10 CLOVERFIELD LANE Is a Fun, Clever Trip to the Twilight Zone

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE Review:

- 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is essentially the much-talked-about JJ Abrams "mystery box" in movie form. From the way it was marketed - with a stealth release of its trailer and a title that only added to the movie's mysteriousness - to the substance of the story itself, 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE is the living, breathing embodiment of the Abrams aesthetic. But while this sort of breathlessly cryptic marketing and storytelling can really backfire when it feels forced, what we get here is something that feels much more organic - built from the ground-up to be a relatively simple Twilight Zone-like tale. Sure, there are some parts of the story that feel tacked-on (not surprising, given that the film started as something else, and only later became part of the thematically-linked Abrams-verse). But mostly, this is a pretty sleek, straightforward morality play that actually over-delivers on what was promised - thanks to some absolutely killer performances, and a tightly-scripted plot that provides plenty of pay-off, in ways both big and small. As someone who loves The Twilight Zone and Twilight Zone-esque stories, this was, overall, a very pleasant surprise.

The set-up here is really well done, and presents some pretty intriguing questions off the bat. The movie starts by introducing us to Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), fleeing from her boyfriend after the two get into an off-screen fight. The implication is that Michelle is a runner - she gets out of Dodge when the going gets tough. Suddenly though, her life takes a turn for the insane. As she drives down an empty road, past fields and farmland, another car swerves into her path and collides violently. Michelle then wakes up in a bunker, disoriented. The bunker belongs to Howard (John Goodman), an intense man who alternates between genial and scary. Howard claims that he saved Michelle, because the world outside has gone to hell. Some sort of attack has happened. The air is poisonous. People are dying. But Howard saw this all coming, and was prepared. He claims he came across Michelle after her crash, and saved her by bringing her to the bunker. Another guy is there too - Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), a young man who'd helped Howard build the bunker. Emmett claims he took refuge there when the attacks began. But the question remains: did Howard really save Michelle, or did he kidnap her? And regardless, did these attacks really happen as he claims? Is the air really poisonous? And who (or what) did the attacking?

The movie really sings when it focuses on being a psychological thriller. One of the key reasons is that both Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Goodman are freaking great here. This is definitely the best that Winstead has been since Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - and it feels like, finally, another movie has really given her the chance to shine. Her character, Michelle, is written fairly straightforwardly - and in some ways she is sort of the stereotypical, hyper-competent "final girl" that we've seen in countless horror flicks. But Winstead really makes Michelle a hero whose every move we hinge on. Winstead's eyes tell the tale. She's constantly thinking, plotting, planning. And we can see it all in her eyes. Winstead brings a cerebral intensity to the film that is to be commended - and she knows just how to toe the line between seriousness and self-awareness that the movie demands. Meanwhile, this is legitimately the best John Goodman performance in *years.* Goodman is at the height of his powers here - doing a variation on the lovable/scary dynamic he used to make The Big Lebowski's Walter an all-time cinematic icon. Goodman's Howard keeps you guessing - and every time you think you've got him figured out, Goodman throws a new wrinkle into the mix to make you wonder. Goodman makes Howard an intimidating presence, but at times he's also funny as hell. It's just an absolute tour de force performance, and I'd go so far to say that Goodman actually elevates the whole movie up a notch by sheer force of will. He brings his A-game here, and man, there's not much better than John Goodman's A-game.

The other real key to the movie's success is that director Dan Trachtenberg infuses the film with a fun, well-thought-out sense of videogame-like puzzle logic. At times, the movie takes on the trappings of a game in the way that Michelle surveys her surroundings figures out how to navigate a situation via conversation, items/tools, and routes for escape should the need arise. The movie has a couple of direct homages to various games, but overall, it really embraces the adventure-game aesthetic in a way that keeps you invested in Michelle's actions at all times. More so than in other movies of this nature, there's often direct A-to-B payoff in how events play out. Michelle hears someone mention an item, thinks about how she could use that item to her benefit, manages to steal the item, and then uses it in a clever way. In that sense, 10 CLOVERFIELD WAY is an incredibly videogame-like movie - but in a very cool (non-annoying/pandering) way.

