Gone Girl

Read the book or watch the movie first? Book or movie, movie or book?!? My typical rule of thumb is try the book first and see if it pulls me in. So a couple months ago when I first saw the trailers for an upcoming movie, I sought out the book for Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl. I found a rhythm pretty quick and enjoyed the book a lot. Does the movie live up to its book roots? Here's 2014's Gone Girl.

Living in a small Missouri town, the Dunnes, Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy (Rosamund Pike), have fallen on some rough times. They both lost their jobs and had to move from New York City to Missouri to help care for Nick's dying mother. They're struggling along, Nick opening up a bar in hopes of bringing in some cash. One day at the bar, Nick gets a phone call from his neighbor who says the front door is wide open at his house. Nick returns home and finds evidence of a fight all over the house...and Amy is gone. What happened? Where did she go? Was it a kidnapping, or maybe worse? Nick calls the police who immediately go to work trying to find out what exactly happened in the house. Nick maintains his innocence as the investigation builds, stating he had nothing to do with his wife's disappearance. The evidence certainly seems to indicate otherwise. What did happen to Amy?

The trailer immediately caught my attention for this mystery when I stumbled across it in theaters. I remember Flynn's book climbing up the bestsellers list a few years back but had no dying need to read the book. I heard generally good reviews, but the trailer sold it. Here's a mini book review for those curious. Flynn's story is excellent. Once you pick up the style, it's a great read, flying by as the clues reveal themselves and the mystery builds as we figure out what's going on. If you're a fan of the book, you'll like the movie. If you haven't read the book, the movie does an admirable job bringing the story to life.

So the movie? Excellent, director David Fincher doing another gem, directing a daunting story considering its unique style. 'Girl' is 149 minutes long and covers a ton of ground, but it never feels long, slow or even remotely dull. The storytelling technique is interesting, adapting Flynn's technique well. We see the developing story from Nick's perspective while getting some seamlessly transitioned flashbacks as Amy writes in her diary of how she and Nick met and how their relationship developed from dating to their marriage. With Flynn doing the screen adaptation, the story is well-written, well-executed and keeps the mystery building. Is it worth it in the end? It's tough to say without giving too much away. There are several twists dotting the story, one excellent one and some moments meant to confuse and keep you guessing.

Talk about some good casting, but as I read the book, the only people I was aware of what characters they played where Affleck as Nick and Pike as Amy. Affleck is nicely cast as Nick, the smart, funny husband, and Pike is similarly excellent as Amy, basically the perfect wife. Their chemistry is pretty excellent, and the biggest reveals do just that, reveal some truths about their marriage. Also look for Carrie Coon as Go, Nick's twin sister, Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit as the police officers leading the disappearance investigation, David Clennon and Lisa Banes as Amy's parents, Neil Patrick Harris, Emily Ratajkowski and Scoot McNairy as three folks involved in the investigation. Go figure, but the best supporting part -- along with Coon and Dickens -- is Grandma Madea herself, Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt, a high-profile lawyer brought in as the disappearance develops. Funny, smart, an excellent supporting part for Perry. 

If there's a weakness, it comes in the final act. Reading Flynn's book, I felt like she struggled to come up with a fitting finale. That concern carries over to the film, the story keeping the same conclusion. It isn't a tidy ending -- far from it -- in an open-ended, frustrating quasi-resolution. Still, getting there is highly enjoyable. The look of the movie is stylized but never too much, the cast is excellent across the boards, the tension and mystery works perfectly, and the score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is creepy, understated and ethereal in helping to build the tension. Sorry if this is a short(ish) review. I really don't want to give too much away but know that this is an excellent mystery. Well worth checking out. Sit back and appreciate it, however dark and uncomfortable it gets.

Gone Girl (2014): ***/****

Herbie: Fully Loaded

What's your dream car from film and television? I've got a bunch. The 1960s Batmobile, Steve McQueen's Mustang from 1968's Bullitt, and a bunch more I'm forgetting in the moment. There's one though that rises above the rest. I'd love to own Herbie the Love Bug, the Volkswagen Bug who has starred in five theatrical flicks and one TV movie. I grew up watching Herbie movies and recently caught up with the only entry I'd never seen before, 2005's Herbie: Fully Loaded.

