Great "Mixup" Movie (SPOILERS) - The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) Discussion

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

As I mentioned in our other conversation, I was going to rewatch this one and chime in with some thoughts, so here goes. And sorry in advance to dump so much on you, but I have a lot to say!

I first saw this film a few years ago when I was looking around for good action movies that I hadn't yet managed to see. The action genre is by far my favorite in all of cinema and it's gotten to the point where it seems like I've watched just about everything that would appeal to me, and so finding new action movies that are actually worth watching can be difficult to do. But somehow I stumbled upon this one and aboslutely LOVED IT! I regard it as a total hidden gem that doesn't get nearly the appreciation that it deserves.

You're correct that the action is outlandish, but I find that to be part of its charm. It very much employs the over-the-top style of action that was so popular in the 80s and 90s and, for me, that's pretty nostalgic. Sure, it's not realistic, and perhaps in some ways it's better today that movies try to be a little more plausible, but with this movie I think it's a lot of fun and I also have to applaud the creativity of many of the sequences and stunts.

I agree that the dialogue is excellent. There are so many humorous lines and so much funny banter that the dialogue alone will keep you entertained throughout. In terms of the dialogue, this may even be the single most funny script that Shane Black has ever written. "What are you, a Mormon?" . . . "Yeah, I'm a Mormon. That's why I just smoked a pack of Newports and drank three vodka tonics."

The script, by the way, was sold for $4 million dollars, and I think that it may still stand as the most money ever paid for a movie script.

(Continued below.)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

No worries about dumping a lot of text my way! I'm here for the conversations! If I wanted minimal, meaningless blabbering, I'd be over on Twitter complaining about Elon Musk right now (or praising his name like a deity...seems like it's one or the other).

You're right: action schlock (I mean that in a good, fun sense) can be plenty of fun, and the over-the-top stuff can be very fun. I think of Predator as being in that mode, and it is a fun movie. This one isn't as over-the-top as Predator, of course.

Now I'm trying to think of lesser-seen action movies you might dig on... You're probably more well-versed in the genre than I am. Here goes:

Slipstream (with Mark Hamill) is more of a sci-fi film, but it definitely has the classic action vibe at times.
Shaft (the new one) had a lot of people skipping it, but I loved it. I thought it was great.
Valkyrie (the Tom Cruise movie) would definitely fill the action movie niche.

None of those are probably news to you, but I figured I'd take a stab at it.

Shane Black is one solid scriptwriter, and the lines here are great. But for me, Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang was funnier. Nothing's ever gonna top, "Eight? EIGHT!? WHO TAUGHT YOU MATH!?"

And, yes, there's a lot of good creativity with the setpieces. I think my favourite sequence was Geena Davis sniping and covering Jackson while he made a run for it.

I heard about that $4 mil payday. Good for Shane. I can't think of one that sold for more than that. Tarantino might've been able to make that money somewhere around 2000-2010, if he had been selling instead of making them himself. I don't even know if he'd get that for one of his scripts these days, even without inflation. Maybe. Maybe if he does actually retire from directing, but decides to sell a script. I doubt he would, though. He doesn't need the cash and he hates his stuff in the hands of others.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Are you referring to the Shaft from 2000 or 2019? In any case, I actually saw both. I enjoyed 2000 more than 2019.

Valkyrie is definitely a fine movie, and an underappreciated one at that. It seems to be largely forgotten at this point. You certainly never hear anyone talk about it. I saw it in the theater though and liked it.

Slipstream is a new one to me. You got me with that one; never even heard of it. I'll have to look into that one. Thanks for the recommendation.

Regarding the script, I remember reading up on it and apparently that specific time in the 90s was known as a time when studios were really willing to pay top dollar for good screenplays. Apparently I was wrong about TLKG being the top-selling script, though. According to this 2019 article it was actually Deja Vu, which sold for $5 million.

https://www.therichest.com/luxury/expensive-film-scripts-sold-auction/

It's weird to me that the script for such a middling, "just OK" movie holds that honor.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I was referring to the 2019 Shaft. A lot of people dumped on it, but I really enjoyed it. I think people thought it was going to be about how Shaft should be more of a "modern man," but I found it was more about bridging the gap between father and son and, if anything, about how the son needed to nut up.

I missed Valkyrie in theatres, but I finally got around to watching it a few months back. I really enjoyed it. I think Cruise is an underrated actor. People think of him as "pretty boy Tom" or "Scientology Man," but they forget that he's knocked it out of the park in so many ways. Interview with the Vampire, Collateral, The Last Samurai, and Magnolia (his best role) just to name four.

I think you'll dig Slipstream. As I said, it's sci-fi, but it's good stuff, and Hamill (another underrated performer) is good in it.

I'm always happy when writers get their due. It seems they so rarely get the respect and payment they deserve. The flip-side is, of course, that studios don't know good from bad writing, hence stuff like Deja Vu getting top dollah. In-general, though, I think studios should prize great writing and work harder on the scripts because those are the blueprint and foundation of the film. You can make a mediocre movie out of a bad script, but if you want a great movie, you need dynamite on the page (with rare exceptions).

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I do think that Tom is a good actor, and it's been interesting to see him slowly regain his reputation and the good will of the people and move into this current state of his career. Throughout the 80s and much of the 90s he was mostly a drama guy, but now he seems to have firmly re-established himself as one of the premiere action guys, with his specialty being working on films with practical effects where he does a lot of his own stunts. Considering the fact that he's now 60-years-old, I have to wonder how long the action phase will last and if we'll soon see him start to shift back toward dramatic work.

I agree with you about writers. Writers are largely hidden from view. From what I can tell, unless you're one of the very best in the industry, you get little respect from the studios and almost zero recognition from the public.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Yeah. I miss drama Tom. He pumped out some amazing material and I'd love to see something else from that side of him. For me, his best stuff is usually the blend. While I think TJ from Magnolia is his top performance, I think Nathan and Vincent from Last Samurai and Collateral, respectively, are amazing, too. They give us great drama and top action. Actually, I think Edge of Tomorrow was similar. That film's marvellous.

The other thing with the best writers is that we don't usually know their names unless they're also directors. Who are the best writers in Hollywood, or at least the best and most well-known?

Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Mel Brooks... Even Shane Black - I didn't know his name until KKBB. Maybe I'm alone on that one, but there it is. Old Hollywood had Billy Wilder (director). Some people know Lawrence Kasdan because he worked on Empire Strikes Back. And I think people know Nora Ephron more as a writer, but they're the exception, not the rule. Simon Pegg writes, but he's also an actor.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Tom was great in Collateral and The Last Samurai. Those are good films as well. It's kind of funny that Tom played the aging hitman in Collateral, which is something that I remember the media making a thing about (oh, Tom Cruise is getting older and embracing it!), and here we are almost 20 years later and he's still playing action heroes and clearly doing his best to defy the aging process. In his Mummy movie in 2017 he's even referred to as a "young man"!

As for writers who never directed, you know, I am trying to think of a well-known writer who has never directed a film--even someone who is only well-known in film circles--and I've got nothing.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Yeah, I think Cruise is in denial about his age or something. He should really embrace it more. I didn't see The Mummy, but calling him a "young man" is pushing it - even if he is in great shape and well-preserved.

I know a few writers, but I'm also kinda weird like that. Joe Eszterhas, for instance, although I mostly know him because he's got this borderline misogynist streak in a lot of his work, and he got a reputation for that. Lawrence Kasdan is, I think, the only one that a lot of people know because of Empire Strikes Back. And, like I said, Nora Ephron might have done other things, but she is known for her writing (as opposed to guys like Tarantino who I think is basically known for his directing, or at least for "Tarantino films," not for being a writer).

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

The 2017 Mummy film actually was not bad, I thought. It is nowhere near as good as the '99 film with Brendan Fraser, but I wouldn't have a problem giving it a 7/10. It was in fact one of the first 4K Blu-Rays I ever bought. It's at least good enough that I am disappointed the Dark Universe didn't move forward. It's pretty crazy that a movie can make over $400 million globally and still be regarded as a failure.

Regarding writers, I'm feeling like I should put more effort into learning who the best writers in Hollywood are. Outside of the obvious people that we've discussed, I now feel woefully ignorant on the topic.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

That's about what I thought the 2017 Mummy would be. The problem was that it looked too much like a standard-issue action movie without the "something special" (like what TLKG has). The Brendan Fraser Mummy had that "extra" element of fun that made it really work.

It is weird that $400 million isn't a success, but they probably spent that much on the movie and the marketing. But even weirder is that they wanted to launch a "Dark Universe" and didn't start with Dracula or Frankenstein or even the Wolfman, but with the Mummy... Weirdest of all is that, if they'd been paying attention to the Academy Awards, they'd see that The Creature with the Black Lagoon is clearly the way to go - as long as he's schtupping the cleaning lady.

Even I don't know a lot of pure writers. Yeah, I feel like I should look 'em up, too

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Well from what I understand Dracula Untold was supposed to be the first Dark Universe movie, but then it did not perform well and Universal just decided to kind of forget the film even happened. (I saw it and can confirm it is worth forgetting.)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Huh. I kinda liked it.

reply

[–] Nanook (1449) a year ago

Not to derail OP's thread or anything, but being a genre fan and familiar with that sinking feeling you've seen all the great movies in your favorite niche I thought I'd butt in and offer a hand. Since I use IMDb's advanced search to look up my ratings I can tailor criteria in several ways, so lmk if you, say, are adverse to films not in English, or made before a certain period, or don't consider it "action" if it doesn't have an explosion in it, or especially like revenge themes, etc.

And just to bait the hook, so to speak, here are a handful of post-1990 action favorites with fewer than 100K votes that I rated 8/10 or higher, which may be "obscure" to some and "well known" to others. Happy to adjust as desired:

(using U.S. titles even though many are foreign)

The Chaser (2008)
The Man from Nowhere (2010)
The Edge (1997)
I Am a Hero (2015) - "zombie" movie with action
Nikita (1990) - any Long Kiss Goodnight fan has likely seen this already, but wth...
Hotel Mumbai (2018)
Grabbers (2012) - "monster" movie with action
The Lost Room (2006) - a Sci-Fi/SyFy mini-series, but actually good
Turbo Kid (2015)
Shaolin Soccer (2001) - and any Stephen Chow film, pretty much
Supercop (1992) - same with Jackie Chan, obv.
Dragged Across Concrete (2018) - writer/director S. Craig Zahler is like my favorite currently, with only three features under his belt. Super gritty.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Hey man, thanks for the recommendations!

I should've clarified that it has become very difficult to find good ENGLISH-LANGUAGE action movies that I haven't seen. Certainly once you start turning to foreign films the situation changes drastically.

It's not that I am against foreign films, or that I refuse to watch movies with subtitles, but I do always find watching a subtitled movie to be more work, and more exhausting in a way, and therefore I do it only occasionally.

Of the films you've mentioned, I've seen Turbo Kid, Supercop, The Edge and Dragged Across Concrete. I am aware of Shaolin Soccer but I never saw it because the trailer didn't do much for me (though I did see Kung Fu Hustle, which was great).

Nikita I am certainly aware of but I confess I haven't watched it yet. It has been on my to-watch list for years. (I did, however, see the US remake Point of No Return.)

You got me on The Chase, The Man from Nowhere, I Am a Hero, Hotel Mumbai, Grabbers and The Lost Room, though. I see some of those are Korean, and some don't look like they would exactly fall into the "action" genre as I would define it, but it looks like there are a few interesting films in there. I'll have to take a closer look!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

If you liked Kung Fu Hustle, you'd dig Shaolin Soccer.

I get it with the subtitles. Sometimes you don't want your eyes flitting around while you're trying to drink in the visuals of a film. I don't mind them, they don't slow me down much, but I get where they aren't always optimal. I tend to watch dubs with cartoons since the lip-sync isn't as bothersome when it's a cartoon, anyway. Plus, it's a voice actor applying themselves to the role either way. It's not like a voice actor is trying to mimic a live performer's work. I like hearing the original performer if it's live action because hearing their voice with their physicality "clicks" more. But, to each their own - sub, dub, or avoid - it's all good and personal taste.

The Lost Room is good stuff, but it is more sci-fi/thriller than action. I really like it, though.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

The thing about subtitles is that not only does it distract from the visuals, but you have to keep your eyes locked on the screen constantly. There is no getting distracted for a moment or looking at your phone real quick. Maybe on a certain level that's actually a good thing, but I know that by the time I finish watching a feature-length subtitled film I feel like I really put some WORK in to get to the end.