So what doesn't work as well? Mostly, it's all the other "stuff" that has more to do with the fact that "DUDE! This is JJ Abrams' Presents: A New Cloverfield Movie!" - i.e. the stuff that gets away from the real meat of the story. A less problematic but still slightly-annoying example of this is all the time it takes for Michelle to get some very basic answers about her situation. We don't ever (thank god) reach Lost-like levels of no one asking the right questions and no one answering anything. But there are times in the movie's first act where you do sort of want to shout out "Come on, just ask for answers already!". Mostly, the movie is clever in the way that it withholds information for dramatic effect. But it does stumble at times.

What really sort of hurts the movie though is its final act. No spoilers here, but I will say this: while the big finale does more than deliver on the expected Cloverfield-brand spectacle, it honestly feels like too much. It was telling to me that I was somehow less invested in the film's big CGI-infused action bits than I was in its much-better-executed paranoid-thriller bits. The final act goes on too long, and it feels tacked on - like it's from a different movie entirely. And it forces Winstead to go from plucky, capable hero to Unstoppable Badass in a way that does not feel organic at all. That said, I would have been mostly okay with it if the tone of the final act was different. I mean, the entire movie is essentially a big-screen Twilight Zone episode, and yet somehow, the ending goes optimistic/sentimental on us. What?! If ever there was a movie that demanded a dark, bleak, The Mist-like ending, this is it. As it stands, the ending is more of an eye-roller than an exclamation point. I found it really odd (it might sound strange to say that a "good" ending is a bummer, but in this case, it's true).

Overall though, 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE really impressed me. The meat of the movie - a paranoid sci-fi tinged parable - is extremely well done. Winstead and Goodman absolutely crush it, and help elevate the movie. It helps that they have a pretty clever, tension-filled script to work with. Dan Trachtenberg is also a director to keep an eye on - even though most of the film is set in a confined space, he makes every location a part of the puzzle. He really wrings maximum intensity out of the scenario presented. Some of the divergences into Abrams-ville derail things a bit (the ending in particular), but overall this is a movie well worth checking out. If the Cloverfield franchise is now going to be a modern day, cinematic Twilight Zone - then that's something to be excited for, and this is a nice way to kick things off.

My Grade: B+

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS Is Cinematic Music and Top-Tier Coen Bros.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS Review:

- A new Coen Bros. film is, for me, a true movie event. The Coens have made several of my all-time favorite movies, and even their lesser films are more interesting than most filmmaker's best. What's fascinating about the Coens is that, while there are certain themes and signatures that crop up in all of their films, their works are each incredibly unique - covering an wide variety of genres and tones. But no matter the genre, and no matter if the film is a drama, a comedy, or some hybrid of the two, what you can always count on is a brilliant script, mesmerizing and atmosphere-soaked direction, and a thematic sophistication that invites discussion and individual interpretation. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is no exception. It's a challenging movie. It's got a lot of dark humor, but it's also not as overtly comedic as The Big Lebowski or Burn After Reading. And there's a real element of nightmarish, existential dread to the film - but it's a much lighter and more humanistic film than, say, No Country For Old Men. What Coen Bros. film is it closest to? I'd say that the closest comparison is, perhaps, A Serious Man - a movie that also mixed black humor with a slightly surrealistic feeling of foreboding. That said, LLEWYN is its own beast - a unique an hard-to-categorize entry in the Coen Bros. cannon that's funny, sad, thought-provoking, and, on top of all that ... it's a musical (sort of). What can certainly be said, however, is that film fans need to rush out and watch this immediately.

INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS takes place in Greenwich Village, in 1961, set amidst a folk scene that was changing and dying and on the verge of rebirth thanks to a new wave of musicians led by Dylan. Other filmmakers may have simply chosen to dramatize the story of Bob Dylan, but the Coens, as always, like to focus in on those on the fringes. To that end, this is the story not of a great folk-music hero, but of a would-be star who could never quite get his break. That guy is Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac), and when we meet him, he's jumping from couch-to-couch, living off scraps and the kindness of strangers. Llewyn was once part of a folk duo, but his partner died - killed himself - and ever since, Llewyn's been struggling to leave his past behind, and carve his own path as a solo artist. He plays gig after gig at the same assortment of dingy music clubs, rubbing shoulders with a rotating cast of fellow troubadors. Some seek to make it big, some are content living the bohemian life. Some, like Lllewyn, hope for a break, but also pridefully refuse to sell out. How to do both? There may not, in actuality, be a way. And so Llewyn finds himself in an endless causality loop - two steps forward, two steps back - living a lifestyle that's both self-defeating and yet one comprised of patterns that Lllewyn can't seem to break.

What's so brilliant about the film is how its very structure loops around and circles back in a way that parallels Llewyn's day-to-day existence. We are led to imagine that Lllewyn and his late partner were, perhaps, on a path to commercial and artistic success. But ever since his partner died, Llewyn seems trapped in an inescapable downward spiral. It's all sort of encapsulated by his couch-jumping: he goes from friend to friend, always assuring them that his stay will only be temporary. And yet, there's a permanence to Llewyn's life - a sense of him being doomed, and damned, to simply repeat the same mistakes over and over - just as sure as a few months after having left someone's apartment, he'll inevitably return when he's exhausted his list of couches and starts the rotation anew.

The film shows various forces pushing and pulling at Llewyn, and him pushing back. But always, inevitably, he finds himself back where he started. When Llewyn's friend Jean (Carey Mulligan) reveals that she's pregnant (possibly with his child), Llewyn immediately starts talking about her having an abortion. When Llewyn gets the opportunity to record an infectiously-catchy novelty song with his friend Jim (Justin Timberlake), he hastily asks for his check without bothering to sign a contract to receive royalties. And when Llewyn decides to journey to Chicago to track down a record company exec who'd been sent his demo, well, it seems to be the hardest that Llewyn has ever pushed against the universe to alter his fate - but again, inevitably, the universe pushes back.

And so it is that INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is much more than just a story about a folk musician. It's a story that's packed with larger themes and big questions about life, the universe, and everything. The Coens often seem to enjoy playing the part of cruel gods with their characters, and as they did to their protagonist in A Serious Man, they seem to relish putting Llewyn through the ringer to see what happens. Indeed, there's a very noir-ish bent to the film, in which Llewyn constantly seems to be at the mercy of the cruel hand of fate. And there's a lot of interesting use of recurring imagery and symbols that provide a lot of fodder for post-viewing discussion. Again, if you go in thinking this is *just* a story about folk music, prepare to get more than you bargained for.

At the same time, this is one hell of a movie about folk music. The Coens expertly capture the mood and ambiance of 1960's New York - dim, dingy, cold, and claustrophobic - and they also capture the folk scene of that time, and pepper the movie with several fantastic musical moments. What's so impressive is that each musical number in the movie tells a story when you read between the lines. Whether it's Llewyn's soulful demo of his song before the record-label exec in Chicago, or the cheesy yet undeniably catchy collaboration between Llewyn and Jim on peppy pop song "Please Mr. Kennedy," (which remained in my head for days), each song gives us insight into Llewyn's headspace.The music, in and of itself, is incredibly well-done and impeccably performed. But what makes it so special is how it's used - as part of this profile of a guy trying to navigate between art and commerce and past and future. Every moment, every song, feels integral to the larger whole.

