On Cloverfield

Hud: "I just can't stop thinking how scary it'd be if a flaming homeless guy came running... "

Rated PG-13 for violence, terror, disturbing images, and spastic camera action.

Staring: Nobody you will know, although some of them have done some brief TV work: Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman, Mike Vogel, and Lizzy Kaplan. Remember these names people!

If you want the Blair Witch Project meets a large reptile, mammal, or bird, that has two legs, or four, thats from the ocean, space, or the center of the earth, and drops, or voids its bowels of larval forms of itself, herself, or himself, then my friend, this is the movie for you. Thing is, you really don't know what the creature is, or why its so irate. Therefore, its up to nerds like me to watch the film numerous times in order to speculate at what exactly is going on; which of course is a responsibility that I will gladly take upon myself. Though the movie starts off a little slow, you are introduced to the films' gimmick right away. The US Military has come across an amateur video taken by a handheld. The premise sound a little familiar? This video, of course, is code-named Cloverfield. We are introduced, first off, to Rob(Michael Stahl-David) and Beth(Odette Yustman) who have had a precious night of debauchery together. They begin to plan a day trip to Coney Island when the camera quickly changes both hands and dates. Next, we meet Rob's brother Jason(Mike Vogel) and his romantic counterpart Lily(Jessica Lucas), as they throw Rob a going away party, dated about a month after Rob and Beth's initial encounter. However, we quickly find things aren't going so well for poor Rob at the shindig because the object of his affection, Beth, by this time, has apparently strewn strands of her hair all over Manhattan(skank!). Subsequently, she attends the party with another guy. There is a brief altercation between Rob and the infidelity ridden tramp and she leaves with her new boo.

Shortly thereafter, something attacks New York City, throwing the party-goers into a panic. The dialog then becomes increasingly horrible, though it was already, and the only thing that really keeps you from getting too irked about it, is Hud(T. J. Miller); the character behind the camera for most of the film, save for about 3 seconds. He gives the occasional comic relief that doesn't always work, but it is relief that is sorely needed throughout the film. Not only is the dialog usually absurd and rather out of place, but the filmmakers try to incorporate the characters shock at being in such circumstances into the dialog as well. This doesn't go over too well due to the quality of the acting.

In addition, one of the four main characters the movie centers around, Rob, has a communication problem, and you get tired of the other members of the group asking him what is going on and if he is okay all the time. Due to his shock, or whatever, he finds them seemingly not worth responding to, which wouldn't be so annoying if it didn't happen scene after scene! It also seems rather unbelievable that the other "stars" of the movie, would join, or want to join, Rob on his frequently unspoken mission, which is, of course, to rescue his wanton bimbo, whose boo has inexplicably disappeared. In fact, one of the group, who seems to be almost a complete stranger, could have been replaced with any number of people at the party, so that geeks like me, who are bigger whiners then Veruca Salt, wouldn't have something to pick apart and complain about. As in most movies of this kind, you will find the people not acting in the way you would suspect a person to act in such circumstances. Of course, the fact that a 30 foot monster is attacking midtown Manhattan is a COMPLETELY reasonable situation...It could happen.

What makes this movie? Well, the action and special effects are great and thats about it. However, its enough to keep you in your seat, hoping to see more of what is tearing the New Yorkers apart, and its wake of destruction. If it weren't for those things, I would have had to run back to Walmart and ask for my money back. However, the CGI and the sound are incredible.
Now for some needless speculation: I believe the creature(s?) to be an giant of oceanic origin. The most explicit evidence for this is not found in the film, but rather on its poster. In addition, its offspring, or so they appear, seem to make a noise that sounds suspiciously like echo-location, akin to the clicks a dolphin might make. Yes, I am this big of a nerd! I also suspect there is more than one creature, although the only evidence I have for that is located within the, at best, jumpy footage of the movie.
The creature looks different at times. If you see the film, and have no friends to associate yourself with, than I challenge you to compare the picture to the left, with the gargantuan beastie at the end of the movie. There are a couple rather large details that seem to be missing, such as rather large rosy orange cheeks. Though, maybe not. Maybe its lighting. However, they need some innovative imaginative device for the sequel, which I hear they are doing. Supposedly, it is not going to be a sequel pertaining to the next day or some future date down the road, but rather another person or persons perspective of the same events, where a possibly marine, possibly reptilian, really upset monster, or monsters, attacked and destroyed New York City. It could happen.
So, yes, I must admit I am one of the moviegoers, who liked this film about a large undefinable monster, that rips up New York City, killing untold numbers of innocent people, and forcing the main characters into nonsensical, moronic dialog and various acts of idiotic tomfoolery. Despite these things; again the special/creature effects were amazing, and one cannot watch nor appreciate the movie without some real volume. With some killer surround sound and subs, the movie all of a sudden, gets a lot better. I have to give it three out of four Veruca Salts. Barely.

