Stolen  (2012)    65/100

Rating :   65/100                                                                       96 Min        12A

The latest film from Nicolas Cage in a very familiar action role, reuniting with ‘Con Air’ director Simon West, who also directed last year’s ‘Expendables 2’ and the remake of ‘The Mechanic’ the year before that. This is one of Cage’s better films of late – better than the likes of ‘Drive Angry’, ‘Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance’ and ‘Bangkok Dangerous’, but not in the same league as ‘Face-Off’, nor ‘Con Air’ for that matter. Our sympathies lie with his very traditional thief with a moral code, as he tries to evade the attentions of Danny Huston’s FBI agent. It’s quite good fun, and although they have made no effort to disguise its similarities to a certain Liam Neeson flick, and it does run out of steam toward the end, it doesn’t take itself too seriously either. There are a few nods to other films as well, most noticeably ‘Con Air’, but also the likes of Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’ (a massively underrated film) as the camera switches from a balloon of the superhero in the New Orleans Fat Tuesday (Mardi Gras) celebrations to Josh Lucas’ character, who played the villain in Lee’s film. Also with the ever delectable Malin Akerman, pictured above, in support.

Red Dawn  (2012)    53/100

Rating :   53/100                                                                       93 Min        15

The plot is completely ridiculous, not to mention horrendously cheesy, but the action is reasonably good. ‘Red Dawn’ sees the improbable invasion of the American mainland, focusing specifically here on Spokane in Washington (second largest city in the state after Seattle) by the North Korean military in a covert D-Day esque landing, that seems to involve parachuting in one CGI soldier for every few square metres of American soil. The logistics of this exercise are not deemed particularly relevant. What is though, is how Chris Hemsworth and his band of youths are going to arm themselves and take back the homeland from the enemy guerrilla style, calling themselves ‘The Wolverines’ and hoping to inspire others in the process.

The film is a remake of the 1984 version, and during production the original Chinese protagonists were digitally altered to become North Korean after news of the film’s plot didn’t go down too well in The People’s Republic. Angering militant North Korea, where the producers don’t stand to make money from the native box office anyway, doesn’t seem to matter. Why didn’t they just make it a fictional country? It’s not like any effort was made on a realistic plot anyway. After the first third it gets much better with some surprisingly enjoyable action, though unfortunately the one-liners do not similarly improve but are at least delivered with gusto.

(The politically astute amongst you may have noticed that North Korea threatened nuclear war within a couple of weeks of this film’s release. Coincidence? Or is the relatively young Kim Jong-un a massive, and easily offended, film buff? Although, really, all film buffs should be offended by this film, not just those in North Korea)

The Paperboy  (2012)    79/100

Rating :   79/100                                                                     107 Min        15

This is the latest film from director/screenwriter/producer Lee Daniels, whose last film was the hard hitting, Oscar nominated ‘Precious’, back in 2009. Here we see a marvellous performance by everyone in the talented ensemble cast, including Nicole Kidman, Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey, David Oyelowo, John Cusack, Macy Grey and Scott Glen in support. But no Oscar nods this time round? The reason is not that they aren’t merited, especially in the case of Kidman, but that the material is a little dark and overtly sexual for most people’s taste. For example, the story mostly revolves around the imprisonment of one Hillary Van Wetter, played by Cusack, and the investigation of his innocence or guilt by Miami Times journalists, spearheaded by the drive of Kidman’s character who intends to marry Van Wetter should he be found innocent and released – cue a most amusing scene in the prison featuring Cusack jerking off whilst Kidman flaunts her stuff for him, and the others not entirely sure what to do with this particularly sizeable elephant in the room (far from the first time Kidman has wonderfully portrayed a highly sexualised character, nor her first onscreen masturbatory antics – see the deserving but mostly overlooked ‘Margot at the Wedding’).

