002-05:00

Today, I'll be shielding you from Fred Olen Ray's “Star Slammer” -- otherwise known as "The Adventures of Taura Prison Ship Star Slammer."

First off, let's look at that title. I know what you're thinking: there should be a colon, a semi-colon or at the very least a comma there, but no... that's the title that flashes onto the screen. The last part is the real beauty: "Prison Ship Star Slammer." Is the title just being redundant, or is the prison ship named Star Slammer? Admittedly having a prison ship called “Star Slammer” is both stupid and redundant. In fact, I'm betting even money that the makers of this movie don't even know or, for that matter, care. The feeling is mutual.

It's hard to believe that we're only three movies into “Sherman: Up All Night” and already I've found my stinker to beat. Say what you want about “Time Barbarians” and “Zapped,” they at least had a particle of entertainment value to them, if only by sheer accident. Then along comes “Star Slammer,” a futuristic, women-in-prison movie, without so much as the obligatory shower scene. O tempora! O mores!

The plot, and I use the term loosely here, has Taura (Sandy Brooke), a miner of some sort, being framed for the murder of a priest and arrested for disfiguring a government official who tried to rape her. How about that, folks -- we started with a movie that had rape, went to a movie that only implied rape, and now we have a movie that merely attempted rape. Things are looking up.

But sadly, the movie doesn't end there.

After arriving on the prison ship, Taura is subjected to abuse from her fellow prisoners as they initiate her into the cell block. She's then taken to meet the warden, Warden Exene (Myra Gant), a busty dominatrix who enjoys her job far more than anyone enjoys this movie. Taura is promptly groped and propositioned by the warden -- so the movie at least has the decency to adhere to some of the time-honored rules of women-in-prison movies.

From there on, it's nothing but trials and tribulations for our heroine and her fellow inmates, who she manges to befriend after showing she can hold her own. Then, wouldn't you know it, half-way through the movie a new crew member is brought aboard and it's none other than the government-employed, disfigured, rape-attempting dynamo: Bantor (Ross Hagen)!

Long story mercifully short, the prisoners plan an escape, all out “war” breaks out on the ship and all the bad guys get their comeuppance.

The only kind thing I can say for the movie is that it single handedly employed the entire Midget Actors Guild. I counted at least eight midgets -- though it may have been the same two midgets over and over. That, and Sandy Brooke really has no problem baring her chest monkeys*. There's even a scene where she changes out of a bloodied shirt while staring directly into the camera in a bizarrely unsettling fashion. I'm not gonna lie, she's got nice..."talent." Her sweater vipers**, the midgets and the over-the-top-of-Mt. Everest performance by Myra Gant as the Warden are the only reasons this movie gets anything more than a half Hayek from me.

At the end of this movie, they tell you watch the further adventures of Taura in “Chain Gang Planet.” I don't like being threatened, Mr. Ray, and I'll thank you if you would simply return the 81 and ¾ minutes of my life and back away slowly, without touching any film equipment.

I deducted the amount of time I was entertained by jiggling breasts, barely covered asses and unflinchingly bad performances.

...

FUCKING MOVIE!

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

*Editor's Note: Chest monkeys?
**Another Editor's Note: Sweater vipers?

"Pineapple Express" -- (Almost) Three Geek Review

2008-08-14T23:30:00.004-05:00

Jeremiah:
"Pineapple Express" is two things: 1) One of the best stoner movies since "Half Baked" or "Harold and Kumar," and 2) One of the funniest action movies ever made. The writing super-team of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, the same dynamic duo that brought you one of the greatest modern-day teen sex comedies in "Superbad," got together again to parody/pay homage to the action genre of the '80s and '90s.

The plot is actually quite straight-forward, as we've come to expect in true action movies. Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) is a process server who likes to get high... a lot. After visiting his dealer, Saul Silver (James Franco), to get a very special blend of pot -- the titular Pineapple Express -- he goes to make his last stop for the day, one Ted Jones (Gary Cole). While outside his target's home, he decides to light up and, soon after, witnesses Ted and a police officer killing a man. Mayhem and hilarity ensue while Dale and Saul try to outrun and outsmart Ted and his cohorts, one of them being the crooked cop, Carla (Rosie Perez).

The genius of the movie is how the director, David Gordon Green, realizes that not everybody in the audience is a stoner, so there are plenty of just great gags in and of themselves. One example is the conversation Dale has with Red (Danny R. McBride), Saul's dealer, about karma and the possibility that, when you die doing a heroic act, you come back "as a dragon or fuckin' Jude Law."

The style and comedy is very much that of “Superbad.” It's a brilliant mixture of conversationalist humor, sight gags and people doing stupid shit. When the movie is not being funny, it at least has the courtesy to be an actual movie and deal with plot issues, which is more than I can say for the other Judd Apatow produced movie in theaters right now -- “Step-Brothers” -- which has the audacity to, when not being funny, just hit you over the head with the joke until it tires itself out... and then just goes on to another unfunny and/or uncomfortable attempt at humor.

“Pineapple Express” doesn't ask you to care for it's characters. You do that all on your own. By the end, you find yourself branding the hapless duo "lovable idiots." There was nary a scene where I was bored. I will admit, at the beginning I was a little afraid, that it would pull a “Step-Brothers,” having put all the best scenes in the previews. However, I can proudly assure you that the best scenes are found solely in the movie. Everyone does a fantastic job, from Rogen down to Kevin Corrigan, the cardigan sweater-vest wearing hit-man and his partner Matheson, played by Craig Robinson. The real stand-out performance is surprisingly not Rogen, but James Franco. Franco takes an idiotic, stoner lay-about and manages to, god help me, find the humanity in him. The chemistry between Franco and Rogen is a joy to watch -- particularly in a scene where Dale tries to explain to Saul that the car battery is dead.

All in all, I enjoyed myself. If you liked “Superbad” and were less than impressed with “Step-Brothers,” then you'll love this. If you hated “Superbad”....well I'm just going to stop right there and say I almost don't even wanna know you. Suffice to say, “Pineapple Express” left me feeling good, which is all I ask from stoner/buddy/action/comedies.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Thaddeus:
"Ghostbusters" will always be my favorite movie, but my love of movies can be blamed mostly on "Clerks" -- and don't worry, this is going somewhere. It wasn't the pervasive profanity or "Star Wars" references that locked that movie in my mind forever, it was the pitch-perfect portrayal of friendship between Dante and Randal. They weren't just movie people, they were people.

"Pineapple Express" has that same, special reality to it. Main men Dale Denton and Saul Silver feel like they just stumbled out of a convention of People I Knew (or At Least Kind-of Knew) in College. They're average, inept guys thrust into a spectacular situation. The classic, film noir "wrong man" plot hasn't looked this hilarious since "The Big Lebowski" turned it on its ear.

The movie is like a long string of individually brilliant moments combine to make some sort of theatrical Voltron, here to defend us from bland, samey comedy. There are scenes so pure that I may never be able to get them out of my head, such as Dale and Saul sword-fighting with sticks as they wander through the woods... who doesn't immediately do that when confronted with an aptly long twig?

Okay... maybe that's just another one of my neurotic obsessions, but it ties the film to whatever weirdness qualifies as reality for me.

Also, Sherman was right about James Franco. He completely runs away with this movie. Being a giant nerd, I was really impressed with Franco in "Spider-man 3" -- y'know, the one that everybody else didn't like. The amnesia-induced friendship between Harry Osborn and Peter Parker was what really kept me on board -- if you can't tell, friendship is something I love to see done well in movies.

Oh yeah, and there are awesome car chases, gunfights and explosions.

This is what comedy should be. The ignorant thought-criminals behind the endless string string of god-awful parody movies should be taking notes. "Pineapple Express," like "Shawn of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," not only pokes fun at various genres, but it also fits perfectly within them. It's an action/comedy that is both packed with action and consistently hysterical.

"Pineapple Express" has once again restored my faith in film comedies: sharp writing, honest performances and the ability to be stupid without being dumb... or is it the other way around? The endless retreads of the "[Fill in the Blank] Movie" series had about broken me, but here I was laughing in a theater again. It felt good.

See "Pineapple Express." And if later this month, some strange, cosmic radiation causes you to consider seeing that assuredly abysmal "Disaster Movie,"* just see "Pineapple Express" again.

4 out of 5

-Thad out

*Yeah, I know... I'm judging before seeing. Let's just say the previous evidence is not in their favor and leave it at that.

Sherman: Up All Night -- "Zapped"!

2008-08-12T00:38:00.010-05:00

What would you do if you were granted telekinetic powers by some accidental lab explosion? How would you deal with the ability to move objects, and affect physical reality with a mere thought? Would you try to submit the entire human race to your will, and appoint yourself as new the World Overlord? Or, if not the world, at least Australia? Maybe you'd theorize that you're the next logical step in evolution, that there might be others out there like yourself and therefore use your abilities to find them and help them cope with their new powers? Would you harness your powers and don a mask and cape and come to the aid of all those in need as a super-powered hero of sorts?

Well, Robert J. Rosenthal and Bruce Rubin got together and wrote a movie about what would happen if a high schooler got these powers. So, what would happen if Professor Xavier got his powers by accident... in high school? Apparently, as this movie shows us, he'd be a brilliant putz and use his powers for nothing at all.

Barney Springboro (Scott Baio) is the shy nerd of Blankity Blank-Blank High. He's the boy genius who only wears glasses when he's in the lab -- presumably because, although he's usually the only one in there (with the exception of his close friends who already know how smart he is) it makes him look smarter. Anyhow, Barney is quite the little Einstein, even has a little framed picture of the dude on his lab wall. He has nearly free reign over the high school's science lab -- again, presumably because he's the only science student in the entire school. We never see anyone else with so much a science book, or even loitering within ten feet of the lab, excepting the aforementioned friends.

Let's digress a bit and talk about those close friends for a sec. There's Peyton Nichols (Willie Ames) as Barney's loyal sidekick and fellow societal outcast. The problem is, he's not really. I mean he is in the movie, but consider this: he's cocky, smiles all the time, wears a letter jacket as if it's part of his anatomy, drives a nice car, his parents are rich and he plays on the baseball team... a sports activity. Oh, and he's also the school paper's photographer -- never mind that he uses the photography angle to snap pictures of girls. So, in essence, why is he not popular? He has all the ear-marks of a jock, even down to the way he treats women. By all rights he should be popular. The only reason I could subscribe his lack of popularity to was that he was a giant douche bag.

Seriously, Peyton may well be one of the silver screens' biggest douche nozzles. Case in point: he finally bags the girls of his dreams, Jane (Heather Thomas), and in order to fake maturity -- that's right, I said fake maturity -- he spins lie after lie to Jane, who apparently finds "maturity" a turn-on. So, Peyton lies about all these adult problems he's facing. Long story short: she believes him, they have sex and he photographs it! Later on in the movie, when faced with his college rival for Jane's affection, he whips out photos of the act to supposedly show that there are no hard feelings, all while smiling this giant “I'm a complete choad!” smile.

He even goes so far as to cajole Barney into the seedy worlds of drugs and gambling. Well... growing weed on school grounds and cheating at the roulette wheel on a college campus. To top it all off, he talks Barney into cheating at their last ball game. Barney uses his powers to have them win by... a slight amount, actually. Nothing astronomical. Like, two.

Peyton aside, there's the baseball coach, Dexter Jones (Scatman Crothers), who may well be the saving grace of this film. There's never a dull scene when Scatman's involved. In fact, he's the reason Barney has his powers. Dexter accidentally spilt some of his hidden stash of Jack Daniels into a miracle-gro-like concoction of Barney's. Said beaker falls over after he leaves and BANG!

More on that later, though.

Later in the movie, Barney and Peyton's stash is discovered by the faculty, so Barney and Bernadette (Felice Schachter) -- his female friend who evolves into his girlfriend -- throw the weed into the school furnace. Scatman catches them, assumes they were doing what teenagers usually do in school's basements and gives Barney a wink and advises him to take her somewhere nicer next time. He then proceeds to open up the furnace, only to inhale the copious amount of weed smoke. Ohhhh, the Wackiness!

Seriously though, he has a hallucination that involves Einstein and him horseback riding, which turns into a them being chased by the coach's wife in a chariot... and she shoots hams at them.

I bring the bit about Einstein up because there's an interesting tidbit involving the actor portraying him: Jan Leighton. According to IMDb, he is recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records of 1998 as having portrayed 3,395 roles in theater, film and in television since 1951. Holy fuck, man!

This brings us Bernadette. She is what was known in the movies of the 80's as the "ugly nerd." Or, what is known to anyone with half a brain as the other hot chick in the movie. Bernadette is the voice of reason, not to mention the obvious love interest. She realizes how much of a tool Peyton is and endeavors to enlighten Barney on that fact. For being such a bright kid, Bareny is a fucking idiot. I realize that's part of 'fun': “Don't you see? He's sooo smart, but he can't see what's right in front of him!” Yeah, I get it. But Scott Baio is no Kurt Russell, and Kurt Russell was a fucking genius in high school and college (that joke gets no explanation -- if you don't get it, then telling would make no difference).

Back to the movie: Barney uses his power, as I've stated before, to help his baseball team win by a slight margin, cheat a college roulette wheel, makes his model of the Starship Enterprise fly and manipulates his ventriloquist dummy in such a way as to convince his mother that he is possessed. I know, I know... you're wondering about the nudity right? Let me tell you, for a movie advertising itself as a teenage sex romp there was surprisingly very little nudity. In fact Barney only rips open like, I dunno... three shirts with his powers. All of them with the intent to humiliate.

And then there's the end.

The end consists of Barney realizing the Peyton is an asshole, Bernadette is the girl for him and that the whole school must pay -- Carrie style! Okay, not really. He causes a huge gust of wind blow through the auditorium, somehow tearing everybody's clothes off. It's all fun and games, with everybody trying to cover up their various parts, until we see a few groups of big guys grab some of the hotter girls -- girls who scream in PROTEST -- and the guys just laugh as the camera pulls away. Even Jane, Peyton's “girl” has her clothes ripped off and she runs away. Peyton turns to the camera does a Groucho Marx stance, twirling an imaginary cigar, smiles a creepy smile and hollers in the most oily voice ever: “Ohhh, Jane!” Then he takes off after her. So really, the movie ends in a giant, orgiastic, implied rape scene.

Barney gets carried away, bringing out the fire hose and accidentally bonking himself on the head. Uh-oh, powers are gone. Guess he'll have to go back to being a normal kid now, you know... like he was before when had his powers! As he and Bernadette leave the multiple sex crime scene -- a.k.a the gymnasium -- a weird purplish light envelops the two and they take flight over the city landscape. Apparently, Barney lied, He's more powerful now than ever! That means he's probably going to... do absolutely nothing. Barney is a putz.

Despite the best efforts of the screenwriters, the director (Robert J. Rosenthal), Scott Baio, the douchness of William Ames, a plot where a kid gets amazing powers and does nothing with them and the outright disturbing prom scene with it's uber-misogynistic undertones, “Zapped!” was still better than “Time Barbarians.”

Still, what in the holy hell was with the purple forcefield in the end? Fucking Movie!

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" -- Movie Review

2008-08-07T14:36:00.005-05:00

I don't know if you've noticed, but 'mummy' is a ridiculous word -- and hearing it over and over through the course of a near to two-hour movie doesn't do it any favors. That being said, the newest entry in "The Mummy" series manages to be surprisingly entertaining, despite it's nominal hangups.

The previews for "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" (man, I love long and overwrought titles) didn't do much to drum up excitement. Maybe it was the massive amount of CG and various over-the-top whatnot. In any event, it turned out there was nothing to worry about. Well, not much.

After some exposition explaining the life, accomplishments, betrayal and death of the titular Dragon Emperor (Jet Li), the film follows the continuing adventures of Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) and his lovely wife Evelyn (Maria Bello, formerly played by Rachel Weisz) -- or rather, their lack of continuing adventures. Turns out, retired adventure heroes are pretty amusing to watch. So, as the husband and wife deal with the boredom of living in a giant mansion filled with priceless Egyptian treasures, their son Alex (Luke Ford) helps unearth the lost tomb of, well... you probably get it by now.

Parents come to China, Emperor is resurrected as a super-powered, undead man-monster and a fun time is had by all. Car chases, explosions and gunfights become the name of the game pretty fast, and for good reason.

You may know the director, Rob Cohen, from his more recent movies like "Stealth," "XXX" and "The Fast and the Furious." Story takes a backseat to action, and it's better off for it. They're not exactly breaking new artistic ground here. The love story between Alex and the mysterious Lin (Isabella Leong) is your pretty standard action movie romance, and not nearly as entertaining as watching Rick and Evelyn do the whole married, former adventurers thing.

Then, of course, we have Jet Li as the villain and Michelle Yeoh as the immortal witch Zi Yuan, who cursed the Emperor in the first place. Awesome people, and they both do solid work, but we've seen them in masterpieces... and this isn't one.

Then again, Jet Li was in last year's abysmal action flick "War," so I guess it could always be worse.

The effects are, for the most part, supercool -- especially when it comes to the mummified, monstrous, living-statue form of the Emperor. The shape-shifting stuff they throw in later on isn't quite as solid, but then there's the other living statues, the undead army and the gang of yeti... so I'll let it be.

All in all, it was fun. A cool, refreshing return to entertainment after the train-wreck that was the second "X-Files" movie. Not a must-see-in-theaters affair, but a decent popcorn flick and definitely worthy of a small screen viewing once it rolls out into the home market.

3 out of 5

-Thad out.

Sherman: Up All Night -- "Time Barbarians"

2008-08-04T19:52:00.019-05:00

The first movie for the Sherman: Up All Night marathon was a crap-tastic crapterpiece. It's not often one sees a move like this: part fantasy, part historic epic and part retarded. Well, stupid anyway. Calling this movie retarded is an insult to retarded people. This movie had everything one looks for: tits, big burly men who look like ex-members of Poison (complete with thin, leather man-bras), the classic battle of Good vs. Evil and time travel... with a helping dose of misogyny and "dialogue" that attempts to be Shakespearean and succeeds beyond expectations -- that is if you thought Shakespeare might have been a re-re.

“Time Barbarians” is more than just a cheesy title; it's also just damn misleading. What little time travel there is doesn't happen until the last thirty minutes or so, which means we're forced to endure a hellish hour of the film-maker's misguided revenge-fantasy fulfillment against those who have done him wrong, which I gauge to be the entire human race.

On behalf on my humanoid brethren, may I just ask the filmmaker, writer/director, Joseph John Barmettler (If that's a pseudonym, then sweet Jesus you can't even make up a good fake name? And if it isn't, well... you have my condolences sir): "Dude!? Why?” The amount of things wrong with this movie are nearly too numerous for me to list, but we all know that won't stop me from trying my damnedest.

I'm getting ahead of myself, though.

First things first: before man became (*cough*) civilized, we were once a roving band of hunters and gatherers, split up into an endless number of tribes, each led by their own king -- unless you live in this film, where there are really only two, each consisting of about a dozen members.

There are, as in any tale involving these things, good tribes and evil tribes. Easily told apart by, well... the evil barbarians have a sort of Three Stooges cry, tend to do this weird posturing, and also wear make up. Plus, the main bad guy -- and his two henchmen -- wear clothes, shirts and pants. The good barbarians strut around like proud peacocks in their loin cloths, and posture in a stoic, manly style. Their battle cry is a succinct grunt.

The king of the good barbarians, at least of the tribe that the movie concerns itself with, is Doran (Deron McBee). He rules his tribe with the help of a magical crystal, given to his grandfather by the Wizard (Ingrid Vold), who may or may not be an ex-playmate... or a future one, if she's into the whole time traveling deal.

If she wore that sheer blouse when she gave Dorna's grandfather the crystal, I'd hand it down to each generation too...

...

Sorry, got a little side tracked there. So, there's Doran -- the big, burly roid-zilla type, with long flowing blond locks, and the previously stated man-bra -- and there's his queen Lystra (Joann Ayers): a blonde bombshell, complete with a shammi bikini and that hereditary, magic crystal, which she wears like a chastity belt. No joke, she walks around with a giant crystal protruding from her... Come on, it's too fucking easy... much like Lysrta is. OOOOOOHH! BUUURRRNN!

Moving on, the bad barbarian, Mandrak (Daniel Martine), while not as huge, is still pretty fuck-off huge, with long flowing, black hair. Ah, the simple, subtle visual metaphor for evil. Black. Even his shirt is black. Why is the bad guy the only one fully clothed, though? I'm not sure what Barmettler is trying to say. Maybe that man has become more savage as he has become more civilized -- that progress has actually caused man to regress? Hmmmm...

