It's what we say we want: The Oscar case *for* Argo.

Argo (review) is not my favorite film of the year.  It didn't even make my best-of-2012 list.  It had to settle for the Runner-Ups section along with fellow nominee/front-runner Lincoln, a choice that caused no end of consternation from my mother-in-law who considers both to among her favorite films of 2012.  My favorite film of 2012 is Cabin In the Woods, a film that had about as much of a chance of winning Best Picture this year as Kung Fu Panda 2 did last year.  My favorite film among those nominated is Zero Dark Thirty, which went from front-runner to also-ran after Sony made the financial choice to not fight back against the frankly shameful 'this film endorses torture!' arguments until after the film's wide release.  There are a few films that are nominated that I don't care for (Les Miserables, Silver Linings Playbook), but I'd have to say that if we're picking a Best Picture on a the basis of what film most positively represents the year that was 2012, Argo is the best and most logical choice.

The year the presumed favorites didn't even get nominated. Thoughts on the 2013 Oscar nominations...

Despite all of the pre-awards chatter and what-not, there were still a few surprises in this morning's Oscar nominations.  The biggest shock, for me anyway, was the inclusion of Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor in Django Unchained and the unfortunate exclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio (who I frankly expected to win) and Samuel L. Jackson (who gave the film's best performance) for same.  Waltz is fine, although it's interesting in that A) he's basically the film's lead character and B) he's playing a riff on the work he did in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, but this time on the side of the angels (it's possible that voters simply voted for the most morally righteous white character in a film full of racists, ala Tommy Lee Jones's expected nom for Lincoln).  Django Unchained scored a best picture nomination (one of nine films nominated) but Tarantino was denied a Best Director nod.  The other massive snub was the exclusion of Ben Affleck for Best Director for Argo, despite the film being up for Best Picture and Alan Arkin snagging a Best Supporting Actor nomination.  I honestly can't figure that one out, as pretty much everyone who loved Argo gave Affleck full and complete credit for the film.  It's disheartening in that Affleck has made a real effort to use his star power to direct the kind of mainstream big-studio grown up genre fare that has been neglected over the last decade, and a snub can surely be read as 'Don't bother, just go direct Justice League'.  The Best Director category also provided the other mega-shock this morning, snubbing the proverbial front runner Kathryn Bigelow.  I'd hate to think the stupid 'torture debate' had an effect, but I think the stupid torture debate had an effect.     

2012 in Film: The Runner-Ups.

As we continue recapping the movies that arguably defined 2012, we move on to what I like to call 'The Runner-Ups'.  These films are all very good if not great.  Either they didn't quite make my 'favorite of the year' list or they aren't the kind of thing that belongs on a traditional best-of-year list (you'll see which ones I'm referring to below).  Anyway, consider this a 'great films that aren't among the very best but I darn-well wanted to highlight them' list.  As always, the films below are in alphabetical order.  Without further ado...

Argo (review):
In a year where old-school big-studio genre films for adults solidified their comeback, this Ben Affleck political period piece is the defining example of everything going right.  It cost just $45 million, so it didn't need to be a massive hit to make a profit, but a massive hit it was.  With around $105 million at the domestic till so far, it's among the year's top Oscar contenders, and I still have an inkling that Ben Affleck is going to walk away with the Best Director statue this year (the somewhat false 'comeback kid' narrative is too good to resist).  Argo, concerning a true story of the CIA's attempts to rescue six Americans trapped in Iran during the embassy hostage crisis of 1979, is a pretty terrific film through-and-through.  The only reason it doesn't rank higher is that it's really not about anything other than itself.  It's a caper film, a procedural, but with no attempts at any additional relevancy.  That's not a bad thing per-se, but it arguably prevents the film from being anything other than a terrific piece of old-school moviemaking.  That's not exactly an insult, as it's still a top-notch piece of meat-and-potatoes entertainment.

2012 in film: Audiences show (relatively) good taste.