I am with on you dubbed animation BTW. Back in the day I watched a lot of dubbed anime. I remember watching Fatal Fury: The Motion Picture with the English soundtrack many times, and then when I caught some scenes with the origianal Japanese it felt very weird and like a different movie.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

If the movie's good, I'm not letting my eyes leave the screen - subtitles or no. But, yeah, I hear what you're saying. Sometimes you need to flick away for a sec. For me, films are a visual medium, so even flicking my eyes down to grab some subtitled dialogue is not 100% optimal - a necessary evil. Of course, they preserve the original actor's intention and tone, plus subtitles are often a better/more accurate translation because they don't have to tweak it for lip-syncs.

For the me the big difference with the dub in animation is that the artist created the character, too, so it's already a "diluted" interpretation. I don't need to hear the original actor's voice because it's not their body, so it's always a voice artist bringing their art to the table. Is one take more "valid" than the other? Hayao Miyazaki apparently prefers the French Porco Rosso actor over the others, so I think that alone validates at least the possibility of a new dub being 100% legit. Plus I get the full visuals.

Oh, the other thing with subtitles is that they can wreck jokes. Punchlines are timing-based, and subtitles can come too early or too late to be effective. This is more when I've had to have them on for English-language media, for one reason or another.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I don't know if it's just because I've seen so many films at this point or what, but it's pretty rare these days where I watch a movie and have that can't-let-my-eyes-wander-even-for-a-second feeling. Most of the time I feel like I'm just churning through movies in the search for those rare gems that stand out and really capture my attention.

I think the last movie that did that was The Hurt Locker, which I watched the first time fairly recently. Another film that I thought was surprisingly fun and that stood out to me--and this may surprise you, if you even saw it--was the 1993 Disney version of The Three Musketeers. Despite a few small gripes (and one large one), it was a lot better than I expected it to be. I am pretty surprised that the RT sores are only 30% from critics and 62% from audiences.

That is interesting about Miyazaki preferring the French dub over, it sounds like, even the Japanese.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

It's rare for a film to truly grab your eyeballs 100% for the full 2 hours, but it does happen. I'm not saying I never take a bathroom break or anything, either.

The last film that did that for me was My Dinner with Andre, which I finally watched for the first time the other night. I was curious if it would live up to its hype and if it would still seem fresh in an era of 2+ hour podcast conversations. It absolutely did.

Hurt Locker's great. Oddly, the stuff that sticks the most in my brain is when he goes home and he's got that disconnect. That was so dark, like he couldn't escape.

The '93 Musketeers is fun. RT's low critic score is probably because they mostly gave it lukewarm reviews, which record as "rotten" because it's a pass/fail site. I really liked the BBC Musketeers series. It's way off from the book, but it's super fun.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I've certainly heard of My Dinner With Andre but I never saw it. I'll have to give it a look.

I agree about the part in The Hurt Locker where he got home. If I remember right, he even admitted to his infant son that there was only one thing in the world that he truly loved (and the implication was that it wasn't his family). That's pretty dark, yeah. I remember thinking to myself, "How does someone like this get through life once the war is over?"

I really feel like the '93 Musketeers film deserves a lot more credit. Tim Curry's performance as Cardinal Richelieu alone makes it worth watching, and I think there's a lot more than that to recommend it. I avoided the film for a long time because I thought it would be too Disney-fied, but it was at times a surprisingly dark and violent movie. I actually enjoyed it enough that I went looking for the Blu-Ray. Sadly it was nearly $40 with shipping, so I settled for the $10 DVD. I hope it's a good, clean transfer.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

My Dinner with Andre is phenomenal. Ebert said it was a movie without cliches, and it's certainly as close as I've seen (although we live in an era of nitpicking, so maybe people would still call it cliche these days). With that said, it's about the opposite of an action movie.

The Hurt Locker was so tragic for that. He went back into it, and you're thrilled that he's doing this work, but it's so tragic. Weirdly, there's a strange parallel there with Lord of the Rings (spoilers? Has anybody not seen those films and/or read the books?) where Frodo returns and can't enjoy his life anymore. Of course, his is more "PTSD" and less "I need to live on that edge!" but that is a similar moment of post-war tragedy. It's also one of the reasons I tend to laugh off anti-LOTR arguments that it's just some easy, "good vs. evil" story where everything turns out rosy in the end.

I wonder if '93 Musketeers sits in that "middle zone" between family fun and dark, historical film where it never quite gets either crowd. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves does this. I remember it being mostly light fun, but in a good way.

Tim Curry is always good. He could be in a rubbish film and still kill it.

With that said, I'd love to see a Three Musketeers adaptation that focuses on the history and follows the novel more closely. One that's a swashbuckler and more historically-accurate. I've seen a tonne of Musketeers versions and none of them seem to capture the full scope of the book.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I am sympathetic to the idea that if someone experiences a life where they really love what they do, and they're good at it, and it's exciting for them, it can be difficult to return to the humdrum of regular life. But when the thing that is exciting is war, and we're talking about a married man with a child, it really is a tragedy that psychologically he has ended up in that position. I feel both for him and for his family.

I might need to re-watch LOTR to consider the PTSD angle, but I will say that anyone who dislikes those films doesn't know good cinema. Watching Fellowship of the Ring in the theater was one of the most intoxicating movie experiences I've ever had. I was, like, on a high for two hours after the movie was over. I loved it that much.

You could be right about '93 Musketeers sitting in the "middle zone"--I actually think that's a good way to put it--but I actually like that. Maybe it's partially nostalgia, because these are the kind of movies I loved growing up, but I am always down for an adventure movie that is light enough to be family-friendly while still having enough of an edge to be taken seriously by adults.

My only major complaint about the film is the wildly uneven casting. All the villains are played excellently, by Curry, the highly-underrated Michael Wincott, and Rebecca De Mornay. But on the hero side, it's like the exact opposite situation. Keifer Sutherland I thought was fairly good, but Oliver Platt seemed like a pretty questionable choice, Charlie Sheen was most definitely miscast and had no business being in the film, and Chris O'Donnell simply did not have the acting chops or gravitas for D'Artagnan. Fix the casting and that probably adds a full point to the film's score (on a 10-point scale).

(continued below)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

That's true, and I understand where a person would have that boredom kick in, but the tragedy with THL is 100% due to the specifics of war, as you said.

