ThreeGeek Presents: Watch These Movies On Christmas!

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.

Read More......

"Burn After Reading" -- A ThreeGeek Review

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.

Read More......

Batman III: Rumors, Hopes and Fears

"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

Read More......

I HATE World of Warcraft Pt. 1

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

Read More......

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

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.

Read More......

ThreeGeek vs. The Pink Robots

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

Read More......

"The Happening" and Other Weird Stories

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

Read More......

"Get Smart"

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.

Read More......

"21" Theatrical Review (2.5/5) -Three Geek Review

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

Read More......

The Best Music You Never Heard: Splashdown -Richard

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

Read More......

Allow myself to introduce... myself -Richard

You know, I never introduced myself.

Last week, Sherman told us a little about himself and what makes a good movie to him. Maybe I should do the same.

I can't tell you my earliest movie memory, or when I KNEW that I loved them. Hell, I don't know that I could tell you much about the movie "D.A.R.Y.L." other than I loved it as a kid (We all have guilty pleasures). What I can tell you is that I love stories.

Beautiful shots are wonderful and a soundtrack can really add to a movie, but it is mostly fluff to me. Now don't get me wrong, they are a HUGE part of the process, I just don't linger on them like Jeremiah does. No, my favorite part is the characters.

My favorite movies feature great characters, as do my favorite books, comics, games and television shows. I would much rather see a character grow than a panning shot of the landscape. But take what I am saying with a grain of salt; truly great stories need both.

Take Stephen King's "The Dark Tower" series. King takes you to the land of Midworld. You can see the lifeless plains in "The Gunslinger" and the desolate beaches of "The Drawing of the Three". Yet you can also imagine Roland's face and the jacket that him nemesis Randall Flag wears. And you see Roland and his Ka-Tet grow. I weeped like Dick Vermeil after a kickoff return when a character died or left the group, and I did this because I knew them, I felt close to them and I felt for them.

My favorite movie of all time is not a prefect film. I would not even give it 5 stars; maybe 4 1/2 but never 5. That is "Princess Mononoke." Very rarely does an animated film show emotion like Mononoke does. Hayao Miyazaki creates a world of strife and war, of Gods and demons against mortals. But he also creates a world filled with multi-dimensional characters. I love this film because of that, and when the end credits rolled the first time I watched it, I could not help but release the emotion that movie built up inside me. I didn't cry because it was sad, or because I was happy. I cried because I was told a story that will forever be etched into my brain and I knew I could never experience the mystery of it again. I will always be waiting for the camera to zoom up and the flowers to bloom over Iron Town.

Enough of this whiny bullshit though, a new review comes out Wednesday.
See you then,

-Richard

Read More......

"Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trials and Tribulations" Nintendo DS Review (3/5) -Richard

For the past few weeks, whenever I had a minute of free time, my DS has been in my hands and I have been playing through the third game in the "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney" series.

For those of you not familiar with the games, you play a young defense lawyer named Phoenix Wright. A man hell bent on uncovering the truth. The game takes place in "America" a land that only the Japanese could conceive. Actually this is a lie. It is painfully obvious from the characters, geography and legal system that Capcom just replaced the name "Japan" with "USA" and made a few changes to names and currency.

The legal system in the Phoenix Wright games is warped to say the least. There is no such thing as juries, "innocent until proven guilty," reasonable doubt, or even bail. The beginning of most cases start with a vague cut scene featuring the victim, the accused, and usually a shadowy figure in the background. This shadowy figure be presented as the prosecution's "star witness" near the end of the trial, and will almost always be the real killer. That being said, the games are immensely enjoyable and can be enjoyed by gamers and non-gamers of all ages.

"Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trials and Tribulations" is not a new concept at this point. The series has been around since late 2005 stateside on the DS, and since 2001 on the Game Boy Advance. At this point playing a Phoenix Wright game is like slipping into an old pair of jeans or some old tennis shoes. You have been around the series long enough to be comfortable with it.

