Top Five Films of 2012....and a bit.

I’m a little late to the game with end of year lists, I’m personally going from the beginning of 2012 up to and including that was released or eligible for this years Oscars, so it’s more like a 15 month period. But anyway, enough with the build up, let’s get straight to it.

5. The Master

Easily the most difficult of films to get into, or even get a hold of. Paul Thomas Anderson’s most recent film takes to post World War Two America as we follow navy veteran Freddie Quell, played disturbingly well by Joaquin Phoenix as he searches for something. The search is either to improve himself and his situation, or to simply continue to find better and better places to get drunk and have sex. Whether Freddie wants to change is one of the biggest questions in the film.

The Master, is one of Andersons shortest films, although the first viewing can be quite gruelling as there isn’t a lot of plot to drive the film forward, instead it focuses on the three main characters of Quell, Lancaster Dodd, or The Master (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams). However, on subsequent viewings the film does “speed up” and is much more rewarding as it allows you to really focus on these characters.

It isn’t as perfect as There Will Be Blood, but then again few films will ever reach that bench mark again. Instead, The Master offers a personal look into beliefs and the power religion holds over people, as well as asking just how much people want to change against how much they can actually change. You may struggle with it, but it’s a film not be missed.

4. Looper

Arguably one of the biggest hits outside of the obvious comic book fare we had at the cinemas this summer. Rian Johnson’s excellent third film and possibly his best so far, reunited him with Joseph Gordon Levitt from Brick and once again they found and gave us an interesting and complicated protagonist.

Looper, for me follows in the tradition of the last few years where we get a big, accessible and intelligent science fiction film that really strikes a cord with the audience, in previous years it’s been Source Code (2011), Inception (2010), Moon (2009), although budgets may vary for all, it was that they all brought big ideas and themes to this resurgent genre.

The film begins quickly and gives our protagonist an obvious goal, to kill his future self and get his life back. But it’s when Looper changes from what everyone is expecting that it really kicks into high gear. As we are given Old Joe’s full story and reason for coming back as well as what he plans to do. Whether you can see a justification for what he does is a very individual thing. But by giving us conflicting protagonists, the film asks us to choose what it is the more valuable to us ,as well as why we are supporting this character over the other.

3. Zero Dark Thirty

If you can get past the endless controversy that surrounds this film, you are in for a tense and morally ambiguous film. We all know it ends generally, but here it’s about the characters who spent near enough a decade searching for one man. Bigelow and Boal do an amazing job of holding your attention as these operatives discuss names, places and histories at such speed that it would be quite easy for the audience to get lost. But because of their own skill and that of the actors, not once did I feel lost or behind on what was happening.

Chastain’s central character of Maya is one of the most interesting protagonists in last five years. We watch her evolve from being somewhat timid at the start of the film during her first interrogation, to a borderline obsessive by the time of the raid on Abbottabad.

Now, does the film justify Torture or the various methods that have been used by intelligence agencies? Not at all in my opinion, as one crucial piece of evidence is found without the use of torture. The big controversy comes from the fact that film states that torture took place in the first place. Given the people that it’s likely screenwriter Mark Boal spoke to, it’s seem fair to say that it did happen, maybe not like this, but that it certainly did happen. That accusation for some is more serious than the methods used.

2. Once Upon A Time In Anatolia

This may be a bit of cheat due to the date of release, but as it was released in 2012, it qualifies for this list. Nuri Blige Ceylan’s beautiful Turkish crime film is as mesmeric as it is visually stunning. Taking place in the Turkish countryside mostly, as a group of officials go out with a killer to find the body of the man he murdered.

As straight forward as the basic plot sounds, it is more about the men who have come out to search for the body, as the killer struggles to remember where the body is and they spend more time out in hills, they begin to talk about the histories and what made the into the men they are.

As mentioned before, the greatest part of the film are it’s visuals. We are often treated these elegantly framed and photographed long shots of the countryside as the cars move along the winding roads. As it has been mentioned before by various critics, these shots resemble moving paintings (for all the clumsiness of that expression) which reminds me of Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon.

This is personally complex, choosing it’s characters over its plot as its main focus and apart from a kind of twist towards the end, has the films stakes relate to the characters. To everyone else, what is it at stake is just the finding the body and getting back, but for the more senior members of the group, it is about, pride, reputation, the secrets of their past and the cost of telling the truth.