Long story short: Mandrak kidnaps Lystra, rapes her, kills her and steals the crystal, thereby accidentally transporting himself and his henchman into present day L.A. Doran meets the (hubba-hubba) wizard that gave his family the crystal and she sends him “...to a land called, 'The Future'” to get her crystal back and kill Mandrak, for shits and giggles.

After arriving in present-day L.A. -- and by present day, of course, I mean 1990 -- he happens upon a pretty news reporter doing a segment on the rising crime in the city who is being molested/and or sexually abused by a street-gang led by the worlds biggest Jerome “Curly” Howard fanatic. And so, Doran does battle with the hapless gang, Conan style... if Conan was a hair band enthusiast.

The ravishing, roving reporter is Penny (Joann Ayers... again) is an almost drop dead twin of Lystra. Of course, none of this escapes Doran's Columbo-like gaze. And, of course, the pretty Penny finds the oiled up ex-Great White drummer an absolute dream come true. Yada, yada, Mandrak and Doran “do battle,” Doran with his He-Man-esque sword (with the ability to phase in and out of existence) and Mandrak with his... tommy gun?

Mother fucker bought, literally, a car full of illegal fire arms... and he chose a goddamn tommy gun? Damn it, Bartmettler!

This movie blows. It was produced by Troma, one of the last truly independent Independent film companies out there. In the past, Troma has given us some talented film makers (see: James Gunn, writer/director of “Slither”) as well as some truly bizarre original ideas: "Sgt. Kabuki," "Toxic Avenger," etc.

On the DVD there's an extra about Troma Dance Festival, which is Troma's version of Sundance film festival. Admittance of film are 100% free, and so is attendance. I bring this up because on this special feature they show a man yelling at the camera: “Give art back to the people! Now! We've waited long enough.”

After watching “Time Barbarians,” I'm half tempted to wander up to the “people,” take the art out of their hands -- while saying “yoink” of course -- and then hitting them over the head with a rolled up newspaper while yelling, “NO! BAAAAD 'PEOPLE'!”

I'll give “Time Barbarians” one thing, though; when the credits started to roll, I had a wicked urge to go listen to some Scorpion.

Fucking movie.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Batman III: Rumors, Hopes and Fears

2008-08-03T05:42:00.002-05:00

"The Dark Knight" was awesome. Really awesome. It blew everything related to comics and movies right out of the water. It's how a comic book movie should be made -- just look at the reviews and the box office sales. Breaking just about every record in the history of movies should expedite the greenlighting of the third one... I just hope it can live up to the hype.

According to internet speculation, the film makers already have their eyes set on the villains for the next movie and who will play them. First on the list, we have Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin. This is a brilliant choice, if they take the character in the right way.

We all remember Danny DeVito as the Penguin in "Batman Returns": a short, pudgy, disfigured creature that comes out of the sewer to RUN FOR MAYOR. Really? No offense to Danny DeVito or Tim Burton but what the hell? This seems a little far fetched, even for Batman -- still, Lex Luthor was the President at one point in the DC Universe.

This time, they need to lose the wierdo mutant and go for what the Penguin really is: a short, pudgy criminal mastermind with a big, crooked nose and a penchant for dressing up. As far as looks go, think of a heavyset Jewish guy with a broken nose. And forget about face biting and raw fish. He should be as much of a threat to Bruce Wayne as he is to Batman. Have him at the rich parties, mixing it up with politicos and socialites. As far as the crime goes, he steps into the (recently vacant) shoes of the mafia don of Gotham and runs it like a business. No more getting "high" on scarecrow gas, he deals with the Colombians. He changes gambling from street hustling and backroom poker matches into white collar bookies and "Charity" events that draw in the rich and elite. Prostitution moves from streetwalkers to high-end call-girls from escort services. Plus he stops the practice of killing clean cops. Sure the occasional officer has an accident, but they are mostly dirty cops who turn. And if you get caught, you pay your time and he thanks you for it.

All of a sudden the mob is not such a bad thing, and the public starts to notice this. The "White Knight" Harvey Dent's legacy is starting to fade and Batman is still public enemy #1. Yet, behind all this, they don't notice Gotham turning back into what it was when Bruce's parents were killed. Murders in the ghettos, crime and looting running rampant over areas not able to pay "protection" money and the public will blame this on the inevitable crusade Gordon has against the Mob.

Meanwhile the Riddler (who is rumored to be Johnny Depp if the studio has their way) is off leaving vague clues at the crime scenes he caused. He is not very dangerous, just nighttime bank jobs or jewelry stores but Batman is has the Joker fresh on his mind and the Riddler just gives off the vibe. He dresses weird, doesn't play by the rules, he may not even be in it for the money as much as the fame, or whatever joy he will get in outsmarting the cops, and Batman.

The most unrealistic rumor, born of a comment from Julie Newmar, is that Angelina Jolie would be the purr-fect (I am sorry, I had to) Catwoman. This is wrong, and she is some sort of wrong person for suggesting it. Go Christina Ricci as Sherman pointed out to me or, for the Whedon, fans Charisma Carpenter. (Halle Berry is the Auto-fail!) And forget the creepy cat-lady secretary or mild-mannered teacher. That's bullshit.

You have it set up: Selina Kyle is a high-priced call-girl who refuses to join the Mob's brothel so she gets busted and then blacklisted by some crooked cops. So, to get back at the mob and rich men who turned on her she cons her way into lavish parties and makes off with priceless heirlooms and such. She also takes a page from the Batman and dresses the part of a "cat" burglar. Who am I kidding? Just use the Catwoman from "The Long Halloween."

Still, these are just the ramblings of a bored nerd at 5:30 in the morning. Whatever Nolan does will be great, as long as the studio doesn't make him add Ewoks or something.

Whatever, I need to sleep.

-Richard

www.threegeek.com: The Way of the Future To Get Here

2008-08-02T05:56:00.002-05:00

Not much to say other than that!

Nothing is changing; you can still find us here -- or on myspace, if we ever decide to update there -- but now you just have to type in www.threegeek.com to get here.

Nifty, huh?

Sherman: Up All Night

2008-08-02T02:25:00.001-05:00

While perusing Thad's review of the new “X-Files” movie, I realized something. Well, “realized” is the wrong word -- it wasn't a revelation so much as a dawning comprehension kind of thing. We here at Three Geek Review have more than done our part in so far as to show you the way towards great, or at the very least decent, entertainment. What we have not done is warn you of the world's steaming piles of cinematic shit, the failures of celluloid.

Now one could ask, “Why should you be forced to watch the movies even we don't want to see?” or, “Why would you go out of your way to watch a bad movie?” The answers are varied, but the one that I'll deal with first is simply this: Perspective.

When you have, as we do, such a steady diet of fun, masterful (and sometimes average) works of film, you tend to loose sight of how good they truly are. Without a reminder of how bad a movie could be, you could end up trashing a rather decent movie just because it's not a masterpiece. Like when all the critics pissed on M. Night. Flag on the play!

Another reason is that bad moves sometimes are just plain fun. I've seen “Tango & Cash,” “Commando” and “Sorority House Massacre II” several times -- not because they're that good, but because they are, not just bad, but hilariously bad. Some movies transcend awful and reach that pinnacle of cheesy schlock, that nirvana of bad film making, so perfect for midnight viewings.

Not to mention how sometimes one can accidentally uncover a truly remarkable film, maybe not one that's universally lauded by all, but one that, for some reason or other, tickles you -- your own personal “Buckaroo Banzai” or “Big Trouble In Little China.”

Don't hold out hope that any of that will happen this month, though. I've done my homework; no little masterpieces are going to be sneaking their way into this marathon. Of all the movies I've selected, none of the have above a 2 star rating on Netflix.

Those of you who grew up during the 90's may remember a little television gem: “USA Up All Night” with Gilbert Godfried and every teenage-boy's dream come true, Rhonda Shear. “Up All Night” went to great pains to show you the classics like “Zapped Again!,” “Bikini Summer II,” “Hardbodies,” “Toxic Avenger” or the ever-popular “Meatballs 4.” Movies that could not be defined, by anyone's standards, as good. Yet they were perfect for what they were: pure, unadulterated, raging piles of crap made to further fuel the rampant onslaught of puberty.

Sweet Jesus, were they terrible. Those of you who live in the Kansas City, MO area may remember “Ray Adams' Late Night Drive-In” Saturday nights on channel 62, or hell... the channel 62 Saturday Matinée, where “Running Man,” “Predator” and “The 'Burbs” reigned supreme.

In honor of USA and 62, and to truly do my service as your online movie critic, I will be dedicating the month of August to shit...ty movies. It shall be christened: “Sherman: Up All Night” -- sadly without Rhonda, Gilbert and (sigh...) Ray Adams.

There will be terrible action, horrific teen sex-comedies [Editor's Note: Other than "Superbad," is there any other kind?" --T] and mind-numbingly bad sci-fi adventures. Oh, the hell we will endure! Still... it'll help keep things in perspective.

At least that's what I'll be telling myself as I try to slog through this boondoggle.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

P.S. -- For those of you who may wonder what brought this sudden bout of professionalism on, all I can say is: “Blame Kloiber.”

"The X-Files: I Want to Believe" Movie Review

2008-07-27T23:30:00.000-05:00

After the non-stop, high-speed entertainment extravaganza that was this summer's movie release schedule, "The X-Files: I Want to Believe" is the equivalent of suddenly finding yourself in a school zone.

While I wasn't a fanatical, catch-every-episode follower, I really enjoyed the series. It was good sci-fi, and I like good sci-fi. Solid characters, fresh takes on classic sci-fi/horror concepts (along with plenty of original concoctions) and sweeping, impenetrable conspiracies... how could anyone say no? Hell, even the first "X-Files" movie, with it's plot tightly bound to the murky miasma that was the show's central alien conspiracy plotline, was entertaining on its own. "I Want to Belive" was not.

The plot follows everybody's favorite (and now former) FBI Agents, Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), as they are pulled back into the weirdness they've apparently been avoiding in the... however many years since there stopped being "X-Files." Anyway, some sympathetic-to-the-paranormal FBI lady (Amanda Peet) wants Mulder's professional opinion on a supposedly psychic, pedophile priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to be having visions of kidnapped women, including an FBI Agent. There's also a sub-plot involving a young patient Scully is treating in a Catholic hospital and the controversial stem cell treatment she wants to use to cure him.

So, I guess writer/director Chris Carter wanted a plot with some heft to it. It feels like they took the plot from an unfilmed, one-shot "X-Files" episode and forcibly hammered it out to movie length. And if your movie feels over-long at only an hour and 40 minutes... oops, you've screwed up.

As much as I tended to prefer the stand-alone "X-Files" stories to the don't-miss-an-episode-or-your-head-will-implode (and taking notes wouldn't hurt) central plot, I can't help but miss the dark, cryptic, space alien weirdness when confronted with this plodding, vaguely supernatural crime-drama.

According to stuff I read on the Internet, this film was Chris Carter's way of putting out feelers for a third, alien conspiracy finale "X-Files" movie. If that's the case... why the hell didn't he just make that movie?

No Cigarette Smoking Man, no deal.

2 out of 5

-Thad out

I HATE World of Warcraft Pt. 1

2008-07-20T04:02:00.004-05:00

It's an addiction. Not like heroin -- to me at least -- but an addiction none the less. I love many aspects of it, but you assholes make me want the sell my account to some Chinese gold farmer every time I log in.

I should not be writing this... I can feel Sherman rolling his eyes at me, even in his sleep, and I know Thad will flog me with that Whip he got after seeing the new Indy movie. Still, I have to write about it -- WOW is one of the biggest pop culture phenomenons of the modern day gamer. And I play it, and dammit I'm good at it.

I play a Paladin. The noble knight riding along on horseback, there to save the day and win the girl, has always seemed catchy to me. I also play a lot of Clerics in D&D, and a Holy Pally is the same thing in my book when it comes down to WOW.

I also play Alliance on Feathermoon, an RP-PVE server (although I have found the role-playing here involves spamming the Trade channel with Chuck Norris facts, thinly veiled racial slurs and the single entendre. Still... I don't have to explain what Tanking and fucking Argo are to the moonpies on my sever like some of you assholes need). So I have to deal with 300,000 chattering 13 year old emobags that don't know dick about teamwork.

Now that you know a bit about me, I'll start my rant. This week's will be on Skill vs. Gear.

The worst thing that could ever have happened to WOW was the inclusion of the inspect option. Instead of trusting someone when they said they can heal you a group can just look at your gear's stats and your build to note your worth. This may sound good in theory, but in the end you end up judging someone on how shiny their equipment is and care dick about their play level.

"Well gee, Darkcloudlinkillerman, it looks like Healerpally over here doesn't have the 9 THOUSAND +healing I think he needs to make sure I don't die when I pull that giant demon across the bridge and through 37 other demons to hit me with a world-ending pyroblast. Maybe we need to find someone else."

With little exaggeration, that is what I hear every time I try to get into a group. In order to progress in the game I need gear from Karazhan, in order to run Karazhan I need gear from Karazhan. That is the catch-22 I hear from these fuck-baskets. Nevermind that I'm sitting at 1300 plus healing, 300 over what is really needed. Nevermind that you assholes were running it just fine at +800 when the raid first opened up. You want absolute certainty that you will succeed, even though you yourself do not have the gear equivalent to your class you expect me to have.

The other problem with that logic is judging a healer's stats off of one class against a healer's stats of another. I need less +heals than a Priest. I don't have a HOT or a mass heal (yet, thank you WotLK) I have a big heal and a fucking huge heal. Plus a barrage of buffs I can place on you and myself to keep you alive and me with more mana. I also crit fairly regularly which in turn makes me heal faster and restores mana as well as heals you for more. So judging me against a Priest, or a Druid or Shaman is ridiculous. I am not telling the rogue he needs more Strength or something retarded like that, so shut the fuck up about spirit. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CLASS, and that is not my fault.

The thing a good player can bring, which is often overlooked, is skill. I might not have the gear that the weirdo living in his parent's basement has, but I can promise you that if you die one of three things happened.

1. You fucked up and pulled agro on something that can one or two shot you.
2. The tank fucked up and dropped agro on something that can one or two shot you.
3. You are the tank and took a couple of unlucky crits back to back that one or two shotted you.

So the next time you spam "lf healer 4 kara must hav t4 OR BETER" remember what I said, stop being an asshole, and for Christ's sake, learn to spell.

Fuck why haven't I just let the account expire.

-Richard (AHH!) Kloiber

"The Dark Knight" - Three Geek Review

2008-07-19T15:50:00.015-05:00

Spoilers may lie ahead; make your choice...

Thaddeus:
Anyone who's been following superhero movie releases over the last several years -- going all the way back to Dick Donner's "Superman II" -- knows that the second movie in a series often has the power to knock the pants right off of you. The world has been made, and floats fully formed in the back of the viewer's mind. With no assembly required, the movie can pull you right in the deep end, immersing you to the eyeball from word go.

This is how we're brought in to "The Dark Knight" -- though, ironically, "Batman Begins" has a similarly no-nonsense introduction, as well.

I meant to time how long it took for Batman to show up on screen, but the movie's domination over me was too quick and too complete. There's only one line of commentary in my notebook, from the first few minutes... the rest of the time I was just watching.

Choice elements from the greatest Batman stories every told are seamlessly blended with original content to make something totally beyond all that came before. Seeing the movie on opening night was a true event -- cheers, applause... magic.

"The Dark Knight" is better than any movie I've seen this summer -- and even beyond that. Batman with real-world motivations; Batman as a man. It's something that you only see in the best of comics.

I once wrote an academic paper comparing superheroes to Shakespearean characters, with Batman having a line drawn directly to Hamlet -- maybe I'll share it with y'all sometime -- and nowhere does that idea pan out more flawlessly than in this film. Tragedy, humanity, flawed heroes... this is the grand glorification of the superhero genre. No excuses required. You don't have to be a "real fan" to appreciate it. You just have to be a person who enjoys a good story.

And, for my part, there's nothing I love more.

And it's about Batman.

Heath Ledger's Joker is destined to join "Darth Vader" atop greatest movie villain lists of all time. Surpassing even Jack Nicholson's iconic performance. Nicholson's was entertaining, and is no less so today than the day it graced the screen, but Ledger's is horrifying in the best possible way.

And Two-Face finally blots those disturbingly pink and purple memories from "Batman Forever" out of my mind. No offense to Tommy Lee Jones, who I'm sure did the best he could with what little he was given.

See this movie. See it in theaters, buy it on DVD, get it in your life somehow because this is American Mythology at it's peak, it's the new goal -- and, for me, it's beyond rating:

See "The Dark Knight" out of 5

-Thad out

Richard:
I love Batman. I love, love, love, love, love Batman. He's one of the few holdouts from my childhood that stand the test of time. Remember "Thundercats" and "He-Man"? Go back and re-watch them and tell me what you think now. After that, watch "Batman" or "Batman Returns"... hell, even "Batman: the Animated Series" and compare. You'll see what I mean.

I was ecstatic when I saw "Batman Begins." It captured the spirit of the Frank Miller Batman without the rampant usage of "WHORES" and the brilliance of the Tim Burton's film adaptation while knowing more than dick about the character. It was the greatest superhero movie ever made...

Until now.

"The Dark Knight" keeps everything from the first movie and heaps more onto it. This is not Frank Miller Batman, this is Jeph Loeb Batman; and you can't get better than Loeb when it comes to the Caped Crusader.

Christopher Nolan took the characters I grew up loving and put them in pain -- deep-seated, physical, emotional, mental and, hell.. you could argue, spiritual pain. He explores the pain that comes from the mask and why someone like Batman needs to wear it. This is all shown to the audience by the brilliant Christian Bale. Keaton was good, but Bale is what the character needs now. Some have said the character falls flat; this is a lie. Bale's portrayal is exactly what Batman/Bruce Wayne is; a drunken fratboy-esqe Billionaire by day, dwindling his father's fortune frivolously and an unstable vigilante hero by night, hell-bent on stopping crime and protecting everyone; the good, the bad (the ugly... that was lame) at high cost to his body and mind.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman reprise their roles, as Alfred and Lucius Fox respectively, with absolute brilliance. Alfred is still the father figure and friend that grounds Bruce in sanity -- as well as a brilliant sounding board for witty banter -- and Fox runs Wayne Enterprises, while helping out the Batman with cool Bond gadgets.

Also returning is the ever-spectacular Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon. Gordan's role is much larger in this sequel and is more reminiscence of "The Long Halloween" than the previous film. Gordon is transformed from the lone detective, curious about the Dark Knight into the authority we know him as. Rounding out the returning characters is Rachel Dawes, now played by the immaculately beautiful Maggie Gyllenhaal. With more screen time and character development, it would have been a sin for Katie Holmes to reprise her role. Even so, and I don't mean to sound spiteful, but Katie you truly are an idiot for turning this down.

The truly fantastic performances were by newcomers to the franchise: Aaron Eckhart, playing District Attorney Harvey Dent, and Heath Ledger as The Joker. Dent's romantic relationship with Rachel partnered with his absolute fearlessness in the prosecution of Gotham's criminal element as the "White Knight" of Gotham and the eventual breaking of the character make this Eckhart's best performance since "Thank You for Smoking."

And finally, Heath Ledger...

I will say this to start: if he wins an Oscar because he died, it will be a travesty. If he wins because of his talent, it will be truly deserved.

There are two uses of The Joker. One is as a simple annoyance -- a tool to hammer out a Batman storyline. The other way is far greater, and that is to make the most frightening, insane sociopath ever to walk to land of fiction; to stalk, hunt and break people and not care about anything else. Heath Ledger did the latter. He is violent, crazy and believable as not just a comic book villain, but as a caricature of everything we fear from terrorism, serial killers, thugs, murderers, and stalkers. There is a sort of frenzied, calm nihilism to The Joker. If he steals from you, hurts you, kills you -- it's for the joke. He is a "Clockwork Orange" version of Andy Kaufman. That is the true terror. And the scariest part is that Ledger makes you see the insanity, yet understand it. As morbid as it is to say, he at least gets to be remembered for his best role as opposed to "Beverly Hills Ninja," or "Street Fighter," or "Sidekicks," or "Wagons East" as other actors are.

This movie is amazing, see it now, in theaters or you are a horrible person.

6 out of 5.

Jeremiah:
All summer, it feels like, has been building towards one singular event.

It started with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls," continued with "Iron Man" and "Hulk" and "Hellboy II." It faltered slightly with "The Happening" and "Hancock." They weren't bad movies, just not the rousing successes of the rest of the season. Ever since the summer line-up was released, we all sensed it.

The build up, the journey, the roller coaster that would take us to feverish heights. The pinnacle, the destination, the dizzying precipice, as it were: Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight," the sequel to 2005's "Batman Begins." Nolan took a realistic, gritty take on Gotham's nocturnal protector, giving Batman the hard-boiled, noirish feel that fans had been clamoring for since Tim Burton's "Batman."

