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

 "TV (The Book)" gives an excellent breakdown of the Greatest TV Shows of All Time.

I love to read well written pieces on cinema, and recently with the rise in quality of television shows, some really good work has been written about the TV shows that aspire to push that format's artistic boundaries.

This book breaks down the 100 greatest television shows of all time, but what is fascinating is how they assigned numerical ratings to various factors, like consistency of quality, how innovating it was, how influential it was, and more. (The link breaks down examples of all these things.)  But reading this book, it really makes you appreciate how great some television shows were that I watched decades ago, enjoyed, but didn't realize how special it was.  These reviewers point out exactly why some shows I knew were great but wouldn't have thought so because I only knew of them as repeats sandwiched between less impressive shows on a weekday afternoon.

Not many people realize that "The X-Files" was the first show that split between serialized and anthologized storytelling. And how big of a deal this was, since most networks were overly concerned with how valuable the show would be for syndication, and studios were certain a show that required you to watch it each week or fall behind, would never be a big ratings hit.  ("Deep Space Nine" was the only Star Trek series that said we're going that route too.)  (Also of note, only the X-Files and the old Batman tv show dared to make a feature film at the same time as the series was airing.)

I appreciate well written insightful reviews, and the author's writing is great, such as the line about how there were a lot of police shows before "Hill Street Blues", but every police show after it was never the same because of it. "Veronica Mars" season 1 is a master class of how to do a season long mystery arc right. And the idea of "Terriers" wasn't special, but the execution absolutely was. The show is impossible to describe without it sounding like something you've seen a hundred times, but it wasn't.  

Or how unlikely a concept the wonderful "Hannibal" was, with the creator of "Pushing Daisies" offering a take on the very famous characters, after 4 novels, 5 films, and dozens of copy cats. And any sane predictor would assume the show would be both too silly and too violent to last more than a few weeks, with a 'catch a new psycho each week' type of structure. Not to mention he had been portrayed by two actors whose work was so strong that people argue over who was greater. But we don't care, so here is a brand new actor we're going to drop in... and then this guy somehow managed to successfully incarnate every preposterous assertion made about Lecter in the books. Many moments in this show are so peculiar, revolting, perverse, and altogether bizarre that the very notion of Hannibal's airing on a traditional broadcast network seems laughable. And yet it did so for three years!

"The Shield" had an ending so powerful, so unflinching, and so very much a culmination of the entire series, that it retroactively made everything that came before it better. Without that finale, The Shield is still a great show. With it, it's one for the ages.

"Star Trek" dared to exist in a time of an 'intergalactic peace', when our country was in such turmoil that most Americans thought we'd never not be at war with someone, if even just ourselves. "Miami Vice" was the most aggressively cinematic drama made up until that time, and was a visually musical show where style, mood, and imagery were more important than plot. "E.R.'s" secret was that it was less a hospital drama than an action show.

For Fargo, It's the difference between a cover band and a tribute act whose original material not only evokes the original but frequently lives up to it.  Not once, but in two full completely different tv seasons. It had no business working. None. Its very existence should have been considered a joke. Who is his right mind would think to take the Coen brother's most acclaimed movie, a pair everyone would love to imitate but no one can, even after the series had already been tried in the late 90's? Yet somehow Noah Hawley found a way to create a series that exists in the movie's universe, with the same tone, and frequent nods to other Coen films, and still manages to tell its own story with its own characters.

"Freaks and Geeks" - NBC had under contract at one time Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jason Segel, Paul Feig, and Judd Apatow, who's films have made more than 5 Billion, and won several Oscars, and threw them away in a perfect show lasting one season, and didn't even air three of the eighteen episodes. It's like the time Decca passed on the Beatles to sign Brian Poole and the Tremeloes.

"Homicide" always had at least three African American cast members at any one time, plus several other recurring actors of color playing cops up and down the ranks, meant the series could casually do something unheard of at the time: put multiple black characters together in scenes, featuring no white characters, that had nothing to do with race. It definitely dealt with racial issues, but characters didn't have to be defined by them. Again, unheard of in 1993.