Most of the stock cast returns for at least a case. Phoenix is still the main character, he still has to deal with former rival Miles Edgeworth and prosecuting prodigy Franziska Von Karma. Spirit medium and assistant Maya Fey and her younger cousin Pearl are still tagging around helping/annoying him. The late Mia Fey still pops up in the form of a channeled spirit to help him at trail every once in a while. Even some of the old witnesses and clients make a return in the form of Larry Butz, Adrian Andrews and Maggey Byrde. Newcomers include the masked prosecutor "Godot" and reoccurring villain Dahlia Hawthorn who try and make Phoenix's life a living hell any chance they get.

There are two parts to the gameplay and both are pretty straightforward. When not in court, Phoenix is collecting evidence and talking to witnesses. This part is reminiscent of the old NES game "Deja Vu" and involves scanning the screen and reading about anything that sticks out and then questioning the witnesses about these things. Sometimes this is as simple as finding a scrap of paper at their feet, other times it requires you to look inside of a bookshelf and then take something Phoenix found across town. The biggest problem here is that you only get a few options of where to go at each screen, so getting across town means that you have to wait for 3 or 4 loading screens just to get there. Luckily this is a cartridge game and the load times are fast.

The other part of the game, the trials, tend to have more flaws. The trial starts with a little banter between Phoenix and whoever he is facing in the prosecutor's seat. The judge will say something inept and the first witness will be called. After a witness testimony Phoenix gets to "Cross Examine" the witness while involves either pressing the testimony for clarity or presenting a piece of evidence that contradicts the testimony. the problem here is that you have a limited number of mistakes you can make; this is represented by a life bar. Pressing a witness generally does not cause a penalty, and when it does it is made very clear by the judge that there will be consequences.

The problem here is that the contradictions will either be painfully obvious (i.e. a witness calling something red when it is blue or talking about a piece of evidence that was destroyed before they should have seen it) or so random and obscure that you either have to look at a guide or sit around presenting every little thing at every statement.

Other flaws include the forgettable music and the fact that the game has zero replay value. It's like the board game "Crack the Case." Once you know the answer to the question, the mystery of it is gone. Everything in the game is on a preset script, making no variation. And the joy of the game is finding things out.

That being said the story is fun and the characters are great for a laugh. Most people are going to clock at least 20 hours playing the game, and with the price of DS games, it is worth the $29.95 you are going to pay for it.

Overall I would give the game a 3/5. If you enjoy puzzle games with witty dialog and entertaining storylines I would strongly advise a playthrough.

-Richard

Read More......

"Thank You for Smoking" DVD Review (5/5) -Richard

Some movies make you squeamish, others make you laugh or cry, "Thank You for Smoking" makes you think.

At least it did for me. It had me thinking for hours. Big Tobacco is the enemy right? What about an overprotective government that wants to warn the public about the obvious or legislate prohibition? In the end everyone has their faults, flaws, shortcomings, honor and brilliance in Jason Reitman's adaptation of Christopher Buckley's "Thank You for Smoking."

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is not a spin man, he is THE spin man, and his employer is "Big Tobacco." From the first five minutes you understand how good the man is. Turning the tragedy of a young teen with cancer, telling his tale on national television, into a win for his side and entirely humiliating a congressional aide (Todd Louiso) in the process.

Even the name "Nick Naylor" is powerful. There is a raw masculinity to it. The alliteration helps to punch the 'Nail her" in his last name. This is a character that men wish they were and women openly or secretly lust after. He is all that is man. Still, he is the Vice President of Tobacco Studies and the public face of tobacco, which makes him a generally hated man.

His boss, B.R. (J.K. Simmons), is jealous. He has Senator Ortolan Finistirre (William H. Macy) trying to do everything in his power to blame him for smoking deaths, the original Marlboro Man (Sam Elliot) is pissed that he is dying of cancer, Naylor's ex-wife and her boyfriend think that he is a bad influence, and the sexy reporter Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) is trying to break a story on the tobacco industry.

The only real friends he has are Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner), the face of S.A.F.T.Y. (Firearms); Polly Baily (Maria Bello) of the Moderation Council (Alcohol); "Captian" (Robert Duvall), the last true giant of Tobacco; and his son Joey (Cameron Bright).

I am hard-pressed to find a bad performance in this movie. Simmons, Elliot, Macy and Duvall bring the film credence with their names and amazing talent; Holmes, Koechner and Bello were the fresh faces or lesser known actors that proved themselves. Rob Lowe, playing the Hollywood mega-agent Jeff Megall put in a great performance that was reminiscent of his character Sam on "The West Wing" with added confidence. Even young Cameron Bright did an amazing job as Joey Naylor. All that aside the real stand out performance came from Aaron Eckhart.