The cast is exceptional. Oscar Isaac is a guy who's deserved the spotlight for a long time - he impressed me with his villainous turns in films like Robin Hood and Sucker Punch, but this is, hopefully, a true breakout role for him. As Llewyn Davis, Isaac is sort of a jerk. And yet, there's a haunting sadness and soulfulness behind the snarky veneer that makes you pull for the guy. Isaac also pulls off the film's musical numbers to perfection - an impressive feat given how crucial it is to the movie that the music come off as genuine and genuinely good. Cary Mulligan is also a standout - her exasperated, on-edge portrayal of Jean is funny and forceful. John Goodman, well, he and the Coens always work magic together, and this film is no exception. Goodman's character, a beat-up jazz musician named Roland Turner, is awesome. Self-styled like some sort of huckster pimp, Turner is a cautionary tale about the toll of a long life lived on the road as a career musician. Turner is accompanied by his enigmatic valet, Johnny Five, played as a Marlboro Man-esque man-of-few-words by Garrett Hedlund. Goodman and Hedlund enter the film as part of an extended stretch in which the movie morphs into a surrealistic road-trip - as Llewyn hitches a ride to Chicago with the odd-couple pair and drives straight into the abyss. The tonal shift is a little jarring, but it's classic Coens. It's through this segment of the film that we come to realize the larger themes of the movie - where all the ideas about looping spirals, repeated patterns, and about being trapped in a strange sort of artist's purgatory finally come into full view.

The movie goes to some dark places, but it's also, at times, hilarious. I was cracking up with laughter during Llewyn's scenes with his ancient manager Mel, and during his strange back-and-forth dialogues with Goodman's Turner, and at many other moments throughout the film. Life as a strange, dark comedy is one of the Coen's pet themes, and they mine humor from the darkest and weirdest of moments. It's like what the Stranger says in The Big Lebowski:  "I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself." 

It's funny though, because INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS does have a stronger emotional undercurrent than most Coen Bros. films. The sadness of Llewyn resonates - and we're constantly reminded of the emotional toll that the death of his old partner still takes on him. And so it is slightly difficult to stomach when the Coens don't ultimately give us the catharsis or resolution that we want. Perhaps no surprise to those who've seen the unconventional endings of A Serious Man or No Country For Old Men, but still, if Inside Llewyn Davis has a flaw, it may be that the Coens veer too much, at times, between sincerity and aloofness. They tease us with moments that seem to be building towards send-'em-home-happy payoff, but ultimately, it's clear that that's not what they had in mind for this film.

So what is the point? Some may ask this as the credits roll. And it's a valid question. There's a lot to ponder about this movie, and as always, it's sometimes hard to know what, precisely, the Coens are getting at with the more esoteric aspects of the film (a lot of people, myself included, will likely long be wondering what, exactly, the recurring character of the stray cat means/symbolizes/represents in this movie). But the Coens are smart - brilliant, even - and I think it's all there on the screen, and it's all there in a way that gives me confidence in their ability to tell this type of story that's rich in meaning and subtext. INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS is filled with great performances, best-in-class direction, and on top of all that, numerous, superbly-done musical performances. But this film is more than just the surface elements - it's two master filmmakers giving us yet another deep thought - a meditation on life's great and small cosmic jokes. The film's greatest piece of music is the film itself.

My Grade: A-

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Pits Monster Geeks Vs. Greeks

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Review:

- Is PIXAR slumping? I don't know. I hope not. Is this one of those late-period Simpsons things, where the argument is brought up that they're not as good as the glory days, but that a only-okay-for-Pixar movie is still better than most of the competition? Maybe. Pixar was so good for so long, churning out original hits like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Wall-E, that everyone sort of wondered when the other shoe would drop. When Toy Story 3 came along and was (improbably) actually the best Toy Story yet (and one of Pixar's best), it was cemented: Pixar really could do no wrong. But lately, the momentum seems to have shifted a bit. Cars 2 was solid, but many were less than impressed. Brave didn't live up to its pre-release hype. And now, Monsters University is, of all things, a prequel. A prequel?! Aren't prequels where good franchises go to die? Isn't a prequel - that most hackneyed and cliched of Hollywood franchise-building tactics - a bit below the high standards of excellence that Pixar is known for? The very idea of it was off-putting.

On paper, Monsters University if not exactly a riveting concept. Was anyone really demanding the "secret origins" of Mike and Sulley from Monsters Inc., told as a send-up of 80's-style geeks vs. greeks college comedies? Not so much. But Pixar does tend to do these things well, and with Pixar you can expect a love and care put into the movie that other studios wouldn't bother with. You can also expect a level of thematic depth that most animated films don't possess. As familiar as the setting and conventions of Monsters U may be, the story undoubtedly takes some unexpected and thematically-complex turns. In short: I don't know that MU's jokey, cutesy, prequel premise was ever going to lend itself to cinematic greatness - but damned if Pixar doesn't aim high.