Not that Burton didn't have a hard-boiled, noirish atmosphere. It's just that his was more of the silent film era. Early German Expressionistic Fritz Lang, as opposed to later day, escape-from-Nazi-Germany Lang. Make sense? Probably not, I tend to get lost in my own reasoning.

Regardless, Nolan's “The Dark Knight” is a pitch-perfect masterpiece on every level. Acting, writing, directing, camera placement, lighting, characterization: everything was brilliant. His biggest triumph is not that there is so much story -- 2 and half hours worth -- it's that all his stories ties together to create a rich, subtle, darkly disturbing, enriched masterpiece. Second time I've used that word in this paragraph. Get used to it, I may use it again.

I'll assume you already know the plot, and instead will focus on the relationships in the movie. In fact, I'll focus mainly on the triangles, for there are many. This is one of the true strokes of genius, the relationships can be broken up into trios.

The holy trinity of Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and Gotham's white knight of a District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Gary-- I mean Aaron Eckhart). The trio makes a pact to clean up the diseased city. Eckhart's Dent is filled with a potent desire to do good, something that attracts the attention of both Gordon and Batman. Batman sees Dent as the hero Gotham so desperately needs. Batman does not see himself as the hero, in fact does not wish to be. He sees himself as the protector.

This trio is the greatest thing that could happen to Gotham City. That being said, they must be destroyed. One of them must fall. Who will it be? The White Knight of course. Destroy the shining light and destroy the city's hope.

As the movie progresses, Gordon and Batman begin to see eye to eye on Dent, and when the worst sweeps down upon him like a Greek tragedy, it breaks both their hearts. The pain in Bale and Oldman's faces at the end of the movie cry out for some sort of clemency, for the gods to show Gotham some sort of mercy.

The love triangle between Dent, Bruce Wayne and Assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is another fascinating study. Gyllenhaal finds the tightrope of sexy and vulnerable, yet resilient and independent, and walks it beautifully. Rachel knows Bruce's alter-ego and sees the phenomenal capacity of Harvey Dent. Dent never fully realizes that his ally and quasi-romantic rival are one and the same. There are times though, where there's a suspicious glint in Eckhart's eyes that say he might hazard a guess.

Bale has no fear in showing that Rachel is the only woman who makes him feel normal. He is unafraid to bear his soul to her. Her realization that her promise to return to him when the city no longer needs Batman is null and void, is a master stroke on her part. For there may come a time when the city may no longer need the him, but Bruce will always need the Batman.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my favorite triangle, Bruce Wayne/Batman, Alfred and Lucius Fox. These two men are Wayne's only real tether to a reasonable state of sanity. Both are part friend and part father figure to Bruce. Not to mention they're the only two who are totally unafraid of cracking a joke to Bruce or to the Batman. They understand his need to protect Gotham and the need to help clean his psyche. They serve as a reminder that it's okay to laugh a little.

Before I talk about the next triangle, I must take a moment to evolve to it. Talk about the person, his counterpart, and then eventually the triangle he completes. I am talking of course, about The Joker (Heath Ledger). Ledger's performance is nothing short of brilliant; a mixture of theatricality and honesty critical in making an iconoclastic character. He's mad when he should be sane and sane when he should be mad.

The movie hints that The Joker was just your run of the mill thug; not really a team player, just a loose cannon. A man who was drenched with simple nihilism. Then the Batman entered the scene. Before he was just a thug, causing some slight mayhem, but with the emergence of the Batman, The Joker had found something we all yearn for -- a purpose.

The movie's real achievement is making you understand The Joker, as well as his relationship with the Batman. As The Joker says in one scene, “You complete me.” Said with irony and dripping with menace, yes, but it also brings clarity to The Joker's existence. He exists because Batman exists.

The Batman/Joker relationship is an old one. It has supplied countless story fodder for comic writers, the best being Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke." "The Dark Knight" may be better. The chemistry between Bale and Ledger is mesmerizing. Bale's outright confusion at the Joker's methods and absolute random chaos, perfectly counterbalances Ledger's amusement at said confusion.

Enter Two-Face. Not Harvey Dent: Two-Face.

Created, in more ways than one, by The Joker and yet at the same time also created by the Batman. There is a scene between Dent and The Joker that's one of the best scenes of the year, where The Joker bares his psyche to Dent and, in essence, pushes Dent over the edge, into Two-Face. Eckhart does a absolutely bang-up job showing us Dent's tragic downfall into madness.

At the end of the cinematic tunnel sits Christopher Nolan weaving all this together in one giant hard-boiled Greek tragedy. He lights his movie in blues and blacks to give it that sort of nightmarish feel. The unflinching eye of his camera as it stares right into Ledger's disturbing portrayal. Wally Pfister (yes that's a real name), Nolan's cinematographer, deserves some accolades as well. There are scenes in this movie that are nothing short of masterful; several of them iconic, all of them framed perfectly.

There is a scene where The Joker is upside down, his coat blowing in the wind, against the darkness of the night sky, like a cape in the wind, as he tells the Batman how much he "loves" him.

Nolan and his crew have outdone not only themselves, but everybody else as well. This is the best superhero movie ever made and one of the best movie this year. It is the best Batman movie.

For a comic book movie, it will leave you feeling a cornucopia of emotions. Sadness, pride in your fellow humans, regret and fear. Everything a growing boy needs in his summer movie.

/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Hellboy II: The Golden Army" -- Three Geek Review

2008-07-19T14:40:00.018-05:00

Jeremiah:
"Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” may well be the best comic book movie to date in that, of all such movies, it feels the most like a comic book. The director Guillermo del Toro, has manged to weave a completely original and imaginative tale, not based on any of Mike Mignola's graphic novels, while still retaining the feel of the books.

Story wise, character wise and editing wise he makes you feel like you're watching a moving comic book. Even down to the campiness, which hits a pitch-perfect note. The way it's edited -- with it's wipe cuts, jump cuts and freeze frames -- is pure comic book, as if each frame is a panel from the page. A comic book movie has not done this good of a job cinematically utilizing the comic book style since M. Night Shyamalan's “Unbreakable”.

“Hellboy II” is much more character driven than the previous installment. There's a plot involving man's relationship with the region of Goblins, Elves, Orcs etc., yet the main drive seems to be characters' choices. What will Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) choose: the love of Liz (Selma Blair) or the acceptance of the people he helps? Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) has a Spock-esque choice to make throughout the movie, after he falls in love with Princess Nuala (Anna Walton). The good of the many or the good of the few? Will Hellboy be able to mature...at all?

Aside from the brilliant character drama, the bad guy is substantially more interesting than the previous movie's villain, Rasputin. This time 'round, it is the renegade Prince Nuada (Luke Gross), brother of Princess Nuala. Can't you just smell the Shakespearean tragedy?

Aside from all this, there's a new boss sent in to monitor the situation and help ease the tension between Hellboy and the cigar-chomping Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor). It is paranormal, German, gaseous cloud, inside an early-19th-century-deep-sea-diving-suit-looking contraption, Johann Krauss (Seth McFarlane). Indeed, one of the most surprising things about the movie is McFarlane's excellence. He plays the role straight, without a hint at his Family Guy flamboyance -- by which I mean his basically being every voice in the show.

The movie is just swell all-around. It's a fantastically fun ride, I think. Del Toro has an endlessly dazzling imagination, and understands the term “dark beauty,” a phrase that must be ascribed to every film he's done, better than anyone else around.

Between you and me -- and those other two geeks on this web-site -- I loved this movie.

/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Richard:
Hellboy -- how can anyone not like him? He's a big, red, good guy from Hell... kinda... I guess.

The second installment of Guillermo del Toro's adaptation of the comic of the same name is brilliant. It has everything the first had, and makes up for everything it lacked. Most impressive of the newcomers was Luke Goss who played the film's villain Prince Nuada.

Maybe villain isn't the right word -- antagonist might be better. Like all good villains, he has his reasons. He views himself as righteous, as the hero, and from another perspective he may be... but fuck that perspective. Demons need a good bleeding and a healthy shot of death to keep 'em in line.

Rounding out the newcomers were Anna Walton as Princess Nuala, the good twin to Nuada and Seth Mcfarlane, playing the German ghost-machine-thing Johann Krauss. All three of us were worried he would be a bit too over-the-top, but he is spot-on. Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones (Now with real talking action!) return for a solid performance as the rest of the BPRD.

Overall, this movie did what it set out to do, entertain and tell a hell of a story while looking really pretty. See it in theaters while you have the chance.

4.5 out of 5

Thaddeus:
For some reason, it took me all the way up to a few months ago to fall in love with the works of Mike Mignola. I feel stupid for taking so long, but at least now most of his stuff is collected in easy-to-find volumes and any 'ol local bookselling chain.

The Hellboy/BPRD Universe combines everything I've ever loved in entertainment: science-fiction, fantasy, pulp-style adventure, Lovecraftian horror and an extra-dry style of humor.

I think the fantastic translation from page-to-screen is, at least in part, due to its status as the mightiest creator-owned property in all the land. So with mastermind Mike Mignola combining his powers with a living, cinematic fever-dream like Guillermo del Toro... how could it fail?

It can't and it doesn't.

The fantastic world we see on the screen in "Hellboy II" is something to be aspired to. Other writers, directors, designers -- they should be so adventurous. Humor, drama, fancy, monster fights... all fitting comfortably under the roof of a single film. A good story doesn't pigeon-hole itself in one genre niche; it goes where it needs to go, and that's what "Hellboy II" does.

See it, see the previous one and, what the hell, read the books. "Hellboy" doesn't disappoint.

4.5 out of 5

-Thad out.

On the Road to Adventure

2008-07-04T08:00:00.003-05:00

If you happen to wonder where the hell we are over the next week or so, rest assured, so will I.

The three of us are taking part in an epic journey across America -- or at least part of it -- so you're gonna have to entertain yourselves for the duration. I'd recommend reading some "Hellboy" comics to pepare for next week's sequel release, but what do I know?

There may be some travel-logue stuff as well, depending how entertaining it happens to be. In any event, we'll be back for Batman.

-Thad out

ThreeGeek vs. The Pink Robots

2008-06-30T01:47:00.023-05:00

Richard:
I sat here trying to type up the opening sentence of this review for about 10 minutes, but all I can open with is, "See 'Wall-E.'" It's funny, touching, thrilling entertainment -- and it starts with the Disney logo.

I know; crazy isn't it?

It's been years since I saw the Disney logo flash onto the big screen and actually cared. It took Pixar to change all that.

I will leave the plot synopsis to Sherman, he's better with those anyway. What I want to talk about are the risks Pixar took to make such a wonderful film. First off, this is not a kid's movie. Don't get me wrong, it's appropriate for children of all ages -- and they will enjoy it, but there has to be some life-experience under your belt if you want the full effect.

For the first part of the movie, Wall-E (Ben Burtt) is alone on the cold, desolate shell of what was once Earth. There is no one, save the cockroach he keeps as a pet. Not some singing, Jiminy Cricket insect, just a regular, little cockroach that follows him around.

This brings me to the next risk: silence.

See, if there's no one to talk to, then there's no dialogue. When used well, this is a powerful choice, but executed poorly, it can ruin a movie. For example: depending on who you talk to you talk to, the movie "Cast Away" did both. I think it was brilliant, but who am I to argue with the masses?

Oh yeah... a critic. So, shut up. You're wrong.

And this movie nailed it.

(Editor's Note: The end portion of this review has disappeared under mysterious circumstances. The draft used above was found near a 6 foot square of scorched earth, littered with machine oil and cigarette butts. I have used the extensive computer banks in my shadowed headquarters to extract a plausible score from the recovered notations -- if Richard is ever found, I hope it will conform to his wishes. --T)

(Editor's Note, Part II: Oh, wait... here it is. --T)

Ahem... as I was saying before the "break": This movie is great. I love it, you will too. Everyone will. If they don't, I think they might be evil robot commies from Hell.

This review was hard for me, I rewrote it 5 or 6 times before Thad finally forced me to just go with it. I urge you: see this wonderful film. I know I'm having troubles describing it... that 's because you can't, you just have to experience it.

5 out of 5

Jeremiah:
It's not often that this particular reviewer walks into a movie with high expectations and ends up with those expectations not only met, but, in a way, transcended.

There have have been many great movies this year -- hell, this summer. Well, there's a new five-star film out there and it comes in the guise of a children's movie, starring an unassuming robot. Pixar's “Wall-E” is one of the best films of the year so far and, in this reviewer's opinion, the best Pixar movie, bar-none.

It's rare that a children's movie is filled with such love and intelligence that it practically envelopes the entire audience in a warm embrace of sorts. The first forty-five minutes are virtually free of dialogue, and yet there is not a single moment where we are left wondering what Wall-E is thinking or feeling. Pixar has once again shown that they are more than mere animators; they are film-makers, as well. The first segment shows an understanding and love of storytelling that will leave you in awe.

For those who may not already know, Wall-E is a robot. The last one on Earth. His job is clean up the mess left by the human race. Apparently, we got so good at consuming consumer goods that we started to run out of ways to dispose of our garbage. So instead of cleaning it up, we shot ourselves into space for five years and waited for the planet to become inhabitable again. But the five years soon evolved into 700 years.

Wall-E has been dutifully carrying on his job all this time -- his only friend, a cockroach. As he goes about his job, he collects odds and ends, such as cassette tapes, spare parts from other robots for self repair and lights to decorate his home. Wall-E, it seems, has a soul -- or as close as a robot can get to having a soul. He builds skyscrapers out of the trash he compacts. He seems to be adding on to the city, while he works. In other words, Wall-E seems to be doing what we as race failed to do: find a use for the garbage.

Then along comes Eve (Elissa Knight), a robot sent by the Axiom, the vessel containing the last of our race, to see if life is sustainable. She is in search of plant life. She finds Wall-E. What follows is one of the sweetest courtships in recent history. Especially when Wall-E presents Eve with a plant he found. Upon her acceptance of the plant she immediately goes into a coma-like state and awaits the return for her survey ship. Wall-E, never giving up, cares for her in her hibernation state and follows her home when the Axiom returns for her.

I will leave the rest for you to discover on your own. Suffice to say, I have never felt so deeply for non-human characters in my life. There were times, a whole stretch of the movie in fact (well, damn it... most of the movie), where I had tears in my eyes. I wasn't crying, by I watered up consistently, to the point where there was a danger of genuine emotion escaping.

I know, I was scared too.

Writer/director Andrew Stanton has done a superb job at crafting what is quite possibly one of the best children's movie ever made. The fact the many children may not enjoy it as much as the adults may prove this reviewer's fear about the next generation to be sadly accurate.

Some of you may find this review too positive. You may think this reviewer guilty of drinking the kool-aid. It may appear that I am just another among many, faceless masses gushing about the latest Pixar movie as though they can do no wrong. Whatever you may think of my efforts, or however they may appear, they are one thing if nothing else: honest.

So is "Wall-E," and it's a masterpiece to boot. That's an achievement in it's own right.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Thaddeus:
I'm afraid my proclivity toward hating robots, as well as the need to spend time with my girlfriend, prevented me from seeing this flick.

I was gonna draw you a picture, but I got extra hours at work.

I do the editing too, so technically I'm everywhere already.
OOoOOoOOOoooOOOooo!

-Thad out

"Hancock"

2008-06-27T12:00:00.008-05:00

There's something in the construction of the universe that, when the invisible waves of cosmic energy strike the earth with just the right angle and force, you're able to see a movie way before everyone else. I'd go more into detail, but I haven't taken a physics class since high school.

"Hancock" opens on July 2, but I'll tell you right now that it's worth seeing. Isn't knowing in advance a wonderful thing? That's the sweet flavor of professionalism, baby. And ain't it grand...

If you've missed the TV ads, "Hancock" is the story of an alcoholic bastard of a superhero named John Hancock. It stands as an answer to many a question regarding what would happen if Superman wasn't so damn nice all the time.

Along for the ride is Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a PR agent and all-around nice guy who, after being saved by Hancock, decides to reinvent the hero for the better. His wife (Charlize Theron) and son (Jae Head) have opposing views of this, the son's being "Awesome!" and the wife's being the extreme opposite of that.

Have you even noticed that Will Smith is one of those actors who makes his roles seem like they were written just for him? Well, that happens here. When we first meet Hancock, all we see is drunk and angry, but as the story progresses we see more of the closed-off lonesomeness behind it all.

If you don't know this already, and even if you do, Jason Bateman is a comedic mastermind. I first got to know him on "Arrested Development," which is absolutely the funniest show I never saw until after it was canceled. Having him stealing scenes from Will Smith in a summer blockbuster makes me quite happy. Though I suppose stealing is the wrong word, because the cast works great together. Good ensemble, y'know?

Charlize Theron is pretty severe... but in a good way. I don't know that I've seen her in much before this, though she did guest star in a run of "Arrested Development" and yes this is my none-too-subtle way of hocking the show at you all. It's good.

The effects in "Hancock" are pretty spectacular, as well. They give a lot of focus to flight and I'm fine with that. Show me a person who has never wished they could fly and I'll show you a either liar or a soulless automaton from an apocalyptic future. But things get broken left and right in supercool ways too, and I think everyone can get behind that.

The only fault I found, and this is just me picking nits, was that there was shit that went down that was never really explained... but that didn't come up in my head until after the movie. It was too totally sweet at the time to appropriately question. But then again, one of the writers used to work on "The X-Files," so I guess weirdness just ought to be expected.

So, chalk "Hancock" up as another victory in this great summer of movies. Catch it next week, y'know... when it opens.

...

Even though I've seen it already.

4.5 out of 5

-Thad out

P.S. - If you want to check out my other review of "Hancock" for some weird reason, check out my, er... 'blog' (I hate that word) at inkkc.com. That's right: it was so cool I wrote it up twice.

"The Happening" and Other Weird Stories

2008-06-25T15:33:00.010-05:00

Richard:
This movie happened.

1 out of...

No, that's a lie.

Well... not entirely. The movie did, in fact, happen. But it was far better than 1 star, and I have much more to say about it.

I was admittedly timid going into this film. I was not impressed with "Signs" or "The Village," and never saw "The Lady in the Water" -- mostly based on word of mouth -- so timid may actually be an understatement.

But I was wrong. "The Happening" is M. Night Shyamalan's best work since "Unbreakable."

The concept is great: people start offing themselves for no reason, en masse, showing no emotion or pain. They just jump, or shoot, or cut. The range of on-screen suicides goes from the honestly gruesome to the somewhat ridiculous. The story itself comes from ~~Marky Mark~~ Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) and his wife, Alma (Zooey Deschanel), trying to flee the city along with ~~The Pest~~ their friend (John Leguizamo) and his daughter (Ashlyn Sanchez).

This is much more entertaining than it sounds.

This movie is getting a lot of heat from critics. "Signs" and "The Village" were hailed as being too predictable in being unpredictable and now it seems that M. Night is getting the reverse rap on this. No, there isn't a big "YOU'RE DEAD!" plot twist, nor is there even a basic understanding of why this happened at the end.

Shut up and enjoy that fact.

3 1/2 out of 5

Thaddeus:
Just when you think all the cool ideas are taken, something comes along and causes massive sections of the population to kill themselves for no reason.

While there were some pretty screwed up deaths tossed right at the audience, I wasn't freaked out by "The Happening" so much as interested -- curious, even. I wanted to know where we were headed and I was honestly wondering what would happen to these people.

Richard got his digs in up above about the whole "Marky Mark" thing, but I have to admit that I'm totally oblivious to any of that. Wikipedia had to clarify things for me after I caught a similar reference during my study of "An Evening With Kevin Smith." All that aside, I have nothing but respect for Mark Wahlberg after his performance in "The Happening." He plays a regular guy, a high school science teacher, and he plays it flawlessly. This is especially cool because the first memorable Wahlberg appearance for me was as the forceful, filthy-mouthed staff sergeant in "The Departed." Couldn't be more different, but both delivered expertly.

The whole central cast was great, from John Leguizamo to Zooey Deschanel (who I held a bit of a grudge against for being in the rather middling "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie). And let's not forget young Ashlyn Sanchez, who showcases Shyamalan's continuing streak of unaggravating child performances.

The greatest moments, however, were in the interactions with the bizarre people found over the course of the film's exodus. Betty Buckley as Mrs. Jones was particularly striking.

But honestly, my comments are meager compared to Jeremiah's, which will shortly be taking you on a thrilling exodus exposing the crimes committed in other reviews of this film you may have stumbled across. So, let's wrap it up.

For my part, normal people confronted with the bizarre and unknown, when played well, always makes for a good time:

3.5 out of 5

-Thad out

Jeremiah:
M. Night Shyamalan's newest movie is not near the rousing failure that others would have you believe. It is by no means a rousing success, but it does make an attempt, and for that we must give it credit.