With a college degree under her arm and a job as an assistant producer at ESPN waiting for her in a few weeks, Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan) gets a graduation present from her Dad, Ray (Michael Keaton). The Peytons are a third generation racing family with Ray working as team owner and crew chief, his son the team's lead driver. Maggie has always wanted to get into racing but a past street racing incident ended that dream. Now, she'll have to settle for this present from her Dad, a beat-up looking 1963 Volkswagen Bug named Herbie that certainly looks well past its prime. This is not any old VW Bug though, something Maggie figures out immediately. Herbie has a mind of his own and Maggie and her mechanic friend, Kevin (Justin Long), think they can rehab the car and build it back up into a worthy racing car. They could be in for some trouble when cocky Nascar champ Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon) gets on their bad side and he wants nothing more than to take Herbie apart.

I love Herbie. I loved the original The Love Bug growing up, and I still love it now. I really like the second sequel Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, and.....yes, I can sit through the generally pretty bad Herbie Rides Again and Herbie Goes Bananas. I never intentionally avoided this 2005 quasi-reboot, but I never actively sought it out. From director Angela Robinson, 'Loaded' isn't great and it isn't awful.  The story is a bit of a rework of The Love Bug (how Herbie gets into racing) and Monte Carlo (Herbie in love) with an occasional tweak here and there. It made a ton of money -- $140-plus million -- in theaters and is innocent enough fun. If it isn't necessarily good, it does the Herbie character and franchise right.

Remember back in 2005 when Lindsay Lohan was a sure-fire star? She seemed destined to be a legit huge star following 2004's massively successful Mean Girls before some personal problems ranging from addiction to plastic surgery and assorted other things did their best to derail her career. You can't call her a great actress, but she is a good actress, natural and likable here. The rumor mill says that Disney Studios digitally reduced Lohan's breasts on-screen so that's pretty crazy if you think about it. Now all that said...the story does seem to be an excuse to doll Lohan up and put her in all sorts of tight, low-cut and mini-skirt options. Not a complaint, just an observation.

There is a decent cast on hand here so that definitely helps. Along with Michael Keaton as Maggie's Dad, there's Breckin Meyers as her race car driving brother and Cheryl Hines as one of the few remaining sponsors for the Peyton racing team. Justin Long gets romance duty, the shaggy haired mechanic working with Maggie who maybe...just maybe may end up with her. Tough part, huh? Backing up the geared-up Dillon as our evil villain, Trip, there's Jimmi Simpson as his goofy assistant, Crash, and Thomas Lennon (who also helped write the story and screenplay) as his manager/brother. Also look for Scoot McNairy briefly as a member of the pit crew. Some familiar parts from an after school special, but there's some talent on display.

Enough with all that garbage though. What about Herbie? Through the wonders of computer-generated images, Herbie is a little more anthropomorphic as we meet him. The former racing champion, Herbie the VW Bug has fallen on hard times and is rescued from the junk heap by Maggie. Can he reacquire his magic? The iconic visual is there, the white Bug with the red and blue stripe up his middle with the soft-cover top and the instantly recognizable '53' painted on his hood and side. His headlights are his eyes, his front hood his mouth, that sort of thing. We do get some crazy CGI moments that are a tad bit on the goofy side, but that's part of the Disney charm (albeit with better graphics). There is a fun scene late where Herbie gets "analyzed" by Nascar champions and fan favorites Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson so stick with it through that. Also look for Tony Stewart, and Dale Jarrett.

Now I do have one kinda major complaint? If you ask me at least. The opening credits show a montage of Herbie racing clips from the previous movies. Yes, he's fallen on hard times and basically abandoned as a parts car. As he makes his triumphant return, NO ONE remembers him. NO ONE. How forgetful can people be? Yes, I know I'm overanalyzing a movie that's intended to be entertaining and fun with some cool racing scenes. But come on now, how can no one recognize this car?!? It's a VW Bug who can hold his own with Nascar cars and souped-up street racers. WHY DOES NO ONE QUESTION THIS? WHY DOES NO ONE REMEMBER THIS LITTLE CAR? Okay, breathe...breathe, I got that out of my system. Herbie fans should like it. I certainly did in a dumbed down revisit sort of way.

Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005): ** 1/2 /****

12 Years a Slave

Just a year ago or so in theaters, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was a huge hit with audiences and critics alike, making over $425 million. It was a story about a pre-Civil War slavery that was horrific and over the top, almost cartoonish in its portrayal of slavery. An interesting companion piece because it tackles the same historical issue in far darker, far more somber fashion, 2013's 12 Years a Slave.