We won't know what effect the 2012 movie year will have long term for quite awhile, but we may very well come to see 2012 as the year audiences said "Thanks, but no thanks."  No, I'm not talking about some imaginary movie going slump that never was and arguably never will be.  I'm talking about the fact that this year, seemingly moreso than in recent years prior, American audiences seemed actually almost... picky?  If you glance at the films that were hits and the films that were bombs, you'll notice at least a token quality curve, especially when dealing with the mainstream and/or blockbusters.  Time and time again, audiences seemingly rejected the prepackage blockbusters that were tossed their way as if to ignite some kind of Pavlovian response.  While on the other hand, they seemed to embrace not so much the 'good' would-be blockbusters but ones that existed somewhat outside the conventional wisdom about what could or couldn't reach mega-gross levels. To a certain extent, at least to a degree worth acknowledging, conventional wisdom went out the window in 2012.

Weekend Box Office (12-02-12): Killing Them Softly stumbles as holdovers dominate.

The post-Thanksgiving weekend is among the worst frames of the year for movie going.  With the exception of Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai back in 2003 and Behind Enemy Lines back in 2001, I can't think of a single wide release major movie that broke out over this specific weekend (feel free to jog my memory in the comments section).  So the fact that there were only two low-profile openers isn't a surprise, nor is it a surprise that neither film opened all that well.  The top opener of the weekend was Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly (review/trailer).  The well reviewed crime drama/political parable earned just $7 million over the weekend, which makes it Brad Pitt's worst wide release live-action opening since before he became a movie star (IE - Interview With the Vampire in 1994) The film was originally slotted to open in October before getting tossed into this early December death slot.  Among the many would-be Oscar bait films coming from the Weinstein Company, this one sadly got lost in the shuffle.  In September it was all about The Master and now it's about expanding The Silver Linings Playbook (a solid $3.3 million this weekend on 371 screens) and prepping for the Christmas Day release of Django Unchained.  The inexplicably received an "F" from Cinemascore, which is odd as the film was seen by such a small number of people that you'd presume those who went knew what they were getting into.  Anyway, at least the Weinstein Company released the film wide, meaning that those who wanted to see it got to see it.  Costing just $15 million, it's already made that much overseas and should break even once domestic receipts are tabulated.  Call this one a win for art over commerce.

Weekend Box Office (10-28-12): Skyfall kills overseas as Argo tops four weak new releases.

There were four wide releases opening domestically this weekend and not one of them made any real impact at the box office.  The big news was the overseas debut of Skyfall (review) which opened in the UK two weeks ahead of its US debut.  The 23rd official James Bond film earned a massive $77 million in the 25 markets it debuted in.  The film earned a massive $32 million in the UK alone, for the second-biggest UK debut weekend of all time, behind the 3D-enhanced Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II.  It earned far more initially than Casino Royale ($21 million) and Quantum of Solace ($24 million), setting the stage for a massive US debut and what will surely be the biggest 007 film yet domestic and worldwide.  I don't think it's the best 007 film or that it should be an Oscar contender, but it's a darn good movie and anyone merely wanting a top-flight bit of action will be thrilled with this entry.  I can't imagine it not opening huge and playing for a rather long time, especially as it will be unopposed in the mega-blockbuster department (Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn II will play exclusively to its fanbase, massive as it is) for a month until The Hobbit part 1 of 30 opens on December 14th.  

A problem from (cinematic) heaven: There are just too many high quality adult movies in the marketplace!

As most of you know, the ambitious and expensive Cloud Atlas will be opening this weekend with around $10 million for the weekend.  Even with Warner Bros. merely on the hook for distribution and marketing and even with the film's $100 million budget covered by foreign pre-sales, this is not a pleasant figure for a rather impressive movie.  There will be finger-pointing and blame to go around over the next few days.  But I would argue that the primary reason for its box office failure is actually a net positive.  In short, Cloud Atlas had the bad luck to open during what can only be called a plethora of adult films.  I've talked quite a bit about the slow and steady comeback of adult cinema in an age of non-stop tentpoles, but there is one downside to the current deluge.  It can be argued that there is actually too much adult product out there in the current marketplace.  And as we all know, a large majority of adult moviegoers aren't quite as frequent as the younger crowd.  The stereotypical adult moviegoer, the one with a family and a job and various responsibilities, maybe only goes to the movies once a month.  And if they went to the movies this weekend, they probably went to see Argo.