It seems, for one reason or another, when it comes to M. Night, people insist on judging his present works against his first two masterpieces -- and they are masterpieces, let's not squabble on that.

Spielberg and Scorsese are looked at film by film. When either one of them have a new release, people judge it as a film by that particular person and, depending on the quality, say yea or nay. Sometimes they will say that it is their best or, for their less successful attempts, say it was admirable . Yet rarely will critics say "Well, it's no, 'Jaws.'"

Critics do this constantly to M. Night.

One must acknowledge that steady working film-makers, from time to time, make masterpieces, with a mixture of luck, talent and sheer audacity. When they're not making crown jewels of the cinema, they are still trying to make a good movie. Even then, one man's masterpiece is another man's "Bad Boys II."

Simply put, M. Night Shymalan is a film-maker and his films are well-made, from the technical stand point. One can hardly punish him because "The Happening" is not as great as "The Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable." It was still made well, with blood, sweat and passion.

Also, critics -- myself included -- should not wail about how nobody dares to come up with new and interesting concepts, then immediately turn around to yell at the man who attempts to do so. In effect, this is largely what I perceive the critics to be doing to M. Night. The reason may be that, since they cannot discuss or review the the film for fear of giving away the plot, they resort to criticizing the man behind the camera instead. So I will relive myself of this particular yoke.

SPOILERS WARNING!

FUCKING SPOILERS, NUMB NUTS!

The plot of “The Happening” is actually quite ingenious. Owing a great deal to Hitchcock's (another director who suffers a similar critical fate as M. Night) “The Birds.” Both plots involve a natural phenomenon starting just as suddenly as they end.

The difference is that M. Night's idea is more intellectually intriguing. You could say that “The Happening” goes about its leisurely, frills-free pace so as to let you ponder. Indeed, at a scant 91 minutes, it hardly overstays its welcome.

By now everyone knows the bare plot: a toxin has been released into the air, causing people to commit suicide. The toxin affects the “electro-chemical blabbity blah blah,” otherwise known as our self-preservation. It shuts off our own self-defense mechanism. The whole twist is who, and why.

Well, here's the twist: there is no twist.

Why does their have to be a twist? Why? Because it's a Shymalan movie? Grow up.

The explanation given is that the plants are releasing the toxin. Mother nature killing us? Some critics have called this absurd, silly, and just plain stupid. Is it though?

Any one with a high school education knows that nature has a hellish freaky symbiotic relationship with, y'know... everything. Man being the top of the food chain, the most rational thinking and, all-in-all, the most complex. But the price we pay is that we are curiously out of touch with nature.

Hell, most people consider nature a bother and wish to get as far away from it as possible. As a race, we have basically raped our own planet. We've done astronomical damage to the one thing that allows us life. So there's global warming, a flimsy ozone layer and for what? So we could drive a fucking Esclade?

This isn't a rant on environmentalism, this is fact. Why wouldn't nature wish to destroy us? Seriously? We've been destroying nature ever since the industrial revolution.

It's no secret that plants evolve at a much faster pace than humans. (Editor's Note: If you somehow didn't know that, have you ever considered why there are so many varieties of corn?) So why is it so unreasonable that the eco-system finally views the human race as a credible threat? It's not. One wonders why it waited this long.

The toxin seems to be relegated mainly to the east coast. Reason? Who knows. It is the industrial East Coast, not to mention all those nuclear power plants. Makes sense when looked at through the spy glass of the degradation of nature.

That's the plot though, the characters are not as bad as the other reviewers would have you believe either. Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) is a high school science teacher. Elliot is our way into the movie. All is from his perspective. That includes his gorgeous wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel). A woman who believes she has committed a graver sin than she actually has. What this sin is, I will not say. I will let this be one of the few surprises in the movie. Suffice to say it was a joy to watch Alma and Elliot realize how foolish they've been. It was also nice to see that the incident in question felt real, and was not there to add unneeded melodrama.

The two flee Philadelphia, when news hits that a possible terrorist act has been committed. The two, along with Elliot's friend, Julian the math teacher (John Leguizamo), and his daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) flee the city.

The movie is really about the people they meet, and the journey of the foursome. Along the way, they will give theories as to what is happening. At the same time, you will notice that everyone is re-acting very realistically. The journey, in many ways, is an introspective one. Few people are flying into hysterics. Whalberg's paranoia is a slow build and fascinating to watch. Deschanel's Alma starts out distracted and slowly evolves into a focused being.

Then suddenly just as quickly as it began, it stops. Why? “It's a natural phenomenon, we may never know what caused it.” Yet, why did it only concern itself with the east coast? One scientist believes it was nature giving us a warning.

When asked why they can't explain it better, they shrug. How can they explain it better? Conclusions are brought about from careful observation, intelligent thinking and comparative data. What do they have to compare it to. It was a happening. An instant. They can only guess.

“The Happening” is no “Sixth Sense,” and I didn't expect it to be. It's flawed to be sure, yet I was never truly bored. M. Night strove for a new way to frighten us. How can you outrun the wind? How can you escape nature? If you abuse your natural resources enough, will those resources not fight back? All the time he peppers his work with what I call restrained gore. He shows you just enough, and then lets your imagination make you squirm.

M. Night tried to do something unique, which is to give us a new and interesting thriller. He succeed in that, even if his thriller did not fully succeed. I, for one, am grateful for the attempt. While the movie is by no means an event, it is a happening.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Get Smart"

2008-06-25T12:00:00.010-05:00

Jeremiah:
I grew up watching Nick at Nite. That may sound weird, but hey, in my house “cable” meant The Disney Channel and Nickelodeon, a.k.a. Nick at Nite. So I grew up with “The Twilight Zone,” “Alfred Hitchcock Presents,” “The Monkees,” “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” “F-Troop” and, of course... “Get Smart.”

So, that being said, I went in hoping the movie wouldn't suck and for a few laughs along the way. Well, the movie didn't suck... and it had a few laughs. It was entertaining, and yet I was still kind of disappointed.

The direction and story were sort of,well... meh. The actors did their best -- no one was phoning it in, to be sure. Steve Carell was hilarious, but he wasn't really Maxwell Smart as much as merely the same Steve Carell we know and love. Dwayne Johnson was spot on as Agent 23 and Alan Arkin was, at times, even funnier than Carell. Hell, Anne Hathaway, while not as funny as her male counterparts, turned in a solid performance -- probably better than the movie deserved -- and provided a pleasant visual distraction when the movie dragged. Although I have to say, the great Terrence Stamp seemed to be in a different movie altogether. His lines were delivered with a sort of glum seriousness that made you feel like maybe someone told him this was a Bond film, as opposed to Bond spoof.

While the action sequences were done well, they lacked “oopmh.” I was never at the edge of my seat. Granted, one should not expect to be at edge of one's seat when watching a modern-day remake/tribute to a slapstick sitcom from the '60s, but there were times where you got the impression that the director, Peter Segal, was attempting to do just that. Uneven and, at times, just plain boring -- those times being when the funny and the Hathaway (who is rapidly becoming my crush of the month) were absent.

The laughs are there, though. There will be times where you may be holding your gut. They bring out all the gags from the show -- even the robotic Hymie (Patrick Warburton) makes an appearance -- and there some solid original jokes as well. All in all, though not as funny as I'd hoped it would be, I'm not going to punish a movie simply because it failed to be “Airplane” or something of that stripe. I will, however, punish it for being merely mediocre.

Or maybe punish is the wrong word.

I mean, what does it really matter what I think of the hard work that obviously went into this movie? So it wasn't “Anchor Man.” It had its moments and, overall, made me glad that I chose to see it, which is really all one can ask of comedy. We want for more, sometimes demand more and who knows? Maybe we're right.

Still, it made me laugh, and that's good too.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Richard:
"Get Smart" was a television staple to me as a child. I remember sneaking out to watch it on my parents spare TV in the middle of the night -- one of those boxy, wood-paneled TVs with bad color and horrid sound, but I wouldn't have traded it for anything.

It was my favorite show and I had seen every episode countless times before the age of 10. But all that remains now are the running gags mixed with a few brief, more specific memories... much like what I came out of the movie with.

Steve Carell is funny, that's a given, but he was never Maxwell Smart in the movie. Just Steve Carell doing silly things. Anne Hathaway wasn't 99 and Alan Arkin wasn't really The Chief. They were great, just not who I wanted them to be.

The movie is a complete revamp. You don't need to know any inside jokes or the characters, although it helps, and you don't have to be familiar with the show to have a few laughs. Sometimes a revamp is what you need (i.e. "The Incredible Hulk") other times you should just continue with the flow and assume the audience came to see it based on the source material (see also: "Superman Returns"). "Get Smart" falls into the latter category.

Sure the show is old -- really old -- but it's still a comedy legend. Even now, I still hear people quoting it. It lives in a category along with a few other select shows ("I Love Lucy," "Dragnet," etc.) that need no explanation. Maxwell Smart is established. Skip the pomp and circumstance and throw him into the world of spy parody.

If you want a few laughs see this, or wait for the DVD. But if you seriously want to relive the days of Don Adams, watch "The Naked Gun." You will be more entertained.

3 out of 5

Thaddeus:
Yeah... I didn't see this movie.

What? I have a life outside here, y'know. Besides, we got Richard back in the game:

What more do you want?

x out of 5

-Thad out.

Force the Sherman I: Screen Poetry

2008-06-23T14:00:00.005-05:00

Just how wonderful
Is Hayao Miyazaki's
"Spirited Away"?

Filled to the brim with
Florid imagination
And joyous spirit

Chihiro is a
Brave and intelligent girl
In a strange new world

Haku will do all
He can to get her a job
With Ms. Yubaba

Little does she know
That Chira is in fact a
Bath house for the Gods

Yubaba changes
The little girl's name to Sen
New name but same girl

Many Adventures
with strange spirits as Sen grows
Back to Chihiro

Exuberance and
Great love is the story told
By Miyazaki

A master of the
Fine art of animation
Is Miyazaki

"Spirited Away"
Was so good that it inspired
Me to write haiku

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

They Might Be Comics: Part 1

2008-06-21T12:00:00.004-05:00

While Sherman is on the downhill slope toward the end of his animation marathon, I've decided to start a little mini-series of my own to get my movie reviewing gears grinding back up to speed. Don't let the title fool you: they definitely are comics, you just probably didn't know that when they came out.

Now, at this point you may be thinking that "Iron Man" or "The Incredible Hulk" had the best casting of any comic book movie to date, but what if such a film came out starring Tom Hanks and Paul Newman and Jude Law? Look no further than "Road to Perdition."

Based on the first volume of a graphic novel series by the same name, "Road to Perdition" is the story of Irish Mob enforcer Michael Sullivan, Sr. (Hanks) told from the perspective of his son, Michael, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin). Michael, Sr. has worked -- or killed people -- for John Rooney (Paul Newman) for most of his life, having also been raised by the mobster since he was orphaned at a young age. And he's very good at his job.

Unfortunately, curiosity as to the nature of his father's work gets the better of Michael, Jr. and he ends up stowing away in his father's car and witnesses Rooney's psychotic son, Conner (Daniel Graig), shoot a guy in the head. Things spiral out of control as the ultra-paranoid Conner, fearing young Michael will talk, kills Micheal, Sr's wife and younger son, Peter, mistaking him for Michael, Jr.

And so, Michael, Sr. takes his surviving son on the ensuing mission of vengeance, hoping to force the mob to give up Conner, kill him and eventually reach safe harbor in a town called Perdition. On top of that, they must evade a bizarre contract killer with a habit of photographing his victims as they die (Jude Law).

The film has this amazing flow to it. Highly visual and strangely quiet, making you pay closer attention to the dialogue and violence when it shows up. And while there obviously are several killings in the movie, it's never anything over-the-top; death is shown as an ugly thing, even though the cinematography framing it is beautiful.

There's a lot of great stuff going on here -- even the child-acting is pulled off without a hitch. And Daniel Craig plays the crazy bastard like a pro, even amongst all these huge names. Director Sam Mendes is another man who's good at his job. His film previous to "Road to Perdition" was quite good, as well. Maybe you've heard of it? A little flick called "American Beauty"?

Though I hate to admit this, I haven't actually read the "Road to Perdition" graphic novel. What can I say? I'm poor. But it comes highly recommended, as does the series it was loosely based on, a Japanese manga called "Lone Wolf and Cub" (which was made into a series of films in Japan that I've also not seen).

In an event, it's a movie that I highly recommend. And if you get really hooked in, there's plenty of source material to add to your future reading/viewing list.

And just to underline the kind of dork I am, I'd like to mention how I love the wordplay of the title, "Perdition" being both the town they hope to find sanctuary in as well as a synonym for Hell, where all these Irish Catholic mobsters are certain they'll end up; Mmmmm... layered meanings. So add that to your vocabulary, if you have some free space.

-Thad out.

Force the Sherman I: Vampires Are NOT People, Too

2008-06-18T12:00:00.003-05:00

Dear Goth Kids,

I know life sucks, as do all jocks and cheerleaders (though, you really should have second thoughts about the cheerleaders... they personally make me happy in a special way). But to exclude anyone who dares to not be you? Well, that just makes you as bad as them. Also, what is with your rampant obsession with vampires (or as I call them, “the douchebags of the night”)? I bring this up because of the anime movie I recently watched. So I guess, in retrospect, this goes out to all anime fans as well:

Dear Goth Kids and Anime Fans,

I have a strong suspicion that goth kids and anime fans gravitate towards the same bigotries. The film was “Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust” (or "Banpaia Hanta D," in the Japanese), a futuristic, Victorian sci-fi explodathon about vampires (read: douchebags of the night) and D (Andrew Philpot), the half-human, half-vampire hunter who hunts them. Oops, I forgot one:

Dear Goth Kids, Anime Fans, and Sci-Fi Geeks,

Ignoring the fact that half-human, half-vampires defy all laws of everything, suggesting that vampires are actually capable of reproducing sexually, not to mention the radical implications of cross-breeding, would make Darwin weep. So they're dead... yet they still have, ahem... "bodily fluids” and a working undead reproductive system? That just makes my little soul cringe... so I guess I should change my salutation yet again:

Dear Goth Kids, Anime Fans, Sci-Fi Geeks, and people who have such a complete suspension of disbelief that they will allow whatever back-fuck-wards thing any ol' loon off the street thinks of,

There is no way in hell I am capitalizing all that. So, disregarding that fact, this movie also happens to deal with a pet peeve of mine: women who voluntarily love douchebags of the night. Dracula I'm OK with, he had them hypnotized. Nosferatu? So ugly, it could only be magic. But this girl, Charlotte Elbourne (Wendee Lee), has NO spells cast on her. She's under absolutely NO hypnotism, NO mind control... she just... loves vampires. So yet again, I feel I should be more specific:

Dear Goth Kids, Anime Fans, Sci-Fi Geeks, people who have such a complete suspension of disbelief that they will allow whatever back-fuck-wards thing any ol' loon off the street thinks of, and women who are simply making bad life choices -- the ones that even Lifetime deem too stupid to talk about,

Charlotte claims Meir Link (John Rafter Lee) is a “good" vampire (read: “good" douchebag of the night”) and that he has not (since, at least, they started dating) harmed anyone. She would also probably believe that a hooker “wouldn't kiss.” He's a VAMPIRE! They live by taking other people's lives. Lives like yours or, more importantly, mine. Not to mention the supernatural, sadistic, cruel badasses he has that guarding his coach don't seem to be operating from the same ethics manual as your beloved Prince Suckmeister. Don't get me wrong, despite my trouble swallowing the whole half-human, half-vampire thing (Oh, and if any of you out there try to defend this with, “What about 'Blade?'” I'll simply rebuff you with this: Blade may have been half-human, half-douchebag, but he was also 100% Wesley Snipes. A combination of bad and ass so potent that he didn't even have to pay his taxes)... I actually enjoyed the movie, despite all these innate flaws.

It has all the watermarks of things that annoy me, and yet I was still entertained. I enjoyed Leila (Pamela Segall) and D's Left Hand (Michael McShane), especially the relationship between the three of them that had the sick perverse side of me was wondering if there was going to be a love triangle between the three. Which reminds me, I left some people out:

Dear Goth Kids, Anime Fans, Sci-Fi Geeks, people who have such a complete suspension of disbelief that they will allow whatever back-fuck-wards things any ol' loon off the street thinks of, women who are simply making bad life choices -- the ones that even Lifetime deem too stupid to talk about, and fellow like-minded pervs,

"Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust" is a capably crafted and enjoyable piece of impressive animation. How could I not love a movie involving an old man pulling out a gun the size of Danny Trejo? Meir and Charlotte may not be the valedictorians of the school for kids with special needs, but their exploits are laughingly interesting enough... particularly when they plan to leave earth and all the vampire-haters (read: douchebag of the night-haters) behind and launch themselves into... that's right... space (an action, I might add, that would leave Meir with precious few food options, except dear, sweet, insipid Charlotte. Did this bother anyone else?) Not to mention that, apparently, since vampires are supernatural beings, they have a complete disregard for the laws of nature and astrophysics. Too bad, considering the stars they're going to live amongst are actually themselves... suns. Yeah, have fun in space... where there is no night to protect you from, as I like to call it, “that big, round, yellow thing that kills you."

Fucking twits! Now, I have to start all over again:

Dear Goth Kids, Anime Fans, Sci-Fi Geeks, people who have such a complete suspension of disbelief that they will allow whatever back-fuck-wards things any ol' loon off the street thinks of, women who are simply making bad life choices -- the ones that even Lifetime deem too stupid to talk about, and fellow like-minded pervs, and douchebags of the night who have no concept of the most basic laws of astrophysics,

...

Ahhh, the hell with it.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

The Resurrection of "The Incredible Hulk" -'Three' Geek Review

2008-06-16T12:00:00.013-05:00

Jeremiah:

HULK SMASH!

ME FEEL FOR DR. BRUCE BANNER!

ME FEEL FOR HULK!

HULK HAVE SORROWFUL EYES!

THAT... ODD...

LIV TYLER IS HOT!

JOHN HURT WANT TO HURT HULK --

ME NO LIKE THAT!

TIM ROTH IS AN ABOMINATION!

TIM BLAKE NELSON WISHES TO HELP HULK!

ME THINK... HE HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES!

MUCH ACTION!

ED NORTON, GREAT ACTOR!

LOUIS LETERRIER GREAT ACTION DIRECTOR!!

MUCH ACTION!!!

LIV TYLER REALLY HOT!!

MELODRAMA WALKS A FINE TIGHT ROPE AND SUCCEEDS!

ME NOT UNDERSTAND PREVIOUS LINE...

(GROWL) LIV TYLER IS REALLLY HOT!!!

AND, OH YEAH--

HULK SMAAASSSSH!!

/ 5

YOURS 'TIL HELL FREEZE OVER,
The Incredible Sher-man

Thaddeus:

Erh, yeah... the movie may have exposed Sherman to leathal doses of geek radiation, mutating him into a creature beyond imagination...
We should probably do something about that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I'm somewhat protective of Ang Lee's "Hulk." Not that it's some kind of misunderstood classic or anything, I just don't believe it deserves all the flack it tends to catch.

Okay, so the story goes crazy in the last half hour or so -- I'm with you there. They made it way more about daddy issues than it needed to be -- fine. None of the classic villains -- definitely raises questions. But they had good actors delivering solid performances (with what they were given) and special effects that blew my mind out the back of my head. The fight scenes between the Hulk and the Army are the whole reason I own that DVD. It's gorgeous. The Hulk appears to be standing just right the fuck there.

That being said, "The Incredible Hulk" brushes the previous film aside like a batch of cobwebs and barrels ahead to one of the greatest super-powered slugfests ever to grace the silver screen. "Iron Man" was no fluke -- Marvel Studios has officially stopped kidding around.

The problem with Ang Lee's "Hulk" was that it was all origin story, with Banner only truly adopting his classic man-on-the-run setup at the very end. "The Incredible Hulk," on the other hand, goes the other way. An opening montage fleshes out the origin that we all already knew -- with definite visual influences from the live-action TV show for those of us that are power dorks -- and we're off.

Now, with Louis Leterrier being a professional, and demonstrably talented, action director, I was completely unsurprised that all of the action sequences -- from foot chases to army confrontations to the big monster fight -- were brilliantly executed. But beyond that, I was pleasantly surprised to find delicious Marvel Universe references lurking around every corner. Hints about Captain America, classic Hulk supporting characters and/or future villains lurking about, Lou Ferrigno... fantastic!