They point out shows like "Arrested Development" and "Police Squad" that failed because tv viewers needed to be attentive. And how "Scrubs" was the rare successful 'dramedy', that could go back and forth in a single episode between drama and comedy, in ways even "Mash" never accomplished. Actually, from tragedy to absurdity and back again, which sounds impossible, but it managed it almost every week for eight years.

"Moonlighting" The audience didn't flee because they got bored after David and Maddie hooked up; they fled because the final seasons went out of their way to keep them apart and everyone got frustrated waiting. Good luck telling this to many modern TV comedy writers who've taken it as gospel that Moonlighting went from phenomenon to fiasco overnight because audiences prefer their romantic gratification to be perpetually delayed.

Only a few shows appear here that I had never heard of, like HBO's "Enlightened" or 1963's "East Side/West Side" starring George C Scott. Reading their one page breakdown of it, I'm rather shocked it isn't talked about more.

A few times they mention how a show was overall only so-so, but one particular season was so spectacular that the season alone deserves special mention. (Homeland season 1, Dexter season 4, and seasons 2 of Chuck and Sons of Anarchy, come to mind)

"The Wire"'s structure owed a bit to both journalism and police work. It kept adding new characters, stories, and communities that were at once separate from and connected to the rest, like precinct maps or sections of a newspaper. The still constant use of Simpson's quotes in daily like has supplied a sentiment for every occasion, so many that it now gives the King James Bible a run for its money. The two phases, or ages, of "Cheers" (Diane and Rebecca) feel like childhood and adulthood.

There are even special chapters listing the greatest miniseries of all time, the greatest made for tv movies ("Duel"), and plays made into TV events.

This is a really good book, full of smart writing, interesting takes, and about subjects you think you know all about, but don't.

https://www.theringer.com/2016/9/1/16044200/deadwood-hbo-tv-the-book-dadb4007790e

By Alan Sepinwall and Matt Zoller Seitz

Voyagers - movie review

Voyagers - Movie review by Keith Metcalfe

Everyone says it feels like a Lord of the Flies, and it does, but more importantly, it sticks in a strong element of The Blue Lagoon, which is definitely missing from Lord of the Flies. Makes sense that there would be a sci-fi version of the story, so I'm surprised it hasn't been done before. It's different not just because the kids are around 18, so not really children, but instead of being stranded, the bad element actually purposefully removes the lone adult authority figure because he considered him to be competition for the fellow astro-teen that he lusted after.

That's very different from Lord of the Flies. And there is an element where they discover that their puberty urges are being chemically dulled, so avoiding the medication is what brings about the rush of hormones.

The actors are all a bit better than good. I've always liked Colin Farrell, even when he's been in less than stellar films. I haven't seen Yoga-Hosers yet, but Rose Depp does stand out, even though I wish they gave her a bit more to do. I think it could've been a stronger story if her personality made her the object of the male's attention, rather than just her unusually good looks. (Although I admit, maybe that wouldn't make sense, as the movie states that their personalities were all chemically dulled.)

I was excited to see this because the director is Neil Burger who did "Limitless" ten years ago; Which I found to be the most visually exciting film since "Fight Club", 12 years before that. The direction is good, and there are some really interesting flourishes, like rapid montages, and mixing some archival footage with what's happening in the present (not unlike his incredible "Interview with an Assassin", the rarely seen film of his from 2002, about JFK's assassin doing an interview for a film scholar neighbor).

So why is this boring, when it has all the ingredients for a great film? Because their personalities are so bland, we don't really get to know them, at least not until they 'break'. And there are no surprises. And not just because we recognize the story. It just sort of lies there. It's bland. And that's a shame, because it looks good, and feels like a better film during many moments as you watch it.

Ted Lasso

I finally watched this. I admit I simply didn't believe all the hype could be true. And I definitely didn't think I'd enjoy a show about a sport, a sport I don't follow or care about, and what seemed like an obvious 'fish out of water' type plot.

