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): ***/****
The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Ben Affleck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Affleck. Show all posts
Friday, October 31, 2014
Monday, September 1, 2014
Good Will Hunting
Just a few weeks ago, I reviewed 1989’s Dead Poets Society,
a film featuring one of Robin Williams’ best dramatic roles. It even picked him
up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance. For me, it’s a push
though when you stop and consider Williams’ overall acting parts. That
conversation includes both Dead Poets and 1997’s Good Will Hunting.
Working as a janitor at M.I.T., Will Hunting (Matt Damon)
has a pretty simple life. He works, reads, and enjoys hanging out with his
friends in south Boston. There’s something special about Will though, something
he only lets out in small doses. Will is an absolute genius, able to understand
complex mathematical equations at will, an almost photographic memory aiding
the cause. It’s more than that though. He gets in trouble with the law though,
but when a professor (Stellan Skarsgard) at M.I.T. finds out what this janitor
is capable of, he cuts a deal with the court to earn Will’s release. One of the
requirements of the release is simple; Will must go to a psychiatrist and talk
about his past, his anger, his life. He chases one away after another until he
finally meets Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), a psychiatrist who finally
challenges him.
Like ‘Dead Poets,’ I sought out ‘Hunting’ after the tragic
passing of Robin Williams a few weeks ago. His death is still settling in weeks
later, the tributes still revealing themselves as fans continue to realize what
a true talent he was. Both for William’s performance and the entire cast,
‘Hunting is a gem, director Gus Van Sant helming a film that picked up nine
Oscar nominations, ultimately winning two; Best Supporting Actor for Williams, Best Original Screenplay for Damon and Ben Affleck. It is the best kind of drama, a story interested in the
people, the relationships, the real life drama. There are some true BIG
dramatic moments, but they never feel forced. They feel very real. This was the movie that put Matt
Damon and Ben Affleck on the map in a big way, a huge window into the talents
they were and would become. The reason for revisiting the movie was
unfortunate, but the movie itself is a gem.
The script from Damon and Affleck is a pretty perfect
jumping off point. It paints a great picture of the characters and a true
variety of characters. We’re talking full-fledged, red-blooded, 3-D characters
that act and talk like real people. That starts with Damon’s Will Hunting. We
learn as the story develops what makes Will the way he is, his checkered past
littered with violence, his life growing up in foster homes. Rocking an epic
Boston accent, Damon kills the part. Will isn’t an easy character to like
because he does such a good job pushing people away, but you’re rooting for him
just the same. You want him to figure things out, to open up, to trust some.
Damon is one of the best actors currently working in Hollywood, a true talent,
and this is definitely one of his best.
Damon’s performance is uniformly strong, but the scenes that
resonate the most are those in which he interacts with Williams’ Sean. These
scenes take place in Sean’s cluttered, homey office, a lived-in feel for sure
as Sean, a psychiatrist and professor at a junior college, gets to know the
troubled Will. These scenes develop like a chess match, two professionals
duking it out, looking for strengths and weaknesses. Why does it work? It plays
effortlessly. This isn’t acting but two guys having a conversation. It isn’t
always easy to watch, but it’s always fascinating. Will’s early “analysis” of
Sean, Sean’s shot back at his brilliant mind, Sean’s explaining about his own
past, including a great scene about the 1975 World Series and Carlton Fisk’s
famous home run, they all ring true. A true talent in Robin Williams, bringing
out the best in all his scenes.
Who else to look for? This isn’t a huge cast, but what’s
there is prime. Helping give a window into Will, again, is the script as we see
his day-to-day life, meeting his friends as they go bar-hopping, hang out on
the weekends. Affleck is a scene-stealer as Chuckie, Will’s longtime best
friend, loyal to a fault but also wanting his friend to reach out and take what
he can with his gift, his mind. Also look for Casey Affleck and Cole Hauser as
two other close friends. Minnie Driver is a gem too as Skylar, an incredibly
smart med student who clicks instantly with Will but struggles to get to know
him as he puts his walls up. As well, Skarsgard is excellent as a professor
with a similarly brilliant mind but not one on the same level as Will. An
incredibly talented cast, not a weakness in the bunch.
As I mentioned, this is a movie about the personal drama. If
I delve into the story anymore, it’s going to involve giving away some great
scenes that should come naturally in the process of watching the film. Me
talking about it would be one spoiler after another. Great story, great
characters, cool locations in and around Boston, and a pretty cool ending on so
many levels. Well worth catching up with. Highly recommended, and again, R.I.P.
Robin Williams.
Good Will Hunting (1997): *** ½ /****
Monday, March 24, 2014
Runner Runner
If you would have told me back in the late 1990s, that some 14 years later Justin Timberlake would be where he is right now..........yeah, I would have said you were nuts. The 'N Sync front guy?!? Really?!? But here we sit, Timberlake one of the biggest stars in entertainment in music, film, even on TV pairing with his buddy Jimmy Fallon. Good for him, the star doing quite the job of marketing himself. And then there's 2013 Runner Runner, setting him back in a bad way.
