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.