
I’m “biast” (con): …but please, not another “slacker dude lands hot babe” rom-com
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Oh, for the love of pete, I cannot with another one of these male-fantasy rom-coms about a useless doofus dude pursuing a brilliant and accomplished absolute goddess because he is an idiot who is arrogantly deluded enough to think he has a chance with her… and then getting rewarded by the movie by actually ending up with her.
So I thank the gods of cinema that that ain’t what Long Shot is. Like, not at all, despite how the film has been marketed. The trailers make it a little clearer what this is about, but before I saw the movie I had only the posters to go by, and they really play up the impression that this is going to be yet another celebration of what may be the ultimate boy-movie daydream: that seriously, Jobless Guy Wearing No Pants, there isn’t a woman alive who is out of your league.
I am over the moon to be able to report that Long Shot is more like House of Cards if it were less horrific, waaay more funny, and genuinely sweetly sexy. This is, astonishingly, a politics-meets–pop culture satire about an honest, dedicated, principled journalist, Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen: The Disaster Artist, Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising) — who isn’t anything like a doofus but probably could use some Queer Eye help with his dress sense, and that definitely gets some clever comedic workout here — who reconnects with his one-time teenaged babysitter and first crush, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron: Gringo, Tully). This is propitious for both of them, because he’s just quit his job with a progressive newspaper in protest over its being bought out by a Rupert Murdoch-esque right-wing billionaire troll, and she needs to hire a new *checks notes* speechwriter as she attempts to move up from her current job as *checks notes again* the US Secretary of State to the big chair in the Oval Office. And she’s so everything enough — intelligent, diplomatic, poised, savvy, ambitious, forward-thinking — that she might actually be able to achieve that.

Yes, okay, it’s true that then Fred and Charlotte embark on a tentative workplace romance, but that isn’t anywhere near as unlikely as it may at first appear from outside the movie, and it totally works within it. Because they are both authentically smart and cool. The characters have incredibly palpable chemistry, as do Theron and Rogen, of both the comic and the romantic kind. They have a lot in common, such as their past as kids together, and also *check notes one last time* wanting to save the world from our terrible, terrible leaders. (The movie’s sendup of American leadership but also — wow! — Canadian is skeweringly pointed.) Hello, there is definitely fantasy afoot here, but it’s political and cultural, not sexual or romantic. Just the idea that people like Charlotte and Fred — liberal and open-minded and trying to make the world better for everyone — might succeed in getting the power they need to enact their ideals makes this truly a romantic comedy for our horrible times, when mere hope itself feels like a pipe dream.
But there’s a level of culture jamming going on in Long Shot, too, certainly in the delicious bait-and-switch that will, we can hope, sucker in some stoner dudebros and then, perhaps, slightly engage their interest in global politics, cuz why not be a well-rounded stoner dudebro? I don’t mean to denigrate stoner dudebros — everyone embodies human dignity, yo — and director Jonathan Levine has actually even done this before, with his surprisingly humane Christmas Eve dudebro bash The Night Before and even more unexpectedly compassionate dudebro-got-cancer dramedy 50/50. (If I had known in advance this was from Levine, I’d probably have been less startled by how sorta gosh-darn nice it sneakily is. Also too, one of its screenwriters is female, Liz Hannah [The Post], which definitely helps; the other is Dan Sterling, who’s primarily been a TV writer on shows like King of the Hill, The Office, and South Park. If you can imagine a Venn diagram of all those plus The Post and House of Cards, Long Shot would be right at the center.)

Also Long Shot is just plain funny, in a way that is rare for me to experience. I don’t often laugh out loud at the movies, frequently because what passes for “hilarious” onscreen, certainly in Hollywood comedies, is more about indignity and embarrassment than anything else, which I am almost never moved to laugh at. But it’s possible to be kind and empathetic and also amusing, and Long Shot gets that. As a remarkable bonus, this movie features perhaps the funniest, most human sex scene ever, and nothing about it is mean-spirited or about humiliating anyone or shaming them for being interested in sex or wanting to have sex. It’s a little microcosm for the movie overall: finding gentleness and companionship in like-minded friends, but also isn’t this just the most wonderfully ridiculous thing ever?
The political stuff in Long Shot is legitimately and reasonably angry, but the intimate respite that Charlotte and Fred find from that is just plain lovely. We should all be so lucky.


