Edward Norton fits as Bruce Banner in that almost glaringly obvious way that Robery Downey Jr. captured Tony Stark, though I wonder if he'll get the recognition he deserves, as the Banner character isn't made to steal scenes like Stark. But, c'mon... you've seen "Fight Club," right? Dude's got repressed rage down like nobody's business.

Hell, the whole cast is stellar. William Hurt, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler... sure, the previous film had an Grade-A cast as well, but "The Incredible Hulk" brings the cast and the action and the nerdity to such a high degree that I defy you not to enjoy it.

Go ahead and try.

Plus, Lou Ferrigno lends his voice to the Hulk himself. It's a great day for gamma radiation.

****

-Thad out.

Richard:

[File Not Found]

Force the Sherman I: The Secret of "The Secret of NIMH"

2008-06-13T12:00:00.003-05:00

Memory is a curious human faculty.

There were times where I was watching “The Secret of NIMH” and would have a sudden, strong recollection. They were scenes I remembered clearly, that I had carried with me without realizing -- like the emphatic fear that struck me as Jeremy (Dom DeLuise), the crow, was tangled in string with Dragon the Cat stalking nearby. I distinctly recalled my own true dread as Mrs. Brisby (Elizabeth Hartman) went to seek advice from The Great Owl (John Carradine) or my young eyes being dazzled by the electric magic of Nicodemus (Derek Jacobi), leader of the rats of NIMH.

Scenes I saw as a child, from a movie I don't even recall watching that much, left a strong residue behind. The power of art and motion pictures.

Don Bluth's “Secret of NIMH” holds up surprisingly well. Before this, Bluth (See also: "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time") was a Disney animator. He desperately wanted to do this film but Disney rejected the idea, saying it was “too dark.” So Bluth -- along with John Pomeroy, Gary Goldman and about 20 other animators -- left Disney and made the movie themselves. At the time, they were called the Disney Defectors.

The characters of "NIMH" stick with you as much as the amazing visuals: Mrs. Brisby and her children, in desperate need of help so they can move their house “to the lee of the stone” or Auntie Shrew (Hermione Baddeley) who always pops in unannounced and gives unsolicited advice or any of the others I mentioned above.

The plot is actually somewhat bare; it's the visuals and the way the story is told that mark it as the animated masterpiece it is.

The rats of NIMH -- lab rats from the National Institute of Mental Health who evolved higher intelligence -- have escaped to a rosebush in front of a farmer's house. After a short while there, they decide to move on. When Mrs. Brisby asks why, they reply, “Because we can no longer live as rats.” However, the dastardly Jenner (Paul Shenar) wishes to continue their ratty existence as parasites of society. Jenner's opponent is Justin (Peter Strauss), the golden boy of the rats, and a favorite of their leader, the rat wizard Nicodemus.

How Nicodemus got his power is never explained -- probably because it matters not. After all, if you accept a rat who can learn to talk, organize a society of order and rules, and knows magic, what does it matter how the magic happens? For a child, the magic is in the magic itself.

The sword fight near the end is right out of an Errol Flynn movie, with a dash of Shakespearean tragedy. But the amazing thing is that this “kid's” movie has the audacity to show blood on at least two occasions: the sword fight and an incident where Mrs. Brisby cuts herself on a cage. In an age where entire wars are fought in children's movies with nary a drop of blood to be found -- such as in Disney's “Chronicles of Narnia” -- such things are completely unheard of! Imagine... telling a child that if he fights, he will bleed!

“Secret of NIMH” is a powerful film, filled with images that stay with you for years to come (Dragon the Cat was terrifying to behold as a youngster). It's rare that you revisit something you love from you childhood to find it has not faded or grown stale. Yet “NIMH” is still fresh, exciting and creepy, just as it was when I was... however young I was when I first saw it.

Truly a movie that proves the magic of the medium.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Cool Whip" -Thaddeus

2008-06-10T00:05:00.004-05:00

When I become interested in something, I tend to take things a bit overboard. So, with Indiana Jones having recently reasserted his influence over my life, well...

I often chronicle my adventures in illustrated form, though these things usually remain tucked in the margins of school notebooks or hidden sketchpads, unseen by the world at large.

But change is good, or so I'm told.

Fun Fact: Carlos Mencia is high upon, if not the very pinnacle of, my list of comedians who are not only far less funny than myself -- and every one of my friends, both individually and as a group -- but also still manage to have their own television program.

It's terribly vexing.

And the intense, "extreme" tone of the commercials for said program doesn't help one bit.

-Thad out.

Force the Sherman I: A Different Kind of Iron Man

2008-06-08T12:00:00.005-05:00

What a refreshing, animated treat “The Iron Giant” is! Here we have another animated feature that realizes kids are much smarter than what we give them credit for. Usually, non-Disney features (excluding Pixar) such as this leave a sugary and hollow taste behind. Yet here, Warner Bros. has given us a respectable voice cast, a lusciously simple animation style and a smörgåsbord of existential themes to deal with.

Taking place in the fifties and set in the picturesque town of Rockwell (surely a nod to the painter), "The Iron Giant" tells the story of Hogarth Hughes (Eli Marienthal) and his young mother Annie(Jennifer Aniston), a waitress at the local soda shoppe. Hogarth enjoys staying up late and watching bad science-fiction movies while attempting to eat his weight in Twinkies, as all children -- and adults -- ought to.

It's on one such night that a meteor falls from the sky and lands just off the Rockwell shore. Out of the sea rises the titular Iron Giant (Vin Diesel). A sailor, Earl (M. Emmet Walsh), crashes into it and, of course, nobody believes the crazy fisherman.

Meanwhile, Hogarth is drawn outside when his television looses reception. Noticing something going on at the power plant, he rushes over to investigate and finds the Giant. From there on in, it is an adventure exploring everything from the idea of souls, and their immortality, to the violence caused by guns, with a small detour to examine the uber-American propagandizing going on in that period.

Hogarth decides to hide the Giant in the local junkyard, which is owned by a beatnik artist named Dean (Harry Connick, Jr.). There, they have discussions about death and the possibility of life after death. We learn that the Giant is actually a giant gun, this and another situation prompts the discussion about violence and that idea that, “You are who you choose to be.”

The Government sends an agent (and all that that implies) after the fisherman calls and reports his story. The agent, Kent Mansley (Christopher McDonald), is skeptical at first, but becomes convinced after seeing the evidence firsthand. Mansley is not the villain necessarily, just someone who has been drinking heavily from the kool-aid, as they say.

There is an inspired monologue where he spouts out “red scare” propaganda about the dangers of the “giant metal man,” even going so far as saying: “All I know is that we didn't build it, and that's reason enough to assume the worst and blow it to kingdom come!”

Eventually, the army is called in to deal with the metal-plated visitor. The operation is headed by General Rogard (John Mahoney), a man who loves his country and thinks Mansley is a loon. To say more would ruin the movie and a climax that has, even through repeated viewings, left me shedding a tear or two.

The movie has a simple, lustrous look to it -- it seems almost to have been done in water color. The story handles subject matters much more complicated than is typical for the audience animated movies are aimed at, but it is done shrewdly and thoughtfully. Any youngster who sees this is bound to walk away with some pretty big questions.

“The Iron Giant” is a marvel. Animated movies, even Disney ones, are not usually this well executed. The voice talent is filled with great character actors (fricking M. Emmett Walsh!) and the story is more than sound. I asked a friend of mine what made “Giant” so good, and he replied without missing a beat, “The director, Brad Bird (see also: The Incredibles).”

Bird is an absolute genius when it comes to animated storytelling. My research tells me that he spent 8 years as the second-tier of command on “The Simpsons,” and his experience shows. “The Iron Giant,” is, quite frankly, an underrated masterpiece. I have watched it several times, and I am amazed by how much I still enjoy it. My hat is off to Bird and Co. for making a lastingly enjoyable, moving and thought-provoking animated film.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Force the Sherman I: A "Stitch" in Disney

2008-06-04T12:00:00.002-05:00

You may or may not have read my last essay, in which I bemoaned the moral downfall of a certain multi-million dollar merchandising machine/animation studio. It's right below this on the main page, if you want to catch up. I can wait...

Anyway, I figured I should start off the marathon with a contradiction to everything I said: Disney's 2002 animated feature, “Lilo and Stitch.”

“Lilo and Stitch” may well be one of the best modern Disney films, and it success lies in their very antithesis. Instead of labored and monotonous songs, you have musical montages set to the songs of Elvis Presley himself. The absence of a major archetypal villain, another Disney staple, is filled by several bad-intentioned characters who, in the end, band together against a greater foe.

Stitch (co-writer and directer, Chris Sanders) or Experiment 626 was genetically designed to cause destruction and mayhem. His creator, Dr. Joomba Jookiba (David Ogden Stiers) -- or, as he prefers to be called, “Evil Genius” -- created him with the intent of global domination. As the movie opens, we see Joomba on trial before a sort of Galactic High Council. The evil doctor is sentenced to life imprisonment. Stitch, being deemed an abomination, is sentenced to exile on a desolate rock. It goes without saying that Stitch escapes from his jailers, steals an escape pod and crash lands on Earth -- one of the Hawaiian islands to be exact -- but I went ahead and said it anyway.

There, we meet sisters Lilo (Daveigh Chase) and Nani (Tia Carrere). Nani is trying her best to keep a job and raise Lilo, but Lilo is proving to be difficult. Her abundant imagination makes her a social leper, and when she tries to be nice, she is teased. Their parents being absent is another contrary-to-modern-Disney trait. Lilo and Nani are on their own, and, while they love each other, they fight a lot. At times Lilo will even lock Nani outside the house. The relationship of the sisters smacks of a realism that's refreshing to see in a children's movie.

A social worker has been assigned to Nani and Lilo, a hulking, mountain of a man Mr. Bubbles (Ving Rhames, who else?). Dr. Joomba, meanwhile, has been released and employed by the High Council to hunt down 626. He is aided by Agent Pleakley (Kevin McDonald), an expert on the endangered species of mosquitoes on the Galactic Preservation known as Earth. Stitch has been run over by an entire trucking convoy and wakes up in a pound... and the movie has not even really gotten started yet.

Lilo adopts Stitch, against everyone's best wishes. Stitch, discovering that his creator has been sent to destroy him, uses Lilo as a shield. Along the way, they start to form an unlikely friendship. Joomba even muses on a philosophical quandary in relation to Stitch. He was created to destroy, with biological markers to gravitate towards thriving metropolises and large business areas, to kill and destroy... yet he lands on a peaceful rural tropical island. He has become a creature without purpose and must cope.

The rest of the movie deals with all these relationships, emotional revelations and attempted assassinations of Stitch, climaxing with space craft chases and exploding volcanoes. All with Island music and Elvis playing behind it. It's a really weird Disney movie. Even the way their drawn, Lilo and Nani are not beautiful Princess. They are chubby in places, Lilo having a rolly-polly shape and Nani having thick thighs... y'know, like real people.

Stitch is a genetic abomination, repeatedly called “unclean” by those hunting him. But even Joomba and Pleakley eventually help Stitch fight what amounts to the movie's overall villain: an Intergalactic Policeman, prejudiced against genetic mutations perhaps, but still not unabashedly evil.

All in all, “Lilo and Stitch” is a surprising masterpiece of sorts. If the movie does have flaws, they're forgivable. The sheer imagination of the plot wins with me. This is the Disney I remember and love.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Force the Sherman I: The Inception

2008-06-03T21:42:00.005-05:00

Earlier this month I posted a blog asking you, the readers, to choose a genre, actor, director or any other manner of film-grouping for me to focus on in the month of June, giving you the rare opportunity to control what I reviewed, to hold the very reins of my movie-watching fate!

Well, the masses have spoken. And by masses, I mean the one person who responded. Victoria Easley of Rolla, Missouri wrote in and suggested films that are animated.

So, June shall be the Month of Animation!

I'll be reviewing the gamut of animated films: foreign, computer animated and old-school hand-drawings for the kids and adults alike.

Animation is the one style of film-making where the imagination is truly free to run rampant without the oppressive fists of the laws of physics and budget constraints in regards to special effects. Or the worry how the effects might look, be it too cheesy and fake or the risk that they may be dated in a few years time. With animation, the sky is the limit. This is why most animated films fall in the realm of fantasy and science fiction.

Yet with all this, there is something almost eerie in how accessible the characters are. The plots are often so outlandish that we just accept them without question. Many of the people I've spoken with have confessed that the most terrifying images from their childhood were that of animated films. Be it the wicked witch from ,“Sleeping Beauty,” the evil Queen from “Snow White,” or the mother's death in “Bambi.”

I cited all Disney films because, until the last few years, the name Disney was -- and in some cases, still is -- synonymous with animation. Early Disney had the uncanny ability to entertain children without talking down to them. They were not afraid to expose children to the roller coaster of emotions in life. In a way, they were entertaining children with one hand, placating them, while, with the other, they were getting them ready for the real world. There are people who do purposeful harm to others, some children do loose their mothers and jealousy can drive people to acts of madness. All while peppering in a nice little song here and there.

The latter is what caused the downfall of Disney, in a way. It got to a point where the songs were redundant, monotonous and only there because every Disney movie, by some unwritten (or at least unpublished) law, had to have at least three songs. Children, while often naive, are not stupid. They can tell, even if only it's subconsciously, when a song is there as filler and has no purpose for the mood or story.

Think I'm wrong? Show a child a newer Disney movie, followed by a classic, and see which one they enjoy more. See which one moves them, which one enraptures them the most.

I guess one could say the downfall of Disney would be their loss of faith in the children's intelligence. Of course there will be those who argue that Disney's business is booming, bigger than ever, and that their children don't seem to notice. You mean quite possibly one of the most ignorant and illiterate generations we've seen in a while? Of course the children are not going to notice a difference! No one exposes them to the old-school stuff!

Another argument one might use would be that the glorious second coming of animation is Pixar. Well, I'm sorry to say that, if that's your argument, you're an idiot. Oh don't get me wrong, Pixar is glorious. They have ushered in a new era of children's animation. However, Disney has nothing to do with those, except to distribute them. Animation-wise, story-wise, director-wise and song-wise (or the lack thereof) is all Pixar. In fact, most of Pixar's inspiration comes from Japanese animators such as Hayao Miyazaki or Isao Takahata ("Princess Mononoke" and "Grave of the Fireflies," respectively).

I realize now that my essay on the glories of animation has turned into a rant about the downfall of Disney. When one starts to bitch about how a mighty business conglomerate has fallen, it's time to call it a wrap. So, in conclusion, this month will be full of nostalgia and discovery -- as much for you, I hope, as for me.

I'll be attempting to post two or three times a week, so check in periodically and see me write myself ragged.

Here we go... this oughta' be a blast.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

"The Orchid Thief" vs. "Adaptation" -Jeremiah

2008-05-28T12:00:00.010-05:00

The journey from a book to the silver screen is a dicey one. Oft times it leaves fans of the book totally alienated, while other times it's a rousing success all-around. Yet, amongst the pantheon of books adapted to film, the case of Susan Orlean's “The Orchid Thief” is a curious one, as well as one of, if not the, most unique adaptation. Charlie Kauffman (whose task it was to effectively adapt the book for the multiplexes), with the help of a previous collaborator (director Spike Jonze), broke all the rules of adaptation and, in the end, made a masterpiece.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Susan Orlean's “The Orchid Thief” is a passionate, journalistic expedition through the lives of passionate people and their various passions. One could say that the theme of the book is, well... love. It's people focusing on their obsessions in order to scale down this vast and complex world into a more manageable and more personal place. In a lot of ways, Orlean's book bears a strong resemblence to Kerouac's work in the sense that there is no real story. But that doesn't mean they're not about anything or that we don't feel for the people who live on those pages.

“You know, now that I think about it, I guess we're a family of ailments and pain.” - John Laroche

It is safe to say John Laroche is the reason for Orlean's opus. His court case was what started her interest in orchids. The case alleged that “...Laroche and three Seminole assistants had illegally removed more than two hundred rare orchid and bromelaid plants from the Fakahatchee...” and, in turn, “...they were accused of criminal possession of endangered species and of illegally removing plant life from state property, both of which are punishable by jail time and fines.”

This case, while a huge deal for Laroche, is barely one fifth of the book. There are chapters about Laroche's past and his past loves of tropical fish, turtles and ice age fossils. There are many others that deal with Bob Fuchs, Martin Motts, the history of Orchid collecting and the cut-throat lives of those men brave enough, or simply carrying that crazy itch, to be orchid hunters. There are others still, about the ever-amazing, ceaseless Florida eco-system. Orlean's charm is that she introduces you to facts and trivia about things you never knew you wanted to know.

“Spooky places are usually full of death, but the Fakahatchee is crazy with living things.” - Susan Orlean

As I hinted in the previous paragraph, the other character -- and, in some ways, the more interesting character -- is the Florida eco-System. Specifically, the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. This amazing piece of nature is a deadly, unforgiving, indomitable part of Mother Nature.

“The Fakahatchee looks utterly wild, but is in fact a corrupted wilderness. It has been meddled with and invaded. For a while, people cleared and plowed parcels of its wet prarie and tried to grow oranges, grapefruits, tangerines, tomatoes, mangoes, and winter vegetables. The swamp made for lousy farming. The farmers eventually left, but their produce lingered. Even now you can still see crop rows under the native grass and a few weather-beaten citrus trees amid palm and cypress. Melaleucas and Brazilian peppers and Australian pine trees, non-natives, have roamed into the strand and multiplied. So have walking catfish, who swam in through the sinkhole lakes and stayed.”

Amid all the facts about orchids and the people who hunt and collect them, all the interesting facts about Florida's preserve and Laroche's life, Orlean has crafted a book that is almost impossible to put down. It is the most engaging and informative book about things I never thought would be interesting but, to my delight, turned out to be absolutely absorbing.

With that being said, we now come to the movie adaptation, aptly titled “Adaptation,” penned by whiz-kid Charlie Kauffman ("Being John Malkovich," "Human Nature," "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind," "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind"). It was directed by Spike Jonze, this being their second collaboration -- the first being "Being John Malkovich".

Firstly, let us look at the movie on it's own terms.

“Adaptation” is a movie about many, many things. Starring Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kauffman and also as his twin brother Donald Kauffman (non existent). As previously stated, Charlie is been hired to adapt Susan Orlean's book (Orlean herself is portrayed by Meryl Streep).

Just as Charlie gets the job, Donald decides that he will follow in his beloved brother's footsteps and be a screenwriter too. To show his dedication to his brother he tells him that he's taking a class on screenwriting, taught by the infamous Bob McKee (Brian Cox).

While that is going on, we see Orlean interview John Laroche (Chris Cooper) about his court case and his passion for orchids. Orlean is introduced to the amazing world of orchids and those passionate people who lust after them.

Back with the Kauffmans, Charlie is suffering writer's block while Donald is coming up with a wonderfully ridiculous plot for a serial killer thriller. Charlie can't seem to find a way to adapt Orlean storyless novel. “It's that sprawling New Yorker shit!” Meanwhile Orlean and Laroche develop a platonic relationship that hints at more.

Now we come upon the genius of “Adaptation.” Charlie Kauffman goes on numerous diatribes about suffering for his art and about art itself, constantly trashing his brother's attempt to craft something as formulaic as a serial killer flick. The movie spends so much time distracting us with criticisms on entertainment for the masses, the relationships of the brothers and of Orlean and Laroche and on the writing process that we almost fail to realize that the movie is slowly evolving into what it spent the first half railing against. In fact, the term ”adaptation” has a double meaning: the adapting of book into movie and our adaptation as human beings. It's about how we, as humans, spend our lives adapting and getting used to change, because life won't stop no matter how hard we wish it to.

To go even deeper, there is a scene that sums “Adaptation” perfectly. Donald is telling Charlie how he has come up with his thriller plot, how it was inspired by a tattoo his girlfriend has -- a snake eating its own tail. Ouroboros, as it called. This revelation comes about the time in the movie where Charlie has written himself into his screenplay adaption of the book, and is a perfect summary of what the movie becomes.

The multi-level genius of "Adaptation" is astounding when you consider that it addresses writer's block (which is what it was born of), frustration on how to adapt and stay truthful to the source material (another birthplace of the film) and that Kauffman split himself in half, one representing the childish-yet-shallow side, the other being the artistic and mature side, yet both sides complementing each other. It's really touching as you realize, towards the end, how much Donald idolizes his brother Charlie and as Charlie realizes how much he envies and loves his brother.

So does the movie stay faithful to the book? Of course not. How could it?