"'On' the 'Overabundance' and 'Misuse' of 'Quotation marks.'"

The “over abundance” and “misuse” of quotation marks is probably something I have done from “time-to-time,” but "it" still "is" one of my "biggest" "pet-peeves," and apparently there are “a few" "more" “individuals” this really “irritates” as well. Therefore, I have “compiled” a “quick” image gallery from across the web for “educational” “purposes” that we all may be informed of this “gargantuan” problem and take the necessary “steps” to defeat “it.” In addition I would just like to say that these are a lot more "effective" when you read them outloud and perform the "finger air-quotes."

"A quotation is the repetition of one expression as part of another one, particularly when the quoted expression is well-known or explicitly attributed (as by citation) to its original source. A quotation can also refer to the repeated use of units of any other form of expression, especially parts of artistic works: elements of a painting, scenes from a movie or sections from a musical composition. The rest of this article addresses only written or oral quotations." - "Wikipedia" on "Quotation."

"Quotations are used for a variety of reasons: to illuminate the meaning or to support the arguments of the work in which it is being quoted, or to provide direct information about the work being quoted (whether in order to discuss it, positively or negatively, to pay homage to the original work or author, to make the user of the quotation seem well-read). Quotations are also commonly printed as a means of inspiration and to invoke philosophical thoughts from the reader." - "Wikipedia" on "Quotation."

"Quotation marks or inverted commas are punctuation marks used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, a phrase or a word. The pair consists of an opening quotation mark and a closing quotation mark, which may or may not be the same character.
They have a variety of forms in different languages and in different media." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"In English usage, they come as pairs in two forms: as single quotation marks (‘. . .’), and as double quotation marks (“. . .”)." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"Single or double quotation marks denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style – single or double – is an absolute rule, though double quotation marks are preferred in the United States, and both single and double quotation marks are used in the United Kingdom. A publisher’s or even an author’s style may take precedence over national general preferences. he important rule is that the style of opening and closing quotation marks must be matched: ‘Good morning, Dave,’ greeted HAL. “Good morning, Dave,” greeted HAL. For speech within speech, the other is used as inner quotation marks: ‘HAL said, “Good morning, Dave,” ’ recalled Frank. “HAL said, ‘Good morning, Dave,’ ” recalled Frank. Omitting quotation marks is generally not recommended. Sometimes, quotations are nested in more levels than inner and outer quotation. Nesting levels up to five can be found in the Bible.[2] In these cases, questions arise about the form (and names) of the quotation marks to be used. The most common way is to simply alternate between the two forms[3], thus: “…‘…“…‘ … … ’…”…’…” If such a passage is further quoted in another publication, then all of their forms have to be shifted over by one level. In most cases, quotations that span multiple paragraphs should be set as block quotations, and thus do not require quotation marks. Quotation marks are used for multiple-paragraph quotations in some cases, especially in narratives. The convention in English is to give the first and each subsequent paragraph opening quotation marks, using closing quotation marks only for the final paragraph of the quotation." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"The Spanish convention, though similar, uses closing quotation marks at the beginning of all subsequent paragraphs beyond the first. When quoted text is interrupted, such as with the phrase he said, a closing quotation mark is used before the interruption, and an opening quotation mark after. Commas are also often used before and after the interruption, more often for quotations of speech than for quotations of text: “HAL,” noted Frank, “said that everything was going extremely well.” - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"It is generally considered incorrect to use quotation marks for paraphrased speech where they may give the impression that the paraphrasing represents the actual words used. If HAL says: “All systems are functional.”, then: Wrong: HAL said that “Everything was going extremely well.” Right: HAL said that everything was going extremely well. Right: HAL said, “All systems are functional.”
However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation (this is the same as reported speech)." -"Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"Another important use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words. Ironic quotation marks can also be called scare, sneer, shock, or distance quotes. Ironic quotation marks are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes: My brother claimed he was "too busy" to help me." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark"

