Half-Life 2 - Still an A+ game 19 years later.

After 19 years I finally played Half Life 2.  Even by today's standards, this is an A+ game.  I've been hearing about it forever, of course, but what not enough people raved about was the level design.  It is brilliant in the way it breaks up racing sections with having to get out of your car and fight to a control room to open a door.  Or a semi-maze like city area that keeps bringing you back around to the weapon caches you filled up on before.

Everyone talked about the gravity gun so I was ready for it, but it was still more fun than I expected. Especially in the last parts of the game where you have a very upgraded version. The physics engine seemed better than games made as much as 7 or 8 years later.  And I also need to compliment the story a bit too. Or perhaps not the story, but the way it feels cinematic and giving you a reason to get from one area to the next.

I was a bit surprised that I only found half the ammo caches (according to the achievement, 23 of 45) but never was low on ammunition even once.  And sometimes my squad would block my path at the worst times.  But I can't really complain about that when the game is such a great example of how to make games fun.  The rapid constant autosaving that encourages you to jump right back in when killed. The variety of weapons. The sense of discovery over and over, rather than redundant levels.  These were rare things back in 2004.

Movie Recommendation: "Solitary Man" from 2010, starring Michael Douglas

Film Recommendation: I saw "Solitary Man" in 2010 when it came out, and really loved it. I finally watched it again, and I enjoyed it just as much. But apparently very few people saw it on it's release, so I'm including it in my reviews of great films few people know about.

This is a big cast of well known actors, but primarily stars Michael Douglas who is in every scene. He plays a very successful man in his mid-50's, has a doctor suggest (and really only suggest) that he should have his heart checked out. And this leads him to a years long series of self-sabotaging, basically destroying all the things that once made him happy.

Ebert's review describes Douglas as playing a character who is always playing a character. A man who knows he is charming, and always working hard to be likable, and desirable. And the film shows how it carries him along, successfully, until perhaps we realize he might just be addicted to seducing younger women to feel immortal. And a lot of characters represent why you should stick with the really good things in your life, rather than always cutting them off to find another one.

This is also one of those very odd films that is very short but feels longer. It is just under 90 minutes, and when I first saw it remember leaving the theater and amazed by how much story and side characters were contained in it. Aside from Douglas, you'll get memorable bits from Danny Devito, Susan Sarandon, Jesse Eisenberg, Imogen Poots, Jenna Fischer, Richard Schiff, David Costabile, Gillan Jacobs, and Mary-Louise Parker.

And you'll think it's an even better review if after you see it, you read Roger Ebert's review of the film. (But only read it afterwards, as it is spoiler heavy.)

"De Palma", the amazing documentary on Brian De Palma

Almost exactly a year ago I saw "Truffaut/Hitchcock" and wrote a post about seeing it, and mentioned I was shocked not seeing Brian De Palma as one of the many directors interviewed, because he more than any other director channels a lot of Hitchcock in his movies.  I later read that he didn't do that documentary because he was involved with someone making a documentary just about him and his work.

So I just watched "De Palma", this very documentary... 

And it is amazing. And interesting. And educational.  So many documentaries about artists just want you to accept that their subject is an innovator.  "De Palma" breaks it down and shows you why he is.  Every film snob benefits from listening to a talented film maker explain his craft.  One who can really explain why he likes exceptionally long shots, certain split dioptre shots, and of course multiple Hitchcock references.

Of note, his first film starred Robert DeNiro in his very first film.  Sissy Spacek's very first role, was in his "Carrie", which was the first Stephen King adaptation. He jokes about how there have been so many version of Carrie made, that he can finally show to people why he did things differently as they make the mistakes that he argued with the studio to let him do it his way.

His section on Scarface is amazing, because he talks about having to have Oliver Stone removed from the set because this 'writer who had directed just one bad horror film' was trying to tell him how to direct his actors. And how Spielberg visited the set and helped find angles to shoot the final shoot out.

He has a few stories about Sean Penn that are amazing.  He makes a good tribute to Bernard Hermann who scored all his earliest work.

It's really good because as he goes through his filmography, he talks about things he learned along the way, and has no problem stating what was the weakest or best part of each picture. He actually has a lot to say that even a lot of fans of his work probably never heard before.  This isn't a studio made documentary aimed at getting easy views by talking about his classic films, and having much more famous directors or actors talk about their time with the man.  It is De Palma himself the whole time, and it gives his more obscure, offbeat projects get as much attention as his signature films.

