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......

The Queen Nixon -- Double Movie Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ 5



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......

"Quantum of Solace" -- Movie Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......

Letter From The Editor

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

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

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

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

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

-Thad out

Read More......

Sherman's Annual October Movie Marathon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......

Help! We've been swallowed by the Internet!

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

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

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

-Thad out

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......

"Traitor" -- A Several-Geek Movie Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pearce and McDonough do fantastic jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

/5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah



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

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

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

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

4 out of 5

-Thad out

Read More......

"Whatever Happened to ThreeGeek Review?"

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

But nuts to that; let's talk updates.

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

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

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

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

...

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

-Thad out


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

Read More......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah

Read More......