1. The Dark Knight Rises

This choice may not come as a surprise to many, in fact it may have been more of a surprise if it hadn’t made the top spot. Was it as immediately satisfying as The Dark Knight? Maybe not for everyone and it divide some peoples opinion, but that was no doubt down to it being a conclusion and people do hate having stories ended for them.

Like it’s predecessor, Rises aimed big, using contemporary fears and concerns and used them to colour it’s story, commentaries on it’s political leanings were expected, but maybe not as ridiculous as some that emerged. It also pushed it’s scope even further, breaking the narrative up into, two or three different storylines for the majority of it’s middle and asking the viewer to keep up, something that big budget blockbusters don’t, instead preferring to spoon feed audiences their basic plots.

Despite the numerous plots and characters present within the film, this and the rest of the trilogy were all about telling one mans story, Bruce Wayne’s. We saw him return from sacrificing years of his life, to be chased, beaten and driven to his lowest point and rebuild himself, leading to a stirring and tense climax that left me open mouthed for remaining five minutes of the film. We were given the scene between Gordon and Batman that we had waited three films for as well as the most relief and joy inspiring almost shot that any film of this kind has ever delivered.

All in all we were given a more than fitting finale to one of the most well loved and entertaining trilogies of the last few decades, easily standing alongside the sprawling Lord of the Rings. With his next incarnation, I can only hope that they manage to reach these heights once again.

Worlds Finest?

Earlier this week a story broke regarding Warner Bros and their hopes for a Justice League film. Initially, with the throwing out of Will Beall’s script, that the project was dead, how wrong we could be, as El Mayimbe from website Latino Review broke news that the project was still alive, but looked a little different, it was no longer the full Justice League but instead a World’s Finest film (Superman and Batman). The obvious casting of Henry Cavill as Superman had long been accepted in any version of this project, but when the name of who would be picking up the Cowl came out, that was the big news. Christian Bale was returning and if rumours were true, Christopher Nolan and David S Goyer were coming back with him.

By the sounds of it, the cast would feature Bale as Bruce/Batman, Cavill as Clark/Superman and I imagine some sort of composite of the cast from the previous films, plus some new faces. I wouldn’t bet against a certain bald man turning up during this film. Behind the camera is where it sounds the most promising, early indications are that Zack Snyder will take the directors chair, with David Goyer writing the script and Christopher Nolan producing, although with Goyer and Nolan’s track record of working together, I’m sure we will see them both working on the story.

With Bale and Nolan returning and Batman being involved, it seems as though it will be their Bruce Wayne that is returning to the screen , bringing back their version of the character, whose arc was so perfectly tied up at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. Essentially what we are getting here is both a sequel to TDKR and a sequel to Man of Steel.

As The Dark Knight Trilogy was brought to an end and most of it’s storylines concluded, bringing back this world, which admittedly looks similar  (at least in the trailers) to the world ofMan of Steel, means opening up these characters lives once again and following them through some new ordeal.

The main problem is that you have to essentially bring Bruce, as well as Selina, out of retirement in a certain way that doesn’t compromise the end of their story. As for how this could be done, I have no idea and thankfully that responsibility is not on my shoulders.

The other big issue, which the first would ultimately be tied to, is what happened to John Blake after he gets into the cave. Any continuation of this world has to deal with what became of him, as it promised so much possibility as to what kind of person he would become. In World’s Finest, we will need some sort of answer to this question, maybe he has failed, maybe he needs help, or maybe the threat doesn’t affect Gotham City.

Also, the belief that both Bruce and Batman are dead could be a problem, but one that would be fixed relatively easily. Especially considering that it’s easier to bring back Batman, than it is to bring Bruce back in the eyes of the world. We’ve also seen Bruce sneak around the world in each of the three films with and without his vast resources. Bringing back the Batman, would probably only add to his legendary status.

Finally, you would have the fallout from Bruce’s three surrogate fathers (or rather father and two uncles) in Alfred, Gordon and Fox. All of which would have something to say, all would be on different places on the happy and angry scale. In terms of character moments, these possible confrontations increase the potential for Bruce’s arc in this film. Although it could risk retreading some ground covered in The Dark Knight Rises.

As this speculation is all before most of the world has seen Man of Steel, it’s hard to judge what affect Worlds Finest will have on it. The biggest is that it could take the place of a potential sequel, or at least slow down production/release of one. But if the character arcs are carried across into Worlds Finest, then this obstacle may not be as big as we think it is. for example, Iron Man 3 seems to be attempting this, but in reverse, with the events of The Avengers affecting it’s story/characters in some way.