Jeff's Assistant in the movie explains that "Before Jeff, Matthew McConaughey was just a face. Now he is a name." That statement rings true for Eckhart in this film. This was his breakaway roll. Usually when you see a movie you can say, "(Person) was great in that, but what if the character were played by Deniro/Sean Connery/Batman." I could not say that coming away from this film. Eckhart nailed it. To me, he was Nick Naylor. And it was the first time I started saying, "Let's see THIS movie, I heard it has Aaron Eckhart," as opposed to being in the middle of it and going, "Hey, THAT GUY! What else has he been in?"

Another breakaway performance came from director Jason Reitman. This was his first feature film, and for someone's first film to be on my top 10 movie list of all time says something. His shots are inspiring, the music choice is superb and he demands the best from his performs. Even one as young as Cameron Bright. Don't get me wrong, Bright is a great childhood actor and I have seen him in some wonderful movies. I have also seen some pretty terrible ones as well, and getting a kid to put in a great performance I feel is a mark of a great director.

Overall this is one of my favorite movies. It is smart, political and funny while still being entertaining to mass audiences and not coming off as pretentious.

5/5

Read More......

"There Will Be Blood" (4.75/5) Roundtable Interview Extravaganza -Three Geek Review

Last Friday, The Geeks saw "There Will Be Blood," Paul Thomas Anderson's adaptation of the Upton Sinclair book "Oil!"
The next day Thad brought out his tape recorder and the three of them sat down and discussed the movie. This is what transpired.

"There Will Be Blood" (4.75/5) Roundtable Interview Extravaganza -Three Geek Review

- CAST -

The Geeks:

Jeremiah Sherman (JS)
Richard Kloiber (RK)
Thaddeus Stoklasa (TS)

Also Featuring:

Dustin Blakeman (DB)
Eric Johnson (EJ)
Hank McCoy the Cat (HM)

(General, introductory ruckus)

TS: So, we went to a movie.

JS: Yes. It was physically and emotionally exhausting.

TS: That's a good place to start. I would highly recommend that everyone possible see this movie, but eat a meal beforehand or something.

JS: Eat a meal, be sure you're well-rested.

TS: Don't go into this at the end of a long day.

EJ: As you two know, how hard is it to get me to go to the movies?

TS: Fuck you.

EJ: I saw this movie twice, bitches.

JS: You didn't even go to the actual movie.

EJ: (Over 'movie') I saw it twice.

JS: You saw it on your little, piddly-ass television over there.

EJ: I watched it twice!

TS: I can see the transcript now. "Eric says stuff" we'll just have a big, blacked-out part.

EJ: It's the real, "Remove Garfield's talking, you only see Jon's."

TS: You are like a --

DB: (from basement) I think it reads more like a government document_ (Eric laughs.)

TS: Oh wait, how do you black things out if the background's black, do I have to white it out?

JS: Oh yeah, my mom complained about that.

TS: Kloiber hasn't said anything yet.

RK: I've heard a few complaints about that; those people are dumb or have crappy monitors.

JS: Yes.

TS: Okay, aside from bitching about the few people who deign to read our site, how about we... (Jeremiah laughs) How about we...

EJ: That's me.

RK: This movie is a downer.

JS: Oh yeah, it's a hell of a downer.

TS: But I love downers!

EJ: I love uppers.

JS: I mean --

RK: Eric! We will banish you to your room!

TS: No! We'll never get him out again.

JS: The movie is basically focused on greed and piousness and the downfall of -- what being focused solely on those two emotions can slowly do to you.

RK: I'm gonna go ahead and add, it is also -- as much as I hate the term -- about selling out your beliefs.

JS: Oh, yeah. It is about... exactly what you were saying.

TS: Yeah, that's solid. I like that. I gotta say -- what was it we said before? -- the one big complaint is the kind of weird transitions it has.

JS: I didn't mind that so much; as much as you did.

TS: It wasn't so much that I minded, but it was the one thing one thing that stuck out as -- well the sound cue, in the beginning, kind of freaked me out but I got used to that.

RK: I liked that choice.