LOTR knocked it out of the park; that's for sure. I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and it was so great seeing that film and seeing them actually pull it off. I'd seen ads and trailers (how could I miss them?) and had pretty high hopes, but there was that trepidation like, "Oh, are they going to wreck this?" I'm so thankful they made it exactly when they did. Had they attempted it in the '70s or '80s, the effects might have aged really poorly or been slipshod. Had they done it in the current era... oof. I can only imagine the political B.S. that would've gone into it. A lot of fans were already a little grumpy about Arwen being given a bigger role, but these days, I'd almost guess she'd wind up as a member of the Fellowship.

When done right, the "middle zone" gives us stuff like Labyrinth, so I'm down with the middle zone.

I think Platt was pretty good, given the material. Porthos was definitely the "funny one," so I think that hampered him a bit. O'Donnell's problem, I think, is that he just reads too contemporary. Take Scent of a Woman: dude can clearly act when he needs to. I just think that he was given a fairly bland part (you're "the hero"!) and he just doesn't seem to fit in a period piece.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Admittedly, by the time LOTR was released I had only read The Hobbit and had not actually read the Lord of the Rings books. But I enjoyed The Hobbit and liked fantasy and so I was excited for Fellowship of the Ring. I really can't tell you how awesome I thought it was. I remember that after the movie my dad and I walked over to the mall that was by the theater to do some Christmas shopping and I was just, like, beaming with this after-movie glow of enthusiasm. Seeing Fellowship was such a great theatrical experience.

Platt wasn't bad. I can certainly live with him in Musketeers. Ultimately it is Charlie Sheen whose presence I find unredeemable. Why in the world was he cast? I have no idea. But he had no business being in the movie.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

LOTR was such a special experience at the movies, yeah. I've rewatched them a bunch of times. Great stuff. That's a great story, great memory, about seeing it with your dad and having that post-movie enthusiasm. Those are the movies that wreck it the next night, though. "What do I want to watch tonight? ...Fellowship of the Ring again."

Charlie Sheen was popular enough to be considered desirable for a youth-oriented Musketeers movie, I guess. It's the same reason Keanu Reeves got to be Jonathan Harker in Coppola's Dracula film. I say this as a person who respects Reeves for a hardworkin' man who stayed down-to-earth even as a celebrity, and who is an all-around great guy (so I hear). I say this as somebody who think Reeves has improved a lot and has done some good performances. But he should not have been anywhere near a Victorian era Gothic horror/romance.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I remember reading The Three Musketeers WAY back in the day, I think during high school. I remember very little about it, but I do remember enjoying it. As for adaptations, I guess I've seen the '93 film, that 2001 movie The Musketeer that focused on D'Artagnan, and the 2011 Paul WS Anderson movie, which was a waste of the source material. Perhaps I will check out the series that you mentioned.

In regard to a version that is more historically accurate and that stays closer to the book, perhaps this is what you're looking for? Part I is due out this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAaSEZpa4cE

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Oh, yeah! I have seen that trailer! I forgot about that, and yes, that looks super-cool. I have high hopes for it, and I thank you for the reminder!

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

It does look cool, though it looks like a very different take on the story than any other movie I've seen. More sober and grounded, less of a swashbuckling adventure.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I'm hoping that they will have time for some swordplay as well as the historical drama. With a two-part structure, they should have the runtime to indulge in both.

reply

[–] Nanook (1449) a year ago

My pleasure; and I totally get it re: subs, especially with action films. The worst offender imo being Shin Gojira (Shin Godzilla) which is actually my #1 favorite Godzilla film, but it's both dialogue- and (Japanese) caption-heavy and there are sub-/super-titles all over the damn screen like 70% of the movie, but when the action happens, it's jaw-in-lap awesome, so worth it to me. Along the same lines, a big reason I avoid seeing actioners in IMAX theaters is that my eyes *hurt* afterwards.

Anyway, of those you haven't seen yet (in English): if your tastes lean toward horror/comedy, Grabbers is an absolute gem, and The Lost Room is akin to the show Heroes, except objects have the powers, and not people.

Couple more English-only recs with an under 150K vote threshold, going back to 1960, now:

When Trumpets Fade (1998 TV Movie)
Ash vs Evil Dead (2015) - if you liked the Evil Dead movies, the show exceeded my wildest hopes.
Only the Brave (2017)
48 Hrs. (1982)
Midnight Run (1988)
The Guns of Navarone (1961)
Southern Comfort (1981)
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) - not the awful remake
The Wild Bunch (1969)
Patriots Day (2016)
16 Blocks (2006)
The French Connection (1971)
Attack the Block (2011)

Prob saw a bunch, but these are all 8/10+ for me so I'd be remiss in not mentioning.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Cool, thanks for the recommendations. I've seen some but not others.

Patriots Day was a great film that deserved a lot more attention than it got. It only made $52 million on a $45 million budget, and personally I thought it deserved an Oscar nom for Best Picture that year. It was certainly better than some of the other nominees, including the winner!

reply

[–] Nanook (1449) a year ago

I'm old enough to never not see him as Marky Mark, and never thought I'd see him as a solid actor, let alone one who had cornered the market on true-event disaster movies, but here we are...

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Mark Wahlberg is one of those guys who is fun to watch perform, but you never lose sight of the fact that it's Mark Wahlberg on the screen. It's always Mark Wahlberg playing . . . whoever the character is.

But I was more impressed than usual with his performance in All The Money In The World. If you haven't seen that one, you may want to check it out. He seemed to BECOME THE CHARACTER more than usual in what was a relatively nuanced performance.

(I've also heard good things about his performance in Fear from all the way back in 1996. I haven't seen the film, though.)

reply

[–] Levtones (503) a year ago

The Man from Nowhere is one of the best action films of the 2010s. Chad Stahelski, director of John Wick (which is kind of a semi-remake of The Man from Nowhere) is said to be making an English-language version of it. Rocky Handsome from 2016 was the Bollywood remake.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I guess I'll have to check it out.

I've seen a few Korean movies, but the only one that I think would qualify as an action movie would be Oldboy. I've also seen The Host, Mother, Parasite and Thirst. That may be it.