Daniels co-wrote the screenplay with author Peter Dexter, adapted from his novel of the same name, and the whole film has had a film grain texture applied to it, which is initially a huge distraction and irritant, but as the film goes on it gets easier on the eyes. This is to evoke the 60’s era it’s set in, but if we look at the success of ‘The Help’ set in a similar age and venue, the American south, which was edited with no gimmicky effects, we see its use was hardly necessary to recreate the feel they were looking for. Expect some brutal violence on the way, and they may have perhaps egged the pudding a little, but overall the great work of the cast make this vibrantly engaging and a possible career best for some of them. It’s especially good news for Efron, who is a good actor, but ever since ‘17 Again’ (09) he’s gone for safe and humdrum fare at best. ‘The Paperboy’ also marks another very noteworthy role for Matthew McConaughey, in a year that seen him with plaudits for both ‘Magic Mike’ and ‘Killer Joe’ (which premiered in Edinburgh incidentally, or Edinborow as I believe most of the cast liked to pronounce it), making 2012 almost certainly a career high for him.

Side by Side  (2012)    85/100

Rating :   85/100                       Treasure Chest                       99 Min        15

This is a fascinating and topical documentary delivered via interviews with a large smorgasbord of film industry professionals, Martin Scorsese, Danny Boyle, Richard Linklater, David Lynch to name but a few, all talking about the transition from traditional film to digital. The interviewer and narrator is a perhaps not so neutral Keanu Reeves, with the footage consisting of lots and lots of clips and different viewpoints edited into the one narrative. As well as the history and pros and cons of digital, and the possibilities for the future, it gives a behind the scenes look at who does what on a movie set – what the work of the cinematographer, colourist, and editor entails, which arises as a natural part of putting the main debate and the protagonists into context. There is, I believe, a very positive conclusion too – with modern technology anyone can go out and make a film armed with nothing more than their camera, and their imagination. Different opinions on that are given, but The Red Dragon thinks the gift of filmmaking to the wider world is a tremendous one indeed.

For an experimental documentary created as a direct result of available digital technology, see ‘We Are Northern Lights’.

The Guilt Trip  (2012)    15/100

Rating :   15/100                                                                       95 Min        12A

Mearow. That is the sound of my soul weeping for the hours of life invested in this film which could have been more enjoyably spent cleaning the oven with a toothbrush. Let not my suffering be in vain. Supposedly based on a real road trip undertaken by screenwriter Dan Fogelman (‘Cars’, ‘Crazy Stupid Love’) with his mother years previously, it could be the film only exists as some kind of belated apology to his family, though it is quite likely he also watched ‘Due Date’ (10), which wasn’t bad, and thought, ‘Hey, let’s do exactly the same thing but with a guy and his mother, it’ll be hilarious!’. It’s not. The guy and mother in question here are Seth Rogen and Barbra Streisand (for whom this is her first leading role since ‘The Mirror Has Two Faces’ in 1996), and the most immediate problem is that Rogen plays someone so completely hopeless that it’s impossible to identify with him, as he plans a tour of the states to sell his cleaning product and very obviously bores everyone to tears with his sales pitch along the way. Cue mother who will eventually have the right approach to solve everything, but who will initially be rejected, and son who takes her along to secretly reunite her with an old flame, which will initially cause upset, before the realisation that her best intentions were at heart. If there was any comedy along the trip they take, which includes a visit to the Grand Canyon as in ‘Due Date’, then I missed it entirely, although it did bring to the fore that using the term ‘oriental’ is no longer politically correct. When did that happen? Is ‘Asian’ out the window too? The Red Dragon, it seems, is a little behind the times, this tends to happen when one is centuries old. Streisand’s character also has a gizmo that attaches to her handbag and allows it to dangle under tables so it needn’t be put on the floor, which was reasonably nifty, and indeed a supporting character picked up on it in preference to Rogen’s product. Thus I have extracted the only two points worthy of note from the film so that you may be saved from the tragic experience of watching it.

Broken  (2012)    82/100

Rating :   82/100                                                                       91 Min        15

For anyone familiar with British cinema, the opening of this film will place you in very familiar territory. A happy young girl stops in her street to say hi to the teenage boy next door who has some kind of mental disability. We assume that a certain type of darkness is about to descend on the pair. Now, whether or not that assumption is borne out I won’t say, but from the title henceforth this film makes no attempt to hide the direction it is unwaveringly heading in. We know things are going to go bad, we just don’t know in which of the myriad possible directions the trajectory will be.