Yet, I must give praise, and admit that it got to me. By the end of the 3rd episode I got it, and was hooked. Ted's determination to win you over with kindness worked on me.

I doubt if anyone could dislike this show. It's very comforting, but unlike most shows trying to be comforting, it's quite complex, clever, and unpredictable. I think at least six characters go through a full arc, and that's actually really saying something considering it's only ten half-hour episodes.

Of note is how well all of the minor character's were. And even the smaller storylines. Everybody is 3-dimensional. What would normally be an angry stuck up woman is really a woman who hopes a revenge plan will hold off her pain and repeated humiliations. We see characters on the field acting arrogant, but conflicted because they know it feels wrong, but do it because they were raised to be that way.

And so many characters who don't stand up for themselves learn to, because Ted believes that is more important than winning. And that this is what a real coach is supposed to do.

And Ted isn't static either, in his optimism or ideas. He changes and evolves. He screws up, and admits it, learns from it, and is the better person for it.

Seriously, watch this. I'm definitely going to revisit it again in a few months.

Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Fincher version revisited

I watched "The Girl with Dragon Tattoo" (Fincher version) when it was in theaters about ten years ago, and not again until this week. (I still have never seen the Swedish version.)

Watching it again, ready for the most graphic moments that are the only parts many people can remember, I couldn't help but notice just how brilliantly well the detective story worked. This is a clever version of the locked room type puzzle, where the investigator knows he is on an island with someone who must be the killer. And with a variety of false leads, nasty people, and current distractions, it keeps us wondering as well, rather than just watching.

I watched it with the intent to study Fincher's work, and it's great. And listening to the director's commentary, I learned a lot about the process, and appreciated the film even more. (Like pretty much all of his commentary tracks.)

This is an impressive film to fit in barely under three hours. He makes no apologies as he is certain it had to be a five act film, not three, and no part could be taken away without lessening the experience of watching it. And yes, it is the same investigator from 2019's brilliant "Knives Out".

If you enjoy commentary tracks, here Fincher goes into so many details, including difficulties of translating the book, knowing that it was already a successful Swedish film, and having to film in Sweden where they treat the main character as culturally important. He points out lots of minor CGI that we aren't supposed to notice. And lots of tiny details important to the background of the characters that we wouldn't notice while watching the film.

He actually explains the actors motivations and personal touches a lot more than I am used to Fincher doing. He gives the impression that several of the actors brought something to the film that he had not seen on the page, and he knows they made his film better.

With some of the more graphic scenes, he goes over how different decisions were decided upon, to show what he wanted but be comfortable with the censors. Even with the various murder photos that we only see for part of a second.

You get the feeling that while rewatching the film, he is genuinely overjoyed with how it came out. Not that he didn't expect it to be great, but it still exceeded his expectations.

Godzilla Vs Kong movie review

Godzilla vs Kong movie review by Keith Metcalfe

This film feels incredibly choppy. Like they said we're only going to make enough CGI to make a fantastic trailer, and the rest we'll pad with reaction shots and generic story telling. So many moments seem missing, and make the film feel like someone is jump cutting ahead through non-fighting scenes.  Leads talk about having a plan, and suddenly Kong is somehow on a ship in giant chains. A guy defibrulates Kong sitting on his chest, leaves a ship, and is then suddenly walking through a city with Kong recovering in the background.  Did I imagine it, or was there a scene with a magic glowing Axe lying near a throne built for Kong? What was that even about? Does anyone involved in the film know?

This is a good example of a film that is more produced than directed, that is created and written by committee more concerned with checking off boxes rather than being art, which is why we get a film that throws in a huge multi-national cast of varying ages with little to do but react to large monsters fighting.

I'm pretty sure there was supposed to be a lot of backstory about the giant international company that had the funds to capture Kong, and was in possession of creatures from skull island, but they are just kind of there being your standard evil large conglomerate. As are the scientists studying Kong, Godzilla, and the remains of Ghidorah, the 3 headed 'alien' monster from Godzilla. I'm not even sure if the film makers were trying to 'world build', like the marvel universe has been doing, but likely just plugged in tried-and-true standard plot elements as excuses to set up monster fights. Like the teens sneaking into a base with a podcaster trying to expose the evil corporation.  And an experiment designed to create a giant monster going out of control.