A graduate student at Princeton, Richie Furst (Timberlake) has fallen on some tough times. A former Wall Street broker, Richie lost his six-figure job and is now struggling to even pay his tuition. As a way of earning some money, he sends gamblers to an online gambling site, earning a commission, but as a last ditch effort, Richie gambles too at the site, losing his entire upcoming tuition payment. Running a study through a friend's software, Richie proves he was cheated. His solution? He travels to Costa Rica (where he got that money is never addressed) looking to confront the company's controversial owner, Ivan Block (Ben Affleck), who operates free of U.S. jurisdiction with his possibly corrupt business. When he somehow manages to finagle a meeting, Richie is stunned at the response he gets. Ivan offers him reimbursement and more, he wants Richie to work with him as a right-hand man. It seems too good to be true, huh?
From the explosion of Texas Hold 'Em's popularity to the "Video Poker" signs that pop up seemingly everywhere, that whole gambling thing sure seems to have taken off over the last 10-15 years. Right up there in the popularity department is the insane popularity and growth of online gambling, giving gamblers a chance to gamble from their couch. To say online gambling is worthy of a huge, all-reaching story isn't exactly spot-on, but it's certainly an interesting premise. This is not that movie. Released in the U.S. in October 2013, it bombed in theaters, raking in countless negative reviews, and let me tell you it is just not good. Director Brad Furman's flick is currently rocking a 9% at Rotten Tomatoes and is barely hovering over the 5.0 mark at IMDB. I'm surprised it is even that high.
The biggest issue here concerning the criticism is that there's not one high-arcing reason for why 'Runner' is so bad. Maybe that's the biggest reason in itself? It is dull, has no energy, seems borrowed from one like-minded movie after another and never creates its own identity. At 91 minutes, it is painfully slow, trying to do a whole lot but not achieving any of its goals (if you ask me) and limps to the finish line in a painfully contrived finale. This is a movie that's dead on arrival. The biggest thing I can say is this. There's no real reason to watch it. This is a movie that's just sorta.....there. I didn't hate it with a passion, didn't revel in its badness. It just sits there, and if you ask me, that's one of the worst things you can say about a movie.
As for that Timberlake fellow, he's got that potential, that thing that makes people stars. He's hilarious on his SNL hosting gigs, has shown he can handle supporting dramatic parts in movies like The Social Network, could do well in a rom-com like Friends With Benefits. What's missing? Dark, heavy dramatic parts that require him to be a tough guy. I don't know if Timberlake is cut out for that part, struggling here the same way he did in About Time. Is it his demeanor? His kinda slight physical stature? That not so deep voice? Maybe it's all of them, maybe it's none of them. In 'Runner,' his Richie character is the worst kind of lead, cocky but not likable. His voiceover narration has him talking in this raspy growl -- seemingly to "toughen" up the part -- but it feels forced and comes across as unintentionally funny, not high, exciting drama. Timberlake has a future in acting, no doubt about it, but I think it's more in the comedy vein. He's still looking for that great action/drama role.
Playing the more fun part, Affleck is probably the best thing going here. His Ivan is friendly, charming, disarming and conniving like a crazy person to save his own backside. Still, the script from Brian Koppelman and David Levien is too rushed, not spending enough time with the Block character. We never get a good read on him, especially when things take a turn for the worse for everyone involved. Gemma Arterton is wasted as the necessary pretty girl who likes the new guy but has a past with the established guy. It's a part that gives her nothing to do other than flirt and wear nice dresses. Another talented actor who has picked some odd roles, Anthony Mackie overacts like his life depends on it as Agent Shaver, the FBI agent investigating Block. Also look for John Heard as Richie's gambling addict father and Michael Esper and Oliver Cooper as Richie's two friends who also get involved with Block's company.
What a blah flick. When things are supposed to be speeding up toward the finale, 'Runner' limps to the finish. The scenes with the final twists and confrontations are awful, Mackie's supposedly competent FBI agent making one horrifically dumb decision after another. This is just a dumb, boring movie. Highly recommended! Kidding. Totally kidding.
Runner Runner (2013): */****
A graduate student at Princeton, Richie Furst (Timberlake) has fallen on some tough times. A former Wall Street broker, Richie lost his six-figure job and is now struggling to even pay his tuition. As a way of earning some money, he sends gamblers to an online gambling site, earning a commission, but as a last ditch effort, Richie gambles too at the site, losing his entire upcoming tuition payment. Running a study through a friend's software, Richie proves he was cheated. His solution? He travels to Costa Rica (where he got that money is never addressed) looking to confront the company's controversial owner, Ivan Block (Ben Affleck), who operates free of U.S. jurisdiction with his possibly corrupt business. When he somehow manages to finagle a meeting, Richie is stunned at the response he gets. Ivan offers him reimbursement and more, he wants Richie to work with him as a right-hand man. It seems too good to be true, huh?