Catch 22: The ironic failure of Alex Cross.

As I wrote two summers ago, there was a great irony in the idea of Super 8 being sold as the great summer original in a sea of mediocre sequels and reboots.  The J.J. Abrams sci-fi drama sold itself as a diamond in the rough only to find itself facing off against one of the strongest mainstream summers in recent memory.  So it is the case with Lionsgate's seemingly failed Alex Cross.  I've long written about how the inexplicable death of the James Patterson film franchise signaled a sea change in Hollywood.  Despite earning $74 million in America on a mere $30 million budget, Along Came A Spider was the second and last of the Morgan Freeman-starring Alex Cross thrillers.  That Paramount, which once counted on pulpy, star-driven, adult-skewing (and often R-rated) thrillers as their bread-and-butter, would forsake what seemed to be a profit machine signaled that something was changing.  As I've written before, 2001 was a game-changer for mainstream Hollywood in a number of major ways.  One of the major wind changes we saw was the slow death of the adult-driven mid-budget genre film in favor of 'all tentpoles-all the time'.  As I discussed earlier this year, the last two years has seen a real resurgence in just the kind of film that Kiss the Girls represented.  Irony of ironies, when Alex Cross did return, the movie-going world didn't need him anymore.

Weekend Box Office (10-21-12): Paranormal Activity 4 drops but still tops while Alex Cross is quite cross.

When you have a sequel that cost just $5 million, it's not really a big deal when your opening weekend drops about 43% from the last time around.  Yes, Paranormal Activity 4 opened with "just" $30 million, which is much lower than the $52 million debut of Paranormal Activity 3 last year and the $40 million debut of Paranormal Activity 2 two years ago.  But with micro-budgets like this, who cares?  Amusingly, it actually followed the exact same midnight-to-weekend pattern as the first two sequels, earning 15% of its opening weekend ($4.5 million) at Thurs night/midnight advance screenings.  Obviously audiences aren't quite as jazzed for the series, which isn't exactly a surprise.  We've had four films in three years.  Even if we admit that the series is dropping faster than the Saw franchise (which took six entries to really drop like a rock), we have to admit that $30 million was the average number for the first four Saw sequels and none topped an opening bigger than $33 million.  Fittingly, it was partially the competition of the platforming first Paranormal Activity that gutted Saw VI (ironically the best entry in the seven-part series) three Halloweens ago, basically tossing the reigning king off the mountain and stealing the crown (read the historical scrolls HERE).

Weekend Box Office (10-14-12): Taken 2 repeats at top while Argo and Sinister impress.

With five new wide releases, it was a traffic jam at the box office this weekend, but the surprisingly robust Taken 2 still held court at the top.  Despite being a watered-down rehash of the first film, audiences only somewhat deserted the action sequel.  It's down 55% for a $22 million weekend, which is horrible compared to the first film's 16% second weekend drop, which ironically ended with a $20 million second weekend.  The first film had $53 million after ten days while Taken 2 has $87 million, or a bit above what Taken had after its third weekend ($87 million).  The second film will surely match the first film's $145 million domestic total and it's already flying far higher overseas this time around.  So yes, we'll likely see a Taken 3: The Takenest in 2-3 years time.  The top debut film was Ben Affleck's Argo.  The picture earned a rock-solid $20 million, or just below the $26 million opening of Affleck's The Town just over two years ago (the earlier film had a sexier cops/robbers plot and tabloid-friendly movie stars).  The $44 million R-rated political drama is a perfect example of 'what can grownups see at the theater these days?' and it's good to see they turned up.  Most importantly, the film had a stunning 3.38x weekend multiplier, all-but unheard of these days for a live-action film.  It (correctly) earned an A+ from Cinemascore and played 74% over 35 years old.  Long-story short, it's going to have huge legs regardless of its Oscar hopes.

