Gone Girl (2014)

4/5

David Fincher's adaptation of Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl is extremely faithful to the source material. The novel is a disturbing, chilling story of twisted love and cunning revenge and Fincher brings it to the screen expertly. Nick Dunne (Affleck) discovers his wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing on the morning of their fifth anniversary under suspicious circumstances. Although their relationship started with unquestioning affection, it deteriorated over the years to a hateful place when the movie begins. And as the police investigation progresses, Nick is suspected of being her murderer. With a script that is very intelligent in what it retains and what it excises, the story has plenty of twists and turns to surprise and shock.

The casting is spot-on. Ben Affleck plays Nick to perfection, exuding calm aloofness at inopportune times or cool charm when it counts. He is able to be loved then hated then admired then disdained. He is as complex as you could imagine him to be, and then some. Rosamund Pike steals the show as her persona is gradually revealed over the course of the film. I don't want to ruin any of the surprise, but you will be absolutely stunned by this performance. She is a revelation.

Fincher's directing is as smooth and atmospheric as ever. Cinematography is moody and brooding; editing is tense but pensive. Everything works together to present a polished, pristine version of incomprehensible acts of evil and villainy. Even the way the on screen text is displayed, from the way the intro credits seem to disappear just a half-second too quickly to the way the dates fade in as the story progresses, works to unsettle you.

But despite how well-made it is, both as an adaptation of a book and a film in its own right, the story is just too exhausting, too excruciating to watch more than once. It deflates you and disgusts you. The poignant points are all cynical ones and the movie seems to deliver a message without hope. It is worth watching once, but take in as much as you can when you do because I can't imagine many people will take much pleasure in rewatching it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2267998/

Argo (2012)

4/5

Ben Affleck's Argo recreates the Iran hostage crisis of 1979/1980 with remarkable visual accuracy. After protestors overtake the US Embassy in Iran, 6 would-be hostages escape out a back entrance and hide in the Canadian ambassador's house. Meanwhile the US government is planning a daring "exfiltration" operation led by Tony Mendez (Affleck). Mendez creates a fake movie called Argo, gets Hollywood effects expert John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) to back the ruse, and flies into Iran with fake passports for the fake film crew. As this is going on, the Iranian military within the US Embassy are piecing together shredded documents that contain pictures of the missing employees.

The movie is well-made in terms of its cinematic technique, and Goodman and Arkin deliver knockout performances, but the movie as a whole just doesn't have a clear focus. It starts as a thrilling historical drama, with tense intimate situations and riveting political narratives. But when it turns to the Hollywood scenes, it becomes almost farcical in its tongue-in-cheek joking. It's quite funny, but the humor doesn't seem to fit. The two parts never quite match up, as if they don't belong in the same movie. Argo had no unifying mood to carry us through both halves of the film, and we are left with a jarring disconnect during each transition. Still, the movie is entertaining and exciting, and it's one of those rare movies that allows us a fascinating glimpse into an important piece of history through its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/

The Town (2010)

4/5

The Town is a movie about a lot of things. What it tries hardest to be about is a certain community in Charlestown, MA. It is a community of bank robbers, into which protagonists Doug (Affleck) and James (Renner) were born, and how its way of life is similar to other cultures and other communities. It is also about people escaping from their past and about uncertain, sacrificial love (both man-wife and parent-child). The movie starts with a bank robbery in which Claire (Hall) is taken hostage and blindfolded. She is eventually sent free without a mark on her. She is approached by the FBI (Hamm), but offers them very little except suspicion of criminal involvement. Doug starts following her to make sure she doesn't confess anything incriminating to the FBI, but soon develops a profound and all-encompassing love for her. He wants to quit his career to be with her, hoping that she will never find out the truth between how they met and how they know each other. But of course this wouldn't have been turned into a movie if life were that simple.

The directing is more than competent, with sharp cinematography and efficient editing, although a few times it felt trite or simplistic. Similarly, the script was well-written with a few concepts made overly obvious to the point of numbing bluntness. The acting was all around fantastic, although nothing really blew me away. All in all this is a technically competent movie with tense action scenes and a complex set of relationships. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to fans of excitement and/or crime.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840361/

State of Play (2009)

3/5

State of Play is a fairly typical journalism thriller with far too many conspiracies and plot twists to be believable, but just enough to keep you from accurately predicting the ending. The plot follows two journalists (Crowe & McAdams) writing separate articles, one on a dual homicide and another on a political sex scandal following a fatal accident, that later become linked by a far-reaching corporation and its deception. But the real focus of the movie isn't the unbelievable ending, nor is it the military conspiracy, nor is it the political cover-up. It's about two people putting their life on the line for something they believe in: discovering the truth and letting everyone know. And because you see their willingness to sacrifice everything for their ethics, you empathize with them. And because you empathize with them, the tension is remarkably palpable.