The girl in question is the main character and the focus of our attention, brought to life by a masterful performance from Eloise Laurence in her film debut. She lives in a town in England with her brother, her father (played by Tim Roth), and a live in nanny who’s dating her soon to be schoolteacher played by Cillian Murphy. Her family, together with that of the aforementioned teenage boy and the perforated powder keg family from hell across the street, form the crux of the drama. A lot of the plot doesn’t make much sense, especially when it comes to the role of the police, who seem to be particularly docile and hapless throughout. Interestingly, at one point they ask someone if they want to press charges. Here the law in England and Wales may differ from that in Scotland – north of the border it’s the police who decide if action is taken against the perpetrator of a crime, rather than a citizen pressing charges. At least, that is the case for the types of crime we see take place here.

Surprisingly, despite its downfalls, including some fairly ropey choices of music, the film manages to be both hard hitting and down right amusing, predictable and yet moving – all at the same time, which makes it somewhat stylistically unique. There are a lot of nice touches too, such as a scene when we just see Cillian Murphy walking to his car, but the real focus of the shot is on one of his kids cheerfully, and amusingly, dancing away in the car park beside him. The whole film acts like a sort of tornado of destruction, but one full of life and energy and fast changing events – it knowingly plays to the comedic nature of its melodrama but balances it with just the right amount of empathy. Rare and unique, perhaps not in some ways fully deserving of the high rating The Red Dragon has given it, but nevertheless a diamond in the rough desert of gritty British suburban dramas.

Robot and Frank  (2012)    67/100

Rating :   67/100                                                                       89 Min        12A

An original story set in the near future that sees a concerned son buy a robot companion for his memory troubled ageing father, a father who had an infamous cat burglar career and ponders the possibilities of his adroit and loyal new friend. The character of the father is a little acerbic, but our sympathies still lie with him, and the robot is humanly likeable enough for their relationship to feel real. Interesting and at moments touching, although there is a subdued feel to the conclusion – it’s easy to dismiss it but it’s worthy of much more thought. Frank Langella plays the lead, with Peter Sarsgaard as the voice of the robot (though he does sound a little like Kevin Spacey, a la the computer in ‘Moon’), James Marsden and Liv Tyler are his siblings with Susan Sarandon in support. One feature of the plot sees the local library recycling all but the most precious of the books, once they’ve all been scanned as ebooks, a concept which may well come into reality in our modern digitised era. The film is also the first from two friends – writer Christopher D. Ford and director Jake Schreier.

Arbitrage  (2012)    68/100

Rating :   68/100                                                                     107 Min        15

Dictionary.com’s definition of the word arbitrage is “Finance. The simultaneous purchase and sale of the same securities, commodities, or foreign exchange in different markets to profit from unequal prices.” for those of you who, like me, were not entirely sure what the title of this film actually means. It can also mean to arbitrate between parties, but it’s the financial context that is implied here, loosely describing the business transactions of central character Robert Miller, played by Richard Gere. The successful head of a multi-million dollar company, one that also employs both his children, his ledgers aren’t all that they would seem, which produces a ticking time bomb as he struggles to dig himself out of an enormous economic crevice, and the growing pressure cracks begin to fracture other areas of his life in the process.

Gere has played many similar roles over the years and he does a very good job here, and overall it’s a pretty solid, interesting film. The story plays with shifting around our sympathies to a small degree, and seeing this explored further, as well as tweaking the supporting roles to make them more involving, could have added an extra degree of intrigue and complexity. As it is, it remains a drama worth going to see, with decent acting support from Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, and up and comers Nate Parker (‘Red Tails’) and Brit Marling (‘Another Earth’). It is the first dramatic feature film to be written and directed by Nicholas Jarecki.

To The Wonder  (2012)    63/100

Rating :   63/100                                                                     112 Min        12A

‘To The Wonder’ is the latest film from highly acclaimed director Terrence Malick, and of all his work to date it is closest to his last piece, ‘The Tree of Life’, in that it is for the most part a series of beautiful shots of nature and people, as part of the natural world, and the narrative, such that it is, is told via the character’s thoughts in poetic voice over. The pivotal character is played by Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko and Rachel McAdams play two of the women in his life, and Javier Bardem acts in support as the local priest with issues regarding his waning faith.