Ok. I was COMPLETELY turned off by trailers and posters. Now that I’ve read this, if someone wants to watch it, I’ll be cool with toddling along with them.
Hard same. The fact that it has been mis-sold to us tells us something.
That the marketers don’t think we’d want to watch a movie that doesn’t cater to the schlub-gets-goddess-w/o-working-at-it fantasy?
Or something else?
I don’t know! But that’s kinda what I was starting to think about with the culture-jamming thing I mentioned in the review. Like, I *think* the guys who want a “Jobless Guy Wearing No Pants, of course that brilliant and accomplished goddess isn’t out of your league” movie will be okay with this. But I suspect there was probably a way to bring in those guys without alienating everyone else? I’m no marketing expert, though.
Yeah, I’m another person who saw the beginning of the trailer, thought “aha, story about smart successful woman”, then saw the rest, and saw “oh, and the asshole loser who ‘gets’ her, oh well”. Not generally a fan of Seth Rogen but I’ll give this a try now.
Well! This was unexpected.
Right?!
Saw it, liked it!
And holy shit, I had NO idea that was Andy Serkis until the credits.
Totally didn’t see that review coming. Good to know.
Hey, I’m as surprised as you are.
Okay, if MaryAnn likes it, I’ll try to see it.
Satire can be powerful when it has wit and intelligence. Unfortunately, the humor in Long Shot feels like it was written by a horny pre-adolescent, but that would be an insult to pre-adolescents. I expect situation comedies to be far-fetched, but crossing the line to preposterous and offensive is something that Long Shot accomplishes without much effort.
Examples of stuff that bugged you?
There are sensitive moments, as well as some genuinely funny ones, but they are unfortunately buried under a ton of F-words and more than a few crass and offensive scenes. The film tries for a contemporary edge but its message ends up being that there are “fine people on both sides.” It could also be referred to as trying to be “all things to all men (and women).” That’s just a few of the things that bugged me.
Wow! Where did you see *that*?!
Fred (Democrat), Lance (Republican). She’s a centrist, he’s a progressive. Seems like the film went out of its way to avoid alienating any potential viewers.
-Spoilers-
The criticism of “fine people on both sides” is about Trump being accommodating to Nazis. I don’t know if you arrived late to the theater, but the film starts out BY MOCKING NAZIS. Showing a Democrat discovering that his best friend is a Republican, but still a decent human being, is not the same thing at all.
As far as her centrist compromises vs his adamant progressivism, the film ends with her deciding not to compromise on her values. The story takes a side, and doesn’t attempt to toothlessly placate everyone.
I was not suggesting that Lance being a Republican was comparable to what Trump said about Nazis. I was just using it as a metaphor.
The story has a little something for both sides of the spectrum and it seems to me goes out of its way not to alienate anyone. Field’s last minute change of heart seems to be thrown in there to warm our liberal hearts but it is unconvincing in the context of the story.
The film doesn’t aim to be a blistering Michael Moore-style polemic. But it skewers Nazis; depicts an intelligent woman with political power and sexual agency; shows a man willing to occupy the “lower” social status in a relationship; presents an international environmental treaty as a Good Thing; presents analogs for Rupert Murdoch, Trump (insofar as his celebrity background and addiction to TV), and Fox News hosts as idiots or villains or both; and, as you point out, uses a lot of F-words and has some “crass” scenes. So it seems to me the film has no problem alienating white supremacists, MRAs, America-First isolationists, devotees of Trump and Fox News, and prudes. :-)
That does leave a wide swath of people to whom the film can still appeal. So what? It’s a rom-com aiming for a general audience. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a distinctly liberal perspective or goes out of its way to be inoffensive to everyone.
Thanks for your comment. I understand how you feel but I guess I see it from a different perspective.
Well, in all fairness to Howard Schumann, Bluejay, mocking Nazis in 2019 America isn’t exactly daring. Heck, the Three Stooges mocked Nazis — and they were hardly on the cutting edge of political commentary — even back in the 1940s.
Heck, even I mock Nazis in some of my stories — and I’m probably one of the most conservative people who post here on a regular basis.
And after having had a white friend talk to me about how her biracial daughter, her biracial grandson and her half-Arab granddaughter were all bullied by people who were not Nazis — and the bullies were not likely to be stealth Nazis either — I hope I don’t sound off base if I say that I’m not always impressed with what passes for anti-Nazi rhetoric nowadays. (In other words, I readily agree that Nazis are evil but unfortunately, they don’t have a monopoly on evil, even in this country.)
The other stuff you mention sounds interesting if not likely to seem all that daring to anyone to the left of Ann Coulter. But still… Something to be said for lighting those candles…
Apologies for the rant and the tangent, MaryAnn.
I’m posting this here, not really in response to your comment but because I’m starting to feel like Bruce Banner in The Avengers. I’m always angry.
https://rainbowrowell.tumblr.com/post/186596691496/diocletianscabbagefarm-diocletianscabbagefarm
Everyone please read this. It really deserves its own post.
It does. And here it is: https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2019/07/curated-we-are-the-frogs-slowly-boiling-in-a-soup-of-hatred-and-lack-of-compassion.html
My wife and I saw it Tuesday and loved it (unfortunately, I may have been the only guy there). MaryAnn is right about the humor. Often when I find stuff funny, I smile hard. People don’t think I’m “getting” it but I am–I rarely laugh out loud. Well, yesterday I laughed out loud…a lot. By the way, the film revealed the next Marvel superhero: “Cum Guy.”
Both the trailer AND the ad turned me off. They are doing a shitty job marketing this movie, as far as I’m concened. Some friends went last night and I said “I’ll pass because like you, I thought it was going to be just another zhlubby guy gets the goddess movie. In fact, I opined to call me when the zhlubby girl gets, oh, say, Charlie Cox….without having to use Uma Thurman as a stand-in.
… the funniest, most human sex scene ever.
I liked all the sex scenes in this movie. Which one were you talking about?
I was thinking specifically of the first one with the leads.