The cinematography was fairly good, but not consistently impressive. The writing was full of newspaper clichés about being the first to print the breaking story, holding the press for the ultimate story, blah blah blah. Does that stuff really happen anymore? Does anybody ever care about being the first to print a story? Does it provide them with some sort of financial gain? I've never worked in a newspaper before, but it all just seemed so overplayed and unrealistic. It didn't make any sense. As far as movies go, it's enjoyable, entertaining, and extremely gripping, but it's nothing special. If you enjoyed the trailer, you'll enjoy this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473705/

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

4/5

Ben Affleck's directorial debut is self-assured and technically proficient. While not as incredible as American Beauty or Amores Perros, Gone Baby Gone is still a solid first effort. The story follows a private detective (Casey Affleck) in Boston hired to find a missing child. What starts as a simple premise quickly finds itself in the murky waters of moral ambiguity. As in all mysteries, this movie contains mystery, moments of tension, and a surprise ending. But its strongest contribution is that it forces us to ask ourselves what we would have done. For some it's an easier question than others.

I was impressed by the acting from all parties. We sense a lot of their backstories in subtle actions, not obvious dialogue--even the most shallow characters are portrayed with complexity. By far the most unexpected and impressive performance is Amy Ryan's depiction of the missing girl's drug-addled mother. She stole every single scene she was in. But even the best acting can't hide bland, blunt dialogue, which this movie had a surprising amount of. Still, the writing wasn't all that bad. The story was constantly fascinating, both in terms of plot and ethics.

Most of the problems in this movie lay in the editing. The story's two-part structure hurt the overall pacing of the film. The editing of each scene felt really jumpy, and I think Affleck overdid the grainy, two-second flashbacks. Also, the rapid-fire Boston accents (and even one Haitian accent) were difficult to follow and made the mystery even more confusing. Overall though, Gone Baby Gone is an intriguing film and succeeds in being much more than a simple police procedural.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0452623/

Chasing Amy (1997)

4.9/5

Chasing Amy is definitely Kevin Smith's best movie. It effortlessly mixes comedy, drama, and romance into something with a serious thematic message that both tugs your heartstrings and tickles your funny bone. It is so fulfilling on every one of those levels, a seeming elusive task that so many other hybrid films cannot manage. The acting by all parties is spot-on, especially Ben Affleck in what may be his finest performance. The jokes are non-stop. (The "snoochie boochie" line had me cracking up for over a minute straight.) The emotional aspect reminded me of Casablanca--our emotions are played with at every evolution of the character through exposing their pasts and motivations. Overall, it was an exhilarating experience.

Technically, the film is somewhat lacking. The cinematography and editing are merely adequate--he points the camera at people and lets them work. This is pretty disappointing given the high quality acting and dialogue. And at only ten years old, it's starting to feel a bit dated already, which doesn't speak well for its longevity. Still, a movie I hope to return to time and time again.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118842/

Hollywoodland (2006)

3/5

I saw this with my mom and brother tonight. Let me just say that this is not a film noir (or neo-noir), which is what I was expecting going in. Don't get me wrong; it tries to be with its hard-boiled style and sometimes clever dialogue, but the images are too perky, Adrien Brody is immensely unconvincing as the tough-as-nails detective, and the plot is just too simple. What this movie is, is a murder mystery set in the 50's. It reminded me of Michael Crichton's book Airframe because the main character just goes back and forth between theories of what "actually happened," except in this movie the murder is never solved. The method of flashback used is so conventional that it became jarring because it took me away from the 50's setting of film noirs. The movie can't really decide whose story it wants to tell: the detective who loses sight of morals and family or George Reeves and the mystery surrounding his death. So it tries to tell both but fails to quench your thirst for either. The recurring side characters were worthless. Utterly. The feeble attempts at giving the characters backstories by referencing one unique feature felt like something learned as a requirement in a scriptwriting class.

Even so, this movie is mesmerizing, which I think it takes partly from the true mystery surrounding Reeves' death. Despite what I said about leaving the theater knowing as much as when you went in, I like the fact that the director doesn't impose his own point of view on you. Despite the flashbacks, I found the directing to be surprisingly competent. He really respects the audience's intelligence and maturity levels. There were some really nice transitions and artistic flourishes that elevated this into a film instead of just a script. I can't really say I recommend it to either the film noir crowd, the cinema as art crowd, or the murder mystery crowd as it doesn't particularly excel in any of those facets. But it's a worthy attempt.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427969/