If Chad Stahelski is in charge of the English remake it should be good.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

No worries about possible derailment. It's like a trial: it got brought up, so it's fair game. I haven't seen most of that list, but The Lost Room is awesome. I've seen a couple of the others (Shaolin Soccer's hilarious). Nikita's already on my list, but I'll add a few of these to my "check it out" lists.

reply

[–] Nanook (1449) a year ago

Cheers. Love the trial analogy. I just know the pain of being a genre fan and enjoy sharing the wealth!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

One more great reason to come to moviechat! All the great recommendations!

reply

[–] Nanook (1449) a year ago

Amen and F IMDb for dropping the forums! And forgot to agree with you as I am also a sub purist for all live action, but relax the rules for animation as long as the voice actors aren't phoning it in...

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Yeah, I don't even go to IMDb for any information anymore.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I also agree about Jackson's character. As you say, this is not the typical "bad motherfucker" that we have so often seen in other films. He's a guy who's in over his head and doing the best he can to try to keep up. He's funny and, despite whatever moral lapses he's had in the past, he's a guy who is trying to do the right thing, even if that means putting himself at risk. He is, in fact, the quintessential hero in that he's willing to work through his own fear and risk death so that others may live.

Geena Davis, for her part, was SURPRISINGLY effective and awesome as an action heroine. She demonstrates great range in her ability to convincingly play both the role of the frumpy housewife and the CIA assassin.

I also want to call attention to the practical effects in the film. Of course today SO MUCH of what we see in this film would be accomplished with CGI and digital trickery, but the set pieces in this film are largely practical. Just take, for instance, the scene early on where they hit the deer and you have an actual physical deer-like thing crashing through the windshield, and then the car slamming into the tree, and then Samantha flying through the windshield and falling into the snow. Today there would've been so many digital effects with that it would've made your head spin but it's obvious this entire stunt was staged for real. And that is not even to mention later stunts with actors jumping through windows and the massive explosions using miniatures.

(contuinued below)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Oh, yeah! Jackson's character was great, and good on him for being outside of his "hit". Him ramping the car out of the trailer was funny, but by the end of that sequence, when he's all bloodied up and panting, it's so touching. Jackson's performance is beautiful. He's shaking and crying and you can see the adrenaline rush come-down this guy is going through as all of his trauma for the past several hours hits him at once. It's so good. And his chanting, "Do one thing right," to gun himself up to his Hail Mary is so good.

You're right on Davis, too. She displays great range in one movie, and that's really hard. She also gives us the "blend" at the end of the loving, family-oriented housewife plus the assassin personality.

Yeah, I miss practical effects. Digital has its place, but I'd like to see a couple of movies rely more heavily on practical stuff. Even the first Iron Man movie, which was awash with digital effects, also made heavy use of real suits and it feels more grounded than some of the later Marvel stuff. The deer stunt in this was really great, and I think all the more terrifying for being real because it looked like she was really gonna get hit in the head. You actually felt really bad for the people in the car, and shocked, too.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

It's unfortunate that Sam Jackson hasn't spent more time exploring his full acting abilities.

We did get that with Unbreakable, where Mr. Glass was a very vulnerable character for obvious reasons. And he played the everyman plunged into a stressful situation in that otherwise forgettable movie with Ben Affleck, Changing Lanes. You also had Coach Carter, where he dipped his toes into waters of the inspirational sports drama, as well as Lakeview Terrace, where he played a maniacal racist neighbor.

But it's undoubtably true that he has spent a lot of his career playing variations on the same theme.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

For me, nothing's topped his work in Black Snake Moan. But he's dynamite in Django Unchained, just as with this film and his classics like Pulp Fiction. He's cool in Shaft, a hip DJ in Do the Right Thing, and explores vulnerability with this role, Unbreakable, and even his nerdy villain in Kingsman. I think his rep is his high-profile stuff - his BMF roles and Nick Fury (which is kind of a BMF role, too).

I forget about Changing Lanes, but yeah, he's a great everyman in that film. I haven't seen Coach Carter or Lakeview Terrace.

Also, let's give it up for a man in Hollywood married to the same woman since 1980. That's the real BMF right there.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

One thing that I think sets the film apart from so many other action movies is that the film has heart. Genuine heart. We see characters who care about each other: A husband who cares about his wife, a mother who cares about her daughter, a daughter who loves her mother, and partners who are genuinely concerned for the other's well-being. You mentioned that one major difference between this film and female-led action movies of today is that Samatha/Charly's femininity is emphasized, and this is certainly true. Whereas today "strong women" are portrayed as essentially acting like men, in TLKG the strong woman is one who fully embraces her identity as a woman, even to the point of giving up the assasin's life at the end of the story for a life as a wife and mother on a farm. There's no hint of the "strong independent woman who don't need no man" here.

It is very difficult for me to find things in this movie to criticize, but if I were to criticize anything, it's that by the end there is a minor sense of fatigue, as if the movie should be about 10 or 15 minutes shorter. But with that said, if I were given the task to make cuts to the movie, I'm really not sure what I would get rid of.

Sadly, the film did not do well at the box office when it was relased, only making $89 million against a $65 million budget. And the back-to-back financial failure of Cutthroat Island and TLKG was enough to put a stop to Geena's career as an action/adventure heroine. I think that's a real shame because I feel like she could've gone much farther in this genre.

(continued below)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I'm glad you reminded me of the husband in the film. How many movies would have killed him off? How many movies would have had him be some wimpy hippy? While Davis outguns him, he tries to defend her against the psychotic ex-con.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant: Charmantha is both a butt-kicker AND a feminine mom. She isn't just a "palette swapped guy".

The result is a character who actually doesn't need no man, but who chooses her family. Isn't that a better love story? She doesn't need her husband or her child, she *wants* them. That's so strong, because it means that when capable of choosing any life she can, she chooses that one over all others. How much more special is that than being with somebody because you can't take care of yourself?

For criticisms, I dunno, I didn't mind the length. While still acknowledging that the over-the-top schlock is fun, I might have tweaked some of those moments. Here's how:

1. I'd have changed the grenade to a custom-made explosive device. While the fireball might still not make sense, my brain would be able to right it off more than a simple hand grenade turning into a volcanic eruption. Or maybe I'd show them hit some gas pipes or something.