From the explosion of Texas Hold 'Em's popularity to the "Video Poker" signs that pop up seemingly everywhere, that whole gambling thing sure seems to have taken off over the last 10-15 years. Right up there in the popularity department is the insane popularity and growth of online gambling, giving gamblers a chance to gamble from their couch. To say online gambling is worthy of a huge, all-reaching story isn't exactly spot-on, but it's certainly an interesting premise. This is not that movie. Released in the U.S. in October 2013, it bombed in theaters, raking in countless negative reviews, and let me tell you it is just not good. Director Brad Furman's flick is currently rocking a 9% at Rotten Tomatoes and is barely hovering over the 5.0 mark at IMDB. I'm surprised it is even that high.
The biggest issue here concerning the criticism is that there's not one high-arcing reason for why 'Runner' is so bad. Maybe that's the biggest reason in itself? It is dull, has no energy, seems borrowed from one like-minded movie after another and never creates its own identity. At 91 minutes, it is painfully slow, trying to do a whole lot but not achieving any of its goals (if you ask me) and limps to the finish line in a painfully contrived finale. This is a movie that's dead on arrival. The biggest thing I can say is this. There's no real reason to watch it. This is a movie that's just sorta.....there. I didn't hate it with a passion, didn't revel in its badness. It just sits there, and if you ask me, that's one of the worst things you can say about a movie.
As for that Timberlake fellow, he's got that potential, that thing that makes people stars. He's hilarious on his SNL hosting gigs, has shown he can handle supporting dramatic parts in movies like The Social Network, could do well in a rom-com like Friends With Benefits. What's missing? Dark, heavy dramatic parts that require him to be a tough guy. I don't know if Timberlake is cut out for that part, struggling here the same way he did in About Time. Is it his demeanor? His kinda slight physical stature? That not so deep voice? Maybe it's all of them, maybe it's none of them. In 'Runner,' his Richie character is the worst kind of lead, cocky but not likable. His voiceover narration has him talking in this raspy growl -- seemingly to "toughen" up the part -- but it feels forced and comes across as unintentionally funny, not high, exciting drama. Timberlake has a future in acting, no doubt about it, but I think it's more in the comedy vein. He's still looking for that great action/drama role.
Playing the more fun part, Affleck is probably the best thing going here. His Ivan is friendly, charming, disarming and conniving like a crazy person to save his own backside. Still, the script from Brian Koppelman and David Levien is too rushed, not spending enough time with the Block character. We never get a good read on him, especially when things take a turn for the worse for everyone involved. Gemma Arterton is wasted as the necessary pretty girl who likes the new guy but has a past with the established guy. It's a part that gives her nothing to do other than flirt and wear nice dresses. Another talented actor who has picked some odd roles, Anthony Mackie overacts like his life depends on it as Agent Shaver, the FBI agent investigating Block. Also look for John Heard as Richie's gambling addict father and Michael Esper and Oliver Cooper as Richie's two friends who also get involved with Block's company.
What a blah flick. When things are supposed to be speeding up toward the finale, 'Runner' limps to the finish. The scenes with the final twists and confrontations are awful, Mackie's supposedly competent FBI agent making one horrifically dumb decision after another. This is just a dumb, boring movie. Highly recommended! Kidding. Totally kidding.
Runner Runner (2013): */****
Labels:
2010s,
Anthony Mackie,
Ben Affleck,
Gemma Arterton,
Justin Timberlake
Monday, November 18, 2013
The Company Men
So the 1930s had the Great Depression. Now, our current recession has been dubbed the Great Recession since the global economy took a world-changing hit in 2007 and 2008. How about some movies about it?!? Not exactly a warm, uplifting story now, is it? Just like movies about Iraq and Afghanistan, these movies seem doomed. Maybe the wounds are too fresh, maybe in years to come they'll gain popularity. One that's good in the moment and will hopefully be remembered pretty well is 2010's The Company Men.
Like many international/worldwide companies, Global Transportation Systems (GTX) is hit very hard when the economy bottoms out in 2008, forcing the higher-ups to approve severe layoffs almost across the board. A 12-year veteran of the company, Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is among the first wave fired, forcing the husband and father of two to desperately search for a new job. Not soon after when things don't go on the upswing, 30-year veteran Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) is among the second wave of employees fired, one of thousands across the company. GTX offers a severance package on top of a company meant to help them find new jobs, but the dire situation is lousy just the same. All the while, one of GTX's most powerful employees, Gene McLary (Tommy Lee Jones), sees the writing on the wall but can do little about it. What does the economy hold for both the company and the individual?