Were these kids ever really in danger? It didn't feel like it. Just as sure I was that the 'bad guys' were going to be killed by Kong or Godzilla, and of course any random 'red shirt' we see piloting a craft alongside our leads. But I also knew the good guys weren't going to die. Including the giant monsters in the film.

There also weren't a lot of stakes involved with the monsters. I noticed that Kong gets hurt, and we see scars on his body from old and new encounters. Godzilla seems invulnerable, even at the end when he is being thrown around by mecha-godzilla.

I had to look up if some of these characters were even in the previous films. Most weren't!

I truly couldn't remember which actors were in previous films, but this film treats all of them like we are supposed to remember them and what they've done.  I could seriously quiz you on which ones we saw in Godzilla (2019) or Kong Skull Island, and you would be wrong, very wrong, when trying to figure out which actors we saw, which characters we saw, and which ones were recast with different actors.

And now I'm reading that it takes place 5 years after the 2019 Godzilla, but 51 years after Kong Skull Island. So does a writer or producer have notes as to who all these various new characters are, and their backstories, but they simply couldn't be bothered to tell us what their stories are? Or maybe they didn't know how to tell us without exposition.

So did I like the film?  Or even just the action?  Sure.  About a trailer's length worth.

I will say that I did admire the clever story trick of having us root for one side over the other, and then make the bad guy (who had won), suddenly need help, forcing the combatants to team up and fight the new big bad guy.

Would more hollywood have made this a better film?  I'm glad we didn't get a needless romance, but would have liked at least one compelling villain. Or even the slightest chance that a lead, human or monster, could actually have been killed.

I am glad I saw it in a theater (I was the only person in attendance, but it was playing at 4 different times, yet it was also on discount ticket day)

3 out of 5 stars (almost 2.5)

https://youtu.be/MyJ-pV26XPw

Nobody (2021) movie review

"Nobody" - Movie Review by Keith Metcalfe

All the marketing materials tell us that this is from the writer of John Wick, but that doesn't mean it feels like and works like Wick. But we do get a reluctant super fighter, some gun porn, and of course waves of over-armed Russians as the bad guys.  I did notice, and like, the fact that while Odenkirk is the better fighter, he often got hurt, and not in minor ways.

Odenkirk does play the sad domesticated suburban family man well. (Apparently there is a real life story about him actually dealing with home invaders and locking them in his basement.)

The action is good, but still a noticeable step down from anything Wick. The scene where he leaves to rescue his daughter's kitty bracelet worked better for me than all the action scenes. The way it played out, and the conclusion, before all the real action started.

Overall the film feels a little too brief. Feels like there could've been a great action scene we missed, but saw in Montage as he destroyed his opponent's fortunes.

And related to being too brief some characters we don't really know who they are, so when they pop up, we probably were supposed to be cheering for, but instead sort of confused as to why they are there and who they are at first.

I'm glad I saw it in a theater. (I was the only person in attendance, and it was on discount ticket day, but was the earlier show so maybe more people would've been there for the evening one.)

4 out of 5 stars, almost 4.5

Hitchcock Truffaut, Review of the 2015 documentary

Hitchcock/Truffaut is a 2015 Documentary based on the famous book. The book with this title will be found on the bookshelves of every film major.  And certainly every director.

And I just found out about, and watched, the 2015 documentary based on the book.  How Meta is that?  It isn't just about the book, but features interviews with great directors talking about the importance of the book, what it meant to them, how they came across it. This includes greats like Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, and Peter Bogdanovich. (Notably absent, Brian DePalma.)

For those who don't know, the book was simply the recording of a week long interview between the director Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock, where they went over each and every one of Hitchcock's films. (Except the four he filmed after this book was written.)