2. I'd change the exact way Jackson gets out of the lodge at the end. It wouldn't be an explosion from the basement that blasts him 100 metres into the woods (while inexplicably not collapsing the building or killing Sam or the bad guy (I don't remember his name!)) I'm not sure exactly what I'd change, but it'd probably be something along the lines of the explosion knocking something loose that lets him slip out and flee.

That's about it. That's all that comes to mind right now. I guess I might want for the film to dig in a little more into the heart of the characters or make the villains more memorable (no name!) but those aren't even really "flaws" so much as places the script might be even better.

It is sad that this film didn't do better. It is a shame.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I fully agree on the Samantha/Charly character, and I think that if more modern screenwriters wrote their female action heroines that way, then more people would actually like those films. Forget the Mary Sues and the liberated feminists and give us more characters like Samantha. Even the otherwise ice cold Selene of Underworld was vulnerable at times and showed her softer side in her love for Michael (who himself ultimately turned out to be badass in his own right rather than some cowering fool).

I also agree with you on the grenade BTW. Having had the privilege to actually throw a live grenade before, I did find it pretty laughable that it produced that kind of explosion in the film. They could've done better with that.

I'm not sure I agree about Jackson getting blown out of the lodge though because that moment made me literally laugh out loud upon my recent rewatch. I thought it was pretty etertaining.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Both protagonists in this film, actually, are a perfect rebuttal to modern Hollywood's pathological terror of giving flaws to underrepresented characters. Jackson's character here is deeply flawed - a scammer and a bit of a coward. Davis is conflicted, potentially sociopathic at times, and both are great, well-rounded characters who feel more real than modern explorations, despite the unrealistic action movie setting. How great would it have been if we got this quality of characterization in the Star Wars sequels instead of Finn and Rey?

You got to throw a grenade? Cool! I hope it was in a fun, "try this!" context and not in a horrible war context. I find that a lot of action movies in the '90s and further back did not give a toss for equipment accuracy. It was only in the late '90s and early 2000s when action movies started paying more attention to how characters should hold guns and what these weapons could actually do. Maybe that's just my feeling. I'm not saying everything pre '96 was inaccurate (Heat!) just that it is more common these days. I think as the internet took off and people were able to share more accurate information about this stuff, audiences became more demanding of "believable" weaponry and equipment and so forth. I know it's still messed-up, but do you know what I mean?

Okay, for comedy, Jackson getting blown free of the lodge is fun. You might have talked me out of that one.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I think the phrase "pathlogical terror of giving flaws to underrepresented characters" is a perfect description of the current Hollywood attitude, and I have no idea how we got here. It is as if the inmates are running the asylum.

Hopefully one day we'll get back to good writing. I think that it's indisputable that the best script writing of the 80s, 90s and even early 00s easily eclipses what is being done today. While I have certainly enjoyed many films from the last two decades, and occasionally we do still get really strong films, filmmakers today are just not making movies like we used to get. I almost can't even imagine a director making a movie today that's as strong as T2 or Apollo 13 or The Last Crusade. Or a perfect example: In the 90s, we got Independence Day. Today, we get Independence Day: Resurgence. One is a perfect example of a great crowd-pleaser with innovative effects, and the other is a CGI mess with a terrible story.

You're certainly right about the use of weaponry in films. Directors certainly took a lot more creative license in the past. The grenade in TLKG is one example; another is the endless ammo that so many 80s and 90s action heroes apparently had access to.

As for the grenade, it was in the "training for war" context, but luckily I never had to use those skills outside of the training ground.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

It bugs me that there are cleverer ways of getting across the message that women and minority characters can have space in movies and right now they just seem to be writing commercials. Like, did none of them watch Aliens? Did none of them watch Inside Man with Denzel Washington? Inside Man is a Spike Lee movie with a black hero and a reveal that (SPOILER) has a bad guy literally be connected to Nazism and white supremacy. Nothing about it gets preachy ever. Just write great characters and don't have them literally talking to each other about how, "Privilege and racism are bad," or how they don't need straight men to help them and it'll be fine. There don't even need to be straight men in the movie, just don't talk about it. We don't like exposition hamfisted into films, why would we like moral messages delivered like an afterschool special?

I think there's still great writing today, it's just not in the big releases or the attention-grabbers. I think it's probably just floating around indie cinemas. It's like everybody who says, "Music is garbage now!" Yeah, on Top 40 stations. But we live in a world of Postmodern Jukebox and Larkin Poe (if you're a blues-rock fan, check out Larkin Poe), so don't tell me there's no good music.

Ah! Endless ammo! It's one of the only flaws in The Crow is that Eric shoots up a room full of guys by continuously firing a revolver and another pistol for about two solid minutes. It doesn't help that the sound is out of sync in a couple shots. I LOVE that movie, so this is not a fatal flaw, but it's definitely there.

Hm. I guess "awesome writing," is greater than "technical accuracy for weaponry"...

I did like the limitless ammo in Miller's Crossing. If you haven't seen it (first of all, do) it's set in the '30s and it's absolutely doing this great modern (for the time) version of an old noir/gangster picture. So when one character (mild spoilers) grabs a Tommy gun and unloads what must be hundreds of bullets out of one drum magazine, it's more delightful, exciting, and a bit wryly funny - a tip of the hat - than it is true Hollywood oversight.

I'm glad you didn't have to blow up anybody or be blown up by anybody, but that you still got to hurl a grenade.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I think these days filmmakers see movies less as pieces of art and entertainment and more as avenues for activism. Or at least that's the way it often feels, and both the art and the entertainment suffer for it. In my opinion the 90s was the best decade for film and now I look wistfully back to it and pine for what once was, before all the woke bullshit invaded Hollywood.

And yes, I do think there is SOME great writing today. Very occasionally a film will come along where I go, "Wow, now that was something really interesting." One example would be Whiplash, although that now was nearly a decade ago, before things got really bad. I'm not sure that ANYTHING from 2022 fit that bill. There were handul of films that I was looking forward to, and while a few were enjoyable, most were disappointing, and none really blew me away. I don't think I could even put a Top 10 together because I didn't see 10 new films that I really liked.

The Crow was a cool movie. I actually watched it for the first time maybe six or seven years ago. I liked it. Brandon Lee was cool (you should also check out Showdown in Little Tokyo, if you haven't seen it). I also watched all the Crow sequels. That was probably a mistake.