I'm basically the most un-savvy business mind ever. While I tried to understand and grasp what the economic downturn, it basically flew right over my head. Thankfully this drama from director John Wells doesn't try to explain the recession, instead focusing on humanizing the recession. We don't see the bigger picture for the most part. There aren't any huge, emotional scenes showing how the recession came to be, how the world, the economy, businesses/corporations adjust to the problem, how it may ultimately be solved at all. We meet the people -- on both sides, being fired and doing the firing -- as they try to survive this downturn unlike anything else the economy and world has ever seen. In that sense, it's a good, old-fashioned drama that allows the cast to do their thing. No gimmicks or anything forced, just personal, human drama.
If there is an issue with that personal, human drama, it's that it can be difficult to fully get behind and support these characters. They're dropped from six-figure paying jobs to searching for jobs. We hear them -- especially Affleck's Bobby -- talk about not being able to afford his Patriots tickets, his country club membership, his family's vacations to Disney. Boo-hoo, I get paid $60 per story I write at work. The same for Tommy Lee Jones' Gene on a smaller level, one particular line hamstringing an otherwise very effective monologue. Cooper's Phil is the most sympathetic -- and similarly most underutilized character -- a factory worker turned office supervisor trying to pay for his daughter's college tuition. End of rant. Moral of the story....it's hard to feel too bad about people complaining about losing the ultra-luxuries of being rich. Yeah, #FirstWorldProblems.
That minor rant out of the way, I thought the acting was uniformly solid across the board. Lack of sympathy aside, Affleck does a good job showing how low a man can get, how frustrating it can be when your world is completely pulled out from under you. Jones is his typical professional self, a solid role that shows not all big business is evil. He's worked his way up to the hierarchy and appreciates the work it's taken to get there. He also sees the hypocritical excesses all around him but knows there is little he can do at the same time. Cooper is underused as Phil, but his character is key to show a variation on how some people handle losing their job. Because it's a very real part, his scenes can be incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Also look for Kevin Costner as Jack, Bobby's blue collar brother-in-law who owns his own construction/contracting company, never missing a chance to dig Bobby for his evil ways with big business.
It was a wise choice to give all these individuals some personal flaws so we're not seeing "perfect" people thrown out on their backside. Affleck's rage comes out in one particular interview, Bobby making comments that are just wrong. Jones too has a personal secret that came as a surprise. We see all these little foibles, these little idiosyncrasies in all of the cast. Also joining the cast is Craig T. Nelson as GTX's ridiculously rich CEO, Maria Bello as GTX's battle axe, the woman placed in charge of organizing the mass firings, Rosemarie DeWitt as Bobby's wife, and Eamonn Walker as Danny, a fellow victim of the mass firings who bonds with Bobby.
First-time director John Wells has a winner here. It's low-key in its message without beating us over the head with that message. Because of the subject, the story can be a tad bit uncomfortable to watch. We're seeing people at their lowest, their most desperate. 'Company' doesn't try to explain it all, to fix it all with a snap of the finger. The ending does provide some hope for the future, building up the tenacity and courage of the American worker. There is no easy answer to the current recession so why force one on the viewer? It's a good movie, a solid drama that capitalizes on a very strong cast.
The Company Men (2010): ***/****
Like many international/worldwide companies, Global Transportation Systems (GTX) is hit very hard when the economy bottoms out in 2008, forcing the higher-ups to approve severe layoffs almost across the board. A 12-year veteran of the company, Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is among the first wave fired, forcing the husband and father of two to desperately search for a new job. Not soon after when things don't go on the upswing, 30-year veteran Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) is among the second wave of employees fired, one of thousands across the company. GTX offers a severance package on top of a company meant to help them find new jobs, but the dire situation is lousy just the same. All the while, one of GTX's most powerful employees, Gene McLary (Tommy Lee Jones), sees the writing on the wall but can do little about it. What does the economy hold for both the company and the individual?
I'm basically the most un-savvy business mind ever. While I tried to understand and grasp what the economic downturn, it basically flew right over my head. Thankfully this drama from director John Wells doesn't try to explain the recession, instead focusing on humanizing the recession. We don't see the bigger picture for the most part. There aren't any huge, emotional scenes showing how the recession came to be, how the world, the economy, businesses/corporations adjust to the problem, how it may ultimately be solved at all. We meet the people -- on both sides, being fired and doing the firing -- as they try to survive this downturn unlike anything else the economy and world has ever seen. In that sense, it's a good, old-fashioned drama that allows the cast to do their thing. No gimmicks or anything forced, just personal, human drama.
