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......

"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......

"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......

"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......

"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......

"Cloverfield" Theatrical Review (4.2/5) -Three Geek Review

There's a short list of images that come to mind when people start talkin' giant monster movies: Godzilla wading through Tokyo, Mothra and its miniature twins, and King Kong swatting airplanes from the top of the Empire State Building. The cult classics, the conventions and the unending remakes... it's a tapped out genre, right?

Wrong. And shut up.

"Cloverfield" is destined to stand out from the pack of samey, radioactive rehashes pitched at the screen since the mid '50s. The broader premise of "giant monster attacks New York" is given a beautifully narrow frame of reference: a hand-held camera held in the hands of a regular guy.

T.J. Miller's solid portrayal of Hud, the man behind the camera, is at the heart of what makes this movie work. It's funny how the best character by far has the least screen time, Hud himself being shown for maybe 30 seconds. Then again, we are looking through his eyes for nearly the length of the film so, in a way, he's ever present.

There certainly are contrivances to deal with. Main man Rob (Michael Stahl-David) running headlong through a war zone to save the girl of his dreams (Odette Yustman), regardless of the unprecedented danger posed by a nightmarish hulk knocking buildings down left and right, is about as melodramatic an idea as you can get. But I was so engrossed by the film that this kind of thing pops up merely as a begrudging afterthought.

The presentation is slick beyond belief. The destruction and the violence are grimly realistic, and always from the normal human point of view. Snips of honest, modern mannerism pop up as we watch people whip out camera phones to record the carnage. And there are the back-story moments woven in at the party or in the snippets of tape that the movie was recorded over. It feels like we're looking at the real world, the real lives of these people, as trampled by an unstoppable colossus.

Not only do I hope that "Cloverfield" will be let past the velvet rope and allowed to sit at the Genre Classics table with all the rest, but I also want it to become the new standard. Not the shaky-cam, man-on-the-street angle specifically so much as the freshness and personality. This movie stands as proof, if you didn't know this already, that there are always new ways to approach an idea.

Audiences haven't been given the opportunity to be honestly freaked out by a giant monster movie in 60 years. This is something you shouldn't miss out on.

4.5 out of 5

-Thad out.




Finally, a shaky-cam movie that I can recommend without reservation. Finally an honest-to-God monster movie, not some slasher or demented madman who likes to torture college kids. Hell probably the best American monster movie for quite some time.

"Cloverfield" is an intense, low budget, hand-held camera experience of a movie. For a movie with a budget around $30,000,000 it looks surprisingly low budget. The money apparently went into the sets and the monster. The sets are gorgeous. Especially one particular scene involving two towering apartment buildings.

The editing is fantastic as well. It's not often I'm amazed by the shaky-cam, but this time I was. It lent an air of authenticity to the the film.

There is one scene in a tunnel, where the camera turns and stares down the blackness. Finally a movie that realizes that we can still be scared by the dark. Then a character utters the line, "Turn on the night vision." A line that anyone with a Level 2 Knowledge of Movies should reply with, "Yeah YOU do that, I'm hauling ass."

Also this movie should be seen in THX 5.1 Surround Kloiber. This movie was intense, but was made more so by my fellow reviewer and friend. We get a glimpse of the monster and suddenly all of Richard's limbs shoot straight out. It gave the movie a heighten sense of danger, knowing at any moment Kloiber would probably maim me by accident.

The directing by Matt Reeves, was far and above anything I was expecting. The whole movie had an air of realism, it had moments where you could tell this was a movie, but you didn't mind. The writing by Drew Goddard (Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly) was fantastic. It was so good that I suspect there may have been improv. If there was none, then he has an ear for naturalistic dialogue that rivals John Cassavettes.

4.5 out of 5

See this movie. You won't be sorry.

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah




"Cloverfield" is the kind of movie you don't know what to expect going into. J.J. Abrams' track record is a bit hit or miss for me. I never got into "Lost" or "Alias," and his movies tend to be misses. Also frightening was Matt Reeves as the Director, who seems to have made a career directing failed television pilots and the movie the "Pallbearer," another Abrams project. I was relieved to see Drew Goddard, who wrote for television's "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel." I was afraid going into this is was going to be "Blair Witch" mixed in with Ed Wood films. By the first five minutes, after the action started, I knew that was not the case.

J.J. Abrams' monster movie "Cloverfield" defies convention. The entire movie is shot in the style of a handicam, and a lot of the shots seem amateurish on purpose. The suspension of disbelief that Hud, the film's cameraman, is actually filming the destruction of New York is not hard to buy. Other, less conventional technical elements worked as well, such as the lack of music.

What I enjoyed the most though, was the fresh look at main characters in a monster movie. There was no Mathew Brodrick telling me about Godzilla Babies, nor a crazy military guy hell bent on the thing's capture. There were only kids at a party when the shit starts to go down.

Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) is moving to Japan. His brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and his Jason's girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) throw him a surprise party the night before he leaves. Jason suckers Hud (T.J. Miller) into filming testimonials and awkwardly flirting with Marlena. (Lizzy Caplan) Shortly after this, Rob's pseudo-love interest/friend Beth (Odetta Yustman) shows up with another guy, prompting an argument with Rob. She leaves and he sulks. Jason and Hud step out to cheer him up. And then a monster attacks.

Most of the cast does a decent if forgettable job. The plot defies so many monster movies, but falls trap to a few horror cliches. Rob wants to save Beth, no one else thinks it is a good idea, Rob says he is going anyway, everyone goes with him. Repeat this for an hour and you have most of the movie. That being said T. J. Miller really stands out. His portrayal of Hud is brilliant. It doesn't matter if he is faced with a life or death situation or just relaxing with his friends, Hud comes up with the best one liners to lighten the mood or get the group out of a panic.

Overall, "Cloverfield" does wonders for the giant monster genre, but is not as groundbreaking as some people will tell you.

3.5 out of 5

-Richard




threegeekreview's overall score: 4.2 out of 5

Read More......