JS: Yeah. I liked the whole, almost like a horror movie --

TS: It was! It was like a slasher-sound thing goin' on.

RK: Although I will say, I didn't think the first scene needed to be in the movie.

JS: Really?

RK: No.

TS: The, uh... the silver mine?

RK: Yeah. It didn't set anything up...

JS: I think the beginning shows just the pure dedication he has to the greed. Just the type of man that he is.

TS: Because it actually started where the story started, as opposed to starting where was most interesting?

JS: Yeah. It started, basically -- we saw this character start to build up, from ground zero. The only thing he could do more than that would be starting at childhood, which would be just a little...

TS: Yeah.

JS: They started at the point in his life when he gave into his competitiveness.

TS: They started at the beginning of the road that you follow through the movie.

JS: Right.

TS: I could see that.

JS: It's a flawed movie, but I don't know what I would change about it. And the only argument is to make it shorter, but even then... there was no one moment where I wasn't enjoying it.

RK: It doesn't need to be shorter.

TS: No. I always find short movies to be criminal. But that, that's a me thing.

JS: Beautifully shot. Gorgeous cinematography. Just the landscape alone, the oil rig catching on fire.

TS: That was fantastic.

JS: Or the shot of Daniel Day-Lewis sitting in front of the burning oil rig, setting the dynamite.

RK: Him looking off into the ocean.

TS: Daniel Day-Lewis is a frighteningly good actor.

TS: It's what you were saying before, about making everything happen to the audience. That's why it's such a visceral experience.

JS: Yeah, it makes it a visceral experience.

TS: I love that word and I'm gonna end up using it to much in everything I write, forever.

JS: That's what movies should strive to do. That's why I made that reference last night, how it's like an American Herzog movie. Herzog movies tend to be visceral experiences.

TS: Yeah. And that is so important. People need to engage the audience.

JS: Yeah.

TS: Otherwise, y'know... I could see any movie.

JS: I will say that for a man who is not even 30 yet (according to Wikipedia, he is over 30), I believe -- Paul Thomas Anderson -- this being his fourth film, this is fantastic.

TS: How often does he come out with films?

RK: Every couple years.

JS: "Punch Drunk Love," if I can find it... came out in... 2002.

TS: Hold on. (snags the DVD from Jeremiah) That's goin' home with me.

JS: How about "Magnolia"?

TS: Probably that, too. I got a week, and I don't have a job.

RK: "Hard Eight."

JS: "Hard Eight" came out, ooh... early '90s (1996)?

RK: I'm guessing he's older than 30. I'm betting he's 35.

JS: That's still pretty incredible.

TS: You wanna put some money down on that?

JS: No, 'cause we don't have any money to bet.

TS: Exactly! Uhm... so give us money, viewers.

RK: I -- I said this last night --

TS: We'll take your word on that.

RK: This is a Faustian tale.

JS: I would agree totally.

RK: They don't actually sell their souls to the devil, but they do sell their souls whether they realize it or not.

JS: Well, one could make the argument that the devil was oil.

RK: Yeah.

JS: And they did sell their souls for the oil. Y'see, my two favorite emotions that movies deal with -- well, my first favorite is love. My second favorite is greed, and greed is really just the negative derivative of love. Greed is corrupt love.

TS: Yeah, it's loving yourself and your own success.

JS: That very much is a corrupt form of love. It takes the idea of love and puts in the dirty aspects of selfishness, obsessiveness...

TS: Bizarro Love.

JS: Yes. Exactly. For the comic book fans, Bizarro Love would be the perfect example of greed. But yeah, this movie is almost about 100% pure greed, and will make you uncomfortable. But in the best way.

TS: Oh, yeah.

JS: I haven't felt this breathless since "Grindhouse."

TS: But for entirely different reasons.

JS: For entirely different reasons.

TS: I think this is one of those movie that people have to see in the theater.

JS: Oh yeah, most definitely. Looking at someone else's way.

RK: It's a horror movie, without being one.

TS: It's sort of about the horror of humanity.

JS: Yeah.

RK: What Paul Thomas Anderson does to the audience, they do in slasher films. You are afraid for these characters, you feel it in the pit of your stomach...

TS: In a good one. Otherwise, you just want them to die.


