The Best Bad Idea They Had

"Argo"
Written by Chris Terrio

Directed by Ben Affleck

Starring Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin

Rated R

120 Minutes

Here is another example of a great film whose director is only on his third feature.  Following Rian Johnson’s “Looper,” Ben Affleck emerges with “Argo,” almost certainly a contender for best picture, and surprisingly, one that doesn’t feel like obvious Oscar bait.  That Affleck pulls double duty here by starring is also impressive; this feels like a man in his element and the result is one of the best pictures so far this year. 

Ben Affleck has always been an actor with considerable skill, but since he has stepped behind the camera, first with “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Town” and now with “Argo,” he has proven himself a master talent.  “Argo” also proves that he excels at material that isn’t set in his hometown of Boston and I wouldn’t be surprised if this puts him in extremely high demand for directing any number of features for Warner Brothers.  One of the pleasures of “Argo” is its simplicity; it takes a historical event, sidesteps any complicated political mumbo jumbo, and tells a thrilling and suspenseful story that is easy to understand.

The backdrop for the story is the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979; after America takes custody of an Iranian war criminal, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed and 50 plus people are taken hostage.  Six Americans escape out a back door and take refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s (Victor Garber) home.  After 69 days of Iranian troops going door to door looking for Americans, the CIA decides it's time to get them out.  Bryan Cranston plays a CIA bigwig named Jack O’Donnell, who enlists the “exfiltration specialist” expertise of Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck).  Mendez shoots down the CIA’s bright ideas for rescuing them in favor of a far more absurd one; pretend he’s a big-shot Canadian movie producer who flies into Iran scouting for exotic movie locations while the hostages stand in as his Canadian film crew.  Then they’ll all fly out together with Hollywood-issued cover IDs. 

The film’s first act echoes the zaniness of this idea with a screenplay that is refreshingly snappy and relevant.  John Goodman plays make-up legend John Chambers, who takes Mendez to meet Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), the only producer crazy enough to go for their idea.  “If I’m making a fake movie, it’s gonna be a fake hit” he gleefully states.  They spend some time cooking up an entire paper trail and budget for a bottom-shelf sci-fi movie called “Argo” and try to get the Government to go along with it.  The CIA shows reluctance to the concept but Mendez rightfully asserts that there isn’t a single believable reason for six Canadians to be in Iran during a hostage crisis.  In one scene, Phillip Baker Hall shows up to question the bad idea.  “We only have bad ideas,” Mendez tells him.

What makes “Argo” so compelling is that there isn’t a single scene that feels wasted.  Affleck assuredly balances what is essentially a talky espionage feature with enough tension to make the final act hold you in constant suspense.  Of course the cockamamie scheme worked, history tells us that.  But this will be the first time that many are introduced to the story, and I think Affleck knows that.  The bulk of the narrative is mostly free of action, but the pacing is spot-on and tension comes from brilliant editing that cross-cuts to different locations to show us that the events in one place vitally depend on the events in another.

If “Argo” has a shortcoming, it’s that the six hostages don’t feel fully fleshed-out as characters.  But they are essentially learning new identities within the film so this may be intentional.  In any case, “Argo” is more concerned with the situation and circumstances and provides a wonderful cinematic experience in that regard.  The absurdity of the plot engagingly reflects the realization that this idea actually worked.  It kind of makes me curious what Iran thinks about the movie.  Maybe they won’t allow it in their theatres for fear of embarrassment.  One thing is for sure; they won’t be letting movie crews over for location scouting anytime soon.

You Don't Want to Find This Footage

"Sinister"
Written and Directed by Scott Derrickson
Starring Ethan Hawke, Juliet Rylance and James Ransone
Rated R
110 Minutes

“Sinister” is a unique found footage movie in that it dispels with the usual gimmick by having the main character actually find film footage in his attic.  He spends a great deal of time watching these films on a super 8 projector and what they show is, well, sinister.  The movie as a whole is pretty creepy, assisted by the atmospheric direction of Scott Derrickson; but “Sinister” doesn’t have a great story to tell, with a thin narrative caught somewhere between convention and a bad case of writer’s block.

The film actually introduces us to a writer named Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), a true crime author that moves his family into a house where a crime took place.  Ellison keeps this information from his wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), perhaps because he knows she won’t approve.  After all, they have two children who are at that age where strange behavior is the norm, and the last thing they would need is to be influenced by the grisly details of dad’s research.  So Tracy persists that he must keep his office door locked at all times, and doesn’t seem to mind that he stays up to all hours of the night, every night.  He rationalizes that he hasn’t had a hit book in ten years and this is the story everyone will want to read.  I guess he could have worse habits; like staying up all night to play video games or something.
  