In 1962, directors were being treated like artists, and Hitchcock was respected but not taken too seriously as he was simply too successful, and even dabbling (successfully) in television, which made him considered too 'studio' to be thought of as a great director. Truffaut even says in France older directors considered him a light entertainer, rather than a serious artist. And he wanted his book to prove that this was not the case.

Perhaps an equivalent snobbery is lobbied today against Spielberg, or Stephen King as a writer.

Me personally, I own a copy of the book after a film student in college, named Dan, told me about it, and pointed out in all the student films this book was always in the background or on a coffee table. And I read the appropriate section of the book right after I see a Hitchcock film. Between 2016 and 2018 I caught maybe twenty of Hitchcock's work on TMC (before comcast took that channel away from me). I had seen some of his most famous works before, but definitely not all 40 plus.

About a 3rd of this documentary is Hitchcock's own words from the interview, describing his work. Another 3rd are the great directors talking about what made Hitchcock great, which moments of his films really stand out to them, and his influence. The rest are spent with specific films, visual ideas he invented, who he made his films for, what defines a director 'artist', and other similar very interesting things.

One highpoint for me is a moment where Hitchcock is telling Truffaut about a scene in one of Truffaut's movies telling him that if he did it right, there wouldn't have been any dialog. It reminded me that Hitchcock started in silent films, and knows how to tell a story using only visuals.  And in another part, explaining his troubles with actors.  It is one thing reading Hitchcock's famous slights about what he thinks of actors, but to hear Hitchcock's own voice speak about how dare Montgomery Clift question where the script tells him to look because he isn't sure his character would do that. You can really hear the disgust in his voice.

Reading up on it, the director Kent Jones said that Brian De Palma declined to participate because of De Palma (2015). "Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow just did a movie about him. They worked on that film for about four years. I asked [De Palma] and he said he wanted to save what he thought about Hitchcock for their movie." Kathryn Bigelow was asked to speak in this film but she declined saying she was "too shy".

This is a really interesting documentary for anyone who enjoys films, and wants a masterclass in how to tell the story visually, or create suspense.

The Old Guard movie review

The Old Guard - movie review - Netflix released

I think some comic books don't expect to be a big hit, and thus blatantly steal from great works. That was definitely the case with The Walking Dead, which initially was such obvious theft from "28 Days Later" that I can't believe Danny Boyle doesn't get royalties from the TV show. But "The Old Guard" takes so much from "Highlander" that I can't believe every review doesn't start with that fact.  The film even ends like a pilot for a tv show could have, leading to obvious weekly episodes where they take on a new mission each week.

That said, I am such a fan of the Highlander mythology that I really didn't mind the copying, as it is done well, and the action is better than average. Plus, they do jump a bit away from noble sword fights among themselves, to fighting with the most modern guns against non-immortals. And while hiding who they are from humanity, their mission is to help guide humanity in better ways, rather than try to exist outside and parallel to it. Now I'm wondering if anyone young who isn't familiar with "Highlander" thinks this is a ripoff of "Hancock", which Charlize's character shares some similarities with.

I'm a little bothered that the rules don't make a lot of sense. There are hints that there is something genetic in the DNA that makes them special, but then why do they randomly stop being immortal, as that means it isn't just a DNA factor, but something more mystical than science based. How do they sense other immortals on the other side of the world?  They show them rapidly healing from small wounds several times, and a number of times they imply they cannot be killed, yet obviously something like complete incineration would burn them beyond anything left to heal. And I suppose cutting off the head seemed too obvious to bring up, but I doubt they grow new heads (or bodies from a severed head).

There is a lot of talk about the gay immortal characters in the film. Actually, this was done really well. But I think mostly because of the actor. I hadn't noticed him before, but he was recently Jafar in "Aladdin".

I'm surprised this was as big of a hit as it was. I'm not sure if it was in theaters if it would have done as well as Netflix reports it was streamed. No one has really verified their numbers, and I'm not really hearing people screaming for followups to be made, like I'd expect from the way Netflix says it was received.

It's worth seeing, is pretty good, a very watchable action film.

4 out of 5 stars.