It's 1841 in Saratoga, New York, and Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man. He works as a carpenter, is also a skilled musician and lives comfortably with his wife and two young children. When his family goes away on a quick work/vacation, Solomon is approached by two musicians who offer him a two-week job working with their traveling circus performers. Solomon is intrigued by their offer, dining and drinking with them one evening. He wakes up the next morning in chains, realizing he was drugged the night before. Solomon has been kidnapped and will be shipped south to be sold as a slave in the deep south. Listening to other kidnap victims in the same situation, some runaway slaves, he learns he's in more of a spot than he thought. If he tries to convince anyone of his plight, they'll punish him (with the possibility of whipping) if not kill him. Can he survive? Can Solomon find a way to endure and somehow gain back his freedom?

Wow. What a movie, one of the most uncomfortable experiences I've had watching a film in years. Technically speaking, it's excellent, but this next part might sound obvious. Anyone who knows their history -- or even those who don't -- realize that slavery existed in the U.S. less than 200 years ago in the 1860s. It's a known thing, but knowing and seeing the horrors are different. It is a terrifyingly uncomfortable movie, and it's supposed to be. It pulls no punches in telling the true story of Solomon Northup, director Steve McQueen (not that one) at the helm of a movie that won Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. Be forewarned heading in. This is a film, not a popcorn movie that you come away with with a smile on your face. '12' is a film to watch and appreciate for what it is. A true story from one of the darker periods in American history. I won't be revisiting this one anytime soon. Once was enough.

Chiwetel Ejiofor or Matthew McConaughey? Which actor for the Best Actor Oscar? Having seen both '12' and Dallas Buyers Club, it's fair to say that either man deserved the win. It's a push, both performances worthwhile in their own respect. For Ejiofor, this is a great performance and hopefully one that propels him into stardom. I've always thought he was a solid actor with some poor choices in films (2012, Four Brothers), but this film shows his ability. Playing Solomon Northup, this is an emotionally draining, physical, very expressive part. Ejiofor allows the rest of the cast to chew scenery at times, letting a quick, hard-hitting diatribe here and there fill in the blanks. He does so much with a look here, his tired eyes telling the story. Dubbed Platt (the name of a runaway slave from Georgia), Solomon tries to survive however he can, almost willing himself to keep on and return to his family. This is a human, visceral performance. Unbelievable stuff.

In a part that won her the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, Lupita Nyong'o delivers a gem as Patsey, a young slave who's hard-working, does her job and puts her head down, unfortunately becoming a favorite of the plantation owner, Epps, played to evil perfection by Michael Fassbender (nominated for his part, didn't win). Nyong'o is strong across the board but won the Oscar with one key, emotional gut-wrenching scene late. A great supporting performance. Fassbender (a favorite of mine) is intensity personified, a vile slave owner who quotes the Bible at all times, making his slaves do odd, bizarre things to suit his random wants and desires, Sarah Paulson playing his equally unhinged wife. Some other key supporting parts include Benedict Cumberbatch as Ford, a decent slave owner but still a slave owner, Paul Giamatti as a bottom-line slave dealer, Paul Dano as an angry, clueless overseer, Alfre Woodard as a slave woman turned mistress, Garret Dillahunt as Armsby, a hopeful overseer, and Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam as the men who kidnap Solomon.

As I mentioned, this was a difficult movie to sit through. It's not boring, the subject matter just hard to watch. '12' is 134 minutes long and does drag at times. The story isn't the most pointed thing, drifting along at times. My biggest issue is that there is no sense of time having passed. I kept waiting for a title card or something to pop up on-screen and say '8 Years Later.' There's no way to tell how much time has passed. Has it been weeks or months? Has it been years? The incidents are horrific, the truth of the story hard to fathom, but then out of nowhere there's a solution to it all. That was my biggest issue with '12,' no idea of the time that's passed. It sounds simple and something minor to complain about, but it's a legit issue.

This is a difficult movie to watch, plain and simple. I do like where it heads in the last third or so, Brad Pitt making a memorable appearance as a Canadian carpenter working in the south who meets Solomon while working on Epps' plantation. We get several scenes analyzing the horror and truth of slavery that come across as slightly heavy-handed, but that said, I guess there's very little subtle about slavery itself. The ending is heartbreaking in itself, especially the title cards that play out before the credits. Also worth mentioning is Hans Zimmer's score, almost minimalist in its execution, a simple, soft, trance-like theme resonating the most. Listen HERE. An interesting movie, one you're not necessarily going to like, but one you'll be able to appreciate and experience.