If there is an issue with that personal, human drama, it's that it can be difficult to fully get behind and support these characters. They're dropped from six-figure paying jobs to searching for jobs. We hear them -- especially Affleck's Bobby -- talk about not being able to afford his Patriots tickets, his country club membership, his family's vacations to Disney. Boo-hoo, I get paid $60 per story I write at work. The same for Tommy Lee Jones' Gene on a smaller level, one particular line hamstringing an otherwise very effective monologue. Cooper's Phil is the most sympathetic -- and similarly most underutilized character -- a factory worker turned office supervisor trying to pay for his daughter's college tuition. End of rant. Moral of the story....it's hard to feel too bad about people complaining about losing the ultra-luxuries of being rich. Yeah, #FirstWorldProblems.
That minor rant out of the way, I thought the acting was uniformly solid across the board. Lack of sympathy aside, Affleck does a good job showing how low a man can get, how frustrating it can be when your world is completely pulled out from under you. Jones is his typical professional self, a solid role that shows not all big business is evil. He's worked his way up to the hierarchy and appreciates the work it's taken to get there. He also sees the hypocritical excesses all around him but knows there is little he can do at the same time. Cooper is underused as Phil, but his character is key to show a variation on how some people handle losing their job. Because it's a very real part, his scenes can be incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Also look for Kevin Costner as Jack, Bobby's blue collar brother-in-law who owns his own construction/contracting company, never missing a chance to dig Bobby for his evil ways with big business.
It was a wise choice to give all these individuals some personal flaws so we're not seeing "perfect" people thrown out on their backside. Affleck's rage comes out in one particular interview, Bobby making comments that are just wrong. Jones too has a personal secret that came as a surprise. We see all these little foibles, these little idiosyncrasies in all of the cast. Also joining the cast is Craig T. Nelson as GTX's ridiculously rich CEO, Maria Bello as GTX's battle axe, the woman placed in charge of organizing the mass firings, Rosemarie DeWitt as Bobby's wife, and Eamonn Walker as Danny, a fellow victim of the mass firings who bonds with Bobby.
First-time director John Wells has a winner here. It's low-key in its message without beating us over the head with that message. Because of the subject, the story can be a tad bit uncomfortable to watch. We're seeing people at their lowest, their most desperate. 'Company' doesn't try to explain it all, to fix it all with a snap of the finger. The ending does provide some hope for the future, building up the tenacity and courage of the American worker. There is no easy answer to the current recession so why force one on the viewer? It's a good movie, a solid drama that capitalizes on a very strong cast.
The Company Men (2010): ***/****
Labels:
2010s,
Ben Affleck,
Chris Cooper,
Kevin Costner,
Tommy Lee Jones
Sunday, November 11, 2012
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): ***/****
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): ***/****
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Boiler Room
One of my favorite things to stumble across on a DVD after all those pointless making of features and director/actor commentaries is the all-knowing, all powerful alternate ending. Sometimes it's interesting to see what else a director thought about an ending, how they originally intended to shoot it. Then, a studio can veto it, or a test audience doesn't like it, and a new ending is shot that hopefully will please the masses more. As a member of the downbeat, surprise ending fan club, I'm all for those original endings that doesn't make everyone happy. I liked 2000's Boiler Room even if the actual ending disappointed. The alternate, original ending? Much better and much darker.
Now as a fan of sports I can explain how to figure out a pitcher's ERA or WHIP, as a movie fan I can explain the aspect ratios or how the western changed from the silent era through the spaghetti western transformation to the folksy 1970s movies. But I just can't wrap my head around big business, stock markets, and anything to do with inordinate amounts of monopoly money. Boiler Room deals with all three of those so a fair amount of the time I was quite a bit confused, but never enough to dislike the movie. It can be too flashy, too stylish at times, but an interesting if not always clear story is aided by some strong performances from an underrated cast.
A college dropout with no interests in school, Seth Davis (Giovanni Ribisi) runs an illegal casino out of his home in New York City. The money is flowing in, but it's only a matter of time before the authorities catch on and shut him down, sending him to the slammer. His judge father (Ron Rifkin) disapproves and is about to completely cut ties with his son when Seth is approached by an old friend (Jaime Kennedy) who works at an investment firm as a broker. Seth gets a job as a trainee at the high stakes firm, JT Marlin, and quickly rises through the ranks under his boss Greg (Nicky Katt). But right on the verge of hitting the big time where he can bring in accounts of his own, Seth starts to smell a rat. Things just aren't adding up as the unexplainable amounts of money start to roll in, and customers start complaining. What should he do though? Shut up and go along for the ride, or blow the whistle and take everyone down with him?
As someone who would need a "Dummy's Guide to Business," I'll freely admit that much of the movie that really delves into business, rips, stocks, the market, went over my head. I tried to keep up as best I could, but never really had a complete grasp of what's going on. I was never completely baffled at the goings on, but I've got to point that out. Maybe some business majors would keep up better than me, who knows? Saying that, the firm's owner (Tom Everett Scott) is up to some shady dealings that just don't make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't the SEC, the FBI, and the government have caught on to these guys long before Seth shows up? How have they managed to keep up this scam all this time? Plot holes for sure, but the story does it's best to move along at a lightning pace past those holes.
