Argo: Best American Film of the Year So Far

Movie Review: Argo

Director: Ben Affleck

Reviewed: 27 October 2012

jamesintexas rating--***1/2


"Argo" features a hidden CIA exfil, a mission into riotous 1979 Iran to rescue six American embassy workers who fled to a nearby Canadian ambassador's home to hide from certain capture and possible execution. Through an innovative introductory sequence with elements of graphic novels and newsreels, Affleck deftly summarizes the role of the US in the propping up of the Shah and his regime, as well as the rise of Ayatollah Khomeni and fundamental Islam. And then, about fifteen minutes into the film, he shows the storming of the embassy. Filmed with a breathtaking blending of news footage (or possibly just incredible attention to detail) and close-up shots of the eyes of the workers within, Affleck brings us deep into the battered embassy as the workers endure the chanting from the street outside and the rattling of the gates.

Ben Affleck is Tony Mendez, troubled CIA agent.
John Goodman is John Chambers, Hollywood make-up man.
Bryan Cranston is Jack O'Donnell, CIA higher-up, searching for options to extract the six.
Alan Arkin is a scene-stealer as a Hollywood producer.

They unite to get hostages out of Tehran in one of the most audacious plots ever concocted.

Argo has elements of "Wag the Dog" in its blending of the political and the entertainment worlds. 

This collision is never more apparent than during a blending of a table reading of the "Argo" script intercut with recitations from the Iranian and American politicians. All is theater, Affleck is saying, and his closing titles run over a panoply of "Star Wars" and "Planet of the Apes" figures.

Affleck holds the tension quite impressively, and the final sequence at the Tehran airport is perhaps the most suspenseful extended scene I've seen all year.  There are cuts back and forth between the turmoil of getting things done in Washington as well as the hostages hiding out.  A minor character, an Iranian housekeeper is not well-developed and late decisions with her have less resonance as a result.  As for Affleck's performance, he seems to be channeling a more is less approach, but the central moment of truth is remarkably boring, lacking any sort of dramatic movement.  Despite its occasional lapses, it is a rousing, pro-government, pro-American ingenuity work of art, and I think it will be the frontrunner for the Academy Award for Best Picture this winter.  

The Cabin = Effective and Fun!

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods

Director: Drew Goddard

Reviewed: 25 October 2012

jamesintexas rating--***

A reluctant 3 star rating.  Why reluctant?  I don't really know.  "The Cabin in the Woods" is fun to think about, has very funny meta-moments, and I think at another time in my life I would have loved it even more.  It has Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, as the blandly named Sitterson and Hadley, the less of which is said, the better.  A disposable cast led by the likable Chris Hemsworth as Curt takes a weekend trip to a remote cabin in the woods.  Things from the start are never on the up and up.  Goddard's focus is on deconstructing and satirizing the modern horror film and its conventions, and there are several clever plays on this idea.

It sets up an interesting twist on the genre, though at times, I feel it is too predictable or reminiscent of other films like John Carpenter's "They Live."  There are some horror freak-out sequences that are just gonzo, and I admired that, though as the CGI is thrown at me, my actual horror level decreases.  There's some nice juxtaposition at work with the two stories, as well as a violent scene playing out in the background at a party scene.  Goddard seems, rightly, to be commenting on how strange it is for a group of people to gather and be entertained by another character's intense humiliation and suffering.  The drinking in the party...is it really any different than munching on popcorn, drinking Coke, or chowing on Buncha Crunch during a film?  There's clearly a lot to freeze frame and see, as well as references to games and monsters that I didn't get, but on a basic, visceral level, I enjoyed this movie.  I liked its breeziness and attitude.  Jenkins and Whitford are delightful; I wanted to see an entire movie about them.

We Need To Talk About We Need To Talk About Kevin

Movie Review: We Need To Talk About Kevin

Director: Lynne Ramsay

Reviewed: 3 September 2012

jamesintexas rating--***

Uncomfortable, nightmarish, unsatisfying, and prescient, "We Need To Talk About Kevin" focuses on the before and after regarding a traumatic event involving a young boy.  The narrative flows from past to future and back to the past, with mom's face sometimes blending into her young, troubled son Kevin's face.  Ramsay throws a lot of textures and colors at us: the red of La Tomatina, a Spanish tomato festival where participants throw bloody tomatoes at each other, filling the streets with a blood surrogate; red paint thrown in hatred at the mom's house by angry, grieving community members which she spends portions of the film symbolically trying to wash off; blood from a slap in the face, delivered on a sunny street by a neighbor; crushed Froot Loop cereal, pushed down into the table top by Kevin.