Zack Synder's Justice League movie review

Zack Snyder's Justice League

I was amazed by the amount of money spent on what would basically be a reshoot, but now I see that this is a totally different film. I'm amazed by how much is different. In some ways, due to the fact fans pushed for this to be made, it is more of an event than a film. If you are familiar with the original Justice League film from only 4 years ago, this is a truly new experience.

I assumed Whedon did what he usually did, and added a number of very memorable jokes, strong character moments, and emotional story points. (As examples, the line "Save just one person", the Aquaman sitting on the lasso scene, and the appearance of Lois at a key moment.)  But he either really made a whole different film, or Synder just came along and made something far darker and larger than even he was originally going to shoot. (And that is a possibility considering what's happened in his life after he started filming.)

Whedon made much more of a Marvel feeling film, which isn't bad, but had the wrong starting point to work from, after Man of Steel and Superman vs Batman.  Synder's Justice League is good, actually even better than the Whedon version, but almost purely because of the action moments, and consistency of tone.

Is anything funny left in the Synder version? Not really. I think some awkward Flash moments were supposed to be, but some stuff like Aquaman sitting on Wonder Woman's lasso worked in Whedon's version, and it's funny. I'm surprised it wasn't kept in. Less surprising to me is the opening Batman with a robber, which set the wrong tone for a scene in a film with a 'dark' Batman.

Watching it, I know it must be true that Cyborg was really pulled out of Whedon's. It really did change a chunk of the story.

One thing Whedon definitely improved was the ending of the first fight with resurrected Superman. I think Synder started it better (Cyborg's suit attacking), but Synder had Lois just happen to be walking by (with a brief shot of a pregnancy test?), whereas Whedon had Batman thinking several moves ahead, and having Lois being used as a hail-mary solution if Superman got out of control. That is a brilliant difference, and one of the few moments showing Batman to be the brains of the team.

But is the Synder cut a good film on it's own? I ask this because it's impossible to watch it and not know about the context, and compare it to the initially released version.  (And be reminded this was supposed to be laying the groundwork for the next five films - that aren't going to happen.)

It is more than twice as long and far from twice as good. I'm certain the film didn't need to be four hours long. And probably 5-10 minutes of the Whedon stuff could've fit nicely in here, improving it. And it really needed less slow motion, and more time to explain things. I don't know much about mother boxes and Darkseed. The movie gave me nothing beforehand, and at the end, I'm not sure if I understand enough if I saw it again. I accept we don't need to waste time learning about Batman, Superman, or Wonder Woman's origins because we should know them from the previous films, but Martian Manhunter and Deathstroke appear with no explanations of who/what they are. They mentioned things like Flash and time travel that I understand only from the tv show. We get a very odd time reversing scene at the end, that feels like the characters know something that we don't, there are implied repercussions that don't happen, and I really don't think that's how time travel would/could work in any sci-fi fictional version.

One reviewer I saw talk about this film mentioned how long some exposition scenes seemed here, which I didn't notice at the time, but maybe just because I still didn't understand all of it.

There is also a very odd epilogue, lasting maybe 20 minutes - these are not fun endings - don't really make sense, adding new characters, but doing nothing with them. This is exactly how not to do end credit scenes.

More amazing to me is that the studio must really have thought the fans would make this a huge hit, even though it was not to be released in theaters. There must be a really interesting story about what made them greenlight this.

Each film is worth watching, with Synder's a star better. I'm wondering if I'd like Synder's less if I hadn't seen Whedon's to compare it to. Sort of like how I wonder if I'd like the director's cut of Blade Runner as much without the theatrical that came before it.

4 vs 3 stars

Hunt Showdown game review

Hunt Showdown - The best of all the Fortnite and PUBG type games out there.

How many games give you nightmares after playing it for just 30 minutes?

This is a gorgeous, but incredibly tense and scary game. It must be over a year old now, but free for four days this Easter weekend, after adding lots of new better features and changes. It was free last June, then last September, and now.  If you need to compare it to something, it is sort of a PUBG game, only with much more dangerous monsters covering the map you have to avoid or work through, before fighting it out with other humans, by yourself, or in a group. And the graphics are from Crytek, who make the Far Cry and Crysis games, so this isn't cartoony graphics. It's raw horror.