There's no arc of any kind to the book. Nobody really changes or learns any real life lessons and there's almost no drama. Yet the movie was true to the underlying theme of Orlean's masterpiece. There's a line in the movie when Charlie and Donald are hiding in the swamp and Charlie relates a time when they were both in high school. He tells Donald of an incident where he witnessed Donald flirt with a girl, a girl that Donald remembers to this day: “God I was in love with her,” he remembers wistfully. Charlie goes on to tell him that, after Donald left, the girl of his dreams made fun of him, and how that angered Charlie. Donald reveals that he heard her as well, but that it didn't matter. “You are what you love, not what loves you back.”

That right there is the core of Orlean's epic: people who are in love with a nearly indestructible, intelligent and unique specimen of botany. Donald loves his brother, although his brother does not often return that love until the end. There's the love of art and of movies, Laroche's love for orchids and for Susan... Everyone in the film loves something or someone that does not love them back. Even Charlie, who loves almost every girl that he meets, and fantasizes about them, though they all reject him.

“Adaptation” is the most original and bizarre adaption in the history of adaptations. Susan Orlean's book is as marvelously unique as the screen counterpart. Orlean can be proud that the movie was intrinsically faithful to her novel, while Kauffman has cemented himself as a genius with what is, quite simply, a contemporary masterpiece... one which will most assuredly adapt itself into a classic masterpiece.

Book and movie 5 Hayeks.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - Three Geek Review

2008-05-23T12:53:00.006-05:00

Jeremiah:

Death-defying archeology has finally returned to the big screen, ladies and gentlemen. Oh sure, "National Treasure" tried to fill the hole, and made an admirable show of it from what I'm told, but it still failed to take the crown. The search for lost knowledge (plus action, adventure and derring-do) has but one name, and that name is Indiana Jones.

Those low-down, dirty commies will stop at nothing to harness a possibly alien psychic power... wait, what? Awesome. That's why I love Indiana Jones, right there. You don't often get plots like that in main-stream cinema. (sad sigh)

Spielberg and company do a stand-up job at presenting a movie that is faithful to the original trilogy while still feeling fresh and new. The Indiana Jones series is one of those instances where it's very hard not to regress into being 12 all over again.

Ah, the hell with it... why not?

Ohmygodohmygodohmygodohmygod -- it was soooo coool, there were these guards and they were all really serious, you know, like nazis... but not nazis (they were communists, but they looked like nazis) and there was this one chick who had this really wicked accent, and then Indy led them to this magnet thingma-bobber, and there was this chase, followed by a big bang, followed by a big chase, followed by another chase, and there were more car chases than were people sometimes, and then there was this one scene with monkeys and ants, and this really cool sword fight, and these huge crystal skulls, and there was all this really cool, fun stuff but I never felt like they were talking down to me, like I was 12, they just understood the inner-child's unquenchable thirst for adventure.

And, oh yeah, Karen Allen is really pretty.

And there was no Sean Connery, that was sad, but then there was this other really cool chase...

See the movie, damn it!

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Richard:

I'm sitting at my chair here at Deaf Kid Studios, Shudder is playing downstairs and I am forced to remember "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which I saw last night. I am forced to because it was a great movie... and because Thad and Jeremiah have started to make jokes about this being Two Geek Review.

The latest Indiana Jones flick takes place some years after "The Last Crusade" and brings back Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood (from "Raiders of the Lost Ark," remember?), Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones (obviously) and introduces Cate Blanchett as Irina Spalko, an over-the-top commie with a penchant for psychic powers and Shia LaBeouf as Mutt Williams, a young, college dropout greaser whose hobbies include riding his Harley, twirling his knife and getting whacked in the balls by plants (Trust me on this!).

The plot is a typical Indy plot. Naz-- Commies steal something powerful, mythical, McGuffinacal and Indy must track it down so that Hitl-- Stalin doesn't get his hands on it or the world is in grave danger. This is proven by a diatribe from Blanchett about half-way through the movie. Love interests and sidekicks help Indy to track it down and ultimately save the day. Other devices include greedy guy getting killed by greed and power-hungry guy getting killed by getting power. Yet we love the movie for it.

In this world of Fast-Paced Action/Hard-Turning Dramatic cinema world we live in, Indiana Jones is one of the last bastions of familiarity. We know he wins, we know he lives, we know he scores. We overlook predictability and over-used plot devices because it is a great story. And anyone over the age of 20 grew up on it.

Still, the movie has its flaws. Spieldberg and Lucas were so infatuated with the camp, action and nostalgia they forgot what make "The Last Crusade" a perfect movie, rounding it out with seriousness. Don't get me wrong, I am all for suspending your disbelief and accepting that a heart can still beat after a warlock rips it from your chest, or that drinking water from a faux-gold cup will age you to death. I mean the serious moments between characters. One of the most memorable and greatest scenes from my childhood is Henry Jones Sr. guiding Indy through the trials to get the grail. He lays there dying, but still whispers the right choices and paths. Indy can't hear him, but it doesn't matter. Finally he makes it to the Grail room, chooses wisely, dips the cup into the water and takes it back to his dad.

That scene was brilliant, I can't do it justice. If you have not seen "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" do yourself a favor and buy it, right now! And if you hated the scene, I hate you as a person.

This movie didn't have that. Marion and Mutt are great characters and Allen and LaBeouf were great in portraying them, but the script just didn't have the emotion behind it to attach me to them like it did with Henry Jones Sr.

Beyond that, the only other things were superfluous. Sean Connery retired so there was no Henry Jones Sr. and Denholm Elliot died so no Marcus Brody either. I still would have liked John Rhys-Davies to return as Sallah, but what can you do? Maybe he was too busy playing all the dwarves in "The Hobbit."

Overall, it was a great movie. It was not the best of the four, but not the worst by any means. Besides, a bad Indiana Jones movie is like bad sex, it still feels good.

4.5 out of 5.

Thaddeus:

The other guys have covered quite a bit of ground and, though I could launch into a protracted rebuttal to Kloiber's crowning of "Last Crusade" as the top entry in the series, that would really just be me being contentious.

Instead, I'll try to be succinct.

Aside from it being fully packed with action and fun, there is a very practical reason for everyone to go out and see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Let us turn, for a moment, to the BBC:

Asked at a press conference if he wanted to make another film, [Spielberg] said: "Only if you want more.

"That's why we made this Indiana Jones. We'll certainly have our ear to the ground to hear what happens."

Spielberg added: "That'll decide were we go from here."

So, if you like Indiana Jones, see "Crystal Skull." And if (when) you discover you like "Crystal Skull," see it AGAIN! I already plan to see it another two times in theaters.

In terms of quality assessment, which I'm told reviews ought to contain, I'll say this: "Crystal Skull" is a fitting continuation of the series in the exact way that the "Star Wars" prequels were not.

What can I say? The definition of adventure is Indiana Jones. This movie quenches a thirst I didn't even know I was carrying.

It's nearly impossible to draw an accurate representation of how this movie made me feel, as I did with "Speed Racer," so I guess I'll give you a number.

...

Four.

And... a half.

It's hard to rate something so close to your heart. Numbers fall short.

-Thad out

"Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal" - Book Review -Jeremiah

2008-05-20T12:00:00.008-05:00

When I first saw Christopher Moore's book and read the title, I grinned inwardly. “This has to be good”, I thought. The book, it turns out was, a special printing, an edition that looked like a leather-bound Bible, complete with a red ribbon bookmark and golden-edged pages. Yet even with the title and the tongue-in-cheek packaging, I still had no idea what to expect.

Is it going to be a comedy? An adventure? A buddy/road story? The journey from childhood to adulthood? Would there be magic, miracles and love? Turns out, all of the above. If Moore's “Lamb” is the missing Gospel, then apparently the church left out the best one -- the one with the most humanity.

In the beginning, an angel is ordered by The Son to resurrect Biff and have him recount his version of the life of Christ, as all the Gospels differ both in content and chronological order of events. “Lamb” is a light-hearted shot at unifying the Gospels, as well as a sly attempt to remove some of the anger from one of most supposedly loving beings to walk the Earth.

So basically, Biff sits in an airport motel writing the memoirs of his life with Christ. He and the angel marvel at humanity's achievements and bemoan their setbacks since he last walked the earth, all of which they learn of from the television. At one point Biff writes:

The angel has confided in me that he is going to ask the Lord if he can become Spider–Man. He watches the television constantly, even when I sleep, and he has become obsessed with the story of the hero who fights demons from the rooftops. The angel says that evil looms larger now than it did in my time, and that calls for greater heroes. The children need heroes, he says, I think he just wants to swing from buildings in tight red jammies.

Unlike the other Gospels, Biff chronicles his first meeting with the savior, as well as their friendship, and focuses on the missing years of Christ's life: the years where Christ becomes a man and learns how to be a savior. How do do they do this? Road Trip! Christ (or Joshua, as was his real name) decides to seek out each of the three wise men, or magi, and ask them for guidance.

On their travels they learn magic, kung fu and Kama Sutra, they fight bandits and demons and meet the Abominable Snow Man.

I loved typing that last sentence.

It's the like a Hardy Boys adventure at times, yet there is a sincerity and a deep undercurrent of faith that creeps out in the most miraculous places.

If you think you know the story of Christ, then you definitely need to pick up this wonderfully bizarre re-telling of it. I found myself maniacally laughing out in public places as I was reading it. Then there were times where I was caught up in the drama of the love triangle between Biff, Joshua and Mary Magdelene.

Bottom Line: I loved this book. I have to agree with Moore himself when he commented on the possible offensiveness of this book, “...if one's faith can be shaken by stories in a humorous novel, one may have a bit more praying to do.”

So read it. You'll thank me.

I leave you with this passage, after a roman guard has witnessed one of many resurrections performed by Joshua:

Justus let his sword fall to his side with a sigh. "Go home. All of you. By order of Gaius Justus Gallicus, under-commander of the Sixth Legion, commander of the Third and Fourth Centuries, under authority of Emperor Tiberius and the Roman Empire, you are all commanded to go home and perpetrate no weird shit until I have gotten well drunk and had several days to sleep it off."

As for the rating, I have decided to throw off the confining yoke of our previous system and instate the one I've been talking about since I saw “Across the Universe”:

/ 5

(Long story, but ask and I'll tell.)

Yours Until Hell freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Go, "Speed Racer," Go! -Thaddeus

2008-05-19T15:34:00.008-05:00

I've pretty much given up on anime.

It was once a fairly prolific interest of mine, and I still have my favorites, but the fan culture -- heavily populated by yapping loons who tout any ol' thing made on the islands of Japan a "must see" -- has pushed me out beyond the edge and into impossibly deep caverns of disinterest.

And even before that, I never cared much for "Speed Racer."

With all that understood, I'm going to tell you right now that, if you have any joy in your heart (or a combination of ADD and adrenaline addiction), it would be criminal to miss out on what turns out to be a fun-filled, and possible seizure-inducing, ride.

Somehow, the Wachowski Bros. -- the (in)famous minds behind "The Matrix" trilogy -- took what I mark as the seminal nonsensical anime and forged it into an engaging and vibrant visual entertainment explosion.

The world is unabashedly animated, brightly colored and smooth-edged. And, in keeping with the anime atmosphere, the character interactions are largely melodramatic -- especially when the blatantly cartoony villains are anywhere near the scene. Yet somehow, the Racer family dynamic manages to feel quite genuine, thanks in no small part to the casting of Susan Sarandon and John Goodman as Mom and Pops Racer.

This movie is packed with fun characters. There's definite chemistry between Emile Hirsch (as the eponymous hero, Speed Racer) and Christina Ricci (Speed's girlfriend, Trixie). Paulie Litt runs amok through much of the movie as Speed's younger brother, Spritle, with his pet chimp, Chim Chim, in tow. And finally there's Matthew Fox as Racer X, who has all the badassitude of a racecar-driving Batman.

"Speed Racer" is downright daring in its cinematography. Motion line backdrops with spinning or sliding closeups in the foreground and all sorts of flashy cuts and transitions pay homage to the anime roots in a surprisingly successful way. I found the whole enterprise much easier to swallow than the similarly referential comic book paneling of Ang Lee's "Hulk," which is the only thing I could come up with as a comparison.

The races themselves are unbelievable in the best possible way. Even from the earliest trailers, I was reminded of the crazy-fast, futuristic rallies of "F-Zero GX" for the Gamecube, with the twisting tracks over neon backdrops. The cars are constantly jumping and flipping over one another, yet I never found myself bored with the effect -- high-speed car jumps are, apparently, always cool.

There were also ninjas and gangsters.

And since I tend to balk at using simple numbers to represent something as complex as my interpretation of a piece of quality entertainment, I will now do whatever the hell I want until somebody manages to stop me.

So, yeah... I found myself making this face a lot:

Bottom Line: if you're looking for an lovingly-crafted, live-action cartoon adventure... look no further than "Speed Racer."

-Thad out.

Force the Sherman

2008-05-13T11:09:00.004-05:00

Every once and a while we here at Three Geek Review like to pick a theme, director or actor to focus on for a month.

Or at least I do.

So I was thinking: what if you, the readers, chose what I watched for the month of June?

Send your suggestions to threegeekjeremiah@gmail.com and let me know what you think should be my theme for next month. On the last week of May, I will see who or what has the most requests. If by some statistical anomaly no one seems to suggest the same thing as someone else, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it... roll a die or something.

Hell, if e-mailing is too much for you, you can even leave a comment on my Facebook or MySpace. Make sure that you entitle the e-mail or comment "Force the Sherman" so as to separate it from the scores of regular fan mail recieved on an hourly basis.

I'll be posting an actual review shortly, but for the moment I'm leaving this announcement. Hope you all had a chance to Geek Up this weekend, and I look forward to reading your suggestions.

If you've ever wanted the power to command the future of movie reviews, now is your chance. Seize it before it slips away behind us, with the rest of history!

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

The Slow, Repeating Death of Indignance -Thaddeus

2008-04-30T16:51:00.005-05:00

The world makes me so angry.

In part, it's what makes me happy with being a self-important, neuroses-ridden shut-in. I look at the world outside, or on the news, and think: "That's not where I live, I'm seperate from that," but it is and I'm not and it sucks and what the hell can I do?

There are problems -- great, glaring problems -- in America today. And through all the frustration, and screeching and doubt, I'm left with one question above and beyond all others: How do we fix it!?

Jeremiah showed me "Sicko," the documentary on the American medical system by the infamous rotund raconteur, Michael Moore, last weekend. It, or rather its subject matter, is what's put me in this awful state.

But that's not the movie's fault, I knew the system was awful just from observing my familiy and various people I know. "Sicko" just rubs your nose in it.

Kloiber describes Moore's films as audio/visual op-ed pieces rather than true documentaries, and that's as apt a description as you're likely to find. Of course he has an agenda, he's Michael-Goddamn-Moore. So if you're looking for straight-laced, even-handedness, well... you won't find it here. And that's OK, because this is not an OK situation. We need a jackass with a megaphone to tell people horrible things.

After the introduction's homeland horror stories of painful choices (such as choosing which finger to keep) and lost hope (perhaps from losing your home and moving in with your children because of medical costs), Moore leads us through countries like Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, showing us successful examples of socialized medicine from the perspectives of foreign citizens, expatriate Americans and the doctors that work in those systems.

Put simply: the doctors help people and the people don't pay.

I mean, of course they pay for it through taxes, but that's it. No co-pays, no triple-digit drug costs, no loop holes or cutbacks. It seems... nice.

Don't get me wrong, I love America and all. It's great... on paper. In theory. If you read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, it's beautiful. Ideas hundreds of years past their youth still shine, as brilliant as ever. So why are we flailing about and suffering? Why are we running ourselves into the ground? How do you change it? How do we make our world better?

There must be a way. We're supposed to have the power. Vox populi and all that... but who do you talk to? Where do you line up? Who's going to listen?

Who even cares?

Films like "Sicko" are great for stoking a fire but, in the end, it's like flash paper. Sure, these issues and angers are flaring up in my head, all bright and loud, and knowing how bad things are in what I've always been told is the greatest country on Earth is uncomfortable, it's frustrating, but the worst part of all is that I know these feelings won't last.

Eventually, I'll roll back into apathy. I'll still know these things, somewhere in the back of my head, but what is knowledge if it isn't used? Just an insignificant flicker that no one can see or hear, a page in a book left unopened.

I could just about cry.

Watch "Sicko" if you're ready to be angry, but steel yourself because it offers no solutions; it shows us where to go but not how to get there. It's sensational and informative and that's it.

As for me, I'll vote in November and... I don't know. What else is there to do?

3.5 / 5

-Thad out.

Weaving Hugo - Jeremiah

2008-04-24T22:12:00.003-05:00

We here at Three Geek Review are fascinated by storytelling in general. We also love it when a story proves to be so good that it is adapted to a different media from that whence it first appeared -- books being made into movies being a prime example. Maybe one day we will explore other avenues of this fascination such as video games that are made into movies -- i.e. Super Mario Brothers -- or books turned into radio plays, turned into movies -- i.e. "War of the Worlds.” No promises, though. Until then, though lets us once again turn our focus to books-into-movies.

Victor Hugo's “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is more than a celebrated novel, it is an act of pure passion. A sort of literary opera, if you will. Emotions are felt at the most heightened levels. Quasimodo is not just infatuated with La Esmeralda, he loves her with every fiber of his hideous being. Dom Claude Frollo does not merely find Esmeralda attractive, he is consumed with an unquenchable lust. It is an operatic melodrama of the highest order.

Everyone knows the story, it's near impossible not to. It's been adapted to the screen many times, once even as a Disney cartoon. Yet it's not the story that pulses with power, it's the characters and the way Hugo weaves their lives together. Indeed one character has the foresight to even point out: “Or rather, we all ruined one another through the inexplicable workings of fate!” Even the naive Esmeralda, has the moment of clarity when she realizes, “that destiny was an irresistible force.”

The book contains a cast of dozens, each unaware of how their actions are affecting others, even in so far as to how their actions are in fact sealing their own fates. A king's order to attack the mob spells the end for La Esmeralda, a self-imprisoned woman besot with pure misery realizes that her precious lost love has been the person she most hated and ridiculed.

There are passages and lines in the novel that are, to put it simply, divine. The passage where Claude Frollo pours his desires and lust out to Esmeralda in her cell is breathtaking. The exchanges between Gringoire and almost anyone are bits of genius.

In other words, I loved this book, more than I thought I would. As I flip through the book now, I realize just how much I have underlined. Such as when the narrator informs the reader, “We regret that we are obliged to add that, due to the harshness of the weather, he was using his tongue as a handkerchief.”

That being said, I had my pick of cinematic adaptations to choose from. There was the version starring Lon Chaney (1923), the previously stated Disney animated version (1996), a British version simply called Esmeralda (1922), or the one I eventually chose.

This 1939 version stars the infamous Charles Laughton, arguably one of the greatest actors of his time, if not at least the most influential. For if Spencer Tracy ushered in the era of naturalistic acting, Laughton ushered in the era of voice inflection.

Directed by William Dieterle and adapted to the screen by Sonya Levien, this particular outing is mildly faithful to the novel. There are some changes, and most of them leave you scratching your head. But the movie is good, don't get me wrong.

The screen is magnetic when Laughton appears, and Maureen O'Hara as La Esmeralda is about as gorgeous as you can get when casting for this temptress. True, in casting O'Hara they went more in the direction of a daughter of Ireland as opposed as Hugo's “..daughter of Egypt”. But that's cool. Such things are expected -- especially considering the time period this was made -- but I'm getting ahead of myself.

The movie by itself is perfectly fine, a 3 ½ easy. The acting is solid all around, O'Hara is a bit shaky at times, but give that girl a close up or a scene where she interacts with Laughton and she'll knock your socks off. Laughton enraptures you with every move, and when the movie culminates to Quasimodo rescuing Esmeralda and climbing the great Cathedral yelling “Sanctuary! Sanctuary! Sanctuary!” it's a moment to behold.

The dialogue is perfectly good, though oddly, very little of it is Hugo's -- again, getting ahead. Dieterle does a good job of weaving the characters together and leading them to their respected end...

Damn it, I can't go on.

The movie is good. Really good, in fact, if you don't think about the book. But an adaptation, it BLOWS!

First off, the prologue is meant to feel like it's from Hugo. Believe me, it is not. I've already mentioned the O'Hara thing, so let me move on to one of the severe problems. The great and respected actor, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, turns in a fine performance as the young Jehan Frollo, Claude Frollo's younger, wilder, promiscuous and much more agnostic brother. The trouble is that in the movie he's the main character. He's the keeper of of Quasimodo, he's the one who is ensconced with Esmeralda. His older brother the archdeacon Claude Frollo (Walter Hampden) is relegated to the kindly older brother role -- barely even a secondary character, more like an extra with an odd amount of lines.

Confused? So was I.

Why would you change the roles like that? So the Frollo/Esmeralda relationship would seem more plausible or more acceptable? It's not supposes to be! It's supposes to make you squirm about in your own unease.

