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/

50/50 (2011)

3/5

50/50 tells the story of Adam (Gordon-Levitt), a 27-year-old who discovers he has a rare form of cancer that carries with it a 50% chance of death. His reaction is a mixture of numbness and distance; other people react differently. His girlfriend (Howard) cheats on him, his best friend (Rogen) uses the diagnosis to pick up girls, and his mother (Huston) constantly nags him to let her take care of him. He sees a therapist (Kendrick) to help sort out his emotions, but she is inexperienced and unprepared for the relationship they develop.

The acting by Huston and Kendrick was phenomenal. Every single time they were on screen, I was astounded and moved by the emotions on display. Rogen's acting was his typical fare, boisterous and hilarious. Gordon-Levitt was probably the weakest link, playing a relatively boring character to mediocrity. The writing was basic and plodding at some points and profoundly touching at others (my favorite scene in the movie is where Adam talks to his father before his surgery, because it is the only time he is directly addressed after being practically ignored or treated as a joke throughout the film).

For me, the movie's biggest problem lies in the medical setting. Maybe I'm biased, but I just could not believe how the doctors treated him; it felt like unrealistic melodrama and pity-mongering. On top of all that are countless medical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Granted, 50/50 feels true enough for most people watching, and it's about mood and not medicine, but it bugged me incessantly and prevented me from enjoying the movie. Overall, it's good at tugging at your heartstrings while tickling your funny bone, but I would avoid it if you're at all familiar with the medical field.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306980/

You Kill Me (2007)

2/5

You Kill Me is supposed to be a dark comedy, but it's more of an indie dramedy full of lingering camera shots, deadpan dialogue, and quirky characters. Ben Kingsley plays an alcoholic hitman who is sent to San Francisco by his mafia uncle (Philip Baker Hall) to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. Luke Wilson becomes his gay AA sponsor, Bill Pullman becomes his temporary West Coast realtor, and Tea Leoni becomes his 20-years younger love interest. I suppose the premise is smirk-worthy, but not laugh-out-loud hilarious. None of this movie really made laughter emanate from my belly uncontrollably, although at times I thought to myself, "That's pretty clever."

The best aspect of this movie was how perfectly it depicted the pain of Alcoholics Anonymous. It felt like church for atheists; everyone telling you you're wrong, and being overly friendly and superficial about it. Additionally, the performances were quite good. I'm not quite sure how strong their characters were, because they felt quite dull and uninteresting except for the aforementioned character traits. All in all, it wasn't particularly funny or memorable. Don't bother checking this film out unless you really really really really like the actors. Or you really hate AA.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796375/

Rush Hour 3 (2007)

3/5

Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 continues in its tried and true tradition of black-Chinese action-comedy. You pretty much know what you're getting into when you start watching this movie. There are no surprises. This time, the team goes to Paris to get to the bottom of a mystery involving the Chinese triad and help prevent the assassination of the Chinese ambassador. Most of the jokes were awful and groan-inducing (they even did a who's on first bit with Chinese men named Yu and Mi). On the other hand, most of the action scenes were truly awesome and extremely well-choreographed. They were exciting, fun, and funny. All of the rest was pretty standard stuff (cinematography, editing, script, acting, etc. were all unimpressive).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293564/

The Rock (1996)

4/5

Michael Bay's The Rock is one of the finest action movies made in the 90's. Yes, I know we all love to poopoo Michael Bay, but here he has actually made a movie worth watching. The plot concerns Ed Harris as a former military commander who takes hostages on Alcatrez and threatens the US government with a civilian attack as an act of patriotism. He demands payment to each family who was lied to concerning their relative's death as a black ops agent in Desert Storm. Nicolas Cage plays a dorky chemical weapons expert and Sean Connery plays an ex-SAS agent who is brought in because he was the only man to have escaped Alcatrez alive. They infiltrate Alcatrez and take down Harris in a series of wonderfully exciting action sequences.

I was actually impressed by how technically proficient the movie is. There are some really great shots and camera movements in this movie that added to the action and sense of cool. The rapid-fire editing was effective without being an eyesore, but the music emphasized the mood and atmosphere a bit too much; it could be very overbearing. The acting on the whole was excellent (Harris and Connery were on point, but Cage was a bit overdramatic) and the dialogue was always funny (half the time from good writing and half the time from bad). All in all, a very thrilling action comedy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/

Zodiac (2007)

4/5

Zodiac is a 2 hour and 40 minute epic about the real-life unsolved case of a serial killer terrorizing the California community in the late 60's and early 70's, the media sensation covering it, and one cartoonist's obsession with it. Fincher's directing was phenomenal throughout; despite the film's running time, I was tense and terrified the entire time. The acting by all was equally stellar and a real pleasure to watch. The music did a great job at setting and maintaining mood. The cinematography and editing were just as amazing, and probably Fincher's best to date. Eye-catching shots were crisp and clean with a glossy sheen; I loved the silky smooth shadows flowing across people's faces, cars, and houses. The beginning had a lot of unique point-of-view and tracking/following shots, but they were gradually replaced with more traditional shots as the bulk of the content began. This film's greatest strengths are the flawlessly-captured time and place and the thoroughly-detailed characters. And the script was witty and fun.

The biggest detractor from the movie was its length. The movie consists of several main stories that could each have their own film, and if you're not interested in one, that's half the movie that's gonna bore you. None of the stories felt tacked on because they were all given a great amount of depth, but perhaps too much for everyone's tastes. Luckily, I loved all the stories and didn't really mind the length because of the great acting and great directing. The movie needs to decide what it wants to tell and tell that; instead it provides a great many details from a great many number of sources with no main driving force. Characters appear and drop off when the details bring them to the forefront. Many subplots seemed forced, as if every lead in the case and new piece of evidence required a thrilling story to go with it. Also, the movie loses a little steam at around the 2/3 mark, when a typical movie would be approaching its end and this one has none in sight. All in all, however, I highly recommend this film if you are at all interested in detective stories or movies about serial killers. This one is fantastic, and it goes past the surface of a simple story and into the real effects on the lives of those following the case.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443706/