A deeply uncomfortable film, Ramsay crafts a tale without redemption and little release.  Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton delivers a strong performance as a mom riddled with guilt and confusion.  She doesn't know how to react to her violent, possibly-sociopathic son, and there are hints of her lack of any desire to be a mother.  How much does Ramsay point the finger at mom for what the son does?  Difficult to say.  The structure of the film delays our full understanding of the violent event, and in doing so, I was intrigued by the mystery surrounding whatever is going to happen.

Deeply upsetting and not fun to watch, "We Need To Talk About Kevin" explores darker territory than your average film, and Swinton's performance as well as Ezra Miller's striking turn as son Kevin make this worth watching.  With caution.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Movie Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Director: Stephen Chbosky

Reviewed: 29 September 2012

jamesintexas rating--***1/2


Dear Mr. Stephen Chbosky,

Hello. I’m James. I missed out on the craze surrounding the publication of your novel “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” in 1999. But as a high school English teacher, I simply cannot avoid it now. Your book exploded in my classroom this past month, and I have lots of juniors in AP Literature who have read or are reading it. I just finished reading it myself. With the novel’s epistolary form and its echoes of Holden Caulfield, your literary voice comes across as nakedly honest and sincere.

I saw the film based on your screenplay of your novel, and as the film’s director, you confidently explore the teenage years of the main character Charlie and how his friends save his life. You’re a first-time director, but I wouldn’t have known it from this film. Your camera moves with a sure hand, and you’re comfortable enough to let scenes play out for seven or eight minutes without breaking them. In the hands of a different director, such scenes could have been reduced to superficial montages set to splashy soundtrack music. Instead, you’ve crafted a personal and affecting film that takes its time telling the story, buoyed by music and the strength of its lead performances. It feels like the film version of a confidently made mix tape.

Your characters Charlie (Logan Lerman), Patrick (Ezra Miller), and Sam (Emma Watson) form a makeshift family. You brilliantly capture the awkwardness of freshman year when Charlie looks for a place to sit in the cafeteria and at Friday night football games. When I was in high school, a senior knowing a freshman’s name was epic, and your film is about that importance: the power of simply being noticed. Charlie’s acceptance by the older kids changes his life. Charlie’s decision to restart his life and stop being a wallflower lead to his catharsis. By leaving the wall, he takes risks and puts himself out there to be hurt and to be loved. Charlie’s journey is not always in a linear path, and his participation in the lives around him involves potential pain.

The character of Sam jolts Charlie. In the opening scenes, you film Watson in close-ups with a nimbus of ethereal light to give Charlie’s perspective on this beautiful, troubled older girl. On a stylishly shot trip through the tunnels before emerging magnificently in the center of Pittsburgh, Charlie finds himself falling for Sam as she dances in the back seat of the truck, wind flying through her hair. College looms for the seniors. Relationships come together and fall apart. “Nightswimming” might as well be playing, with Michael Stipe crooning, “September is coming soon.”

A high school film that avoids the stale and condescending trappings of the genre, your film shows Charlie’s sensitive connection with a well-meaning English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd), the allure of attending a party with older kids (and maybe getting into some trouble), and the emotional complications of a world without cell phones and instant communication. “Where did you go last night?” one character asks. “I couldn’t find you!” You’re effectively reminding me of the tremulousness of connection and the headache of fitting everything in its right place. A fight in a cafeteria has scary power because it’s a fight in a public arena with hundreds of peers as witnesses. A first break-up conversation goes poorly and puts a character’s heart on display for everyone to see. A holiday gift-giving moment has monumental significance, as gifts for friends have untold emotional weight with graduation on the horizon. You have picked small incandescent moments and made an entire film of them.

There are a few moments where your film struggles in its handling of Charlie’s family, and two serious revelations about Charlie’s character are handled clumsily. A relationship between Patrick and another main character never reaches a satisfying resolution. You missed the opportunity to make Charlie’s family life more richly developed; Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh underplay his parents, and he has two loving older siblings who are nearly nonexistent in the film. The soundtrack does not layer the typical early nineties fare, but the film sounds like what I heard on the radio during that time. Overall, despite its occasional stumble, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” delivers an intimate portrait of these young people in a time of change.