He doesn't just cover up his failures by talking about studio battles, but brings up things he wish he had done differently, or he just couldn't make work.  You can see the sadness in his face when he talks about a movie that wasn't a big hit, even though it had big stars, followed a successful blueprint, and all he can think is that he couldn't possibly make a better film than he did. (He felt he could never make a better film than "Carlito's Way".) 

He hung out with Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, and other big name directors. While his filmmaking friends have all at one time or another been household names, De Palma's never quite gotten the deep examination he's deserved.

As for the Hitchcock documentary, Brian De Palma didn't make himself available for that Kent Jones' pic because he wanted to reserve his comments about Hitchcock for this film.  He isn't shy about his admiration for Hitchcock, and states rather audaciously that he feels he is the only true heir to the master.  He also says with a lot of arrogance that Hitchcock and probably no other director ever made any truly great films before they were thirty or after they were fifty. 

I will say it feels a little weak the way it ends, but then again, so does his filmography after 1996.

My review on Hitchcock/Truffaut: https://keithmetcalfe.blogspot.com/2021/04/hitchcock-truffaut-review-of-2015.html

 Long Kiss Goodnight (from 1996)

4 **** (of 5 stars)

Originally reviewed 10/13/96 - Updated 12/30/2021

 

This film has Brian Cox and Samuel Jackson speaking lines written by Shane Black.  Man, it is something special.

When I first reviewed this film, I said it was a tough one to rate.  I saw this movie immediately after seeing “Bound”, both opening night in the theaters, and felt torn between quality and entertainment.  “Bound” has so many things that makes a quality movie, and was pushing the boundaries, that “The Long Kiss Goodnight” seemed almost ordinary by comparison.  But viewing it again 25 years later, it’s hard to believe I didn’t notice all the original moments, and all the boundaries it broke.  Not to mention it was one of the most entertaining action movies I saw in the nineties.

There is so much good stuff to talk about here.  First there is the script, with such a clever plot years before “The Bourne Identify”, and the dialogue, where Black proves again just how laugh out loud funny he can be in an action film.  There is consistently crude and just downright nasty remarks made between the characters to one another, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I laughed at almost all of it.

The story sounds simple, like enough to be on the back of a DVD in two sentences, but has so many twists and turns in the details that it keeps us enthralled.  Geena Davis plays an amnesia victim who for the last 8 years has been a mother, a schoolteacher and all around upstanding citizen who doesn’t remember who she was before that.  Later she is shocked to discover (in pieces of course) that she is really a CIA trained assassin who was almost killed eight years ago, and everyone assumed that she was dead.  This is such a great idea ripe for possibilities that I can’t believe it hadn’t been done before.

It’s also a really efficient script. I believe there is more explained and gotten out of the way in the first 20 minutes than most 90 minute films. The film is a full 2 hours long, and never drags.

It needs to also be pointed out that the film has great chemistry between its two co-stars, which is surprising considering that they never really have a romance.  Again amazing to think producers would allow that to exist in the 90’s, just as much as have a kick-ass woman action hero in the lead.

And how the hell did I not think it was a huge deal to do a ‘buddy action picture’ with a black male and white woman??  I remember how big of a deal people made Lethal Weapon’s pairing to be just 8 years earlier.  (Also written by Black.)  And we were still years away from having accepted female action stars.  And I don’t think Angelina Jolie could have been believable as the innocent school teacher type, as she established herself as a kick-ass action star right out of the gate.

The movie is well paced in the action scenes.  The movie is a rarity in that it really does consistently out-do itself with each scene.  There isn’t really any one really great chase scene or shoot out so much as one better action scene after another, again and again.

This film is also a showcase for great actors doing some really great acting.  I thought Samuel Jackson became an instant sensation after Pulp Fiction two years before, but some reason everyone kept talking about Travolta instead.  He has said in interviews in the late 2010’s that this character was one of his favorite of his hundred rolls. I definitely knew before this film that he was one of the best actors we have as far as ‘in your face’ kind of dialogue goes.  And here he proves that he does it as well as anybody. 

Craig Bierko played the lead villain and was fantastic.  What a find the filmmakers had with him.  He really does have some great nasty lines, and I’ve got a sneaky feeling that he has a complete lack of morals simply so that Charlie doesn’t seem quite as uncaring.

There were also some great smaller performances in the movie.  Charlie’s (Geena Davis’ character) trainer played by Brian Cox (the original Hannibal from “Manhunter”), was so interesting that it was a shame to have him killed so quickly not realizing his fullest potential.  And I am always glad to see David Morse show up.  For decades, I keep seeing him appear in minor roles in great movies.