As mentioned, the movie's plot details the first meeting of Mike and Sulley, when both are just starting out as students at the prestigious MU. Mike is the classic monster underdog - not inherently good at being scary, but determined to succeed anyway thanks to a combination of perseverance, doggedness, hard work, and heart. He's convinced that if he studies hard enough and gives it his all, he'll overcome his deficiencies as a scarer, and become one of the greats. Meanwhile, Sulley arrives at MU with a rep as a gifted scarer, thanks to his family name, and the fact that his dad was a legend. Sulley is practically destined to be a great scarer - a second-generation blue-chipper who may not be much for studying and technique, but who makes up for it with good genetics and natural talent. Mike and Sully start out as rivals, but after getting into some trouble together and facing the wrath of MU's intimidating Dean Hardscrabble, both get kicked out of the scare program, and become desperate for a way back in. Enter the Scare Games - MU's annual inter-fraternity scaring competition. Mike and Sully make a deal with Hardscrabble to let them back into the scare program if they manage to win the games - though they'll face expulsion from MU if they lose. The Dean agrees, but that means that the unlikely pair has to join a fraternity. The only one that will have them is Oozma Kappa (OK!) - a motley crew of losers and rejects. Their chief competition is Roar Omega Roar - a bunch of big-shot frat-monsters with designs on winning the games.

What I quickly realized about Monsters U is that it's really a comedy, and maybe the most overtly comedic movie that Pixar has made. The movie has its roots in things like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds. There's lots of homage to other college comedy classics, and there are a lot of winking references that movie fans will enjoy. What's more, the script from Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson, and Robert Baird is typical Pixar goodness. The dialogue is clever, the jokes (both verbal and visual) are snappy and at times hilarious, and the characters - even the side ones - are sharply defined and creatively conceived.

I'll focus in for a minute on those visuals. While MU doesn't have the scope or scale of Pixar classics like The Incredibles or Wall-E, its comedic elements allow Pixar's crack team of animators to really have some fun. There's all sorts of brilliant little Looney Tunes-esque visual gags (including a great one that pays off in a hilarious post-credits scene). And while there is an old-school, Saturday morning cartoon-style charm to some of the characters and jokes, there are also some undeniably cool action scenes (primarily the competitions from the Scare Games) that have a sleek, videogame-esque sense of dynamism. Finally, there are some moments of unexpected visual beauty in the movie that really wowed me. In particular, scenes in which the monsters travel into the "real" world - where us humans live - have a stunning look and feel to them, as the textures of the animation become grittier and darker, and the cartoonish monsters take on a legitmately-monstrous heft and weight. The character designs, overall, are are really cool. From the winged, demonic Dean Hardscrabble to the oddball members of Oozma Kappa, MU is overflowing with cool characters (loved the punk rock riot grrrls of the HSS sorority). So even if MU doesn't have the big, dazzling, jaw-dropping moments of a Wall-E, it's still got visual flair to spare.

Of course, the voice actors are another big reason as to why the movie succeeds. While it's a little hard to imagine the aging voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as belonging to fresh-faced college students, both (particularly the amazing Goodman) are so good in general that that initial weirdness factor soon dissipates. The movie overall though is loaded with smartly-cast voice actors. Helen Mirren shines as Dean Hardscrabble. Steve Buscemi is a lot of fun as Mike's geeky roommate Randy. And Aubrey Plaza has some of the movie's funniest moments as deadpan Scare Games ringleader Claire.

And what's interesting about the movie is that while much of its structure follows the usual college comedy template, it takes an interesting left turn towards the end. It doesn't get uber-dark or anything like that, but things also aren't *quite* as awesome-happy-everyone-is-amazing as you might expect. In the world of Disney, dreams always come true. But in the slightly-more-complex world of Pixar, sometimes it's less about dreams and more about making the best of what you have. It's a unique message - especially for a kids movie. A message that maybe not everyone is going to be a movie star, or a pro basketball player, or President. But maybe there are other things that are just as good, even if they're a little less reach-for-the-stars huge. In an age where kids and teens are constantly made to believe that they are one YouTube viral video away from being a TV star, it's a refreshing, if humbling, message from Pixar.