In the first minute, Emma Watson proves that she’s more than just a typecast Hermione Granger. Her performance is a highlight; she projects a melancholy and world-weariness to Sam, as well as a sense of unease that Watson shows through her body language and the way that she listens. You have helped her craft a subtle and compelling character. Also, Ezra Miller shows remarkable range in this role, especially considering his recent chilling turn in the drama “We Need To Talk About Kevin.” The casting in general is on the mark, and Logan Lerman carries the film solidly as Charlie.

Mr. Chbosky, I can tell that you care tremendously about your story and have created a film of great power and humor. Watching “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” felt like listening to an intimate mix tape with its sense of balance and emotion. It got me thinking of mix tapes and parties and football bleachers. I think that my mix tape for you would include fall and winter kinds of songs from 1994-1996, my sophomore through senior year. Amidst Nirvana and U2, Tears for Fears and Stealers Wheel, Alanis Morissette and Oasis, I would close my mix with the song “Find the River” by R.E.M. from “Automatic for the People.” The lyrics “Leave the road and memorize/ This life that pass before your eyes/ Nothing is going my way…Pick up here and chase the ride/ The river empties to the tide/ All of this is coming your way” echo Charlie’s journey in your book, and now your film, as he navigates through life. I want to thank you for filling your film with quiet moments and strong performances. Charlie’s life stops and starts, and he meanders towards friendship and peace with nothing and everything going his way, concurrently.

Love always,

James

Campaign, emphasis on the pain.

Movie Review: The Campaign

Director: Jay Roach

Reviewed: 22 August 2012

jamesintexas rating--**

The Campaign is a comedy with one uncontrollably funny scene.  The pairing of Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis proves to be all sizzle and no beef, though some winning segments and silly satirical moments try to carry it to some sort of importance.  Watching these two performers at the top of their game square off against each other is part of the appeal of The Campaign.  Director Jay Roach, beloved for Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery and Meet The Parents seems content to let the film remain on autopilot, guiding itself to its inevitable conclusion with a little danger, a little savagery and anarchy thrown in, but it's never enough to rock the boat.

Roach fails to set up Galifianakis's Marty Huggins as a real character, a true eccentric, a small-town busybody with passion or straight up weirdness before diving into an underdeveloped relationship with his spiteful father (Brian Cox) and aforementioned scene of hilarity at the dinner table with his wife and kids.  Ferrell's Cam Brady doesn't fare much better, though his foul-mouthed hilarity on an answering machine is quite fun, as is his smooth command of the politician's lingo.  Brady's numbers drop when his filthy answering machine message gets national play.  As a result, Huggins is the challenger with greatness thrust upon him by two wealthy political operators (Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow, playing the Coke Brothers) who desire to turn the North Carolina district into a Chinese sweatshop of insourcing.  Huggins challenges Brady, and things degenerate into vicious television ads, ridiculous debates, and outrageous stunt after outrageous stunt as each man tries to one up the other.

Both main characters have wives who are sadly underwritten and children that disappear for most of the film.  What an interesting and possibly funny film this could have been if those supporting players would have been given something to do.  Or, if a stronger actress, like a Melissa McCarthy or Olivia Spencer got to play one of the spouses or even the candidates?  And, Aykroyd and Lithgow could have been utilized more and with more hilarity; it was so good to see them both, yet they had little to do besides look nefarious.  A maid with a penchant for accents is quite funny, as are sequences involving baby-punching, dog-punching, and Ferrell spouting his typical jibberish.  Yet, it feels lacking of the danger or inspiration of the best performances from each main actor.  There's no Hangover-ish air of 'What the heck is he gonna do next?' hanging over Galifianakis's scenes, though the accent is funny; there's no full-tilt madness here from Farrell that was there in, say, Old School, Anchorman, or even his turn as Ricky Bobby.  The whole enterprise feels rote, routine, and stale, despite attempts to make some sort of social commentary in an election year.

We All Scream For...

Movie Review: Scream 4

Director: Wes Craven

Reviewed: 16 September 2012

jamesintexas rating--1/2 *


A phone rings.

"Who is this?" a girl utters.

"Not an App," a dark, deep voice answers.

Aside from cheeky dialogue that really, really tries to reflect our times and seem deep, I want to open my review for Scream 4 with a question of my own.

Why would anyone want to be friends with Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell)?

After an unsettling and unsatisfying opening, Wes Craven's newest addition to the Scream franchise welcomes back Deputy-turned-Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and his wife journalist Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), as well as survivor-turned-author Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), though I have difficulty believing Sidney's book can consist of more than a list of directions to evade would-be killers: kick them in the face, lock doors, swing off roofs, luck out with your multiple stab wounds to your stomach, glare intensely, continue to put yourself in situations with very little cell phone reception, few weapons, and cavernous houses where the killer's tactic is coming up behind you and grabbing you.  Killings follow Sidney's return to Woodsboro, and Ghostface killer returns in parking garages, dark hallways, bedrooms, and local parties, wrecking havoc and causing carnage with the iconic glinty knife.

