Directed by Matt Reeves

Running Time: 1 hr and 25 minutes

Don't see Cloverfield.

Ironically I have to work harder on bad films then good ones. It's not generally enough to say it sucked I try to say why. So this is an extra tough writing assignment. Let me put it this way. For the first time ever I walked out of a film. I wanted to stay so I could at least make fun of it, but I was getting sea sick. This will be an unfortunately short review, but there's nothing else to say. It sucked!

What about the “PG-13” Rating? It's a monster flick.

Larger Story? Nope, nothing.

In the following months, producer J.J. Abrams released a “working title”, “Cloverfield”, and hints that the movie revolved around a giant monster attack on New York. For the whole time until the release date, Abrams was able to keep the project wrapped in secrecy, a surprise in today's technology-heavy age where even a cell phone can access the Internet, causing even more hype to build around this picture that it would have to live up to upon release.

I can tell you this much: it does. And then some.

Cloverfield (yes, it turns out that is the actual title) is a movie that's hard to describe without giving too much away. The whole film is shot from the perspective of a video camcorder, giving it that same feel as The Blair Witch Project. It even starts out the same way, with a small disclaimer about the footage being recovered after the incident. This also works in the movie's favor, making the events that take place seem all the more down-to-earth. Not to mention more intense, seeing there's obviously no musical score to accompany the film, which actually adds to the tension, especially in scenes where it's dark. And since the main characters are all average people like you or me, there's never real scientific or military discussions of what the creature attacking the city is or where it came from. It makes it very similar to War of the Worlds, especially the more recent version that featured Tom Cruise, and makes you wonder what that film would've been like shot in a similar fashion.

Much of the plot centers around both an attempt by the main characters (Rob, the focus of the party; his brother, Jason; Jason's girlfriend Lily; Hud, the guy working the camera; and Marlena, the girl Hud's interested in) to escape the city and to try and get to Beth, the girl Rob loves but keeps pushing away, who is trapped in her apartment building. These people aren't amateur scientists who happen to have their little hobbies that could help take down the creature, but regular people you might meet on the street who only want to get out in one piece. The subplot of the rescue/escape adds to the drama immensely, as well as makes the characters all the more human, as they argue back and forth about whether or not to go and how to get there. You can't help but wonder what you would do in a similar situation: think of yourself or try to help others, especially someone you care about.

And then there's the monster itself. At first there are only glimpses of it as it rampages through the city, building up the tension to its final reveal. Again, I can't say too much without giving too much away. But I can say that the way the creature is designed, you'd never think this was some guy in a rubber suit, but some inhuman thing you know is going to change life as you know it. And the fact that Rob is leaving for Japan at the start of the movie just seems to add to the irony of the whole situation, though thankfully no one speaks of it.

I will admit that this film will probably be a bit unsettling to some, given recent events and our post-9/11 situation. Having the setting be in New York City, where that particular event took place, doesn't especially help things. Particularly when it's the mauling of the Statue of Liberty that kicks things off. But thankfully, the fact that it's a monster attack rather than a terrorist one might make things a little more easier, since the chances of that happening are rather slim.

Simply put, this is an awesome movie. Monster attack aside, it has a very real feel to it, making you wonder what might happen in such a situation. This is definitely going to be one of the best movies of the year.

Shortbus follows the sexual and emotional lives of several frustrated New Yorkers, including Sophia (Sook-Yin Lee), a sex therapist who's never had an orgasm, James (Paul Dawson), a suicidal gay man in a relationship with a former child actor, and Severna (Lindsay Beamish), an emotionally barren dominatrix who offers to help Sophia through her pre-orgasmic crisis. The main stage on which the characters play out their anxieties and fantasies is Shortbus, a small club in New York where anything and everything goes - and usually much, much, more - with the acting in this film easily distinguishing this from the genre of pornography, which many of its misinformed detractors claim it to be.