A roommate of mine showed me Miller's Crossing several years ago. It was his favorite film of all time. I don't think I was quite as enthusiastic as he was about it, but I did think it was a good movie. That was nearly 20 years ago though, so my memory on the specifics is pretty hazy.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

There does seem to be a weird amount of activism. Of course, there's an argument to be made that this is actually a step up from seeing movies as a way to print money, which is the other way studios look at films. The big change might actually be that the creatives on pictures - writers and directors and actors (etc.) - also view movies as message-machines.

Whiplash was wonderful, but yeah, getting older by the minute. But the last couple of years had some great stuff. I loved The Green Knight, for instance, and I heard fantastic things about Pig and Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. I want to see Banshees of Inisherin and The Northman, too.

I haven't seen a single Crow sequel, and it's probably gonna stay that way. It's too bad those films didn't work out, because the idea of a Crow spirit bringing people back to life for a night or two so they can accomplish that last thing - that could be the making of a beautiful series of pieces. They should do a series, but give themselves permission to not have every episode be about violent revenge.

Miller's Crossing is one of my favourite Coen Bros. films, but I also really like that era in Hollywood, so maybe I'm biased.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

At least if studios are only in it for the money then they are going to be focused on making crowd-pleasers that will appeal to the greatest amount of people, and presumably will avoid getting preachy or trying to shape the culture.

The Green Knight looked interesting, but the more I read about it, the more I felt I wouldn't like it. I have heard good things about Everything Everywhere All at Once, but still haven't seen it. I did see Pig and The Northman, though. Pig was an interesting film. I liked it. It was something different and original, but I can't say it was a film where I walked away going, "Hell yeah! Now THAT was a movie!" The Northman I had high hopes for but was disappointed in it and felt that the trailers represented it falsely.

I haven't seen every 2022 movie that I want to see so far, but right now the winners are: Top Gun: Maverick, Thirteen Lives, The Batman, The Outfit, Ambulance, Father Stu, Black Adam, Devotion and Violent Night.

Thirteen Lives in particular seemed to come and go with no one noticing and it was EASILY one of the best films of the year. The Outfit was also a fun little single-location movie that I regard as a hidden gem.

The Crow sequels were indeed dire and they got progressively worse as they went. By the time they got to Wicked Prayer with Edward Furlong the whole enterprise was a farce.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I'm only musing that maybe it's better to have people who care about society instead of just lining their pockets. Yes, if the outcome is that they reshape society, of course we'd want it to be for the best, but in the abstract, I certainly think people should believe what they want, and that people who believe strongly about things should attempt to affect change for the better.

So, I don't know if you'd like The Green Knight. It's certainly a weird movie, and it does have a lot of "arthouse" vibes. It's a far cry from The Long Kiss Goodnight, but that doesn't mean you'd hate it (I love both for very different reasons). Maybe don't spend any money on it, but if you get the opportunity to check out the first 15 minutes or something, just see if you dig it. You also can't go in expecting that it's going to be the definitive adaptation of Arthurian myth. Go in just looking for a weird fantasy movie about responsibility (weirdly enough) and you might dig it. For all the flak he caught for the "woke" casting, Dev Patel is a great actor, too, and he does a brilliant job. In my opinion, this is actually more what "colourblind" casting should look like where the right guy got the job regardless of race.

I'm planning to check out EEAAO (Old MacDonald had a movie, E-E-A-A-O...) and Pig as soon as I can. I'm still going to see The Northman. I love that director's stuff. I actually have no idea what the trailers are. I just avoided everything so I could go in raw, so I have no expectations other than that I like the director's work.

The Batman was awesome; I love that film. I'd probably watch Father Stu, as well. Black Adam doesn't cross my "superhero fatigue override threshold," so I'm probably going to pass on that.

I'll check out Thirteen Lives and The Outfit if I get a shot.

I think they're redoing The Crow. I heard rumours to that effect, anyway.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Sometimes I find it a relief in today's politicized culture when someone adopts neutrality. You will remember, for instance, that late night hosts used to never get political, or rather they were happy to make jokes about both sides. You never felt like they were stacking the deck or an operative for any political group. Now it feels like they are all agents of the DNC. I preferred it the previous way.

Also, as someone who holds pretty conservative views, frankly I am just tired of all the left-wing messaging coming out of Hollywood. It has become exhausting and I feel like filmmakers and studios are constantly trying to socially engineer me in one way or another.

You'll have a hard time selling me on the idea that casting an Indian dude as a 14th century European knight makes any sense, but if I run across the film on a streaming service then I will at least give it 15 minutes and see what I think.

I should check out EEAAO as well. I like Michell Yeoh and have heard good things.

The trailers for The Northman kind of sold it as Braveheart meets a viking saga. It's not that. The story is actually very small in scope.

My dad and I watched Black Adam just because it was on HBO Max. We also are both kind of over the whole superhero thing but it ended up being an interesting film and felt like something different from what Marvel has been offering, and even a little different from DC's other stuff.

Thirteen Lives was directed by Ron Howard and is about the Thai cave rescue. It really is good.

That actually sounds familiar about The Crow. I think maybe Jason Mamoa was even in talks for that at one point, though perhaps I'm misremembering.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Neutrality can be good, and when it's a talk show host I like it. With what you're referencing, I almost feel like I don't need them to be neutral, but I want them to be fair. For me, it's the difference between a typical host and Bill Maher. Maher isn't "neutral," but he's *fair*. By this, I mean that he grills everyone based on kookiness, and he's hit Dems, Reps, Christians, Muslims - everybody. Contrast this with John Oliver who, while hilarious and clever, is choosing targets based on politics.

But I think I still like the idea of standing up for beliefs because I think about universal truths, and I like the idea where people stand up for what they believe in - not just money. I do hear what you're saying, though, and I don't like propaganda-as-movies, either. I think variety would help. I also think that a lot of the stances being taken aren't true moral stances, they're political stances, but they're being presented like moral ones.

If The Green Knight were trying to be a super-faithful Arthurian tale (if faithful is the right word with mythology) I'd agree, but it's not historical and it's not trying to be super-faithful, so the non-literal casting worked, particularly given Patel's great performance.

They've apparently started filming the Crow remake. Bill Skarsgard is in it. Momoa doesn't feel right for Eric. He's too huge. Eric was ripped, but leaner, and making him Momoa-sized would take away from his eeriness and from the supernatural strength he has. Now, if Momoa was one of the baddies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow_(upcoming_film)

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

I definitely won't say that I don't believe that art can and should be used to SAY SOMETHING and express important points of view, but there's no denying that Hollywood is incredibly unbalanced and totally sold out to the Left. It's very difficult to be a conservative in Hollywood.

