Tag Archives: Reviews

Argo (2012)

Argo begins with the events at the Iranian US embassy on November 4th, 1979, when protesters—incensed by their country’s inveterate political and societal turmoil—broke through the embassy gates and held the residents there for what would become a 444-day hostage situation. Serving as both setting and character introduction, this opening sequence is one of the most indelible and disquieting beginnings I have seen in the theater in a good long while, and provides us with a trove of useful info, both within the movie and without. Superficially, it pulls us headlong into the story, introducing characters and circumstances in a meticulously edited prologue, while building to a truly frightening climax that sets the whole picture in motion. Incidental to the exposition the scene provides is the realization that this is a seminal moment for Ben Affleck as a director. Argo is a strong film in many ways, yet this opening sequence suggests a caliber of talent not just absent from his first two titles, but altogether unaccounted for. It seems that Ben Affleck the Director is the real deal.

Continue reading

Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures

The “hero” as a concept or storytelling device is, and always has been, fluid. Some of us prefer the pure altruist—the Superman who does right simply because he knows what right is. Others need their heroes to be flawed or tragic, like Hamlet—angling for the light even as their blemishes define them. Others hanker for antiheroes, preferring Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle, a psychotic knight in rusty armor. Indiana Jones is enigmatic in his heroism; vacillating between all heroic traits, occasionally embodying all at once. His position as an archaeologist leads him to scour the globe in the interest of saving and protecting precious antiquities. Yet isn’t the quest for history-defining curios inherently a quest of self-triumph? Dr. Jones, over the course of his story, is at once selfless and selfish, motivated one minute by his moral compass, and the next by the fame and glory latent in uncovering history’s secrets.

Continue reading

Looper (2012)

It’s a small fraternity of directors that have taken on the formidable task of helming a time travel movie. Between the potential for audience alienation that comes with heavy duty science fiction, and the third rail of time travel physics, it’s a wonder the group isn’t even smaller—which it is, when you amend the qualification to successful time travel movies. Measuring success in a time travel movie means measuring the success of the explanation of time travel alongside all the other stuff that a movie has to do well. It means walking a tightrope; a tightrope that Director Rian Johnson describes thusly, On one hand, the sci-fi nerd in me feels there’s a danger not explaining [the time travel], because it can look like plot holes. On the other hand, the story guy in me is like, ‘You know why that’s there, and that’s not what’s important to the story.'”  This is the central dilemma for Looper as a film, this balance between saying too much and not saying enough. Because while Johnson spends much of the film’s duration astounding the audience with an exceptional grasp of storytelling and world-building, his ambivalence about the film’s central device ends up blurring the whole.

Continue reading

The Master (2012)

Lead or follow. At one time or another some puffed up authority figure has pointed to these as your two options in life. Not both, and certainly not neither. With this edict comes the implication that a leader is what you should want to be. Leaders are powerful and impressive, and followers are simply everyone else. While the world tends to consist of only leaders and followers, the idea that we can and should choose our path is tradition. The Master is flooded with followers and the leaders who lead them, but even more so with the notion that these roles are changeable. In every leader resides a follower, and vice versa, and the side we show is ultimately a product of the other person in the room. This may seem like a minor epiphany, but as Paul Thomas Anderson proves in his latest opus, it can change the way you view the world, and it can change the way the world views you.

Continue reading

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

It’s not really possible to judge The Amazing Spider-Man on its own merits. That would be nice, but anybody older than 15 who sees Director Marc Webb‘s reboot must have also seen the original trilogy, which turns this all into a game of comparisons. And by comparison, Webb’s Amazing Spider-Man is mostly superior to Sam Raimi’s original film. How could it not be? In addition to having essentially none of the hurdles that Raimi dealt with, Marc Webb had the luxury of making a superhero flick in a post-Dark Knight world (more on this later). Past that, both fans and technology are more advanced then they were a decade ago, and the film that wowed us in 2002 simply hasn’t aged well. So, fine, Webb’s Webslinger wins, but does this victory deserve an asterisk? Depends on how you look at it.