This is no run and shooter, but a stealthy game. You don't hunt so much as stalk, if you want to survive.  And you can end the game by reaching an extraction point, as opposed to having to kill everybody. Also, you are competing with other players, but will likely have to join up with them to collect the Bounty required to win, that is guarded by what I'd call a Resident Evil boss battle. There are now four randomly chosen from each game.

This has an interesting setting, post US Civil War, in a Louisiana bayou filled with zombies and demons. You can dodge and hide from the slower moving zombies. But not the demonic canines. Or the zombies that send out a swarm of poisonous wasps to attack. Or the ones that throw leeches from their bodies, or even fire.

Fire in this game is amazing, both to look at and how it follows physics. If you are on fire, it spreads to the zombies who ignite each other, the grass, buildings; it even stops at water.

You have a variety of weapons, but none let you mow down even the intermediate enemies with impunity. And the more powerful weapons aren't silent, which is a big deal when trying not to be noticed by the enemy. And once you've killed the boss and are running for an escape spot, everyone else sees a guide as to where you are.

Those easily addicted to loot based games will fall hard for this. Some who love horror too. But it's fun, and that should be the main draw for everybody.

I played this on an Xbox One, as you need a really strong computer to play it with maxed out settings, and the Crytek engine works well. There is some stuttering during one boss fight with a giant spider rapidly running along the walls and ceiling at you. I'm shuddering just thinking about what that did to me the first time I saw it in the tutorial. Or really each time afterwards.

The graphics are obviously beautiful, but the sound design should also be commended. And now I'm wondering how much more terrifying the game would be if I had a great surround system set up for my console. You rattle chains and steps on leaves that crunch. You always have your ears open as much as your eyes when working your way through a heavily wooded area approaching a bounty, wondering if other players are hiding waiting for someone to come along. Scaring a bunch of crows feeding on a corpse is terrifying as everyone will turn and see them taking flight and know something just disturbed nature.

For achievement collectors, it's not too good. You should get an easy 90 or so points, just playing it while free for 2-5 hours, but after that it will take some dedication and luck if you want to steadily earn them all. You do stuff like kill a lot of monsters, complete bounties, rise in levels, etc., over all your games.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=803IUEgOBfE

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9Gm36sJng

Half Life Alyx Observation

Half Life Alyx - the Virtual Reality game, and my surprise.

How was Half-life Alyx not the "killer app" that made everyone jump on Virtual Reality?  It came out one year ago.  The reviews were universally fantastic when it came out a year ago.  No real competitor has been released since.  It was the highest rated game of the year, actually, and even tied at 93% with the highest rated game of last year. The game's execution is perfect. the franchise is one of everyone's favorites, people have been begging for the next one for years.

And the release timing was pretty good because everyone was stuck in their homes for the first lockdown.

Yet the whole month after it came out, the game boards were full of people talking about Animal Crossing and Final Fantasy 7 being modernized.

For those that don't know, a "killer app" is software that makes people buy hardware just for that. For old computers, Visicalc was something businesses immediately knew was a game changer.  Word processors too.  The Atari 2600 supposedly doubled all of its sales in the weeks after Space Invaders came out.  I'm surprised VR needed one, but I knew if it did, it was going to be either a game, or something spectacularly educational.  Like realistic training drills for something like flying a plane or driving a car.  (Of course something pornographic was always an option, because for VCR's it was of course porn, and probably even the motivation for the web and computers for a lot of people too.  But I can't imagine anything dirty that is truly immersive is going to be done in VR anytime soon.)

How is Virtual Reality still not mainstream in the gaming community? Some people spend $600 on their graphic cards every two years, so a $500 or even $1000 VR rig shouldn't be out of the question.

I do want to add that Valve missed a golden opportunity to have VR headsets shaped like head crabs!