Most of the arguments against doing this come down to either personal preference in not wanting DC and WB to cram all their characters into film, or not wanting to damage The Dark Knight Trilogy. Both of which are valid concerns, THE trilogy was ended so that this world and it’s characters wouldn’t be run into ground like it was in the previous incarnation with no development on your main characters and a revolving door of villains.

Others would say that some characters are best kept away from the more fantastical characters, such as Batman and pretty much the rest of the Justice League. As it doesn’t suit Batman to have him meeting with these guys or interacting with them, he is at his most successful in a relatively realistic world, where he and his villains stand out all the more. There could be a risk of dwarfing or undermining his ability when you so closely put him next to Superman and eventually Wonder Woman, Flash, etc.

How do you pick a villain that caters to both characters and this new world, without going for the uninspired idea of simply picking a villain from each characters rogues gallery and putting them together. Yes (insert comma) there are ways it could work, but it would require more original thinking than going for each characters biggest or most prominent villain.

For the fans we get to spend more time with characters we have come to love and care for, this applies mainly to the Batman side of things. Anyone who doesn’t want more of Bale’s Bruce, Caine’s Alfred, Gordon, Selina, Fox or Blake are kidding themselves and at the moment it is the most exciting part of this project. Getting to spend more time with these characters. Given the cast of Man of Steel, I’m sure it will be exactly the same for those characters, but on a bigger more expansive canvas.

The biggest is obviously that we get to see Batman and Superman on screen together for the first time and see them clash, maybe not physically, but definitely in terms of their ideals and methods. Who is the scarier for a criminal, a god who by merely being there frightens you into submission? Or a man who is going to stop you, by any means necessary and undoubtedly painfully?

A film could almost be made without a villain, as their differences and similarities are so noticeable. As with all fictional characters, they have certain key relationships with other characters in their world (Batman has Alfred, Gordon, Joker. Superman has Lois, Jimmy, Lex Luthor), but in this case, their relationship with each other is so strong and important that it is more of the most vital

Zero Dark Thirty

One of the most controversial films in the last five years, Zero Dark Thirty marks the second collaboration between director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal, whose previous film that been the Oscar lauded film The Hurt Locker. That film however never drew anywhere near the controversy of this one, even drawing criticism and arguments between people and critics who had yet to see the film, merely going off what they heard was in the film, most notably the scenes of torture, the validity behind these scenes being in the film (Torture has been denied by the US government) and how the creative team got so much information so quickly.

The plot of Zero Dark Thirty is widely known, as it follows the hunt for Osama Bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, spanning a decade we move through various avenues of “enquiry” and follow different suspects, all with the hope of finding where Bin Laden is. From there, will build to the tense and brilliant raid in Abbottabad and the end of the hunt.

The film follows, almost completely, Maya (played by Jessica Chastain) a CIA analyst (that’s probably a very basic way of defining what she does) as she joins the hunt in 2003, then gradually  moving from someone who we see struggle to watch at times during her first participation in an interrogation up to her fighting for the raid to go ahead. Her missions does change her and cost her almost a decade of her life (Maya first appears in 2003) and that alone asks the big question of the film, not does torture work? Or is it a reliable source of information? But was everything they did worth it? That is something we can see towards the end of the film, the more we look at Maya.

The torture elements of the film appear very early on in the film, probably lasting up until around the forty minute mark, where one of the key figures in the torture scenes and someone who “trains” Maya, Dan (played by Jason Clarke) returns to the US because he wants “to do something normal”, speaks volumes for how he feels after what he has been doing for the few years since 9/11, but also adds more weight to Maya’s commitment.

The scenes of torture, or at least the substantial ones almost all feature Dan and one specific detainee, Ammar. We join the interrogation, along with Maya, as it is in full swing, he has already been there for a long time, his body is weak and he looks like death. Dan repeatedly lays down rules as he asks questions, then once Ammar has refused to, or is incapable of answering him, then the actions begin. We see, waterboarding, he is stripped as Maya looks at him, He is locked in a small box and his forced to listen to loud music constantly, depriving him of sleep. All in an effort to break him. Whether the methods work is very much up to you, as viewer how you see the events unfold as well as a general view on torture as a way of gaining interview.

The rest of the cast are made of great character actors, Mark Strong gives a great performance as Maya’s boss, coming in and delivering a dressing down to the entire team, as they are “failing”. Jason Clarke as mentioned before, almost plays two characters, the one in the Middle East and the one back in America, not only do they look completely different, but his whole outlook and way of acting seems different, which one is the real man is up for debate.