Continue reading

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

There’s a particular sect of artists of which Wes Anderson is almost certainly a member. A group of individual creatives defined almost exclusively by their style, while their substance grudgingly takes a backseat. This “style-first” aggregate often bears long-lasting fruit, as consumers have no trouble making quick reads on the group members’ products, and establish their obsessive fandom at the earliest possible stages of a career. Artists like Andy Warhol, David Bowie, Andy Kaufman, Dave Eggers, Nicki Minaj, et al, laid the foundation of their careers with a style that, at first glance, is primarily distinct for its “newness.” Certainly the question of content is raised, though only after plenty of gushing conversations about the artist’s “distinctive voice.” This has always been the dilemma for Wes Anderson, a director known universally for his visual style. Because while audiences spend countless hours discussing the color palettes and the symmetry and the fluid sets, a collection of wonderfully human characters parades right by them.

Continue reading

Modern Times (1936)

By 1930, “Talkies” were a Hollywood staple; a game-changing technology that slowly but surely eclipsed the landscape of film. Yet in 1936, Charlie Chaplin released Modern Timesan antediluvian “silent” film, and moreover, a thinly-veiled critique of the country’s capitalist devotion to industry; for the times, a brazen choice. Of the decision to avoid recorded dialogue Chaplin said: “Action is more generally understood than words. Like Chinese symbolism, it will mean different things according to its scenic connotation.” While not terribly poetic, this devotion to action effectively reveals Chaplin’s philosophy as a filmmaker. And it certainly jives with Chaplin the Performer, who spent years winning over audiences with his balletic pratfalls and boozer’s grace. As for Modern Times, it is a beautiful depiction of Chaplin’s one of a kind “action,” depicting an artist and performer deeply in his prime. For those of us more familiar with contemporary cinema (i.e. more talking in our movies), Modern Times is a wonderful introduction to a bygone era, and the waddling genius who will forever be associated with it.

Continue reading

The Avengers (2012)

There’s no scenario where Joss Whedon gets the credit he deserves for The Avengers. Certainly he’ll be lauded for the cash this box-office bogart is already piling up, and critics seem impressed enough with the film to plant it firmly in the upper echelon of “comic book” movies. But the success Whedon has achieved is far loftier than that, encompassing years of Marvel canon, hoards of characters beloved to fans, and unparalleled expectations. Put another way: making this movie was an unprecedented challenge. And The Avengers isn’t perfect, though that was never really an option in the first place; there are far too many elements that would have to be handled flawlessly, far too much scrutiny from far too many directions to ever truly be called “perfect.” It is, however, as good as it was ever going to be, and considering the circumstances, that’s pretty damn good.

Continue reading

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Though it has become ubiquitous enough to feel like it’s always existed, self-awareness in film is a relatively fresh condition. Fourth wall breaking, references to other cinema, genre devices, overly archetyped characters; all are commonly used techniques to create self-referential “meta” films. And whether they’re built as an over-the-top spoof, a genre-clipping throwback, or a glorifying homage, these films take advantage of an audience’s pre-existing cinematic knowledge so we can all simply get to the point. The Cabin in the Woods is, perhaps, the most ingeniously-executed example of this trend; winking its way towards an almost assured cult film status. And while my list of superlatives could go from floor to ceiling, what I most admire about The Cabin in the Woods is the fact that, in trying to describe it, I can’t really say anything at all. Because–and here’s the catch–saying anything about it might just ruin everything about it.

Continue reading

The Hunger Games (2012)

For a first-timer, The Hunger Games requires a lot of unpacking. Certainly there’s the initial/perpetual shock of a story that centers on an event wherein children are literally killing each other for the entertainment of the upper class, but that’s really only the tip, as this powerful central device results in myriad other plot elements worth considering. At any given moment there are themes of politics, propaganda, corruption, class, status, manipulation, public relations, and, oh yeah, life and death. To say this is a story with a lot going on is an understatement, though you can’t really say that all of these themes are fully explored either. The Hunger Games is a balancing act, wherein author (and co-screenwriter) Suzanne Collins‘ first consideration is her characters: children who, having already spent much of their lives in some degree of destitution, are now forced to hunt and kill one another, all in the name of “peace and prosperity.”

Continue reading