It's Argo versus Sinister versus Here Comes the Boom in John Gosling's weekend movie preview (10-12-12)

 Our first new release on this busy week is the latest directorial effort from Ben Affleck. Argo is based on the real life story of the audacious rescue of six U.S diplomats during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979/80. The basis for the screenplay is in part based on the memoirs of CIA Agent Tony Mendez (who orchestrated the rescue) and a 2007 Wired magazine article entitled 'How the CIA Used a Fake Sci-Fi Flick to Rescue Americans from Tehran' written by Joshuah Bearman. The film follows true events, though as Affleck has been quick to note, Argo is based on a true story, as opposed to being a true story and thus a certain amount of dramatic license has been used to bring the events to life. After students and militants swarm the American embassy in Iran, which results in 52 people being taken hostage, a group of six people manage to evade capture and ultimately seek sanctuary at the Canadian Embassy. In order to get them out of Iran safely, the CIA enlist the skills of their agent Tony Mendez, a specialist in covert and clandestine work. Mendez comes up with the idea of a fake film (the Argo of the title), with the idea of passing off the six diplomats as members of the Canadian film crew, who are in Iran to scout locations. To further cement the cover story, the CIA set up and staffed an office in Los Angeles for the fake picture and even produced posters for inclusion in Hollywood publications. With the help of the Canadian government (who granted the U.S citizens Canadian passports), the plan was put into place. 

Review: Argo (2012) is a terrific old-school historical thriller

Argo

2012

120 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

I've written a lot over the years about film punditry so seemingly starved for excellence that they will anoint mere craftsmanship as art.  Ben Affleck's Argo (trailer) is a crackerjack piece of filmmaking craft.  It is an astonishingly authentic representation of a rather important historical turning point, vividly capturing time and place with such skill that it genuinely feels like a film created in its time period.  It is rich with period detail and filled to the brim with top-notch character actors.  It is so engaging and so entertaining that I frankly don't care whether every allegedly non-fiction detail is true.  But ironically the picture's greatest strength as a movie arguably becomes its greatest flaw as a film.  It is not really about anything other than itself, refusing to infuse its narrative with any deeper meaning beyond our own knowledge of what happened next.  It is not a sober historical document but rather a caper film that happens to take place during a major moment in world history.  Like Moneyball, it is refreshingly lacking in perceived importance but also suffers from a lack of gravitas.

No girls allowed? On the value of *not* arbitrarily inserting token love interests into male-centric genre films.

Let us for a moment highlight two of the many would-be Oscar bait pictures rolling out in the next couple months. Ben Affleck's Argo, which opens today, has instantly shot up to the upper-levels of many filmgoers' 'must see' list for the Fall.  Also pretty high on the list for film buffs is Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly.  Aside from the strong reviews that both films have already racked up prior to even being screened for most critics (ah, the festival circuit!), the one thing that sticks out about both films is the near absence of females in major roles.  The trailer for Killing Them Softly was notable for its complete absence of females.  Argo has few women in its trailer and seemingly only has female characters where they would make sense, be they among the Americans caught in Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis or people in the government who just happen to be female (the most notable seems to be Adrienne Barbeau).  Point being, having now seen both films, both are very very good and neither of these films felt the need to shoe-horn in female characters in otherwise all-male stories, and both films are better for it.  

Why Ben Affleck doesn't need to direct Justice League...

I don't generally report on rumors, and there is a good chance that this 'news' in question won't come to pass. But the trades took turns attempting to out-scoop each other on Wednesday with reports stating that Ben Affleck would possibly/hopefully/maybe/theoretically direct the Justice League movie for Warner Bros  (Variety got the ball rolling).  The one bit of news is that while it would seem that Warner Bros. instantly raced into Justice League following the success of The Avengers, they've actually had a script penned by Will Beall sitting in an office for a year.  But regardless of whether I think Affleck can handle a film like Justice League (without question, my narrative issues with The Town aside) and however logical it may seem for Warner Bros. to court arguably the biggest director in their stable outside of Chris Nolan or David Yates, I sincerely hope Affleck turns the project down.  He doesn't need Justice League.  More importantly, Ben Affleck is already making the kind of movies that a mega blockbuster like Justice League would allow him to indulge in.  He's already won.  And we are benefiting from that preemptive victory.

