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.