The biggest challenge director Ben Younger has working against him is that his characters are basically the biggest assholes you've ever met. They are arrogant, homophobic, loud for the sake of being loud, passive aggressive, maniacally greedy, violent, and they'd stab their mother in the back if it earned them some extra dollars. I thought I was in trouble after the opening scene because with barely any introduction at all to these guys (all the brokers are male), I H-A-T-E-D them. They are presented as the type of guys you wouldn't bat an eye at before kicking them in the crotch. Thankfully, Younger offers at least a few glimpses of humanity in them, especially action star Vin Diesel as Chris, Seth's mentor but not his boss, proving once again he can act no matter how bad his movie selections of late have been. Nia Long plays Abbie, a secretary at the firm who starts seeing Seth and gets caught up in something bigger than she ever figured. Also look for Scott Caan as the ultimate type-A personality broker, the one you'd like to punch if you got a chance, and Ben Affleck as the firm's top recruiter who uses 'fuck' as a noun, adjective, verb and a lot more.
Through the good and the bad we see two main characters separate themselves from the pack, Ribisi's Seth and Katt's Greg. Seth quickly realizes how good he is at basically lying to anyone and everyone, but even as he does it knows he's not exactly on the straight and narrow with his new career choice. Ribisi is a phenomenal actor who I wish would do more mainstream roles, and his lead performance is the highlight of the movie. At times vulnerable and others ultra-sensitive, he's the heart of the movie, and despite his flaws I found myself rooting for him, especially to mend the strained relationship with his father. Greg on the other hand is basically evil incarnate. He's well-dressed, charming, and looks like a gentleman but bubbling just below the surface is a seething, possibly lunatic of a man. He's smooth in his badness, producing this great villain capable of violence and outbursts that catch everyone by surprise.
Then there's the ending, which works in terms of Seth's character and the identity he develops, but it left me feeling empty. It's the right choice for the character, but that's about it. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS You want to see the brokers get taken down at JT Marlin, especially Greg and Scott's boss man. We never get to see that process though. On to the original ending Younger intended for, wrapping up a subplot between Seth and one of his "accounts," a family man (Taylor Nichols) who ends up entrusting all his money to Seth in a money scam. Like the ending in the movie as is, it doesn't show anything, leaving the viewer to wrap things up for themselves, but it works much better. There's a touch of irony thrown in, and a strong element of shock and surprise, maybe more so because we don't see the end result. I still liked the movie, but it could have been a notch higher if the original ending was left in untouched.
Boiler Room <---trailer (2000): ***/****
Now as a fan of sports I can explain how to figure out a pitcher's ERA or WHIP, as a movie fan I can explain the aspect ratios or how the western changed from the silent era through the spaghetti western transformation to the folksy 1970s movies. But I just can't wrap my head around big business, stock markets, and anything to do with inordinate amounts of monopoly money. Boiler Room deals with all three of those so a fair amount of the time I was quite a bit confused, but never enough to dislike the movie. It can be too flashy, too stylish at times, but an interesting if not always clear story is aided by some strong performances from an underrated cast.
A college dropout with no interests in school, Seth Davis (Giovanni Ribisi) runs an illegal casino out of his home in New York City. The money is flowing in, but it's only a matter of time before the authorities catch on and shut him down, sending him to the slammer. His judge father (Ron Rifkin) disapproves and is about to completely cut ties with his son when Seth is approached by an old friend (Jaime Kennedy) who works at an investment firm as a broker. Seth gets a job as a trainee at the high stakes firm, JT Marlin, and quickly rises through the ranks under his boss Greg (Nicky Katt). But right on the verge of hitting the big time where he can bring in accounts of his own, Seth starts to smell a rat. Things just aren't adding up as the unexplainable amounts of money start to roll in, and customers start complaining. What should he do though? Shut up and go along for the ride, or blow the whistle and take everyone down with him?
As someone who would need a "Dummy's Guide to Business," I'll freely admit that much of the movie that really delves into business, rips, stocks, the market, went over my head. I tried to keep up as best I could, but never really had a complete grasp of what's going on. I was never completely baffled at the goings on, but I've got to point that out. Maybe some business majors would keep up better than me, who knows? Saying that, the firm's owner (Tom Everett Scott) is up to some shady dealings that just don't make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't the SEC, the FBI, and the government have caught on to these guys long before Seth shows up? How have they managed to keep up this scam all this time? Plot holes for sure, but the story does it's best to move along at a lightning pace past those holes.