"Quotation marks indicating ironic use of a term should be used with care. Without the intonational cues of speech, they can obscure the writer’s intended meaning. They can also be confused easily with direct quotations, so some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech. Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly-accepted sense. In the fifteenth century, we “knew” that the Sun’s revolution divided day from night. Woody Allen joked, “I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism or a slang or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, or metaphoric: Dawkins's concept of the meme could be described as an "evolving idea". - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."



* indicate descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy words or phrases
* indicate descriptive but startling, humorous, or metaphoric words or phrases
* distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it. For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase pre-supposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with.
* indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's terminology, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes)." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."
"The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), 15th edition[4] acknowledges this type of use but cautions against overuse in section 7.58, "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.'. Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused." Either quotation marks or italic type can emphasize that an instance of a word refers to the word itself rather than its associated concept. Cheese is derived from milk.
“Cheese” is derived from a word in Old English.
Cheese has calcium, protein, and phosphorus.
Cheese has three e’s." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"A three-way distinction is occasionally made between normal use of a word (no quotation marks), referring to the concept behind the word (single quotation marks), and the word itself (double quotation marks):

When discussing ‘use’, use “use”.

Books about language often use italics for the word itself and single quotation marks for its translation:

The French word canif ‘pocketknife’ is borrowed from Old English cnif ‘knife’." - Wikipedia on the "Quotation Mark."

"Quotation marks, rather than italics, are generally used for the titles of shorter works. Whether these are single or double is again a matter of style:

* Short fiction, poetry, etc.: Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Sentinel”
* Book chapters: The first chapter of 3001: The Final Odyssey is “Comet Cowboy”
* Articles in books, magazines, journals, etc.: “Extra-Terrestrial Relays,” Wireless World, October 1945 * Album tracks, singles, etc.: David Bowie’s “Space Oddity”Quotation marks offset a nickname embedded in an actual name, or a false or ironic title embedded in an actual title; for example, Nat “King” Cole." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"The traditional convention in American English is for commas and periods to be included inside the quotation marks, regardless of whether they are part of the quoted sentence, while the British style places them in or outside of the quotation marks according to whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted phrase. The American rule is derived from typesetting while the British rule is grammatical (see below for more explanation). Although the terms American style and British style are used, it is not as clear cut as that because at least one major British newspaper prefers typesetters' quotation (punctuation inside) and BBC News uses both styles, while scientific and technical publications, even in the U.S., almost universally use logical quotation (punctuation outside unless part of the source material), due to its precision." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"As with many such differences, the American rule follows an older British standard. Before the advent of mechanical type, the order of quotation marks with periods and commas was not given much consideration. The printing press required that the easily damaged smallest pieces of type for the comma and period be protected behind the more robust quotation marks.[9] The typesetter’s rule was standard in early 19th century Britain, and the U.S. style still adheres to this older tradition both in everyday use and in non-technical formal writing. The grammatical rule was advocated by the extremely influential book The King’s English, by Fowler and Fowler." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

* “Carefree” means “free from care or anxiety.” (American style)
* “Carefree” means “free from care or anxiety”. (British style)
* “Hello, world,” I said. (both styles)

Today, most areas of publication conform to one of the two standards above.

