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