Good movie news in 2012: The return of the "movie".

I've written a bit about this over the last couple years, but this weekend is surely as shining an example as anything about how the mainstream film landscape has somewhat self-corrected.  This weekend sees the release of four wide releases.  We have two R-rated films, one a vulgar (but surprisingly smart) comedy about a talking bear and the other a $5 million indie dramedy about male strippers directing by one of our most successful experimental filmmakers.  We've got a bawdy PG-13 comedy aimed primarily at African-American audiences and a PG-13 star-driven drama.  Ted, Magic Mike, Madea's Witness Protection, and People Like Us are all coming out tomorrow in wide release.  What we've seen over the last year or so and what we will continue to see throughout the remainder of 2012 is the return of what can only be called the old-fashioned 'movie'.  In a time when it seems that every week brings another $150 million male-driven action tentpole based on a comic book or action figure series, a glance at the release schedule shows something very different.  Amid the big-budget animated films (which I generally like), the mega-budget comic book films (which are sometimes very good) and the various remakes and reboots, there exists a plurality of old-school, often star-driven dramas, comedies, and often adult-skewed fare being released by major studios on thousands of screens every weekend.  It seems that Hollywood is getting the message that one cannot subsist on a diet of nothing but tentpoles.

Good movie news in 2012: the return of R-rated movies.

Normally, I wouldn't be one to consider Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (which to be fair I have not yet seen) as a shining example of a positive trend in movie-going.  But the historical fiction action-thriller may be many things, but one thing it is not is PG-13.  Oh no, it is a mid-summer major studio spectacle that is going out into 3,000+ theaters with an honest-to-goodness R.  Said rating is officially for "violence throughout and brief sexuality".  Whether or not the film could have been edited down to a PG-13 is arguably a moot point.  20th Century Fox spent $70 million (a refreshingly reasonable sum) on a major summer production that was conceived and produced with the intent that it would indeed be R-rated.  And most shockingly, it was not even the only R-rated wide release last weekend, as Focus Features unspooled Seeking Friends at the End of the World in 1,400 theaters.  I've written/ranted for years about how the R-rating became an endangered species for major-studio releases due to the 2001 FEC regulations regarding the marketing of R-rated films, but the tide does seem to be changing over the last couple years.  And it's reached a glorious peak at this very moment, with an avalanche of R-rated wide releases filling up the multiplexes.

Ben Affleck's Argo gets a trailer that goes one act too long.

I haven't read the true story that this film is based on (if you want to, here's the WIRED story).  But the general idea seems like just the sort of great story that lends itself to a fun movie.  And the film is filled to the gills with terrific character actors (John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Victor Garber, Kyle Chandler, Tate Donovan, Phillip, Adrienne Barbeau, and my personal favorite, Zeljko Ivanek, etc).  And while I'm among those who didn't care for The Town, I'm a big fan of Affleck's Gone Baby Gone so he's still batting a solid 0.500 so far.  My only carp is with the trailer itself.  It's a 150-second spot that clearly divided into three acts.  The first 45-seconds or so explains the time, setting, and political crisis that kicks the story into gear, while the middle 45-seconds goes into the actual scheme that made this story worth telling.  Instead of ending at the 90-second mark, with the story fully explained and the stakes completely established, Warner Bros. felt the need to tack on an additional 45-seconds of montage footage, set to 'Dream On' that serves no purpose other than to reestablish the seriousness of the situation and spoil various bits of character and plot that likely goes down in the second or third acts.  The film looks fine, and kudos to Warner Bros for letting this clearly adult-skewing drama go out with an R-rating.  But the trailer is 2/3 terrific and 1/3 pure needless spoilers. If you feel like watching purely out of curiosity, I suggest you stop right at the 90-second mark.  Okay, your turn to share.

Scott Mendelson