So what doesn't work? Well, for one thing, there's the line between paying homage and repeating what's come before. Sure, for kids the whole college setting and geeks/greeks rivalry may seem new, but there is something that's at times a little numbing about seeing a movie like this revisit so many tried-and-true genre conventions. Again, some of it may be the whole holding-Pixar-to-a-higher-standard thing. But it does feel a little disappointing to go from such a wholly original and imaginative idea in Monsters Inc. to a much less original and imaginative premise for its prequel. The comedy helps, and like I said, the movie is very sharp and funny. But it also feels relatively lightweight and fluffy as compared to the usual Pixar fare. I'd also chalk that up to the movie's rather mundane college campus setting. Pixar has fun with it, by subverting things to fit the whole monsters motif, but personally I don't think they go far enough. It seems like there is more opportunity for world-building, that isn't fully taken advantage of. And then there's just the usual case of prequelitis. You can't help but feel like it's sort of a stretch to shoehorn in this whole backstory to the world of Monsters Inc.

Overall though, I really enjoyed the film, and I think it will pleasantly surprise those who may have dismissed it offhand. It's funny, clever, a fun remix of college comedy films from back in the day, and has some really eye-popping character art and animation. Not a Pixar classic, but a positive sign that, hey, even when these guys don't hit a home run, they're still among the best in the biz.

My Grade: B+

ARGO Is a Riveting Real-Life Thriller

ARGO Review:

- Ben Affleck has come a long way. After reinventing himself with gritty, Boston-based dramas Gone Baby, Gone and The Town, Affleck has now taken the next step towards becoming not just a legitimate filmmaker, but a great one. His latest, ARGO, is a fantastic film. It's a gripping thriller that's also funny, and even educational. This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction real life tales. But the interesting thing with the story of Argo is that it isn't just a "can you believe this really happened" sort of narrative. There's some fascinating political context here, recent history that still very much informs where we're at today with Iran and the Middle East region. Argo is an intriguing look at one of the major foreign policy challenges of the Carter administration, but it's also a rip-roaring spy story. The cast here is top-of-the-line. And again, Affleck makes it all sing. Despite its true-life trappings, ARGO zips along with the urgency and sheer entertainment value of a classic, 70's-era, big-screen thriller. This is one of the finest films of the year so far.

Argo's story is the kind of thing that you'd imagine could only be dreamed up for the movies. But this story - declassified by President Clinton in 1997 - is all too real. In 1980, Iranian revolutionaries took over the US Embassy in Tehran, holding all of the workers there hostage for a prolonged period that extended for months, as President Cater attempted to work out a solution that would result in minimal loss of life. But during the initial Iranian raid on the embassy, six American diplomats escaped the building, and eventually found refuge at the home of the Canadian ambassador to Iran. He kept them hidden in his home, even as the Iranians desperately searched for them. The US needed a plan to extract them from Iran, but had to figure out a way to keep the identities of the six diplomats hidden. Enter Tony Mendez, a CIA "exfiltration" expert, who specializes in out-of-the-box escape plans. Mendez devises a plan to get the Six out of Iran by having them pose as a film crew. Mendez reaches out to contacts in Hollywood, including a major producer, and the special f/x guy behind the Planet of the Apes films. They get a hold of an unproduced sci-fi screenplay called Argo, and go to every effort to make it seem like this movie - a cheesy Star Wars ripoff - is actually going to get made. Eventually, Mendez, posing as the film's producer, goes to Iran to "location scout," picking up the Six on the way and briefing them on their new, assumed identities. All the while, the Iranians are increasingly hot on their trail.