The American English rule is often not applied if the presence of the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks will lead to ambiguity, for example when describing keyboard input:

In the File name text field, type “HelloWorldApp.java”, including the quotation marks.[10]
Enter the URL as “www.wikipedia.org”, the name as “Wikipedia”, and click “OK”.
The URL starts with “www.wikipedia.”. This is followed by “org” or “com”.

In both styles, question marks and exclamation marks are placed inside or outside quoted material on the basis of logic, but colons and semicolons are always placed outside [11]:

Did he say, “Good morning, Dave”?
No, he said, “Where are you, Dave?”

In the first two sentences above, only one punctuation mark is used at the end of each. Regardless of its placement, only one end mark (?, !, or .) can end a sentence in American English. Only the period, however, cannot end a quoted sentence when it does not also end the enclosing sentence:

"Hello, world," she said.
"Hello, world!" she exclaimed.
"Is there anybody out there?" she asked into the void.
"Goodnight stars. Goodnight moon," she whispered." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"In English, when a quotation follows other writing on a line of text, a space precedes the opening quotation mark unless the preceding symbol, such as a dash, requires that there be no space. When a quotation is followed by other writing on a line of text, a space follows the closing quotation mark unless it is immediately followed by other punctuation within the sentence, such as a colon or closing punctuation. (These exceptions are ignored by some Asian computer systems that systematically display quotation marks with the included spacing, as this spacing is part of the fixed-width characters.)" - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."


"There is generally no space between an opening quotation mark and the following word, or a closing quotation mark and the preceding word. When a double quotation mark or a single quotation mark immediately follows the other, proper spacing for legibility requires that a non-breaking space be inserted.

So Dave actually said, “He said, ‘Good morning’ ”?
Yes, he did say, “He said, ‘Good morning.’ ” - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."



"For a quotation consisting of several paragraphs, especially in older texts, the convention is to start each separate paragraph of the quoted text with an opening quotation mark, but to use a closing quotation mark only at the end of the last paragraph, as in the following example from Pride and Prejudice:

The letter was to this effect:

“MY DEAR LIZZY,

“I wish you joy. If you love Mr. Darcy half as well as I do my dear Wickham, you must be very happy. It is a great comfort to have you so rich, and when you have nothing else to do, I hope you will think of us. I am sure Wickham would like a place at court very much, and I do not think we shall have quite money enough to live upon without some help. Any place would do, of about three or four hundred a year; but however, do not speak to Mr. Darcy about it, if you had rather not.

“Yours, etc.” - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

"Quotes are sometimes used incorrectly for emphasis in lieu of underlining or italics, most commonly on signs or placards. This usage can be confused with ironic or altered-usage quotation, sometimes with unintended humor. For example, For sale: “fresh” fish, “fresh” oysters, could be construed to imply that fresh is not used with its everyday meaning, or indeed to indicate that the fish or oysters are anything but fresh. And again, Teller lines open until noon for your “convenience” might mean that the convenience was for the bank employees, not the customers." - "Wikipedia" on the "Quotation Mark."

On Vantage Point

Suarez: "The beauty of American arrogance is that they can't imagine a world where they're not a step ahead."

Rated PG-13 for action, violence, images that have a tendency to disturb, strong language, and an annoying little girl who really doesn't even need to be in the movie in the first place.

Staring: Dennis Quaid, William Hurt, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker and Sigourney Weaver.



Get out the Dramamine, because you will need it after all the rewinding they do in this film. For the sake of my own web page(your welcome) I suffered through the first half-hour, which felt ten times longer. The only possible saving grace this movie has is its story. Typically this isn't the case, as far as recent movies are concerned, and a movie usually needs to be redeemed by special effects(Cloverfield), the action(The Mummy), or spooky surprises(see any M. Night Shyamalan movie, excluding Lady in the Water, Unbreakable, and any that I haven't seen). The plot is pretty good here, and if it were allowed to carry the movie a little more, I believe Vantage Point would have gone further. However, it seemed that instead of banking on the plot, they decided to place their bets on the "star" power of the movie, which in my mind was disastrous, for a lot of the characters in this movie were extraneous. In fact, many could have been left out all together, but instead I was left scratching my head as to why the studio wanted to spend the money on Sigourney Weaver, rather than using other devices, such as dialogue, to manifest and convey the plot-lines for the audience. All her appearance did was trigger a recollection of how much I hated Alien 3.