Finally, the two main members of the SEAL team, Patrick played by Joel Edgerton and Justin played by Chris Pratt, essentially hold together the last thirty minutes or so. We follow efficiently as they move through the infamous compound, doing there jobs with a terrifying efficiency. A small moment even takes place between the two men as they wait to breach the final building, they update each other on what has happened, in a way that two people meeting on the street talk about where they have been shopping. It adds a moment of humanity into what could have been a very robotic set piece.

Zero Dark Thirty isn’t an easy sit, it’s a bleak journey that moves through successive failures and false starts, we watch as terrorist attacks happen, as innocent people are harmed and killed, all whilst waiting for one link or clue to fall into place. When it does it offers up one of the most tense action sequences in the last ten years. Zero Dark Thirty is a remarkable piece of film making and will undoubtedly be remembered for a long time.

Django Unchained

Django Unchained is Quentin Tarantino’s eight feature film and sees a return to the historical genre that he explored so well during Inglorious Basterds, albeit with the same kind of wit, humour and dialogue driven scenes that he is known for. Considering the coincidence of having this and Spielberg’s Lincoln (a film I haven’t seen yet) come out at the same time, as they both deal with slavery in a similar time period, Django takes place two years prior to the American Civil War, they both seemingly address it very differently, one dealing with the politics of removing slavery while the other, in very Tarantino way, deals with the experiences of the slaves and world they lived in.

The basic story of Django Unchained is relatively straight forward, it follows Django (Foxx), a slave freed by Dr King Schultz, a bounty hunter (Waltz), as they knows what three wanted criminals look like, the Brittle brothers. After they are dispached (it’s very early on, so shouldn’t be classed as a spoiler), Django tells Schultz of his wife and how they were separated and sold to different owners at a market. Schultz agrees to help Django go and rescue his wife, if he works with him through winter to collect more bounties.

Jamie Foxx plays the titular character of Django, a character that has to play to different personalities, one the vengeful husband out to find his wife and the other, an act put on when he is with Schultz and around white people of a black slaver, one of the lowest things you can be in this world. It is Foxx who holds the films performances together, he plans the straight man, which allows everyone else the freedom to go off and take it that bit further, something that the other three male stars do very well with.

Violence has always been apart of Tarantino’s films,  none more so here. The effect of the weapons of the time on the bodies is more than likely exaggerated, but leaves no doubt of the destruction that these early firearms would have done. One gun fight in the second half of the film, literally covers the walls in blood as the bodies are hit with all manner of different guns. This is the only gun fight where the level of blood my risk pushing going over the top, but it just manages to keep a hold on it.

The fighting violence and slaver on slave violence is however more restrained and brutal, one parlour fight between two slaves where two white owners watch on, is one of the nastiest fights I have seen on screen and is no doubt how fights like that would have looked, sounded and ended like. There is one dog scene, which I will say nothing about, but is hard to watch and actually shows some restrained camerawork and editing by Tarantino.

Christoph Waltz is an actor perfectly suited to Tarantino’s worlds, he is able to get across the dialogue and mannerisms of his characters and make them look and feel complete. Like his near perfect turn in Inglorious Basterds, Waltz gives us another great German character, the dentist turned bounty hunter who is cleverer than probably every other character in the film. He is charming, cold blooded, caring and intelligent and one of the highlights of Django Unchained.

Django Unchained is Trantino’s longest film, coming it and around 2hours and 45 minutes, so it is a commitment, but unlike other people who have seen the film, I didn’t find that it dragged at all, there are maybe parts that could have been shortened or omitted to get the running time down. But never did any of the scenes or sections feel drawn out or needlessly placed there. If the film does feel long, it’s no doubt due to the average length of scenes in Django, as with Inglorious there are a number of long scenes, that are very dialogue driven that last for over ten minutes, the standout being the Candieland dinner scene which comes close to the German pub scene from inglorious.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L Jackson play what would easily be described as the villains of the film, although both are not merely one dimension slavers. They are both cruel and treat their slaves as nothing but meat to bought and sold and then treated as they see fit. But both have motivations for their turns, which I won’t give away as it would ruin the second half of the film. DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie comes across as a spoilt teenager given too much power and money, then let loose to do as he sees fit with everything that his father had left for him.  Jackson, is the cruel house slave, who is in charge of all the other slaves, a role that is lower than even the black slaver in Django’s eyes. His performance, without giving anything away, is probably as scary and unsettling as Hans Lander in Inglorious.