Things fall apart.  The center cannot hold.

Full disclosure: I saw Scream during my freshman year in college in 1996-1997, and it was riveting and a formative experience for me.  I was terrified at the film's iconic mask, captivated by its construction and post-modern angle, as well as moved by the performances of Campbell, Arquette, Cox, and the rest of the cast.  Scream hit a nerve for me, amplifying the killer-in-the-house genre to scary, hilarious levels, and feeling dark and resonant, playing on fears of being alone in the house, of getting a phone call from someone that you don't know, of masks, silent killers, and someone who wants to do you massive harm.  Beyond a statue bust of Henry Winkler, the slain principal from the first film, in a throwaway shot as disposable characters walk down pristine hallways of Woodsboro High School, there is simply nothing that resembles that first film's greatness.  Even musically that original film introduced me to Nick Cave and Moby, to some pretty haunting moments and sequences which felt fresh in their exploration of the genre and commenting on it as it unfolded.  And, after a series of sequels offering diminishing returns, it has come to this: Scream 4.

I'm going to construct this review as a series of questions.

Does Neve Campbell realize how underwritten her role as Sidney is?

Does she care?

Can David Arquette carry a scene anymore as tired Sheriff Dewey?

Could he ever?

Does Courtney Cox realize the ridiculousness of watching her Gale character set up web camera in a bizarre Stab-Fest party in an abandoned farmhouse?

Does it get frustrating for Kevin Williamson to write a screenplay which consists of multiple characters who exist only to be flayed after teasing us as possible suspects?

Does that construction mean that we simply see less, care less about Sidney, her cousin, Sheriff Dewey, Gale, as well as the rest of the cast?  I think he's destroyed his own franchise by taking the focus off of the central characters.  There simply isn't enough time for us to connect with them.

Why can't cops parked out front of houses, presumably watching them, keep creepers from entering second story windows?

Why does the Ghostface killer continue to slowly, strangely cock his head to the side while watching his victims squirm and try to wheedle their ways out of imminent death?

Why are there never any parents in any of the houses in this town?

Also, why are there no motion-sensor lights to foil a creeping killer?

Would I have enjoyed this film more if the famous actors from opening scenes had been the ones doing the heavy lifting in the film instead of a cast with few names and (more importantly) less emotional connection?

Yes, I have to think so.  I mean, we have Julia Roberts' niece Emma Roberts, a Culkin, a Jaime Kennedy wannabee, Hayden Panettiere, as well as a series of forgettable faces and performances.  Alison Brie from Community and Mad Men is wasted here in a ridiculous role as Sidney's publicist who should know better than to park in a dark parking garage.  Anthony Anderson, a very funny and good actor, is wasted as a throwaway police officer.  As this film progresses, I found myself caring less and less for all of the characters.

And...

Why not have the heroes carry guns, mace, or tasers to protect themselves in 2011?  Any single modern weapon would have leveled the playing field immensely and made standing their ground more of an option.  

Why do the police take over twenty minutes to get anywhere in this city?  How big is this city?  How much traffic is there in the middle of the night?

Why, Ghostface killer, are you so intent on grabbing people's ankles instead of using that shiny knife whenever you are close to them?

To sum up, Scream 4 is completely unsatisfying and unworthy of the Scream name.

Also, filmed in Michigan.

Then It Fell Apart: Bored of The Bourne Legacy.

Movie Review: The Bourne Legacy

Director: Tony Gilroy

Reviewed: 2 September 2012

jamesintexas rating--*1/2

"Extreme ways are back again / Extreme places I didn't know / I broke everything new again / Everything that I'd owned" (Moby, "Extreme Ways" from the album 18, the unofficial theme song of the Jason Bourne films.)