12 Years a Slave (2013): ***/****

Non-Stop

Terror at 30,000 feet!!! There's all sorts of crazy, scary, terrifying situations out there. But what about those situations where you simply can't get away from it? Like literally, can't get away, like on a plane flying at 30,000 feet. There's a fun, little sub-genre of movies like this, including Air Force One, Flightplan, Red Eye, and most recently, Non-Stop.

A former police officer from New York City, Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a Federal Air Marshal who's been at it for years. After some family troubles years before, Marks struggles with the job, drinking heavily to the point his coworkers are aware of it as well. Boarding a six-hour flight from NYC to London, Marks is ready for whatever could be thrown at him...until now. An hour or so into the flight, he starts to receive ominous text messages from an unknown sender. His threat? Unless $150 million is deposited in a bank account, someone on board will be killed every 20 minutes. It has to be a joke, right? How could a killer get away with it? What could their escape plan be? Marks isn't sure how to proceed, but with the clock ticking, he's working against time. Can he find the supposed killer before he strikes?

I'm going to be honest here. When I first saw the trailer for director Jaume Collet-Serra's film, I will....I'll say, less than enthused. It looked exceptionally goofy, even dumb, in wasting a premise that sounded like it could be pretty cool. Now all that said, a local theater shows movies for $5 on Tuesdays so....yeah, I gave it a shot. 'Non-Stop' ends up being a lot of fun, taking advantage of a simple, straightforward premise. A killer on-board a plane? How could he possibly plan on getting away even if his plan somehow succeeds? At 106 minutes, it's basically the perfect length -- not too quick, doesn't overstay its welcome. The style is there, texts popping up on-screen as Neeson's Air Marshal interacts with the terrorist. With the exception of a quick introduction and the closing scene, the entire movie plays out on the plane as it flies across the Atlantic, almost like a stage play. Above all else, it is entertaining. It's fun, and sometimes that's all you need.

Another chapter to the Liam Neeson Badass chapter has been written. As I've written before, I'm a big fan of Mr. Neeson no matter the part, but I love him in these more commercial movies more than the more dramatic period pieces. It's like picking pizza though. There's not really bad pizza, just less good. Neeson was cut out to be an action star. It just took years to figure it out whether it was the Taken movies, The Grey, Star Wars, Unknown, and now here in Non-Stop. His grizzled Bill Marks is worn down, beaten up and struggling with alcoholism, but through it all, he still knows how to do his job and do it well, even when it seems he can do no right. Now in his early 1960s, Neeson for lack of a better description is a badass. It's fun to watch him on-screen, especially in ass-kicking mode. His weathered face, his gravelly voice, it all adds up and in a good way. Likable, believable and a hell of a good action star.

One of the biggest selling points for 'Non-Stop' for me was the catch. With a story like this, you know there's going to be a big twist, a big reveal, something that lays it all out there. There just is so deal with it. Here, the premise is a whodunit? Who is the person behind the diabolical plot that threatens to claim the lives of 150 people on-board this commercial airliner? Everyone in the supporting cast is a possible suspect so that's part of the fun. Can you piece it together before the big reveal? I had an inkling, but I couldn't peg this one. For starters, look for Julianne Moore as Jen, the fellow passenger who needs a window seat and ends up next to Neeson's Marks. Also look for Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, Linus Roache, Nate Parker, Corey Stoll, Anson Mount, and Omar Metwally among others as assorted passengers and crew on-board who may or may not be working with the Air Marshal to find out exactly what's going on. Shea Whigham also makes a quick appearance as an agent on the ground communicating with Marks. It's a fun group with some solid variety. I was kept guessing until the very end as to who was behind the plot at 30,000 feet.

And then there's the reveal. I didn't love it, but it's a realistic ending so that's a win in itself. I was worried about some ridiculous, far-fetched twist coming out of left field. Thankfully, that never comes to fruition. So while I didn't love the ending, I didn't hate it each other. It was getting to the finale that's pretty cool. We see the responses, the contingency plans, the technology available from texting to filming video with a phone, all how it affects Marks' situation that gets progressively worse with each passing moment. This is a good, old-fashioned thriller with some nice modern touches. Uncomfortable, full of tension and adrenaline, with a lot going for it across the board. An easy movie to recommend.