Part of what makes the film so fun is how Affleck-as-Mendez must weave between the worlds of international espionage and Hollywood. At the CIA, he's answerable to Bryan Cranston's exasperated Jack O'Donnell and O'Donnell's even more world-weary superiors. In Hollywood, he works with old-school producer Lester Siegal (Alan Arkin) and veteran makeup and f/x guy John Chambers (John Goodman). In their own way, these guys are as cagey and hardened as the higher-ups at the CIA - and the movie illustrates how the movie business can be as much about rumors, info leaks, false statements, and insider secrets as the CIA. At the same time, it's funny to see how the movies really do serve as America's most beloved export. Whereas other covers might have raised more Iranian eyebrows, the thought of a big Star Wars-esque movie shot in Iran never fails to impress even the most American-hating Iranians.

Now, from some of the description above, you can probably tell ... the cast of ARGO is phenomenal. Arkin and Goodman are always great, always scene stealers - and the same holds true here. They bring some needed levity to the film, and Arkin in particular just kills it with some of his quips. What I like though is that there is some real dimension to these characters. Sure, Arkin and Goodman play Hollywood old-hands, but you also see a gleem in their eyes as they realize they get to use their talents to serve their country in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, Cranston gets one of his meatiest film roles to date since breaking out on Breaking Bad. Mostly, he plays the part of the by-the-book good soldier, but when he has to go out on a limb to support Affleck, we get to see Cranston really let loose. As for Affleck himself ... he's quite good here. It's a somewhat understated role, but Affleck does a great job of giving the part of Mendez some nuance. The film doesn't dwell, for example, on Mendez's strained relationship with his ex-wife and young son - but what bits we do get shade Mendez's character and his motivations throughout the film. Otherwise, the cast is just filled, top-to-bottom, with fantastic players. Victor Garber, Zeljko Ivanek, Kyle Chandler, Tate Donovan, and many others all do solid work. There are cameos from the ever-reliable likes of Richard Kind and Titus Welliver. Suffice it to say, a huge part of what makes the film so successful is the cast just playing off of each other, and lending an old-school sort of feel to the film. It's an all-star cast, but no one is really competing for top-billing. Everyone chips in and makes the most of their screentime.

What's more, the film does a great job of giving us all sorts of interesting details of the CIA's unusual mission. We see the storyboards that were created to help sell the fake film (drawn by no less than Jack Kirby - the co-creator of The X-Men, the Hulk, etc. - himself!). We see how an ad for the film was taken out in Variety, and how a poster was hung up on Siegal's office wall for posterity. We see how the diplomats were explained away to the Canadian Ambassador's Iranian maid as being houseguests - but we wonder if she might suspect something. We also get some insight into the diplomats themselves. They too are fully-formed characters - each with a backstory that makes watching their own debates - on whether to trust Mendez, and on whether to go along with his escape plan - all the more riveting. Affleck skillfully covers a lot of ground here, zipping from Washington to Los Angeles to Iran. He keeps things moving at a nice clip, but he gives us all the details that flesh out the story, that make you realize all of the meticulous planning that went into this caper.

Affleck perfectly captures the vibe of the late 70's / early 80's. Not just in terms of the period details, which are spot-on, but in the way the movie itself almost feels like some lost classic of the era. The packing, the acting, the sense of intrigue and humming intensity - it brings to mind classic thrillers like All The President's Men. Still, Affleck isn't afraid to bring some of the bombast of The Town and other modern action flicks to the movie. There are some epic scenes in this one - from the initial raid on the US Embassy, which is absolutely breathtaking - to the nail-biting finale in which the six diplomats attempt their ultimate escape. Meanwhile, little touches - like Jimmy Carter giving a sort of spoken epilogue prior to the end credits, or side-by-side photos of the principle actors next to their real-life counterparts, provide a nice sense of context to the film.

What we have here is one of the year's most entertaining, well-acted, and sharpest dramas - a film that seems to perfectly encapsulate a certain era, even as it feels uber-relevant to today's headlines. With ARGO, Ben Affleck has, in my estimation, just catapulted himself into the upper-echelon of working directors, and I will now actively look forward to what he does next. Argo stands as a top-notch example of the kind of film we need more of: it's a big, fun, engaging drama that nonetheless actually says something about the way things were and the way things are. This is one of the year's best.

My Grade: A-