Unfortunately though, this movie is not for the squeamish, and the two people I originally asked were probably right in staying away. The sex scenes are extremely graphic. The opening sequence shows a couple trying to go through all the moves of the Kama Sutra in one session, while another man gives himself a blowjob after urinating in a bath, so if you're homophobic, or like to take the moral high ground, you'd be better off seeing something else. For those of you, who don't mind a bit of rumpy-pumpy thrown in with a few laughs and a thick dollop of drama, make sure you see Shortbus - you'll love it.

7/10

This series is based (loosely) on the books by Robert Ludlum. They retain they basic theme although many other elements that I wish they had also retained were sacrificed to maintain an action pacing.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

I have been critical of the action sequences in the past. They are over edited, either for style or to cover up the fact that Matt Damon isn't Jet Li or Jackie Chan. Other than that there's no nudity or excess violence. There are only fight scenes, one depicting a guy being strangled.

One of the themes of the film is the extent some people go to in order to play the spy game. Some people get caught up in the game and use their patriotism as an excuse to be barbaric. To me all the violence is justified by one scene, where Bourne doesn't kill the assassin sent after him, because he remembers the torture it took to turn him into a killer, and he realizes that it can all change. The assassin chases him down to ask him why and with very little dialogue we see a man learn about identity.

Larger Story

The main theme of these books captivates my attention. Super assassin Jason Bourne becomes involved in an accident that gives him amnesia. It echoes Socrates idea that we knew everything before we were born and then forgot it upon entering the world, only to spend our lives rediscovering knowledge and wisdom. Only in the Bourne series the suspense comes from the question, “is Jason Bourne a better man without his assassin identity?” In the first movie, “the Bourne Identity,” Jason discovers that his amnesia might have less to do with his accident than with an attack of conscience which won't let him be who he has become.

There are two possible larger story themes here. First, how much of our past must we deal with after conversion? When we make a change to who we are doesn't our past line up to steal that positive move away from us?

The second theme that I like better is this. Bourne was obviously something incredible, but he lives in a fallen state. While he's tempted to believe that his knew ignorance could be a blessing he finds himself unable to move on with life until he discovers who he really is. The truth is that who he really is, lays deeper than the identity he can't remember. This resonates with me. I think I was designed for more than I've become in this world. Before accepting the reality of the world I've been born into, there is everything God designed me to be. Like Jason Bourne, I'm on a life-long quest to rediscover the deeper truer things about me.

So in that unrequited state, I settled in to watch “ World Trade Center ” hoping to find the door to the club, walk through it and become a New Yorker. Unfortunately, it was nowhere to be found. There was no collective emotion to connect with in Oliver Stone's movie.

“ World Trade Center ” tells the story of human spirit and emotional turmoil that plays out for both the direct victims and their families when enormous tragedy strikes. Shortly after rushing into the burning world trade center, Port Authority Policemen, John McLaughlin and Will Jimeno found themselves trapped underneath the rubble of the buildings. In the immediate aftermath of the collapse, their families are tortured for agonizing hours waiting for word on whether their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons are alive or dead. The scenes alternate between the families and the two heroic policemen who are using every bit of spirit they can muster to stave off death. Stone's device of displaying the emotions of the policemen and their families as mirrors of each other was effective, but did nothing to connect me to 9/11.

The surprising failure of “ World Trade Center ” is that it didn't actually need 9/11 as its backdrop. The same story could have been told about the miner that was stuck in the Sago coal pit or any other human drama where the emotions of the victims and their families are explored. To that end, “ World Trade Center ” certainly was a poignant movie, but it fell completely short of what it should have been.

As a point of comparison, I did get a taste of the collective emotional experience I have been yearning to share when I saw “Flight 93”. As opposed to “ World Trade Center ”, I felt anxiety, fear, sorrow, rage and even some vengeance when the heroes of Flight 93 took control of the plane and drove it into the ground. For a couple of brief hours, I was there in New York , in Washington , on the planes, on Flight 93. I was sharing a tragic emotional experience with all Americans that day. The difference was that “Flight 93” told the 9/11 story from the perspective of the all encompassing enormity it was, rather than from the perspective of individual victims.

As heart-wrenching as McLaughlin and Jimeno's stories are, 9/11 is too big and touched too many individuals, to limit the scope of this story to 2 families.