RK: One thing I want to put in the review -- Upton Sinclair was a master of social commentary.

JS: Yes!

RK: Just amazing. The fact that he wrote a book that changed a nation with "The Jungle," and the way we get our food. And, in a way, if oil were as big of a deal back then as it is now, it might have changed the oil industry.

JS: Well, from what I understand, he (Anderson) substantially drew upon the book, like he took the idea from the book, and then made his own story. Apparently it's so widely different, you could read the book and watch the movie and get two different stories. But Upton Sinclain apparently took copies of ["Oil!"] and mailed them to Senators and Congressmen.

TS: Nice.

JS: I put this in my "Punch Drunk Love" review, that Paul Thomas Anderson likes to use music that almost goes against what he's filming. Like "Punch Drunk Love" has that very suspenseful type of music until the song comes on. There's the little clicking sounds and everything. It's very intense for the little things, like Adam Sandler coming out of his shell just a little bit.

RK: Same with "Magnolia."

JS: "Magnolia" is exactly the same way. He is, of the directors working today, one of the top five people who knows how to use music.

RK: At the same time, it doesn't stop at music... the cinematography. In the opening scene, when Daniel's going down the silver mine and that music is playing, he pans out across the western landscape for what seems like an eternity in the theater. And it bust builds the tension.

JS: In all of his movies he has a very panoramic view, even if it takes place in the city or something, he's very good at giving you this larger-than-life --

TS: Showing you the world.

JS: Yeah. And another trademark he has is that the camera almost never stops moving. But it's not a shaky-cam, it's smooth.

TS: Organic camera.

JS: Yeah. Even when they're talking the camera keeps moving, but it's a smooth transition, you barely even notice it.

TS: No, I didn't notice it. I guess you're right.

EJ: You're dealing a different breed in Sherman, Thad.

TS: Sherman's a pro.

JS: And, uh --

TS: That's getting cut too, by the way.

HM: (Meows.)

EJ: As is the Hank-squeak.

JS: No, the Hank-squeak should be left in there.

EJ: "Sherman's a pro. Squeak."

JS: Go ahead, Kloiber.

RK: Generally, a lot of music in a film is there to be ambient.

JS: Right.

RK: I do not believe that is the case with Paul Thomas Anderson.

JS: No he uses it to make his films like a living, breathing thing. It's like, for him it's the pulse of the movie.

TS: It's not there just because you're supposed to have music in a movie.

JS: Right.

TS: Which is good.

JS: Uhm... I think now that we've gone on about cinematography, music and Paul Thomas Anderson: Daniel Day-Lewis.

RK: Oh, my god!

EJ: I was gonna add one more thing. You realize the music for that movie was done by Jonny Greenwood?

JS: Yes! Kloiber pointed that out.

TS: (same time as above) Yeah, Kloiber pointed that out.

EJ: I knew that going into the movie, so I'm expecting like acoustic whatever. Which, I mean, as Mark will frequently point out: "Oh well, I mean it's easy to orchestrate stuff for strings if you play guitar, 'cause you're like 'this is gonna be the chord they're playing,'" but no! What he's doing in that movie, I'm like: "I... Wow!" That's all I wanted to add in.

JS: Daniel Day-Lewis, from what I understand, he hasn't said this, but a lot of people are basing his performance, like it's inspired by John Huston, the actor/director, which I can kinda see... but this performance is fantastic. I don't care if it's inspired from anyone.

RK: One thing I want to say, which I'm afraid is going to be overlooked by mass audiences: I do not know his name, the guy who played Eli --

JS: Paul Dano.

EJ: Paul Dano.

JS: He's the brother from "Little Miss Sunshine."

RK: And it's one of those things where I also am afraid that people are going to bash on his performance because his character was annoying. You wanted to hate his character, but it's... just because you don't like the character doesn't mean...

TS: Well that means he's doing a good job.

RK: I want to make sure that is known. This was an incredible, Oscar-worthy performance by both Dano and Day-Lewis.

JS: It was focused on two people, but everyone did a solid job.

TS: No one caused any damage to this picture. No one was able to deflate this.

RK: Paul Thomas Anderson does an amazing job using children in films.

JS: Oh yeah. His children are hardly ever annoying.

RK: Uh... this isn't the typical Dakota Fanning screaming or... oh, the kid from Star Wars.