Non-Stop (2014): ***/****

Killing Them Softly

As an author, the name George V. Higgins doesn't set off trip wires and alarms about all the classics he's written. His fans love him though, love him for his bestselling crime novels that brought the darkness, reality and extreme violence and betrayals of the criminal underworld to life. I'd seen -- but haven't read -- The Friends of Eddie Coyle and liked it. One of Higgins' novels, Cogan's Trade, received a big screen adaptation last year, 2012's Killing Them Softly.

With the help of a businessman, Squirrel (Vincent Curatola), an ex-con, Frankie (Scott McNairy) and a drug addict acquaintance, Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), have a plan to net some easy money. Frankie and Russell will rob an illegal high stakes poker game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), the owner of a ring of illegal games. In his past, Markie secretly took down one of his own games, and Squirrel intends to set him up as the fall guy for his upcoming job. The actual robbery goes down pretty smoothly, but the fall-out is severe. With mob ties to the card game, a feared enforcer, Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is called in to handle the situation. He's got to find out who was involved, who was behind it, and who's lying to him. Brutality, intimidation, straight murder, Jackie isn't afraid to pull out all the stops to find out what he needs to know and get paid in the process.

What I liked most about this film noir-like crime flick is simple. Based off a novel Higgins wrote in the 1970s, 'Killing' feels like those down and dirty crime dramas of the 1970s. There is a throwback feel to it that works on an effortless level. Some of the style, especially Pitt with his slicked back hair and duded up look, has that retro feel. Mostly though, it's that ever-present sense of doom. In this criminal world as the movie presents, there is no hope, no light, no potential for happiness in the end. Anyone and everyone is trying to look out for No. 1. Betrayals, murder, backstabbing, all are fair if it helps you get somewhere or something. That ultra-dark cynicism plays well. We know from the start that none of what we are about to see will go down smoothly. Blood will be spilled and money will be made, but at what cost?

That sounds like it's right up my alley, doesn't it? An almost artsy feel of a 1960s/1970s French crime drama mixed with the tones of a barebones American crime drama from the 1970s? That's got to be good, right? Well, it never amounts to much. This movie plays like a dirtier, far more foul-mouthed version of something Aaron Sorkin would have written. 'Killing' is absolutely obsessed with dialogue. When written well, that can be enough to carry a movie, but the dialogue here gets tedious and serves no real purpose at a certain point. How many times can we hear Frankie and Russell talk about their sexual preferences before we just become numb to it all? I appreciate a slower, more character driven story that doesn't focus exclusively on action, but it's got to go somewhere. We get a long dialogue scene.........and another.........and another. An already short movie (in running time at least) at 97 minutes, it feels far longer, and I was using the fast forward option liberally.

What ends up being the biggest waste here is the cast. There's lots of dialogue here, but it feels like actors showing off but without any substance. Pitt is a bright spot (not a surprise) as brutal, quiet and effective Jackie, a man who has a special skill -- enforcing/killing -- and puts it to his advantage. McNairy and Mendelsohn are appropriately slimy while Liotta isn't given much to do unfortunately as Trattman, a marked man. James Gandolfini plays Mickey, a down on his luck hit man who Jackie recruits for another job, hamming, whoring and drinking it up. Richard Jenkins is maligned and beaten down as Driver, Jackie's link to the mob. Sam Shepard makes a bizarrely quick one-scene cameo as Dillon, an older enforcer with the biggest reputation around.

The story itself has some flaws, but I think director/writer Andrew Dominik makes a really bad style decision. Any transition scene -- car driving, men walking, whatever -- has a voiceover being played over the visual. We hear George W. Bush and Barack Obama talking about the economic crisis, country unity, working together. It all comes together in the end in the final scene, but it's not worth the payoff we get. Instead, it comes across as a heavy-handed, obnoxious stylish storytelling device that handicaps the movie. As a film, it just can't quite figure out what's going on. Is it darkly funny? Just dark? A metaphor for something bigger, more profound? All of the above, none of it? If you're going to tell a crime story, do it. Don't get all mixed up in a message about America's current economic state.