Here is one great video reviewing the game.  And it's pretty funny too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwsL6BO8ls

Tenet review

Tenet movie review by Keith Metcalfe

I mentioned in yesterdays clip for "New Mutants", the other film I saw the same day, that it was the first time for me in a theater in approximately 7 months. As an interesting side note about theaters reopening, is that my local multiplex now does screen rentals for only $150. That's a really reasonable price if you have a birthday party, business outing, or really just anything with ten people, and can have a theater all to yourself playing any film that's out.  It's sort of a brilliant marketing idea, actually, and hope keeps theaters open through difficult pandemic times.

Christopher Nolan definitely deserves adulation for pushing the medium. His films are think pieces that no one would accuse of trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That said, as good as a film is, when we aren't able to follow what is happening, it's more frustrating than enjoyable.

After I saw the film, I went home and read up on it. I found several reviews by people who explained the film, in detail, after they had watched it a few times. And as I read these, I went "Oh, that's what happened there." too many times for me to say the film didn't fail on some level.

The acting is good, as expected with people like Branaugh. And it did feel like a sci-fi James Bond, which I'd like to see more of, if done well. And it stimulated my brain, not just in trying to understand what was happening, but because it challenges us to really pay attention to what is being planned, and what happens when the plans go a bit off.  Those parts of the film make it well worth watching. As I watched it, I wanted to understand it better, and figure out what was going to happen. A bad film that is this confusing, I would have given up on in 15 minutes.

Just expect to be confused, and rewinding a little bit, isn't going to help. You need to see the film through. Read up on it. And maybe watch it again, before you will really understand it all.

Also of note is how hard it was to hear some of the dialog in the film. Shortly after the film's release Nolan made a statement where he said he "was shocked to realize how conservative people are when it comes to sound".  He compared it to films that visually make it hard to tell what's going on.  But so many of Nolan's films have characters who are purposefully hard to understand. Bane, the oxygen mask wearers in Dunkirk, and if I didn't see "Interstellar" in the very best theater, I'd assume the speakers weren't adjusted right and the music was overpowering the dialog. Nope. That was intended. In this film there are at least two scenes when characters are talking, and I think we are supposed to be able to hear them, but the engine noise, or the masks they are wearing make me expect subtitles.  Again, more frustrating than pleasing artistically.

New Mutants review

New Mutants movie review by Keith Metcalfe

I caught "New Mutants" in a theater, because I hadn't seen anything in a theater in the longest time ever, from March 11 to Oct 13th.  I saw two films that day, the second "Tenet" I'll post tomorrow.

This was the last week for this film that had been out over a month, and never did well when it opened, so I didn't expect a crowd for the 5pm showing, but I was the only person in the theater, for discount day. (But only three people were in the biggest hit at the time, so it isn't fair to judge this too harshly.)

However, as much as I hate to criticize a film made by an artist/creator I love dearly, and starring at least two actresses I really like, the movie, unfortunately fails.  It isn't really a superhero film, but a scary film, and it is somewhat successful in that regard. You get your cheap jump scares I usually despise, but there is some genuine moody dread in scenes that works well.

It isn't the disaster the release delay of over a year and some online reviews worried me it would be.

But it could have been a great superhero movie, having all the pieces, like a group of teens learning to use their dangerous powers, many of whom had tragic introductions to them. It works around those ideas, but keeps falling into wanting to be a horror film. It's hard to call it a comic book film, as that just isn't the genre it wants to be. So maybe, I'll watch it again, knowing it to be a horror film, and judge it better, but for now I can only give it 2.5 stars out of 5.

I was a fan of Anna Taylor Joy before everyone knew her from Queen's Gambit, and liked her in films no one else saw, like Morgan and The Witch. (I hope people saw the two really good Shyamalan films she's been in.)  She is the best part of the film, and just about the best character, and most interesting.  I'm actually a little annoyed they seemed to pull back on showing her traumatic story and suspect there are deleted scenes that will pop up in an extended edition. Maisie Williams (from Game of Thrones) has a nice turn in a different type of character, sweet, tortured, and caring. And does commendable work.