How about Pierre Gringoire (a young Edmond O'Brien) who, in the book, is intelligent yet entirely self indulgent, with his passions switching at the speed of turning a page. He's the novel's comic relief and, in the end, thanks to his own self indulgence, puts the final nail in the coffin for all involved in the love triangle. In the movie, he is a French Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. A brilliant philosopher who writes what amounts to be a prequel to “The Rights of Man”. Huh? Why?

King Louis XI (Harry Davenport) is portrayed as a progressive and noble free thinker. A man who wishes his peasants to revolt against the crimes of their times and break the chains of the church. Yet, in the book he is a true blue tyrant. A man who inspects prison cells and pretends not to notice the prisoner while enjoying the cries for clemency and release.

There are lots more, including the murder scene that all of the sudden takes place outdoors, instead of in an inn, and in such a manner that left my friend and I wondering what the hell just happened.

I seem to have written my longest piece yet. Like I said, the changes weren't bad per se, just confusing as hell. Even down to the gentrified ending and odd absence of Hugo dialogue, which is insane considering who you have to deliver it.

All in all, read the book. For Hayek's sake read the book! The movie, while perfectly good, does one of the more bizarre hatchet jobs I've ever witnessed. So much so that, after the movie was over, I kept screaming in my head Quasimodo's mournful last line of the book, “Oh! Everything I loved!

Book 5/5
Movie 3.5/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Head-to-Head Review -Thaddeus

2008-04-21T15:36:00.003-05:00

Spending a Thursday struggling to re-read one of your very favorite books as you sit in the waiting room of a Ford dealership for hours on end, accompanied by all manner of frumpy, rasping strangers, with "The Tyra Banks Show" and "The View" blared unrestrained from the nearby TV set is a bang-up way of simulating a severe migrane or a low-level stroke, if you ever happen to need one.

But, as Arthur Dent once said, "I never could get the hang of Thursdays."

...

Of all the people I wish weren't dead, Douglas Adams is likely the cleverest.

Him or Mark Twain.

And if you don't know who he is -- Adams obviously, as not knowing who Mark Twain is means you're basically done with -- then you ought to go to your nearest supplier of fine literature and snatch up a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Honestly, the collected editions of the complete series are so cheap that walking past them without already owning a copy is roughly equal to swallowing and fully digesting a crisp, ten-dollar bill.

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" tells the story of Arthur Dent, an unassuming Englishman who is whisked away from Earth mere moments before its destruction and into a Universe that hardly knew it was ever there in the first place. Or at least that's where it starts. And while I'm sure that sound very serious to you overly terrestrial types, it happens to be funnier than anything else you've read.

Douglas Adams used to write sketches for Monty Python. If this means nothing to you... go away.

Five books and some change, all told, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" series is absurdly funny through and through -- excepting the bits where it isn't -- as well as a remarkably quick read. Plus, a cursory familiarity with "The Guide" lets you in on a large percentage of inside jokes between nerds around the world.

Fun stuff.

So, now that we're through with the glowing, unabashed praise portion of the review, let's talk about the movie.

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" hit the silver screen in 2005. It's frightfully uneven in pacing and pales in comparison to the original book (which itself was based on a radio series that I've not yet been exposed to). I'd seen it once already, back when it was in theaters, but viewing it immediately after reading the book only served to underscore the glaring differences.

Priceless jokes are watered down or altogether missing, Hollywood turns the romance dial up to 11 and the ending is far fluffier than it ought to be.

At the same time, there's still that quirky sense of humor and plenty of background details for obsessive fans to latch onto. Plus, Alan Rickman's portrayal of Marvin the Paranoid Android is fantastic. So not all is lost.

I could try to complain about glaring differences in plot structure, but the "Hitchhiker's Guide" story has jumped from radio to print to TV to video games to comics to whatever other media you can think of throughout it's life cycle, and each time Douglas Adams has turned continuity on it's ear... so it's rather moot.

At the end of the day, the film version is good for some laughs. But if you want sustained, brilliant hilarity, you're going to have to crack a book.

-Thad out.

Dear America: Letters From Vietnam DVD Review (5/5) - Jeremiah

2008-04-14T17:17:00.001-05:00

Well, it was inevitable, and here it is: Three Geeks' first documentary review. A documentary that will move even the most heartless of men to tears... several times. I say this because I broke down in to a mumbling tear-machine at several instances throughout this masterful slice of sheer, chaotic humanity.

Bill Couturie sifted through 2 million feet, which averages out to about roughly about 926 hours, of news-reel tape. He was able to persuade the Pentagon to declassify previously classified battle footage. In some cases, he was even able to match-up letters to footage or photographs of the actual soliders who wrote them.

This was a serious and incredibly noble undertaking.

The letters are read by actors, some famous, others slightly less so. It is to their credit that they are only mentioned once, in the beginning, and never again. Some of them, like Michael J. Fox, are easily sussed out, but they are not out to out-perform each other or to solidify an ensemble cast. They are simply giving as truthful a reading as one could give to a letter a solider had written to their parents, siblings or friends.

The letters start out positive, with solders excited to help fight for their country and its cause. But, by the end, the letters grow angry -- with the war, the military, the soldiers themselves and with life. There are moments where we see soldiers taking what looks to be their last breath. We never see anyone die, but we see them when they are mere seconds from it, and it's heart-wrenching.

Yet, I do not wish to give the impression that all the tears are sad ones. There are moments of shenanigans and all-around, pure joy. For instance when you get to Nixon pulling troops out of Vietnam we see footage of one battalion listening to their radio for their name to be called amongst the list. Let me tell you, dear reader, that it is one of the most truthful, honest and joyous moments on film when their battalion is announced.

"Dear America" is a glaring look, not at the politics of the day, for there are still some today who support the war even to the end, but rather at the hell of war itself. About how even the people who supported it, wish it to end, simply so the nightmare would be over. This is one of the best documentaries, hell, best movies I have ever seen. It's hard to accurately review this movie in my usual 600 word way. It left an indelible impression upon not only my conscious, but my sub-conscious as well. It is not a movie, it is what few films rarely are, what a precious few actual movies accidentally become: a lasting visceral experience.

5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Chinese Coffee" DVD Review (4/5) - Jeremiah

2008-04-07T19:24:00.004-05:00

I've watched this play-turned-film at least three times since I received it through Netflix. I say this so you realize how much it affected me. Kloiber asked if I was planning on doing the play myself.

This play/screenplay by Ira Lewis takes place in a single night, taking a glaring look at the lives of two friends -- down-and-out, starving artist types in Greenwich Village at the beginning of the Eighties. They don't seem ready to deal with the eighties, but are incapable of doing anything about it.

Harry Levine (Al Pacino) is a twice published author who is falling towards middle age. His first two books weren't exactly huge successes but, at the same time, to a writer being published is an unmeasured success. Harry is coming to a point in his life where he desperately wishes not to be poor. His friend, Jake Manheim (Jerry Orbach), is an insanely literate, highly critical person who happens to be a good photographer. Jake also fancies himself a writer, but hasn't written anything since he was 19. Even then, his two published stories were six pages each.

During this one night these two men examine each other's lives, motivations, loves and losses to the molecular level. The way they talk is a joy to listen to. “I am as dry as a Steinbeck dust bowl.” It 's a little unnerving for me to watch this adaptation by Pacino himself, if only because I used to be, at least in my mind, the Levine role. Now I find myself, I fear, in the Manheim role. That is, I used to stay up nights scribbling out stories, plots, and bits of dialogue. Now I'm well read, well versed in the print and visual media and I tend to cite and relate trivial facts rather than do anything of any actual artistic means.

Bizarre attacks of self-analyzation aside, this movie was a divine surprise: an exploration of friendship and how the reasons two people become friends may not always be what we think. As the night goes on, we discover that Jake may have underestimated Harry's ability as a writer, and now fears he will be more successful than him. The way they rail against the romantic, bohemian dream of being poor for the sake of artistic genius -- these two men who are literally arguing over pennies -- is beautiful.

Pacino and Orbach are a treasure to watch. To see such an established talent such as Pacino alongside one of the most beloved character actors of our times is just... fun! The two performances are some of the greatest these two giants have given us over the years. Pacino does his best to keep the pacing up, and succeeds, while also making the flashbacks actually work -- a rarity in the play-turned-film genre. Usually, such flashbacks are a torture to endure while we await permission to return to the meat of the story; they attempt to “open up” the play, to make the enterprise less claustrophobic. It's something I've never understood: if it's good enough for the stage, why shouldn't it be good enough for the screen? But I digress. Here they do “open up the play” but, as the screenplay and the original play are penned by the same writer, it also adds some subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle background.

Both men are messed up, yet both have kind hearts, as most people do. The more devious one is Orbach's Manheim: a man whose jealousy and frustration of artistic impotency practically demolishes a true and good friendship in one night. Pacino, on the other hand, while playing a raging hypochondriac who happens to be quite self-indulgent, ultimately feels love for his tortured friend. Toward the end, when Levine finally understands why his friend has such a problem with his new book, he tells him, “You don't think I would share with you?”

I queued this movie because I saw a clip of it when Pacino was on “Inside The Actor's Studio.” I saw him and Orbach, and wanted to see it. I figured it would be a nice little romp. I did not expect to see my past, and what I hope is NOT my future, immersed in great writing. Then again, that's why I love movies. You never know when one's going to come along, knock you on your proverbial ass and shake you out of whatever rut your life has settled into.

I loved this movie, and hopefully some of you will too.

4 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"The Maltese Falcon" - Head-to-Head Review -Thaddeus

2008-04-04T23:44:00.003-05:00

The great thing about pulp fiction is how sweepingly broad it is. It goes from proto-superheroes like Doc Savage and The Shadow to the shadows and madness of H.P. Lovecraft to the hard-boiled tales of the Continental Op and Sam Spade.

And, though Dashiell Hammett only penned four Spade stories in all, he still stands as one of the great archetypes of the American Private Detective, inspiring legions of other sharp-eyed, fictional investigators.

So, for the benefit of you readers, I've gone through Spade's initial appearance in the novel "The Maltese Falcon" as well as John Huston's 1941 film adaptation, staring Humphrey Bogart.

I have to say, I heartily recommend both. A film that is so true to the original text, especially considering the caliber of the source, is a rare and delicious treat. Lines flow directly from the author's pen through the mouths of top-notch actors.

Seriously, the amount of unforgettable characters in this film is nothing short of unfair: Bogart's self-assured Sam Spade, Mary Astor's dubious-yet-charming Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Sydney Greenstreet's oddly jovial-yet-scheming Kasper Gutman and, of course, Peter Lorre's irrepressibly wormy Joel Cairo. They're making the other movies look bad.

The major difference between the book and the film is, for the most part, in which scenes the story could live without. Film adaptation is always about streamlining and, for once, you won't find me complaining about what isn't there. The end product is so thoroughly satisfying that, frankly... who cares?

On the other hand, the one addition to the film that sticks out in my mind is far from unwelcome. Spade's final line, one of the greats in cinema history, is so perfect that I was shocked the first time I realized it wasn't born of the original text.

The censorship of the day sliced off any overt sexuality as well as references to homosexuality found in the original text, but I'm told the 1931 film version has more of the racy stuff, if that's more to your taste. I hope to give it a glance in the near-future, but I'm afraid I'll be prejudiced against the lack of Bogart.

Bottom line: herein we have a single story that stands atop its genre in two separate media. If you haven't watched and/or read "The Maltese Falcon," do so.

If you've only done one, do the other.

Some things are called "Classic" for a reason.

-Thad out.

"21" Theatrical Review (2.5/5) -Three Geek Review

2008-04-02T17:56:00.006-05:00

We at Three Geek recently sat through the "Based on a true story" gambling movie "21."

What did we think? Read on to find out.

Starting with Jeremiah:

“21” rises to such a level of mediocrity that it will leave you astounded by how little you care about any of the characters, their actions or their thoughts. A movie that inspired so little interest that the only character name I could remember was Mickey (Kevin Spacey) -- but that hardly counts, as it's also my boss' name. So from here on in, I will be referring to the characters as follows:

Main Character Dude – MCD (Jim Sturgess)

Hot Main Actress - HMA (Kate Bosworth)

Professor Dude – PD (Kevin Spacey)

Hot Token Asian Girl - HTAG(Liza Lapira)

Other White Guy Who Happens to be a raging prick – OWG {for short} (Jacob Pitts)

Hawaiian/Asian Dude? - HAD? (Aaorn Yoo)

Alright everybody got that? Good. MCD gets into MIT with the hopes of going on to Harvard Medical. He's a real math whiz and catches they eye of PD, who is impressed with his mad linear equations skills. PD talks MCD into joining a group he's cobbled together. They are all math whizzes and they count cards at Blackjack tables in Vegas on weekends.

MCD has a crush on HMA and it grows with every passing scene. To be fair, I had one too and I at least sympathize with MCD in this area. Anyhow, MCD is a freaking natural at counting cards. OWG gets really jealous that PD and HMA are showering MCD with accolades and friendship, leaving him behind in the cold.

Meanwhile HTAG says some lines in between all that and HAD? randomly steals/shoplifts. Soon they arouse the suspicion of Laurence Fishburne, a leftover from the mob days who makes sure nothing but honest gambling goes on. Oh, and eventually OWG becomes such a huge dick that they out him from the group. Thus causing MCD to get overly cocky and loosing 200 grand. PD and him have a huge fight and PD kicks him out and steals all the money MCD has been saving up for Harvard. So MCD and HMA plot a little scheme to get even with PD. Also HMA continue to look hot. HTAG and HAD? say some other things, HAD? steals more stuff and I could care less.

2.5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

The Thad says:

There's a strange, sinusoidal way of graphing my interest in "21." As we follow its hour and three minute course, I would oscillate between back and forth between interest and disinterest.

Being a massive dork, I found the sections on counting cards far more engaging than the bickering and infighting and with TV as unavoidable in American society as it happens to be, I've long been overfull of puffed-up, unnecessary drama.

What do I mean? Well, being the industrious, modern human that I am, I asked Wikipedia about the MIT Blackjack Team and, according to that grand repository of knowledge, all the shadowed secrecy presented on screen is nothing but a fat load of Hollywood flavored BS. There were classes; there were fliers on campus!

Inspired by a true story, indeed.

I mean, seriously: you don't have to link yourself to a true story just because some small grain of truth connected early in the writing process. That's how writing works. Ditch the crutch.

You want a rigged game? Watch "21" and bet on which obvious plot devices will come to oh-so-predictable predictable fruition... because, apparently, a band of geniuses trying to beat the Vegas System just isn't good enough on its own.

It could have been awesome. What it should have boiled down to is simple: Less boo-hoo, more math-math.

2.5 out of 5

-Thad out.

And Richard speaks:

I agree with Thad on this one; there was not enough math. Sure Vegas is exciting, but I have seen plenty of Vegas heist movies in my day and there are tons better than this.

What should have set it apart was how the MIT crew pulled it off. You get that in the beginning. The best part is when MCD, as Sherman put it, is learning the ropes and going through the training. There are code words, cards flying everywhere and a fast-paced “What is the count?” type attitude. If only the movie would have carried this over to the middle and end.

Once they get to Vegas it is no longer a card counting movie; it becomes the standard “beat the house and don’t get punched by the pit boss” movie. “Ocean” without the witty dialogue or gadgets. “Casino” without a cattle prod and Joe Pesci blowjob. “Fear and Loathing” without the drugs, violence and rock and roll. OK it was nothing like “Fear and Loathing.” Still, I would have accepted that.

The other problem, besides the characters, how they pulled it off, writing and acting, was how predictable the plot was.

There is a scene where MCD is playing a mule with the money to sneak into Vegas. (You can tell because they call him mule and neigh in front of a TSA agent.) His pants are stuffed full of cash, he is sweating bullets and he walks through the metal detector.

Slow motion. He slowly walks past the agent not saying a word, just looking straight ahead. She turns and yells, “Hold it, Sir!” or something to that effect. He ignores her and continues walking. She yells again, he puts his head down. She catches up to him and says, “You forgot your bag.”

It’s that predictable crap that ruins the movie more than anything. I can take a generic story, I can take a generic cast, just don’t give me a generic cast and story. That is what high school musical’s are for.

2.5 out of 5

"Dark Star" DVD Review (2.5/5) - Jeremiah

2008-03-31T17:29:00.004-05:00

Well, my first official Three Geek Marathon is coming to a close. This post will conclude my “Director Of The Month” series. My only regret is that my choice of movies, and shortcomings as a reviewer, have caused us to go out with a whimper instead of the much-anticipated bang. I hope you've enjoyed this little series. I hope to do it again in future months. If you've enjoyed it drop us a line or just comment on the blog. For you see, in addition to my conductive hearing loss, I was also tragically born without psychic powers. Sarcasm aside, without further ado I give you my mediocre best.

John Carpenter's "Dark Star" isn't necessarily a bad movie; it's just not a good one either. I spent most of the film with my head cocked to one side and my mouth slightly agape in awe and confusion as to what I was watching.

It took me a few minutes to realize that it was a parody. It's played so straight that if you're not careful you would mistake it for a really low budget sci-fi movie. Oh it is one, don't get me wrong, but the deal breaker is that they know it. Most of the comedy comes from the realistic way the characters are portrayed.

These are not the brave, intrepid explorers of Gene Roddenberry's universe. These are guys who are bored, have hankering to blow up a planet and will not flinch at whining, telling a superior to shut up or yelling at alien lifeforms to leave them the hell alone. In fact, one of the characters is not really authorized to even be an astronaut. He's an fuel maintenance worker who, through darkly bizarre circumstances, ended up on the voyage by mistake. The monologue which he gives to describe how he happened to arrive there, followed by footage of his past personal journal logues, are one of the few reasons that this film got as high of a rating as it did.

"Dark Star" has some good ideas, they just, for whatever reason, never really had the chance to voice themselves. It has moments, as I've said before, it's just that they weren't good enough to justify my recommending this movie to you.

As far as Carpenter movies go, this is one of his worst. I feel I should be really harsh -- trash it, mock the poor acting and cheesy special effects -- and yet I can't. He tried, god bless him, he tried. That's why I love the man. With all his movies he at least tries. Sure he fails; he's not a demi-God. But at least he puts forth the attempt. Even in the beginning he was scoring, editing, co-writing and co-directing his works. If anything, he's guilty of overreaching, which is actually quite laudable, in my opinion.

So, in spite of being torn between recommending this movie or not, I'm afraid I'm going to have to lean towards not. It's not terrible, but unfortunately it's also not good enough for you to spend the 83 minutes it requires of you. Carpenter fans only, and even those people should take caution.

2.5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

The Best Music You Never Heard: Splashdown -Richard

2008-03-26T14:27:00.003-05:00

Every once in a while you get sick of the radio. You reach for a CD case or iPod, but nothing seems to jump out as you thumb through your music collection. You want something new, something that you haven't heard on the radio every hour for the past week. You want something MTV doesn't have in their 30 minute music rotation. You want...

THE BEST MUSIC YOU NEVER HEARD

For me it was listening to 105.9, The Laser, in Middle School. It is where I discovered Radiohead and Ben Folds, years before "Karma Police" and "Brick." The Laser was a semi-college station out of Lawrence Kansas, and the Quazi-Pro DJ's could play most anything they wanted -- so they did.

A few years later it changed, then went away altogether... like all great Alternative stations. Still, I had my older friends and their older siblings who were in college and they always seemed to have the best new and retro music. They showed me bands like The Flaming Lips and showed me what I was missing in Bob Dylan, David Bowie and Johnny Cash.

Pretty soon I was making my friends listen to The Ditty Bops and Muse before they hit it big stateside. As well as this band...

THE BEST MUSIC YOU NEVER HEARD: Splashdown

My ex-roommate Dave introduced me to Splashdown my Junior year of college. Normally his taste in pop-rock was atrocious, but something about Splashdown worked. Splashdown was fronted by the incredibly talented Mellisa Kaplan on vocals and piano with guitarist/bassist Adam Buhler and Kasson Crooker doing all of the programming (i.e. drum machine). The trio managed to combine the catch of pop with the rawness of grunge and the harder alt. rock of the '90s. This is most prevalent in their second LP, "Blueshift."

"Blueshift" starts off with the harder pop-ballad "A Charming Spell." It's not the most unique piece in the world, with obvious influences by Garbage and Frogpond at times. Next is the R&B/Jazz song "Presumed Lost" which shows off Buhler's playing and Kaplan's amazing voice. Other tracks of note include "Iron Spy" which suffers from a little post-grunge angst, but shows off the much darker side of the band; "Waterbead," a pop song that rocks out in the middle for no reason, making it all the more cool; and my personal favorite, "Mayan Pilot."