Too bad overall. Lots of potential, and when it works in small snippets, it reminds me of a mix between The Departed and No Country for Old Men. Too often though it doesn't do enough to give it a recommendation (even a mild one). Sorry to report I came away disappointed in a big way.

Killing Them Softly (2012): **/****

Monsters

A sci-fi, possibly post-apocalyptic story made on a relatively small budget with an unknown cast. From trailers and some reviews, 2010's Monsters sounded like it had a ton of potential, a film I was definitely looking forward to trying. The end result? A mixed bag. The parts that work are home runs. Overall though? Mostly a swing and a miss.

It's been six years since a NASA space probe carrying a form of alien life crashed into Mexico. The aliens have set up shop (of sorts) in a zone that's been dubbed the Quarantine Zone with the U.S. military guarding the border on either side, both north and south. More or less, the aliens have been limited and kept under control, but there doesn't appear to be a way to truly defeat and wipe them out. South of the quarantine zone, photojournalist Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) is contacted by his employer and given a key task. The boss' daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), is also south of the zone but needs to get into the U.S. The only way there? Through the Quarantined Zone, navigating a war-torn land where immense aliens lie in hiding.

I can't think of a movie I've seen even somewhat recently that is so good in parts and so bad in others. So let's get that out of the way. I won't be giving it a positive review, but there are parts on their own that are definitely worth checking out. If director-writer-cinematographer Gareth Edwards could have made a whole movie about the parts that work, 'Monsters' would be a near-classic. Composer Jon Hopkins' score is a gem -- listen to the theme HERE -- that is equal parts soothing and calm in an ethereal way and unsettling in its ability to be quiet and underplayed. The cast is mostly limited to McNairy and Able (more details later), and we get the sense of what a world would be like years after an alien invasion of sorts. If there was ever an art-house alien invasion flick, this would be it.

Those are the parts I love. It is an understated, underplayed story that plays almost like a documentary. Other than the early explanation via title cards, we learn little about how the aliens came to be, how the fighting went, how the situation came to be as we see it. Leaving certain things to the imagination doesn't always work out, but here it does. It adds a sense of mystery. The opening sequence shows a military convoy fighting an alien, setting the stage for the movie in an unsettling beginning. From there on though, the focus is through the eyes of Kaulder and Samantha. We see a war-torn land where the carcasses of long-dead aliens remain. We see an already poor country in Mexico brought to the brink of destruction, the people left in the Zone struggling for survival. It never panders for emotion or goes for an obvious message in those scenes. Now, if only the rest of the movie could have taken that idea to heart.

It, of course, does not. Why must directors/producers/writers insist on adding a not-so-thinly veiled message into their films? Usually, that message is about current events in some form or another, and here, it's immigration. More specifically, illegal immigration between the United States and Mexico along the Rio Grande. To keep the aliens in the Zone and out of the U.S., the military has built an immense, heavily fortified wall all along the border. Subtle it is not. Thankfully, the issue isn't overly used to the point I wanted to rip my ears off, but basically any mention of the "alien fence" came across as heavy-handed and obvious to me. It's a movie about a Quarantined Zone still occupied by humans who are trying to survive against aliens stranded on our planet. Why does it have to be something else? Why can't it just be what it is? Nah, that makes too much sense.

That ends up being at least half of the film's downfall. But I'm trying to keep you on your toes so I'm going to bounce back to the positive, starting with the portrayal of the aliens. The creatures are a mix of the Cloverfield monster, the War of the World creatures, and the aliens from The Mist. Like in Cloverfield, we never truly see them head-on to get a great, clear look at them. We see and hear them in the distance, see them skimming along under the water's surface, see them moving in the dark. It's that sense of mystery I mentioned earlier that gives 'Monsters' that needed edge. As an audience, we're allowed to make up our minds to a point. What exactly is going on with these creatures? Are they even violent creatures or did we make them that way with our attacks meant to eliminate them? That mystery can go either way, but for me in this instance, I really liked it. A very effective scene is in the finale as we get our best look at the creatures, but that's undone by the final scene. As for that part....