Dennis Quaid plays US Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes, assigned to protect President Ashton (played by William Hurt) during a visit to Spain. The President is to attend an anti-terrorism summit, but during a scheduled public appearance, however, a terrorist assassination plot, directed at him, is executed and unfolds, slowly, in front of your eyes and through the eyes of 6 personas. During its duration of 90 minutes, the perspectives of Barnes and the President, are just two of six Vantage Points that will be covered. The movie, thus, becomes extremely annoying, repetitive, and monotonous; all viewpoints masterfully(sarcasm implied) blended, by a riveting 10 second "rewind" segment that brings you back to the beginning of the paradigm. It becomes so bothersome, that it really clarifies the worthlessness of some of the characters and you just may find yourself disliking the fictional individuals for wasting your time.

Other than Keanu Reeves, another of my biggest pet peeves(speaking of clever...) in film, is when there is a completely worthless character, an annoying cliché of cinema who is awkwardly deposited within the movie, contributing nothing substantial to the plot. This is perfectly personified in the portrayal of Anna, an annoying little girl, who alone probably took the movie down a star in my coveted movie rating system. In addition to that, what I found curious, was the indestructible nature of, not only Dennis Quaid, but also his car during a chase scene towards the end of the picture. If the cut scenes didn’t make you motion sick already, then this surely will. The amount of wrecks Dennis gets into is only rivaled by how many viewpoints the movie has, and of course there is absolutely no representation of this in the condition of his vehicle. This happens in movies quite a bit, but in Vantage Point it is to a laughable degree.

In conclusion, the movie could have been terrific, if they just left out some people! It had potential; I liked the story, but they didn't execute and approach it properly. Though I can’t way for the Vantage Point action figures to come out, I still have to give the movie 2 out of 4 boxes of Dramamine Chewables. Sorry Dennis.

On No Country For Old Men

Carson Wells: "You can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you. He's a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that. He's not like you. He's not even like me."

Rated R for graphic violence, brief appearances by Woody Harrelson and language.

Staring: Woody Harrelson, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem and Woody Harrelson.

No Old County for Dying Men (for some reason have a difficult time with the title) is just one of those films that, once the film is over, your really not sure if you liked or not. Yes, it has Tommy (wonderful), Javier (great), and Woody (terrific), but I just couldn't help but feel that the Coen brothers, who directed and wrote the screenplay, could have done a little better concerning the end of the film, which was rather abrupt. Perhaps they just got lazy because, truthfully, a Wilford Brimley Diabetes commercial is more interesting. Trash talk aside, I must say the performances were great; the directing superb; cinematography top-notch and Woody was majestic in his portrayal of Carson Wells(an homage to Orson perhaps?). However, I find myself surprised that I actually enjoyed the film, due, in part, to the fact that most the movies I enjoy all tend to have a good, strong endings and this movie lacked one. I got a little flustered once the credits started rolling at the end, but within the next half-hour, over a bowl of Quaker Oats, the film and its quality began to negate the less than mediocre ending.

Javier Bardem, who plays Anton Chigurh in the film, depicts one of the creepiest and ruthless killers in film history as far as I'm concerned. Cold-blooded, quiet, calculated and methodical. Just like Dick Cheney. Josh Brolin, plays the hunter Llewelyn Moss, who stumbles upon something he shouldn't have, and unfortunatly is hunted down by Anton throughout the movie. Tommy Lee Jones plays the sheriff, a HUGE stretch for him and I don't really know where Woody comes from, but his thespian theatrical stylings were exquisite. Woody Harrelson means gold at the box office baby.

I guess when it comes down to it, the only thing I didn't like about the film was the ending. It didn't top the Big Lebowski thats for sure, but I give the film three out of four Dick Cheny Heads.