"Mayan Pilot" has the best bass riff since Yes's "Roundabout." It's a mix of Funk bass, melodic vocals and a touch of Latin guitar. Vocally reminiscent of Nora Jones, it's the swan song of the album.

Sadly, Splashdown never broke into the mainstream and broke up over label issues just after they got the song "Karma Slave" on the "Titan AE" Soundtrack. Still, the band welcomes downloads of their material. Almost all of their material can be found Here

Just follow the link and enjoy.

-Richard

"John Carpenter's The Thing" DVD Review (4/5) -Jeremiah

2008-03-24T23:37:00.004-05:00

I hate it when aliens have the unmitigated audacity to crash land on our planet and attempt to mimic our form. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Concurrently, I love it when people like Kurt Russell make it their mission to a) Snoop out who the counterfeit person is, b) Eradicate the hell out of them and c.) Do their damndest to stop the single-minded shape shifting baneful aliens from conquering our little space-rock.

Which is why "John Carpenter's The Thing" is, I believe, his best work. It has all the typical Carpenter ingredients, but in rare form. While the plot is still the Carpenter-esque recipe of a band of friends stranded in an isolated location forced to deal with an unabated evil, he managed to put together a top-notch ensemble cast.

With a dozen essential parts, he does a precise job of framing and coordinating his actors. His pacing is in rare form as well. We move at a leisurely pace, not zooming heedlessly through the movie, as another director would be prone to do. Instead, Carpenter is more interested in the psychological aspect of the story. "Are you you, or am I me?" Alliances form, are questioned and disintegrate. It's high-quality suspense.

He is assisted in this effort by his phenomenal cast: MacReady (Kurt Russell), Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley), Childs (Keith David), Gary (Donald Moffat), Norris (Charles Hallahan), Clark (Richard Masur), and Copper (Richard Dysart). There are some others, and their work is fine as well, it's just that I had to stop. It was becoming too much like a grocery list.

The actors rise to the occasion, particularly Brimley and Moffat. Russell is reliable as usual, as he brings his rugged demeanor and all the same Russellness that we love him for. Brimley and Moffat, however, seem to be playing a different game. Their eyes betray certain anxieties and fears before the alien even shows up. Their performances impressed me the most. Masur manages to have the most haunting eyes of the cast, though. A sort of forlorn longing that peers out of Carpenter's shadow in a way that's just a touch disturbing.

This may be Russell's best performance, sans “Death Proof.” From the first moment we meet MacReady, we're on his side. What makes his performance so good here? It could be his natural charisma, his swagger or his full and manly beard.

I'm guessing it's how he wields a flame thrower.

Also, few things are as fun as watching Wilford Brimley coming unhinged and swinging an ax at large control panels. Russell's beard and Brimleys raging insanity alone are practically worth the price of the DVD.

The film balances itself perfectly with gore, dialogue, music and plain old anticipatory tension. Sometimes the special effects are so good they are in danger of stealing the show, but Carpenter manages to offset this problem with the story. The movie is, in fact, not a re-make of the Howard Hawk's original -- although Carpenter does pay some homage to it. It's based on the story “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell, Jr. Which is a sort of hodge-podge of an Agatha Christie/sci-fi story.

What the movie shows us is Carpenter, the master of low-budget film making, is at his best when he has a budget. It's weird; it's like it completely disproves everything I've talked about.

Long story short, “The Thing” is a great movie. Sure to have you guessing and jumping at the same time.

4/5 Stars

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

"Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" Book Review (4.5/5) -Thaddeus

2008-03-22T00:00:00.003-05:00

There's something about a great title.

As a supposed writer, I've found titles to be even more elusive than those confounding opening lines that have me bloodying my forehead on the laptop keyboard. The right title can tie everything together and if you have one out the gate, I've found, it makes whatever world you're weaving feel more stable as you build it. And when uncertainty strikes, when you find yourself asking "Where the hell am I? Where do I go from here?" it's comforting to have that signpost at the top of the page. Like the American flag on the moon.

You look up and say, "Oh, right. I'm on America's moon."

What? It's ours. We put a flag in it.

"Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" is maybe the best book title ever. I was nudged in the direction of this volume by an English professor who understood my hunger for noir and unfathomable weirdness. I was sold on the title alone -- anyone who put that right on the door was worthy of my attention.

Writer Haruki Murakami has put together two seemingly unrelated worlds in this gritty tale of the world behind the world behind the world. The chapters alternate between the titular narratives: one follows a data encrypter drawn into conflicts he never knew existed, the other shows a man in a walled city with his shadow cut off along with his memories.

The voice, in the "Hard-Boiled Wonderland" sections is detached and cool. He knows about songs and food and books I haven't read, but not in a snobbish way; he's just like that. "The End of the World" is a heady blend of the mundane and the inescapable weirdness of fantasy.

The worlds float along, side by side, telling separately engaging stories with little connection between them at first. But things swish and swirl and are tied together in a whirlwind of madness.

It's the world the way I like to read it. Crazy as you like, with all the finicky details of everyday life.

I'll be looking for more by Murakami. You should look up this one, and probably any others you happen by.

-Thad out

"Starman" DVD Review (3.5/5) - Jeremiah

2008-03-18T18:02:00.004-05:00

Yes, it's an “E.T.” rip off. No, it's not as great as “E.T.” It is, however, one of my favorite John Carpenter movies. It's a very atypical Carpenter film, though: it has an actual budget, it's low on the campiness and the cast is full of solid performers. It was written by somebody else, and (gasp) the music was scored by another person as well. Hell, it's the only Carpenter film to have an Oscar nomination -- Jeff Bridges for Best Actor.

All that aside, it still feels like Carpenter. While he's not the film's composer, it still has a synthesizer track. And it still sounds like a Carpenter plot, even though he did not write it. It's filled with beautiful, almost western-like shots, which is very much Carpenter.

The alien (Jeff Bridges) crash lands in Wisconsin after being shot down by the military. He lands near a cabin inhabited by the gorgeous Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen). He uses a strand of her recently deceased husband's hair to copy his appearance. Jenny is understandably disturbed by this thing in her house, this thing that looks like her husband, yet isn't. Long story short, they go a road trip to Arizona, all the while being chased by the military and a lone scientist, Mark Shirman (Charles Martin Smith), who hope to get there first.

Along the way, we get treated to something fascinating. Rather than make this a typical “Alien phone home” movie, Carpenter goes another direction. It's a road trip movie which evolves into a love story. Carpenter's deft hand is only part of the reason. The real saving grace is Bridges and Allen.

Their performance and chemistry is mesmerizing. Allen seems to be honestly genuine, which is rare to see in these types of movies. Her evolution of fright, to confusion, to uncomfortable acceptance, to compassion, and finally leading to all-out love is a joy to behold. Yet, it's Bridges that practically steals the show. His physicality is, simply put, brilliant. The way he moves, as if he is unaccustomed to all the joint, nerves, and muscle reflexes of humans is astonishing. He talks, almost as if there's a delay between the thought and the speech. The way he gradually eases into being human, while never fully getting a handle on all the simple motor functions is well worth the Oscar nod he received.

Carpenter wisely chooses to let the story unfold in the foreground, while the majestic landscapes in the background struggle to steal every scene. Sure, at times the film gets a little schmaltzy, but that's okay. It's a refreshing attempt at the Sci-fi genre, plus it furthers itself from the phrase, “E.T. Clone”.

Personally it's one of my favorites, even though it lacks the Carpenter staples. Maybe that's why I love it so. It was a bold attempt to try something different. Or maybe I should say try the same thing in a different way. Either way, it's a sweet movie with a wonderful underlying musical score and some gorgeous cinematography. Bridges will astound you and Karen Allen will remind you just how good she was never given the chance to be.

3.5 out of 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Rocketpack Dreams" -Thaddeus

2008-03-14T15:31:00.004-05:00

There's a passage in the Bible where St. Paul writes: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

I hate that passage.

Now I'm sure, since I've never really read scripture, that I am somehow missing a greater context or symbolism or one of those other deep, meaningful things that I'm frequently too thick to pick up on... but the idea that what you are as a child isn't useful anymore when you're an adult is utter foolishness to me.

There's a place, in our hearts and our minds, where we go and while we're there we know that anything is possible -- that, with mere human hands, things of the imagination can be made real.

I believe in heroes because I believed in them as a child. I believe in flight and robots and aliens. I believe there's nothing we can't beat.

...

Dave Stevens died this earlier week.

Stevens created The Rocketeer. He did storyboards for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and for Michael Jackson's "Thriller."

The movie "The Rocketeer" is one of those things that stuck with me. Sure it wasn't a broad, commercial success, but it worked fine for me. Flight is one of those things that will win me over real easy. Flight and fighting Nazis.

Recently, one of my friends found a collection of "Rocketeer" comics. I read them and I watched the movie again and it was still magic.

We shouldn't let go of adventure, of our dreams, just because we're taller and have to buy our own food now.

Dave Stevens was a guy who gave me more to wish for and dream about, and so, in his honor, I'm telling all of you to take some time this weekend to look back at the things that lit a fire under your own imagination.

-Thad out

"John Carpenter's They Live" DVD Review (3.5/5) - Jeremiah

2008-03-12T18:12:00.004-05:00

Aliens have arrived on Planet Earth and disguised themselves as members of the Upper Class. The only way to see them, the subliminal messages they put out through advertising -- television et al. -- and their flying robots... are with pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses. It's helpful to start saying that out loud, so you realize what you're dealing with.

Buried deep within all this absurdity, there lies, barely breathing, a message. “The Rich get richer and the Poor get poorer. Well no more! Eat hot molten lead, Alien SCUM!” It takes the movie about half an hour before it devolves into the classic Carpenter movie. But this doesn't take away from it; it's still hella-enjoyable.

How can you hate the movie with the first-class line: “I've come to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubblegum!” The line is one thing by itself, but it's Roddy Piper's oddly syncopated delivery that immortalizes it.

On top of that, it has one of the best fight scenes ever. It's a bare knuckle fist fight between Nada (Piper) and Frank (Keith David), in an attempt to get Frank to put on the sunglasses. The fight lasts something like ten minutes. At first it's cool, then funny, then the longer it goes on the more entrancing it becomes. It's a scene where testosterone is wholly unleashed upon the screen. Never before have two men fought so hard, for so long, for so little. I mean, just put on the damn glasses.

Of course, the scene is a metaphor for how Nada only wantsFrank to wake up from his dream and see the truth... with a bitchin' body slam in the middle of it.

The glasses allow the wearer to see beyond the bombardment of subliminal messages in advertising. When Piper puts on the glasses, the screen goes to black and white. This effect is both cheap and really effective. All the billboards, and magazines say things like “Obey,” “Submit,” “Marry and Reproduce,” “Sleep.” My personal favorite was when he looked at a hand full of money with the glasses, and you see blank strips of paper that say, “This Is Your God”.

The aliens look just like you and me, until you put the glasses on, then they look like something of a medical book. They have watches that allow them to communicate with one another, and also allows them to teleport -- of course, they're Rolexes. One of the shortcomings of the movie, is that it never fully elaborates on where the Aliens came from. How do they look like us? Are they like chameleons? Are they a parasite of some sort? The movie glosses over this to get to the action. Which is mainly Piper and David hurtling one liners at people they are about to mow down in hail of shotgun shrapnel.

The idea is really cool, and sadly more relevant today than it was in 1988. Of all his movies that have been re-made, none of them cry out to be more so than “They Live.” In a society that has raised a non-entity such as Paris Hilton to it's highest echelon of celebrity, we are in desperate need of a wake up call. Our consumerism and our resilient belief that those who have more are better than us is even more outrageous than it was during the Regan era.

"They Live" is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Carpenter movies. Even his usual synthesizer music is almost non-existent. Oh it's there, let's not kid ourselves, but he decides to throw in some harmonica, giving the whole musical score a bluesy feel. It sets the mood to a pitch-perfect degree. His camera work, as per Carpenter, is taught and lax at the same time. Just watch the infamous fight scene; it's filmed and edited extremely well. You can give it all the crap you want about how it's so over the top manly it makes you wanna puke. But you can not deny the precision of the pacing of that scene.

This movie surprised me. I went in hoping I was going to be able to rip it a new one and, true to form, Carpenter won me over. He always does. The man is a bastard like that.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"Hotel Dusk: Room 215" Nintendo DS Review 4.5/5 -Richard

2008-03-10T21:08:00.000-05:00

There has been a trend, on the Nintendo DS, of bringing back the point-and-click games of the NES days -- games like "Deja Vu" and "Maniac Mansion." This is evident in the "Phoenix Wright" and "Trauma Center" games of the past few years, but none are as blatant as Cing's game "Hotel Dusk: Room 215."

"Hotel Dusk: Room 215" is the successor to Cing's 2005 DS game "Trace Memory" and follows the same basic principal. You control the main character with the stylus, clicking on items to examine or collect them as well as to talk to other characters and collect information. After doing this, you use the items and information to solve puzzles and advance the plot. The difference is that you are no longer a little girl searching for her father, but an ex-New York cop working as a traveling salesman while trying to find information about your ex-partner.

The controls are straight-forward, but tend to be a little tedious at times. You never know what in a room is interactive until you move the styles over it. Still, the game does not suffer much because of it.

The music is your typical multi-channel midi arrangement that you see in most DS games, but they go an interesting route with primarily jazz arrangements, which really fits the Noir feel. Sound effects are almost non-existent.

The game has a great storyline, but what sets it apart are the characters. You have the jaded, middle-aged hotel manager and owner, a Latino maid and cook who keeps everything running, the ex-con bartender/bellhop and a plethora of interesting guests, each with their own intricacies and secrets. Every character is tied together; some have very obvious and open relationships and others are hidden and closely guarded.

The game is broken down in to chapters that take place between set times. One chapter might be 9:30PM-10:00PM while the next is 10:00PM-11:00PM and each chapter is broken up into three parts. Before you can advance to the next part, or time, you have to complete a series of objectives. This adds an element of real-time, or as close as you can expect. Some things may take you an hour or more to figure out, while the game has progressed only 10 minutes. Meanwhile, another section may require you to talk to someone which takes 5 minutes in real life, but progresses the story another 20 minutes. Still, this is a unique idea that plays very well.

The pros of the game definitely the plot and characters, while the cons are the controls and replay value. Once you play through the game the mystique is gone, and that is the main value of the game.

It may be a little hard to find, but if you do it will only run you $25 to $30. If you enjoy puzzle games or Noir stories, it is highly worthwhile -- a solid choice.

4.5 out of 5

"John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13" DVD Review -Jeremiah (3.5 out of 5)

2008-03-07T18:05:00.005-06:00

“In the meantime, I got this plan. It's called “Save Ass.” And the way it works is this – I slip outta one of these windows and I run like a bastard!”

You just don't get dialogue like that anymore. Hell, you could say the same thing about “John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13.” Campy, low-budget, yet competently made movies are, sadly, a thing of the past. Nowadays, if they are low budget, they aren't made with a hand anywhere near as sure as Carpenter's. (sigh)

For being only his second film, it was actually pretty decent -- at times masterful, yet still falling short of being a masterpiece. All the Carpenter staples are there: from the wonderfully bad acting to the simplistic yet effective synthesizer music, With stops in the middle for an assortment of strangers flung together by fate to battle a rarely seen and impetuous evil.

The story is clear... sort of. Even Carpenter admitted some of the elements were “murky” on the DVD commentary. Ethan Bishop (the marvelously named Austin Stoker) is keeping a watch over a police house in the process of being decommissioned. With him are two sectaries/switchboard operators, Julie (Nancy Kyes) and Leigh (Laurie Zimmer). A Prison transfer bus stops by, because one of their prisoners is sick. While they are waiting the station is assailed by a gang. Killing all but two of the new arrivals. There is the nefarious Napoleon Wilson (with the prodigious name of Darwin Joston) and a prisoner known only as Wells (mundanely christened Tony Burton). Among the casualties are the warden, Starker ( the divine alliteration of Charles Cyphers).

Now you may be asking, “Why is this gang attacking this police station?” That's a perfectly fair question. Let's see if we can figure it out. It's either a.) One of their members was killed by Lawson (the blandly titled Martin West), the man who ran into the station. Granted, he shot the gang member because the gang member shot his little girl, Kathy (Kim Richards). So apparently this chain of events caused this gang to just charge our hapless heroes en masse. Or there's b.) Sunspots.

(stifling laughter) I love John Carpenter.

The acting is crap-tatic all around. The best performances come from Burton and Stoker. They manage to bring some energy, while everyone else seems to sleep walk through their roles. Yet the standout is Darwin Jotson. He is phenomenally bland, so much so that he becomes fascinating to watch. It's the Uncanny Valley Effect, which is essentially the theory that says once something reaches a certain point then becomes the opposite of what it is.

Now I would like to retract a statement from my previous essay. The statement was, "...he cannot resist the ever-fickle siren song known as the 'Casio keyboard.'" Upon listening to the DVD commentary and talking to some friends who are more musically inclined than myself, I realize I was in the wrong. When "Assault" was made, synthesizers were not as common as they are today. In fact, the recording process was such that you had to record one track for each chord, or something along those lines. In other words, while now we would just use a keyboard, back then it was a long and arduous mixing process. With this information it makes the movie's musical score all the more impressive. For while it sounds like the base line for a bad 80's dance song, it is, in fact, pretty good considering what he had to work with.

The movie has a wonderfully slow yet rapt pace to it. It is very much an urban western. Urban in setting and cast, but western in mood and style. In fact, Carpenter has cited "Rio Bravo" as a major influence. Indeed, the long pans of the local landscape and terse delivery of the dialogue only serve to prove that fact.

There is a scene I must mention, which stands out. It involves two prisoners trying to decide who goes on the suicide mission the group has come up with. They make the decision by playing an ancient hand jive game known as "Hot Potato." There's something uniquely entrancing about watching two grown men play this game. To give Carpenter his due: he manages to, in the midst of this absurdity, create a thin veil of suspense. Achieved through a mixture of cut-aways, slow zooms, and music. An early hint of his technical mastery.

The faceless army of gang members are seen as just that, faceless. They spend most of the movie obscured by shadows. Their reason for attacking our hapless heroes in a "kamikazi" fashion is loosely explained. They are trying to kill a bereaved father.

Yet can they really be that mad? Did they not expect some kind of retribution for killing a little girl? Especially from the father? Of course, there's always the "Sun Spots" theory. (smile)

There is a remake of, "Assault on Precinct 13". Unlike the remake of "Escape From New York," it is not by Carpenter. In fact, from what I've read it contains actual actors: the depressingly underrated Brian Dennehy, Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne, among others. They have even given it a full blown plot, free of the murkiness of the original. Sadly, in the modern update there is no Napoleon Wilson.

What made the original soooo good was that it managed to be good in spite of itself. I guarantee the remake doesn't have anything half as original or bizarre as the "Hot Potato" scene, and that's a shame. Real plot, real actors... no fun. Talk about failure to understand the source material.

*** ½ out of *****

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

"How to Build a Robot Army" Book Review (5/5) -Thaddeus

2008-03-05T16:55:00.003-06:00

We live in a world fraught with incredible dangers. Behind every corner, lurking within every shadow are unspeakable hordes of evil that threaten to tear down all that is good in the world and leave humanity as nothing more than a gored and shredded memory.

I've been saying this, loudly and often, for years now. And despite people decrying me as "unstable," "rambling" and "kind of a downer," I think I've found a kindred spirit in Daniel H. Wilson, Ph.D.

His latest book, "How to Build a Robot Army: Tips on Defending Planet Earth Against Alien Invaders, Ninjas, and Zombies," delivers a delicious mixture of technical information and entertainment. It's a primer on modern and future robotics, spiced with science fiction and pop-culture.

Aside from those threats mentioned in the title, Wilson also teaches readers how to take on mummies, pirates and the King of All Monsters: Godzilla (just to name a few), armed with nothing more than common, household robots (such as vacuums or toy dinosaurs) and stolen, military prototypes -- hey, if the world is crumbling around you, you can't afford to be burdened by useless and unweildly scruples.

Science is fantastic.

People forget that sometimes, but it's absolutely true... and it's absolutley essential to our progress as a species. That's why I highly recommend this book. It's informative and it's fun. Knowledge doesn't have to be dry -- you can enjoy learning things.

The slick illustrations by Richard Horne tie the perfect bow around the package; sharp, intelligent writing and a cool aesthetic... what's not to like?

Buy this book and read it. The future is here!

...

And, as a post-script, I give the same high recommendation to Wilson's previous books: "How to Survive a Robot Uprising" and "Where's My Jetpack?"

Though, if you're like me, you'll spend the rest of your life obsessing over the fact that we've had functional jetpack technology since the '60s... and whining to your friends about it... over and over.

-Thad out