Broken is the appropriate image to leave the theater with after enduring this quasi-sequel, messy spin-off of the very successful Jason Bourne trilogy.  I'm still angry after seeing this movie over six days ago.  Angry.  Not at Jeremy Renner or Rachel Weisz who do credible jobs with their underwritten characters as super-assassin and PhD chemist, respectively.  Not at cinematographer Robert Elswit who films pristine snow white scenes alongside blindingly white research labs, infusing this action film with atypical grace.  Not at Moby who wrote such a terrific coda song "Extreme Ways" to cap the ending of each Bourne film (it's on my workout mix).  Not the terrific sense of place in this film: Alaska survival camp, a pill factory in the Phillipines, a terrifying sequence in a laboratory.  I guess I'm just angry at the unrealized potential here, the squandered possibilities, the choppiness and, at times, laziness, of Tony Gilroy, the director of the great Michael Clayton, trying to show us the story behind the stories told in three previous films about amnesiac-laden assassin Jason Bourne.  However, it ends up looking like an amalgamation of out takes and afterthoughts from three previous films, bonus footage or unused scenes being rushed together, like a sixth grade science project with pages of printed out Internet research just stapled to the trifold display board.

It just does not work.

To paraphrase Yoda, "There is another [Bourne]!" and this film picks up on the assumption that the programs with vaguely menacing names run by the intelligence czars in D.C. are using blue and red colored pills and extreme training to build and monitor super spies capable of withstanding extreme amounts of pain, quickening reaction time, and becoming perfect weapons.  When the fallout from Jason Bourne's exploits in the previous films begins to damage the cache of the intelligence community, retired Admiral Turso (Stacy Keach) and retired Colonel Byer (Edward Norton) implement protocols with far-reaching effects for spy in training Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) who is doing his best Liam Neeson in The Grey impression by fighting wolves off with torches in Alaska and Doctor Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a chemist at the forefront of exciting developments in human capability who talks vaguely about "advancing science" as justification for her involvement with genetic engineering.  A chase film, the heroes outwit and outmaneuver their enemies, making their way to Manilla to a pill factory, I think.

I cannot remember a time when a movie worked so hard to actively remind me of its far superior predecessors.  Every shot of Matt Damon's stock face on his Jason Bourne passport reminded me of how much I would rather be watching any of those three films: The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatum.  Any time there was a cutaway to Pam Landy (the wonderful Joan Allen) I wished that she were really featured in this film instead of basically a cameo that may have just been recycled footage from a previous film.  As much fun as it is to see Edward Norton and Stacy Keach go all bleary-eyed and intense as CIA/NSA Cheney-esque puppet masters, playing God in conference rooms, poring over data about super secret spy programs, they drop out of the film and cannot equal Joan Allen, David Strathairn, Albert Finney, Chris Cooper from the first film, Julia Stiles...  It is fun to see Edward Norton again.  Why has it been so long since he's done good work?  Unfortunately, his role does not build towards anything in this film.

Gilroy and Elswit construct several intense action sequences, and early scenes in Alaska are brutal with the weather and wolves.  A terrifying highlight is a ten-minute nightmarish set piece inside of a lab involving a violent act, and the tight confines, the unforeseen parallels to recent shootings inside of a Colorado movie theater, and the sense of slowly unfolding horror.  The film never again reaches the intensity of that sequence, and other scenes pale behind other Bourne action sequences (I mean really, why put someone on a bike after seeing Matt Damon dart through and over the streets and roofs of Tangiers?).  And Damon's films handle the quiet, devastating moments of Bourne's realizations better; a denouement of the second film involves a quiet, guilt-ridden, emotionally powerful conversation between spy and unintended victim of his violence.

With The Bourne Legacy, I haven't been as surprised at an ending to a film in years.  Not surprised in an "I didn't see that coming! Wow!" kind of way.  But, every instinct that I have as a moviegoer told me that The Bourne Legacy was building towards something more giant in the showdown, something more profound, something more intense.  Maybe a villain introduced in Act 3 doesn't carry enough screen time.  A fight scene on motorbikes, admirably filmed and sufficiently dangerous yet curiously inert and uninvolving for me, culminates in the Moby music playing as the credits roll and my general confusion.  The movie is over?  Where does this leave us?  Where do we go from here?

And if the answer to that question is a super hybrid action film which combines Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner, I'm all in as long as Paul Greengrass returns at the helm as director or the script finds some sort of logic amidst the chaos as well as recommits to using its deep supporting cast in real ways.  As an attentive audience member, I just shouldn't feel like Jason Bourne in a Bourne movie: Who is that guy?  Why are they fighting?  Where are they now?  Why is it over?  Where are they going?  What happened to Edward Norton?

Moby's song "Extreme Ways" culminates in these lines: "I would stand in line for this / It's always good in life for this / Oh baby, oh baby / Then it fell apart, it fell apart...Like it always does."  I guess I did stand in line for this, but the concept of The Bourne Legacy, for me, fell apart completely.