But the real star of this film truly deserves that title, Geena Davis.  Here she plays one of the most likable female leads I’ve seen in a long time, and that’s really surprising considering what we see her doing throughout this film.  For the opening scenes especially, Geena plays her character so likable that she was definitely approaching Sandra Bullock territory.  This was her best role since “Accidental Tourist” back in 1988.

The movie isn’t perfect.  As with most action films, there are scenes of implausibility.  Davis and Jackson outrun flames from a grenade, they outdrive an exploding tanker truck and even take several bullets while the bad guys can’t handle more than one or two.  There is a scene where Jackson, tied to a chair, is blown up and thrown out the window through a sign, and lands without the ropes or his chair, but is able to throw a knife with perfection when nothing leads us to believe that his character can do this.  Davis’ boyfriend is forgotten whereas her daughter is not.

But none of that really bothered me considering how entertaining the film was.  Like the best action films, it isn’t just really exciting, but also funny and clever.  It is well directed, well acted, well paced, well filmed, the special effects are great, the characters are more likable than films where everyone is designed to be likable, and it even has great chemistry between its stars.

Show this to people who don’t like action films, and they will still love it. That’s the true test of a film escaping its genre.

"The Council" might be the most interactive adventure game/movie I've seen yet.  I enjoyed the Telltale Games, but The Council makes them look bad by showing us exactly how much more the Telltale stuff could have been. The Council is set in 1793 on an island of a wealthy powerful man, and you play a member of an international secret society searching for his mother (a major member of the organization).  And on this island a party is taking place with a group of similarly powerful players, some fictional and some real.  Party guests include a Cardinal from the Vatican, as well as George Washington and Napoleon (still just a lieutenant), meeting for the first time.

What makes this so interactive is how many different ways you can play through the story. The Telltale games all had major decisions that influenced who stayed in your group, which adventures you took, but were tricky in how they all worked you back to the same place.  It didn't take much to save a game, and replay a section a second time, and then you could say you pretty much saw every variation the game had to offer.

The Council does this, only times ten.  You have various traits, like 'manipulation' allowing you to maneuver conversations your way, or like 'vigilance' letting you notice little details, 'etiquette' which gives you a unique way to act or respond, and 'agility' letting you reach items or dodge situations. There are about fifteen of these, and you can build them up by choosing to do things, reading books, and how you start.

You can start as either a diplomat, detective, or occultist, which gives you a head start on five traits. It's hard to be a jack of all trades type, so you tend to want to focus on some, and this is tough for most gamers who like to inspect and try every aspect of the game, because as you play you keep getting little flashes like "opportunity missed - needed subterfuge", or politics, or languages, or science, or occult, etc..

Aside from these traits, there are also about forty extra skills you can work towards and learn, and when you finish them you get a bonus, or a penalty, depending on what it is. You might be caught doing something and all the guests are a little more wary of you, or by successfully handling multiple confrontations, your convince trait is knocked up a point.

And even treasures you find, like books that raise a trait, make you have to think how you want to play the game. You might collect 4 books in a chapter, but at the end of the chapter only get to use one of them to upgrade a trait.  You really have to choose how you want to play the game, more than how you think will be the easiest way to play the game.

The trait choices really do change the way the game plays, and how much you might enjoy it. The skill tree is brilliant because depending on the class you choose, the other traits aren't locked out to you, but are mostly just more expensive in experience points to take. Want to be a Diplomat, but want to build up heavy in science knowing you are going to come across chemicals and engineering puzzles? You CAN put a lot of points into science, but it will cost you much more than if you were an Occultist character.  Same if you are a Detective, but want to build up the linguistics skills of a Diplomat, because you know there will be clues in Latin, French, or other languages that you normally could not read.  I played through the first part as two different characters just to get a feel for it, and this system really works!

The story is great - I don't want to spoil it for you. It's worth trying just to watch it. The game does give you a pretty good direction you are supposed to go in, but you get rewarded for exploring off the beaten path where you get new gossip, dirt, on people, that will make a difference when having a conversation with them later.  If you explore and find a secret letter to one of the guests, you might be able to manipulate a conversation by mentioning their sister, for example.

The graphics and art direction are superb. The voice acting is even better.  Some reviews for the PC seem to knock the look and feel, and I'm wondering if some of the other paths I have yet to take will have glitches. Or if because I played it on an Xbox I'm looking at a superior gaming engine.