JS: Oh!

EJ: Ja... Jake-something.

JS: Jake-something, but let's not even deem...

EJ: Don't give -- don't empower that child by invoking his name!

JS: I know the name but I WILL NOT SAY IT!

EJ: Say it two more time, he will appear! ... No, that's Beetlejuice.

JS: They could be one in the same thing!

TS: I thought Beetlejuice was Batman.

JS: Okay, let me say this --

EJ: Yeah, we're done.

JS: The kid who played Anakin was NOT fucking Batman! I want that to stay in the translation.

TS: Everything else will be gone. That line will be there.

JS: I want that to be UNDERSTOOD!

TS: Right.

EJ: I concur.

JS: With the clarity of glass!

TS: Maybe we need to come up with a side-site just with quotes that are on the cutting-room floor.

JS: Okay. So the acting was wonderful, cinematography was wonderful and really... we all say it's not perfect, but we can't figure out what we would change other than Kloiber believes the beginning could be shortened.

RK: Uh... no. I believe it could be clarified.

JS: Clarified. Okay.

RK: I still, even though there were some pretty obvious times, like the name-signing, couldn't tell that it was Daniel.

TS: Yeah.

RK: It doesn't do a good enough job explaining how he got into the oil business, what he found.

JS: M'kay. So, what would you give this movie?

RK: 4.25.

EJ: Out of what?

RK: 5.

EJ: Okay. It helps if you mention what the rating is up to. "I give it a 37." "Out of what?" "12."

TS: Yeah, but we know.

RK: If you read our blog, you'd know that that's what we judge things by. It's like if I said, "I give it two thumbs up." "Out of how many thumbs?" "Well, you only have two thumbs."

EJ: There were two reviewers doing it, there were four. BAM!

JS: (laughing) I'm sorry, but that was brilliant.

TS: That was good.

JS: What about you, Thad?

TS: Well I, uh... I'm a giver. I've got a lot of love to give because I don't like people, as a rule. So I would probably give it a 5, because... I liked that movie a lot.

JS: I will have to give it a 5 also, because --

TS: You and I... people are gonna be like, "Oh, they just like everything! These guys are assholes!"

JS: "I like Kloiber, he's the reasonable one."

TS: "Kloiber's hardcore!"

RK: Yeah, but Thad can actually write, which we can't say.

TS: Aw, c'mon...

JS: But --

TS: No, really. Keep going.

JS: So, Thad's a douche.

TS: Is this news?

JS: I'm giving it a 5 as well. Breathtaking.

TS: Yeah, like physically.

JS: Yeah.

TS: People want to bandy that word about --

JS: Let me just also point out: people left during this movie. In my mind, that's how good it is. People left.

TS: I wasn't even watching the audience.

RK: Three people left, that I saw.

TS: I know the annoying woman sitting next to me left and came back.

RK: There were three people that left the theater and never came back.

TS: When did they leave?

JS: One was after one of the times someone got hit by -- there were at least three or four at he well when people get hit by lumber or something.

TS: Oh, yeah. With the drill-thing.

RK: I saw a woman leave during the scene with the son and the train.

TS: Okay. Wow, that's not what I was expecting.

JS: I think what it is is that a lot of people were expecting something faster, I don't know.

TS: People don't like pacing.

JS: They don't like slow, they don't like drawn-out.

TS: They don't like different paces; people like manic.

JS: Which is odd, because a lot of people complained to me that they thought "Cloverfield" was too short. And I know their complaint would be, "This movie's too long."

RK: I've also heard that they're already writing "Cloverfield 2."

TS: Boo! I loved the movie, but I don't think it needs a sequel. I loved "Star Wars," but I don't think they needed three more.

RK: I think we'll need to move these to different places. One: the blood that the title mentions is not literal blood, it's the blood of Christ.

JS: Yes.

RK: Two: I generally don't like this type of movie: the really tense -- I felt like I was going to have a heart attack the entire movie. It was still amazing, I think everyone else should see it and I'm glad I saw it. It will never be a movie I'll be able to just sit down and watch. I will need to prepare for it.

JS: We have anything else? This could be it.

TS: I'm good with it. (Richard nods)

---

And then they taunt the cat for a bit, trying to get him to speak.

Read More......