The biggest challenge director Ben Younger has working against him is that his characters are basically the biggest assholes you've ever met. They are arrogant, homophobic, loud for the sake of being loud, passive aggressive, maniacally greedy, violent, and they'd stab their mother in the back if it earned them some extra dollars. I thought I was in trouble after the opening scene because with barely any introduction at all to these guys (all the brokers are male), I H-A-T-E-D them. They are presented as the type of guys you wouldn't bat an eye at before kicking them in the crotch. Thankfully, Younger offers at least a few glimpses of humanity in them, especially action star Vin Diesel as Chris, Seth's mentor but not his boss, proving once again he can act no matter how bad his movie selections of late have been. Nia Long plays Abbie, a secretary at the firm who starts seeing Seth and gets caught up in something bigger than she ever figured. Also look for Scott Caan as the ultimate type-A personality broker, the one you'd like to punch if you got a chance, and Ben Affleck as the firm's top recruiter who uses 'fuck' as a noun, adjective, verb and a lot more.
Through the good and the bad we see two main characters separate themselves from the pack, Ribisi's Seth and Katt's Greg. Seth quickly realizes how good he is at basically lying to anyone and everyone, but even as he does it knows he's not exactly on the straight and narrow with his new career choice. Ribisi is a phenomenal actor who I wish would do more mainstream roles, and his lead performance is the highlight of the movie. At times vulnerable and others ultra-sensitive, he's the heart of the movie, and despite his flaws I found myself rooting for him, especially to mend the strained relationship with his father. Greg on the other hand is basically evil incarnate. He's well-dressed, charming, and looks like a gentleman but bubbling just below the surface is a seething, possibly lunatic of a man. He's smooth in his badness, producing this great villain capable of violence and outbursts that catch everyone by surprise.
Then there's the ending, which works in terms of Seth's character and the identity he develops, but it left me feeling empty. It's the right choice for the character, but that's about it. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS You want to see the brokers get taken down at JT Marlin, especially Greg and Scott's boss man. We never get to see that process though. On to the original ending Younger intended for, wrapping up a subplot between Seth and one of his "accounts," a family man (Taylor Nichols) who ends up entrusting all his money to Seth in a money scam. Like the ending in the movie as is, it doesn't show anything, leaving the viewer to wrap things up for themselves, but it works much better. There's a touch of irony thrown in, and a strong element of shock and surprise, maybe more so because we don't see the end result. I still liked the movie, but it could have been a notch higher if the original ending was left in untouched.
Boiler Room <---trailer (2000): ***/****
Labels:
2000s,
Ben Affleck,
Giovanni Ribisi,
Scott Caan,
Vin Diesel
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Town
The movie comes from one of my favorite genres, the heist movie, and more than that...the last job! It's the premise that a specialist like a robber, thief, crook, hit man, mercenary has been doing what he does for years, and he's fed up with it. For whatever reason -- favors, guilt, money -- the man agrees to take on one more job before he rides off into the sunset. This is a story idea that goes across genres, but it works so well with heist movies. For just his second movie as a director, Affleck does a solid if unspectacular job with a story that is always solid if unspectacular. It doesn't rewrite the genre conventions, but it does everything well, and that's all I'm asking for when I go see a movie.
A neighborhood in Boston named Charlestown is infamous for its production of bank and armored car robberies with hundreds of such robberies taking place every year. One native Bostonian, Doug MacRay (Affleck), leads a crew with his hot-wired childhood friend Jim 'Gem' Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), taking down banks and armored cars after weeks of meticulous planning. One robbery doesn't go exactly as planned and Jim takes a hostage, a bank manager, Claire (Rebecca Hall), who they allow to let go soon after. Doug arranges to bump into her to see if/what she knows about the robbery but finds himself quickly falling for her and vice versa. Can this situation ever work? And with an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) and his task force hot on Doug's crew, can they continue to work without being taken out?
Previewing the movie, one ridiculously stupid ad said The Town was "Heat meets the Departed" so basically the best ever heist movie vs. the best ever undercover thriller movie. Yeah, good luck with those comparisons. That said, it's not fair to compare this movie to either even if there are certain similar elements. Affleck shoots in the streets to give the movie a gritty, authentic look to the story and provides some very cool Boston locations (more on that later) as a backdrop. The heavy Boston accents can be hard to decipher at times, but you get into a rhythm with it eventually. The story isn't anything groundbreaking, but it deals with characters and twists that are in a way...comforting, because we have seen this before. It's all handled so well I didn't even mind though.
With comparisons to Heat and The Departed, I was a little surprised by the lack of action. An opening robbery goes smoothly, a heist near the middle features a great chase through the narrow, claustrophobic streets of Charlestown, and the finale is the high point, a heist attempt at Fenway freaking Park for a take of over 3 million bucks. It's hard to do something new or unique with a heist, but setting it in one of the most iconic sports stadiums ever was a genius idea from Affleck. The robbery and the fallout following is an extended sequence that lasts maybe 20 minutes, making up for any lack of action earlier in the movie. Baseball fans will hopefully appreciate an inside look at Fenway Park in a very cool, very stylish final robbery/shootout.