Django Unchained sees Tarantino back to his best form and marks the second in a historical trilogy, which gives us more of his great dialogue and his flair for characters while paying homage to number of different genres, all within one that we are seeing less and less of. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Firstly, the version I saw of The Hobbit was in 2D and ran at 24 fps (frames per second), I think, not the 3D version which runs at 48 fps to which a lot of people have been complaining out, mainly how it shows up some of the prosthetics and cheapens the grand images that are part of the film and the Middle Earth series as a whole.

But back to the film that I saw, it is one that is caught between the visual ideas of both of it’s directors, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson, Del Toro initially signed on to work on The Hobbit films, then departed during pre-production because of delays and financing problems. Jackson then took over as director, as a result it is clear to see the influences of both, the creatures it would seem have come straight from one of Del Toro’s notebooks, the most obvious being the Goblin King and his close subjects. Whereas the world is for the most part Jacksons Middle Earth, with a few exceptions as well, such as the troll camp and Rhadaghast, his home and his sleigh, but I will say no more, look like they have come out of some child friendly Pan’s Labyrinth.

The story itself is one of relative simplicity, as Gandalf brings Bilbo Baggins into the company of 13 dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield, to help them regain their former home of Erebor. The book the novel is based on is nowhere near as large in scale as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so how they are planning on stretching out The Hobbit into three films is a mystery. The first part is severely padded with invented moments, not a negative aspect as they are generally done well here, but also moments that seem to serve Lord of the Rings, the few of these that there are, tend to relate to Sauron in a guarded way or Saruman.

The true strength of the film, as with others from the eventual six film series, is in the performances, this time led by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, who plays it perfectly. The highest praise I can give him is that there is no other actor I can imagine playing Bilbo now. In one film he portrays are more interesting leading Hobbit than Frodo and Sam were as a collective in the other films. Sir Ian McKellen, as always is superb as Gandalf, as are the rest of the returning actors.

The biggest surprise was Richard Armitage as Thorin, who plays the king without as throne in a really interesting way, he almost completely ignores trying to be at all sympathetic, instead choosing the route of the vengeful child, who wants revenge for the death of his family as well as to return his people to their home.

The dwarves in this film have an interesting but also jarring look about them, which makes it hard to imagine that they are in anyway the same race that Gimli belonged to. In The Hobbit, they range from handsome and beardless to cartoon-esque or with strange facial features that doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. The actors though do shine through this impediment and bring each one to life with the varying amount of screen time and dialogue, mimicking what they did with the fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring.

As with the other Middle Earth films, The Hobbit has a hefty run time, roughly 2hrs and 45 mins, which in and of itself isn’t a problem, the films in the series were just as long, if not longer but did not drag, The Dark Knight Rises another film released this year has an almost identical run time, but didn’t feel it’s length. The Hobbit, unfortunately does. At times it is flat out painful, especially early on, the sequence in bag end, which feels like half an hour, goes on and on and on. Quite easily, this film could have lost 15 to 20 minutes, which would have helped the film later on, as by the time the ‘riddles in the dark’ sequence starts with Gollum, I was no longer as interested or engaged as I should have been, as this section of the film is easily it’s strongest and was something that really helps to pick the film up for it’s climax.

Despite what I have said, The Hobbit isn’t a bad film, it is saved by its performances and some of its set pieces, mostly the ones close to the end of the film, but it sags under it’s only length. Compared to The Fellowship of the Ring (The film easiest to compare it to) it falls short, it lacks the pacing and energy of that first film.

Hopefully the second film in this trilogy will learn from the mistakes of this one and move with more direction and purpose, a change of subtitle for the next one wouldn’t be the worst thing either.

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has quite frankly never made a bad film, he may have only made five, three of which could easily be described as modern masterpieces, I am referring to Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. This back catalogue of work had me desperate to go and see his most recent film, religious/cult based drama The Master. I left the cinema in a state of utter confusion, even now I don’t know if I like it, or hate it. It will divide people, there will be no middle ground on this film. It is gruelling at points and offers little to no obvious answers or conclusions to it’s nearly two and a half hour run time.

Let’s start with the positive, all of the performances are superb and will surely garner numerous nominations for Joaquin Phoenix (Leading Actor), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Supporting Actor) and Amy Adams (Supporting Female). Phoenix’s Freddie Quell is the World War Two veteran who struggles to find any kind of direction is life, more than happy to just drink have sex and fight. His physical ordeals are visible on his face and in the contorted way that he walks and moves, this is a man literally twisted and disfigured by what he has seen and done.

Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the head of religion/cult/belief system (I won’t give away their methods or beliefs) called ‘The Cause’ , who comes across Quell when he stows aboard a boat and gets very drunk. Dodd is a man who fully believes in what he preaches, has all the answers and who controls the actions of many people, but cannot stand to be challenged, this roars to the surface at several points throughout the film, usually bringing a shock of both the recipient and anyone close by. Adams plays his wife, who it could be argued is the real driving force behind Dodd and the one who wants to protect everything that they have worked for and towards all these years. She wants to keep Dodd and ‘The Cause’ free from harm, which arguably it could be say is added to by Quell and his arrival.

Visually, the film is stunning, as with all of his previous films there is a beauty and artistic way that each shot if framed, much in the same way that Kubrick did, especially in something like Barry Lyndon. I was unable to see it on the 70mm print due to location, but even without that visuals still stand up. In a time when shaky camera work and found footage is becoming more and more popular, it is refreshing to see a director and cinematographer (Mihai Malaimare Jr.) take their time and show us just how good film can be with a static camera.

The biggest fault that will be found with The Master is with it’s lack of traditional narrative that drives the film. In fact, there is barely any story really within the film, instead focusing entirely on the characters. This is sometimes a strength, but for the length of this film, it really does need more of narrative, not necessarily making it plot heavy, just a narrative, perhaps relating to the outside world and it’s view of “The Cause”, which is something we rarely see, or a goal for them to work towards in justifying themselves to the wider world.

At times the film is hard to watch, it’s pacing is very slow and asks you to try and move through this very opaque and blurry film, filled with complex and damaged characters. At times you will feel frustrated and it’s at this point where you will have to decide whether or not to stick out, or turn off the DVD (when it comes out) or leave the cinema. I stayed, but there were a few that left during my screening.

Argo

Movies and spies has always been a popular combination with cinema goers, so it was only a matter of time before a film that so perfectly allowed their intertwining came around. Based on true events, we follow attempt by the CIA to exfiltrate six of their countrymen from Iran, after their embassy was stormed. Argo is Ben Afflecks third film behind the camera and his second as the leading man in his film, the other being 2010’s The Town, one of the few criticisms he has ever really come under since making the leap to director.

Affleck plays the central role of Tony Mendes, a CIA operative who puts forward the idea for using a film as a cover for getting the diplomats out of Iran, the performance is very stripped down, always played as vague and ambiguous, offering no details about his real life outside of the mission. At times this is interesting, but also, it would have been better to get a little more of this man onto the screen. The one plus of this though, is that it allows the other performances to shine, all of the diplomats are interesting and given just enough time and depth to make you invest in them and ultimately see them escape to freedom.

The real stars of the film, at least performance wise, is the trio of John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Brian Cranston, who play a Hollywood make-up artist, a producer and a colleague of Mendes in the CIA. Whenever one of these men are on the screen, the film really comes to life, adding energy, dramatic tension and humour. Some of the scenes with Goodman and Arkin are the best of the year.

The plot is relatively straight forward and easy to follow, we begin with the siege of the embassy and escape of the six diplomats to the Canadian ambassadors house. After that, the CIA learns that they escaped and begin putting together a series of plans to get them out, some ludicrous, others completely impractical, as pointed out by Mendes in the meeting. Then once Mendes stumbles across the idea of using a film as a cover, the film really finds it’s pacing and direction, which drives us through to the dramatic and obviously exaggerated ending.

One of the films criticisms is that it portrays the majority of the Iranians as nothing but wild, incoherent savages, lusting after American blood. One of the biggest strengths to this argument is that there are little to no subtitles for any of the Iranian conversations. However, it could be argued that it is clear from actions of the Iranians of what they are saying, a confrontation in a bazaar is a prime example of this, when one of the diplomats gets into an argument, neither one is capable of talking to the other and so for the Iranian at least, we have nothing but his actions and tone to decide what he is saying.

Visually, the film is shot cleanly and without much complication, choosing instead to focus it’s attention on the characters instead of spectacle, a decision that Affleck deserves praise for. Many others would have filled this with unnecessary filler, while here it is kept stripped down and fast moving. The performances are the real strength and luckily they are allowed to shine.

Argo is a well made, character led thriller that also works as brilliant satire on Hollywood and the movie business at the same time. It is well worth your time and a film that will have you glued to the screen for the last half an hour.