The review is getting a tad long, and I feel like I'm rambling a bit, but I have to make one more point. Playing the only two main characters, McNairy and Able are all right as Kaulder and Samantha. My biggest issue with the characters is that they're just not likable. They are done no favors by a script that limits everything they do. Kaulder is separated from a woman he had a child with (wouldn't you know? It's nearing his birthday) while Samantha is heading home to be married (wouldn't you know? She's having second thoughts). A story with a ton of potential about this post-apocalyptic situation degenerates into a story ripped right out of a romantic comedy. Will Kaulder and Samantha end up together? Will they figure out what they want in life? Gag me. What a ridiculous twist. The final nail is the closing scene, an open-ended finale that disappoints. So know what you're getting into. At just 94 minutes, it never overstays its welcome, but it's never a truly worthwhile watch.

Monsters (2010): ** 1/2 /****

Argo

Having made a name for himself as an actor, Ben Affleck has turned to the director's chair over the last six years. His first two movies were crime thrillers, 2007's Gone Baby Gone and 2010's The Town, and both showed a knack for really solid filmmaking, both of which I liked a lot. For Affleck's third film though, he had a little change of pace with 2012's Argo.

In November 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed by angry Iranians upset that a deposed Shah is being sheltered by the U.S. In the chaos of the embassy takeover, six Americans escape and manage to make it to the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber) undetected. Some 70 hostages have been taken though, and a long waiting game follows. Over 70 days later, the U.S. government and the C.I.A. are still trying to figure out what to do when C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plan. Posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi film (a Star Wars rip-off), Mendez intends to get into Iran and get the six out safely. The plan is ridiculously dangerous, and the potential for failure is high. Time is running out though, and it's the best plan available.

I've always been a fan of Affleck as an actor going back to his first few roles in movies like Good Will Hunting and Armageddon. As much as I like him as an actor, I'm starting to think I like him more from behind the camera. Maybe it's being around the movie business as much as he has, but he seems to have a knack for this camera. The reviews were uniformly positive here, and the IMDB rating is at a very high 8.4 as I write this review. Is it an all-time classic that the rating suggests? No, but it's very well done and well-executed. It's refreshing to see a story that focuses on just that; the story. While it's rated 'R,' it can mostly be attributed to the language. Little in the way of violence, sex and explosions, everything is streamlined for the story. Nothing wasted here.

This is based on the real life events that took place between 1979 and 1981 with some 80 hostages under Iranian control. Affleck has said in interviews that some liberties were taken with the story, but that's the point. It is based on a true story. He never said it is a true story. What appeals to me about Affleck's work is why I like his acting. It's understated when it is at its best. Argo feels like a throwback to the great crime/political thrillers of the 1970s (interesting because it takes place after those movies were made, but you get the idea). It is not flashy or anything freakishly new. What is it? Lots of good actors, a dramatic, incredibly intense story, and tension that is so well-handled it gets to the point it was uncomfortable by the end. Groundbreaking? Nope, but there's something to be said for a no-frills thriller that knows what it is trying to accomplish.

Like in The Town, Affleck stars in his own flick, but like his story, it isn't a flashy part. His Tony Mendez is an exfiltration specialist, an expert in getting people out of places, who concocts a hair-brained scheme to get these 6 Americans out of harm's way. Tony is quiet and a thinker, but he's always working on something. Give him a mission, and he's not going to stop to accomplish his objectives. A solid leading part for Mr. Affleck. Joining him in two scene-stealing parts are John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Goodman plays a respected Hollywood makeup man while Arkin is a director a little past his prime, both men signing on to help Affleck's Tony create a fake film that will convince Iranian officials and armed forces his backstory is legit. Both parts fade into the background once Tony heads out on his mission, but the scenes among Affleck, Goodman and Arkin are gems. I loved all three performances. Also look for always reliable Bryan Cranston as Tony's CIA supervisor, Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff, Titus Welliver as a State Department official and plenty of familiar faces popping up in quick one and two scene appearances.

I liked the movie throughout as the story develops. We're given background, see the fake movie -- dubbed 'Argo' -- come together, and then Tony's mission. The actual mission getting the six Americans out of a bloody, chaotic and paranoid Tehran is by far the best thing going for Affleck's movie. Tension doesn't begin to describe these scenes as Tony's "film crew" tries to get through airport security. The six Americans include Tate Donovan, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy and Kerry Bishe. Farshad Farahat does an incredible job with as a checkpoint guard investigating the backstory. The ending is Affleck showing his ability. He doesn't blare music at you or demand you feel a certain way as a viewer. He presents the action, lets it develop and allows the actors to do their thing. Another winner. Looking forward to see what's next for Affleck, as an actor or director.    

Argo (2012): ***/****