Maybe more surprising than the lack of action is that the movie doesn't beg for seven or eight more shootouts and robberies. It would be overkill. But Affleck gets such good performances from his cast that it's a pleasure just watching them do their thing. An underrated actor himself, Affleck is the going away star here as Doug, a generally good guy who got caught up in doing something that he's good at. His childhood was anything but smooth, and he still suffers from some past demons. His budding relationship with Hall's Claire is never sugary sweet, it's just a genuine bond between two people looking for some sort of normality, some sort of happiness. They have a definite chemistry, and their final scene together did remind me of a similar scene at the end of Heat. As the scene-stealer, Renner is phenomenal as Jim, Doug's childhood friend who always seems one step away from exploding. It's an intense part and an impressive one that doesn't have him on screen much, but he dominates every time he's on the camera.
The cast goes much deeper than those three with Hamm in a thankless, unforgiving role as the FBI agent hunting down Doug's crew. There's also Gossip Girl's Blake Lively in a surprising turn as Krista, Doug's old fling and sometime hook-up, Chris Cooper in a one-scene role as Doug's jailed dad, and Pete Postlethwaite as the Florist, the local mafioso who has his hand in everything, and Titus Welliver as Hamm's right hand man. I think an ultimate test for a movie like this with "bad guys" as main characters (and I've written about this before) is do you find yourself rooting for them to pull off the job, to get away in the end? Maybe it's just my messed up barometer of morals, who knows. The Town hits it head on because it makes these characters sympathetic through their flaws. This isn't a classic, and I didn't love it, but it is a stylish, well-made heist movie with a great cast. Definitely check this one out.
The Town <---trailer (2010): ***/****
Monday, September 14, 2009
State of Play
When dealing with the current state of newspapers in a movie, there's certain things that can't be avoided; the online vs. print rivalry, a good story vs. tabloid stories that might sell more papers, the morality of publishing a story, conflict of interests, and of course, big business. Will anyone let us print this story? State of Play clearly did its research in handling these subjects whether it be the look of the fictional Washington Globe's cluttered, chaotic newsroom to the rivalry between a print writer and a young blogger. It's the little things that make the movie more believable, and much easier to get into the world of what's going on.
Old-school newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is very good at what he does, but with the changing times of newspapers, he refuses to change with the technology. So when two dead bodies turn up, Cal goes to the scene for his story. Across town, a woman is killed in a subway station, or was she? It turns out the woman was an aide to Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and as more information becomes available, she was also having an affair with Collins. His editors start to put the squeeze on Cal because during his college years he was roomate with who else? Collins.
The two cases/stories start to evolve and working with a young online writer, Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins to accumulate a lot of evidence that the two cases are seemingly related. Collins and his aide were working on a case against PointCorp, a private corporation full of ex-military personnel who serve in the Middle East and around the world providing security. Could PointCorp have really ordered a hit on Collins' aide? Would they really go that far? So starts a twisting, turning story that kept me guessing right until the end.
Working as a team, Crowe and McAdams work well together, a journalistic Odd Couple. Crowe's Cal is wary of working with the young blogger but comes to see her as a colleague, a fellow reporter. It can be tricky making journalists' work compelling to watch because much of it is tracking down phone numbers and calling people, knocking on doors trying to get information, but with a handy montage the job is that much easier. The journalistic detective work provides much of the bulk of the story, but it never drags as a possible conspiracy unfolds.
As the Making of Documentary discusses, it would be hard not to compare this to All The President's Men, the true story of how Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein took down the Nixon administration that was turned into a movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. State of Play pays homage to its predecessor while putting its own spin on the story. One scene in particular jumps out as Cal hides in a parking garage from a man believed to be a PointCorp assasin. Shot among the shadows, it's a great scene that sent a chill down my back at the surprise intro of the killer. And overall, the movie has a good balance between the newspaper side and the thriller aspect without overdoing or overstaying its welcome on both.
Crowe and McAdams together leading the movie is a good example of what strong casting can do, but the supporting cast here is just as important. Helen Mirren is pitch perfect as Cameron, the Washington Globe editor who must balance selling newspapers with getting that perfect story out there. Robin Wright makes the most of a smaller part as Anne Collins, Stephen's wife who has a past with Cal also. Affleck may be a little young for the part, but he pulls it off well as the suave, sophisticated Congressman seemingly on the rise. Jason Bateman as a seedy PR guy and Jeff Daniels as a fellow representative looking to help Collins also leave a good taste in your mouth.
As a reporter for a paper here in Chicago, I couldn't help but smile when I saw this movie's trailer. Journalists as heroes saving society from the government?! Count me in! The story is an exciting one that easily brings the viewer in and keeps them involved trying to unravel those deep, dark, scary Washington DC conspiracies and mysteries. Great ensemble cast and a story based off a BBC miniseries makes this one well worth a watch.
State of Play <----trailer (2009): ***/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