With that said, I don't feel like I need a message in every movie. Sometimes I am pleased to just sit down for some broad entertainment that everyone can enjoy. What was the message in Independence Day? None that I can think of, except perhaps for the vauge sentiment of "Let's all come together." No one was trying to preach with Independence Day, they were only trying to entertain. And they succeeded!

As for Dev Patel, he also played the title role in The Personal History of David Copperfield. He seems to be the go-to guy whenever a director wants to do a revisionist take on a European tale and race-swap a traditionally white character with an Indian dude.

I guess we'll see how things go with The Crow. I'll watch whatever gets produced with an open mind, but I can't say this is a project I'm especially enthusiastic about. Whatever they come up with though, it will have to be better than the sequels to the original film.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Your point is well-taken, and I do agree that there is entirely too much propaganda, which is very different from a movie with a message - in my opinion. A lot of it comes down to execution. Example: WALL-E was anti-consumerism and pro-environment - great messages - but what it didn't do was set up straw-man evil businessmen or feature preachy monologues. It just showed us people growing lethargic and complacent, lazy and sleep-walking through their lives; everybody on the Axiom is totally entranced and hypnotized by "stuff." But the main story is about WALL-E in love with EVE. It's never preachy, even with a message.

And I feel the same way where every movie doesn't need a message. Sometimes you don't want to challenge your mind and dive into the deep stuff. Sometimes, it's about ka-boom. I'm a big Bond fan, and those are escapist entertainments for sure. Sometimes they accidentally stumble into some symbolism or something, but for the most part, they're just fun, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't like the race-swapping in historical settings, generally. However, a lot of that is because I know it's not allowed anywhere else. Scarlett Johansson can't be the Major from Ghost in the Shell (no matter what the original film's director thinks!) but Jodie Turner-Smith can be Anne Boleyn. It's not okay that it's unfair. But, I don't mind colourblind casting if it's even-handed. (This is a HUGE discussion - there's nuance with historical films or historical settings, which I can unpack more if you want). Bottom line: I want the best actor to get the job, while acknowledging that sometimes physical characteristics preclude casting.

All that said, Dev Patel is a great actor and I do not fault him for taking roles and getting work. He's just trying to do his job and take the most interesting projects he can.

I'm definitely going to watch a trailer before I watch The Crow remake. If the trailer looks cool, I'll give the movie a shot. Hard to top the original.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

Lastly, the film was directed Renny Harlin, and I personally think it's the best film he ever made, followed by Die Hard 2, Deep Blue Sea and Cliffhanger, in that order. (Yes, I know it's probably controversial to put DBS ahead of Cliffhanger but I think it's a more fun film.) After Deep Blue Sea, for some reason, his career started heading downward and it just continued to slide until he was making movies that seemed incredibly amateurish (looking at you, The Legend of Hercules). It was literally as if he forgot how to make good movies. I cannot explain it. These days it seems he does most of his work as a director-for-hire overseas. It's a real shame that a man responsible for a few of the best action films of all time has declined so much.

Overall, I love The Long Kiss Goodnight. I am always happy to point other action lovers to the film, and far more often than not they haven't seen it (and many times have never even heard of it). It has a great story, great characters and performances, and great set pieces and practical effects. It is one of the most pleasant "hidden gem" movie surprises that I have ever encountered.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Well, it's 100% the best Harlin film I've seen, but here's why: I've literally only seen this film, Deep Blue Sea, and Cutthroat Island out of his filmography. That's it. Yep, not even Die Hard 2. I've only seen Die Hards 1 and 4 for some reason. My only defence is that I'm a fan of all genres, so it sometimes takes me a while to get around to seeing some of the best-known films in any given type.

I'm glad you directed me over the TLKG. It's a really great film with only a couple of minor nitpicks for flaws - as far as I'm concerned - and way too much good about it to worry about those.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

When Harlin was at his best, he was a damn good action filmmaker. I really have no explanation for his decline. It also feels like a curse was put on him to take away his filmmaking prowess.

You really should see Die Hard 2 and 3. 3 is arguably the "better" movie, but I actually prefer 2. Both are worth watching though, and both are certainly better than 4.

Cliffhanger is also worth a watch, if only for John Lithgow's scenery-chewing performance or for the practical plane-to-plane wire traverse, for which the stunt man was paid a cool $1 million.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

Maybe he just got tired. If you got a double-tap like Cutthroat Island and The Long Kiss Goodnight - in terms of public reaction and box office, you might start spiralling a bit, too.

Yeah, I'll probably get around to DH 2 and 3 eventually. The only thing is that I like Die Hard, but I'm not as fanatically devoted as a lot of people are, so I'm not as motivated to track down the sequels. I saw the fourth one with friends - their movie choice. It was okay.

Is John Lithgow ever a bad choice? Dude's got range, too. I usually think of him as being funny, but then you see him in something dramatic and you realize the power he's got. I also have a CD of various celebrities reading Dr. Seuss books and he's doing Yurtle the Turtle - he's fantastic.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

If you ever watch DH2 or 3 I'll be interested in hearing about it. Especially DH2, since we're talking about Renny Harlin. Like I said, DH3 may technically be the superior film--and I think a lot of fans think it is--but I find 2 a more entertaining watch.

Post-TLKG Deep Blue Sea may be the only good movie he made, but I say that as someone who still hasn't seen a lot of his later filmography. I have heard some good things about Mindhunters. I should check that one out.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I'll see about tracking down DH2.

Deep Blue Sea was okay, but it had too many logical leaps, particularly in the climax. I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't really think it was good, either.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8306) a year ago

If you do watch DH2, definitely let me know. I wouldn't mind rewatching it myself and discussing it, as we have TLKG.

As for DBS, yeah, I'm not sure how good I think it is, but I do enjoy it and think it's a fun film. A solid B-lister. I actually bought one of those Blu-Ray collections that comes with three movies, and the three are The Long Kiss Goodnight, Deep Blue Sea and Snakes on a Plane.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9366) a year ago

I'll make a note to let you know if I watch DH2.

DBS is a solid B-lister. Yeah, that seems right.

reply