Ellison soon finds a box of family home movies in the attic.  Each canister has a generic label like “family hanging out 98’”, etc.  He figures they might help with his research and begins to watch them in his office in the wee hours of the night.  They are family home movies, all right; they just happen to contain footage of families meeting their end in variously brutal fashion.  I shouldn’t have to tell you that the family that used to live in Ellison’s house is included also, and the film’s opening shot is of four of them being hung from a tree.  I also shouldn’t have to tell you that Ellison discovers, with the help of a Deputy “So and So” (seriously) played by James Ransone, that all the murders on the films are connected.  To deal with this, Ellison does things that don’t make sense, like drink whiskey and ignore his family’s mental health concerns.  I might also add, that if I am a true crime author claiming that the reason I write true crime is to expose the truth and bring justice to the murder victims, and I have a box of murder movies that if shown to the police would do exactly that, then I should consider calling them.  But does Ellison?  To be fair, the screenplay allows him a brief moment to consider it.

The super 8 footage is undoubtedly disturbing and scary, to the point where we are distracted from the fact that not a whole lot else is actually happening.  Oh, all the usual stuff happens, like a floor creaking and a few things going bump in the night.  But none of these events push the story forward.  When Ellison starts to notice a mysterious figure with a freaky face in stills of all the footage, he does some poking around only to uncover a wishy-washy mythology regarding some demon that has no good intentions for children.  To that point, I’ll say that considering the way “Sinister” uses children in the narrative, nobody should allow their child to watch this movie.  Ever.  Trust me; the world has enough problems with misbehaving kids.
  

“Sinister” really isn’t a good time at all.  I guess in retrospect, the sure-handed direction and intense dread really isn’t worth what the movie has to say; which isn’t much.  Oh there are a few decent jump scares and disturbing images that might stay with you but you can get those in any other horror movie, can’t you?  Here’s a thought: “Sinister” has received an R rating by the MPAA but doesn’t contain a single use of the F word or even a bit of sexual content.  This is one instance where I stand in full support of their rating.  They clearly didn’t want kids under the age of 17 to go anywhere near this movie.  And I don’t blame them.

He finds them. And kills them. Again.

"Taken 2"

Directed by Olivier Megaton

Written by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen

Starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen and Rade Serbedzija

Rated PG-13

91 Minutes

The first “Taken” was a lean action thriller that thrived on the hard-edged, tough guy persona of Liam Neeson.   Directed by Pierre Morel, it was the surprise hit of 2008 and the dollars signs it left in its wake all but ensured a sequel.  So follows “Taken 2,” again written and produced by Luc Besson, the very cornerstone of the foreign action market.  Direction this time has been handed over to Olivier Megaton, who sounds more like a transformer than a man.  While it lacks the slick efficiency of its predecessor, “Taken 2” is a competent if irrelevant sequel that still manages to deliver a good time.

The basic premise here is that Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) used to be a guy with a very particular set of skills.  In the first film, he exercised those skills on just about everyone in Paris in order to rescue his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) from Albanian sex traffickers.  And, well, really, that’s it.  I suppose you know that he succeeded.  “Taken 2” then, introduces Murad (Rade Serbedzija, apparently the go-to guy when you need a foreign villain), the father of one of Bryan’s victims who wants revenge for his son’s death.  Of course it wouldn’t suffice to just kill Mills and be done with it; he’d much prefer to kidnap his family as well, because that worked out so well for his son and his sex trafficking buddies.  After Bryan completes a job in Istanbul, Kim and Lenore (Famke Janssen), Bryan’s ex-wife, join him for vacation.  You’ll be forgiven for thinking this is a risky move on Bryan’s part, given the events of the first movie.  Although I suppose without all the conveniences of the plot, there would be no “Taken 2;” and Liam Neeson is just too much man for only one foreign country.  Before long, Murad and his goons are snatching up both Lenore and Bryan, who then must utilize his skills to escape and save the day.

“Taken 2” offers the fresh twist of side-lining Neeson for a brief period and actually making the Mills character vulnerable.  This is done in favor of highlighting Maggie Grace as she takes tips from Bryan over the phone in order to surmise his location.  The only problem is, Maggie Grace is not a convincing action star, and her frantic flailing is only a reminder that the film is wasting precious moments by not showing Liam Neeson take out the bad guys.  With the first “Taken,” I felt that things came a little too easy for him; none of the villains were really a match for him and therefore, posed no real challenge or convincing conflict.  But having him tied up in “Taken 2” proves why that idea works so well.  There is really nobody who could carry a movie with this thin of a plot other than Liam Neeson.   Once he gets his hands free and gets Kim to safety, however, the sequel regains its pulse.

Olivier Megaton hasn’t directed many American films, with his only stand-out features being “Transporter 3” and “Columbiana,” both of which are Luc Besson productions.  I even read an interview where he said that he doesn’t really like action movies all that much and his frantic style may be the proof of that.   “Taken 2” is a great deal shakier than the first, with quick-cuts and choppy editing that make for a much more jarring experience.  These qualms aside, it’s still well-choreographed and has the familiar visceral impact of the first film’s action. 