The whole first part of the game is free (on PC and Xbox), and well worth trying, as it gave me at least 4 or 5 hours of enjoyment on it's own.  (And over 500 free Achievement points!)

(Writing about the skills system is giving me a flashback to the first RPG I played that had a similar skill tree, it was on the Atari ST back around 1992, and the name is escaping me, but I remember how killing monsters gave you experience points, and if you were a barbarian putting those points into doing more damage with an axe was minimal, but for a wizard very expensive.  And the opposite with improving your spell casting.  So you could have a cleric who could pick locks, but if you weren't a thief it was very costly to learn to do so.  It was brilliant!)

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint is one of those games that is widely underappreciated.  When it came out, I was way behind in my games, and didn't hear much about it.  About a year after release, it had a 'free weekend' on the Xbox, and I played it for at least twenty hours.  I loved it.

Reading reviews of it, it got poor numbers, and mostly bad press.  I was surprised, but imagine that if I had seen the game then, and not after the game's many updates, I might not have returned to it later.  And that's a shame, because this is a really fun game.

And I'm only playing it one way, and there seems to be at least three or four ways to do it.  I tend to play stealthily, alternating between very up close and with long range sniping.  I approach an enemy camp, launch a drone to 'tag' the various types of enemies, use a sniper rifle to pick off the lone soldiers whose corpses won't be seen by anybody, and then work my way into camp, picking off individuals and hiding the bodies one by one, until something is spotted and alarms start ringing, and then I pull out the automatic weapons as it has now become a more traditional shooter.

I know several players start that way, with machine guns and shotguns, blasting their way through, but that's not as fun for me.  There are huge multiplayer elements I've barely tried, lots of different vehicles, robot enemies, and more.

I've played it for dozens of hours during two more 'free' weekends on the Xbox, and it really didn't get boring as there is a storyline of some interest leading me around.  But I can go on a free for all lone attack on a base whenever I want to.

I'm going to eventually be so caught up with my other games that I'm going to buy this one and its various add-ons, and likely put hundreds of hours into playing it.

Shadow in the Cloud movie review

"Shadow in the Cloud" is the best recent film that no one heard of, much less saw.

Everyone remembers the Twilight Zone episode, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", and it's a lot of that, but mixed in with that episode of Amazing Stories, directed by Steven Spielberg, with the guy stuck in the belly turret of a World War 2 bomber.

Oh, and it's starring Chloe Grace Moretz, in the belly turret, with the male crew initially not believing her, of course.

Chloe Grace Moretz is always really good. But she is even better than that here. This is a committed performance. Like Kathleen Turner in "Romancing the Stone" decades ago, Chloe has to act tough, scared, aggressive, like a professional soldier, like a different person, and protective like a mother.

Maybe 50 minutes of the film is spent in the turret under the plane, just Chloe acting in front of us, with only crew voices over the intercom sharing the screen with her. (And I guess the gremlin as well.)

If you think about this as a B picture, you'll likely think of it as one of the very best. If someone you know is looking for a grind house film, they'll find it here.  The same can be said if someone wants to see a sci-fi or horror film too.  Maybe even a World War 2 film.

The director skillfully knows how to switch between horror, into action, and even drama in a few key moments. At first we get glimpses of the gremlin and think that's how it's going to be the whole time. Nope. We get dozens of seconds of it just staring at Chloe through the window, breath fogging on the glass, and that's when it becomes an action pic.

It is a modern film, so the fact that she is a woman flight officer, on a bomber being delivered from New Zealand to Samoa, is not lost on us. She is initially just a passenger, as the bomber is being delivered, but historically female pilots did actually fly bombers for delivery to bases in America, the UK, and other allied places. But still you have the men in the film, refusing to respect her flight officer rank, or take her seriously when she spots the gremlin tearing at an engine. (Even after one of the male crewmen believes he saw it too.) We all cringe when stuck in the turret, she listens on the comm to the crew rudely talking about what they'd like her to do to them.

I'm not spoiling anything, but the last shot of the film lets us know that they want Chloe's character to be thought of alongside Ripley in Aliens, and Sarah Connor in the Terminator films, only even more feminine and strong at the same time.

4 out of 5 stars

https://twitter.com/ShadowITCfilm #ShadowInTheCloud

shadowinthecloudfilm.com

FB @shadowinthecloudfilm

https://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2021/02/shadow-in-the-cloud.html