I don’t see much point in comparing “Taken 2” with the first “Taken” because it’s not exactly like that one was a masterpiece.  If you go for the sheer pleasure of watching Liam Neeson strong-arm his way through countless bad guys, then by all means, this is what you’re looking for.  The worst you could say about it is that isn’t quite as surprising or as engaging as the original.  You can attribute that to a lesser director or to a “been there, done that” script, but whatever you do, don’t you dare blame Liam Neeson.

The future is the past is the future.

"LOOPER"

Written and Directed by Rian Johnson

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and Jeff Daniels

Rated R

118 Minutes



Director Rian Johnson has only three major films under his belt, but with each effort has proven hismelf a prodigy.  "Looper" is his third feature film as both writer and director and once again shows his ability to infuse genre pictures with inginuity and smarts.  His "Brick" was a grim gumshoe detective story set in a contemporary high school and "The Brothers Bloom" was a sleek heist movie that made excellent use of its locations.  Now here is "Looper," which on its surface is a time travel sci-fi film with a stellar cast and gorgeous visuals.  At its core, however, is a surprisingly moving tale about  self-regret, sacrifice and the importance of parenting.  The slogan for the movie is actually quite clever at selling two of "Looper's" strongest themes: 'Face your future, fight your past.'

The movie begins with an informative voice-over by an assassin named Joe, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in his third big role this year.  Joe isn't your average assassin; he helpfully explains that in thirty years, time travel will be invented and immediately outlawed.  A futuristic mob syndicate will illegally use time travel to send targets thirty years into the past to be eliminated by the assassins, which the movie dubs 'loopers.'  With me so far? Joe is a looper in 2044, which serves as the present setting.  His boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels) was sent back from 2074 to supervise the loopers and make sure that their targets don't escape. This step is especially important when it comes time for the loopers to 'close their loop,' which is a professional way of saying that they must kill their future selves to ensure that all traces of this operation are erased.  Doing this comes with a substantial pay-out that allows the loopers to retire and live the good life for the next 30 years.

This raises the first of many moral complications that "Looper" dabbles in.  You see, if you took a job as a looper knowing that eventually one of your targets would be the older version of you, could you actually live happily for 30 years with the knowledge that your life is to be cut short?  Not only that but that your murderer would be....you?  Rian Johnson's exceptional screenplay somehow keeps these ideas manageable but no less intriguing.  Early on, Joe is asked to either give up his friend Seth (Paul Dano), who has let his loop escape, or give up half his savings, which he sincerely hopes to use to retire to france upon closing his own loop.  Joe's conversation with Abe is intimidating and strangely tender, but it has a logic that seemlessly stays true to Johnson's established ethical foundation.

It is not a spoiler to reveal that Joe's older self, played by Bruce Willis, eventually is zapped back for assassination.  The twist is that he doesn't have a hood on, so when young Joe hesitates, old Joe gets the upper hand and escapes.  This jump starts the film's middle act, which sometimes resembles "Minority Report" in its sci-fi sensibilities and sometimes resembles film noir in its tonal resonance.  By far the film's best scene is in a rural diner where the two versions of Joe meet for a vital conversation.  Young Joe knows that he must kill old Joe, and his conviction is strangely hypnotic; we kind of see his point.  It is his job, after all.  Old Joe must know that at some point, he used to be the young Joe that sits before him now and he lectures young Joe that he is naive and has a lot of growing up to do.  That Johnson takes time with this dialogue is such a smart move, because it allows us to reflect on our choices and regrets.  30 years from now, are you going to be able to say you made the right choices when you were younger? 

I can say no more of the plot but to simply mention that no matter how many times you saw the previews for "Looper," most of where the movie goes will be a complete surprise.  Emily Blunt delivers an intriguing performance central to the third act, but basically all of that development has been succesfully concealed by the previews.  This is one case of marketing that serves the picture well.  "Looper" undoubtedly requires more than one viewing, at the very least because there is so much to appreciate.  Oddly enough, the time travel mechanism is probably the least complicated aspect in the entire narrative.  Rian Johnson plays in familiar territory but incredibly doesn't leave the paradoxes and questions hidden; rather, he embraces them and centers some of the film's key sequences around them.  When the film does employ visual effects, they are not distracting and it is nice to see a director who knows how to use slow motion properly.  The make-up used to transform Joseph Gordon-Levitt into a young Bruce Willis is uncanny and his performance easily sells the notion that he is the younger version of the same man. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is having a stellar year with three major films already delivered, and "Lincoln" premiering in November. Thankfully, by sticking with the likes of Chris Nolan and Rian Johnson, his talents are being utilized well.  In fact, "Looper" almost works as a companion piece to "Inception" in that it proves that sci-fi blockbusters need not be filled with constant explosions and CGI to be entertaining, but can excel based off original ideas.  My hope is that Rian Johnson stays true to his own convictions and doesn't get caught up in the studio mechanisms of Hollywood.  "Looper" is a perfect example of what happens when a director is allowed to maintain their creative integrity and something tells me that before he succumbs to studio pressure, he'd close his own loop.