The story really focuses on the fidelity of Affleck’s relationship with girlfriend Kurylenko, and there is a sense of each character here suffering from sensory deprivation – the diligent priest who never stops working but gets no physical satisfaction, the wandering eye of Affleck, his bouncy joie de vivre girlfriend stuck with him in a dead end town, the oppressive weight of society’s expectations and limits contrasted with the wonderful landscape images of rolling hills and running streams. It is a reflective piece, and so interpretation is of course open, but there is an interesting sermon from the priest which mentions how a person can make a mistake and regret it, but hesitating and not acting is much worse. In a sense it’s a redemption for the darker moments of the film but I can’t help but wonder if perhaps Malick has not been thinking along the same lines himself, as the famously selective director, whose films to date are ‘Badlands’ (73), ‘Days of Heaven’ (78), ‘The Thin Red Line’ (98), ‘The New World’ (05) and ‘The Tree of Life’ (11), has suddenly gone into colossal creative overdrive with three full feature films currently in post production, one of which, ‘Voyage of Time’, is all about cosmology, and with his expertise in photography that really should be something special.

This is not going to be for everyone (about one third of the audience left before the end, and there were audible cries of delight when it did finish) and you have to be prepared for the majority of the film focusing on natural visuals – there is almost no character to character dialogue. It is in danger of being labelled pretentious, certainly it’s debatable whether or not he crosses the line here, where probably some of the earlier parts come off worse as we are introduced to the young lovers and it feels like we’re watching a twenty minute condom commercial. However, I think Malick is a director who takes his work very seriously and very personally (‘The Tree of Life’ for example is about a young family that very much mirrors his own upbringing) and over his films you can see his style evolving, and perhaps his confidence growing to the point where now he feels he can do a poetic film and not feel constrained by mainstream notions of story and dialogue. Feeding into this he has a very curious casting taste, usually casting the most beautiful people of both sexes that he can, indeed going for looks over acting quality – Brad Pitt, Colin Farrell, Ben Affleck, all known as male heart throbs but at times perhaps a little hit or miss on the acting front. Has he chosen them to try and match the perfection of his photography? Or for the bigger box office draw for what will be termed an art house film? There is almost a sense that the director is intensely shy and wants to be as far away from us as possible, and this film does suffer from a slight feeling of alienation that never quite goes away.

In the case of Affleck here, Malick very wisely gives him almost nothing to say for the entire film, he just sort of struts around looking brutish, and is rewarded for good behaviour by being allowed to break a wing mirror. He does have I think two, possibly three voice over bits of brief poetry, but then it really does sound hopelessly pretentious, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were a lot more left lying on the cutting room floor. His lady friend speaks in French a lot of the time, and it’s fairly plain to see from the look on Affleck’s face he has no idea what she is saying. The one time he replies in French we know very well it has been dubbed with someone else’s voice, partly from him having his back to us and omitting a small shout a second later with a different audio quality, and partly because there is no way he would be able to produce such a convincing French accent. Interestingly, one of the love scenes in the film, often the most difficult thing to do and usually completely pointless in terms of the story or visual experience for the audience, was superbly done, brief, but showcasing the bodies of the protagonists in a way they will never have any reason to be shy about.

Having said that, the camera does seem to have a constant gravitation toward the breasts of the various females who feature in the film, which begins to feel a little perverse, unless of course Malick is saying they are a part of the wonderful, beautiful landscape of nature which, you know, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, or perhaps he intends the viewer to almost see through the eyes of Ben Affleck’s character. Art house film can justify almost anything. There is a trend generally in modern film with the fairly ubiquitous use of shaky or hand held cam, to various degrees, to have a sneaky extra dip with the camera – even yesterday whilst rewatching Les Mis there was a noticeable perv on Samantha Barks when she’s in the rain singing against the wall.

The film’s title is mentioned as the main couple visit Mont Saint-Michel in France (also reputedly one of the inspirations behind Minis Tirith’s design in Peter Jackson’s ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy). I thought at one point there was something about the film that reminded me of ‘There Will be Blood’, which has a similar feel in terms of the landscape acting as a character for the first act of the movie, and sure enough the head of the art department on that film, Jack Fisk (also husband to Sissy Spacek), reprises that role here, being a long time colleague of Malick. With ‘Blood’ the technique worked really well because it was used in collaboration with the actions, if not initially the words, of an intense character played by Daniel Day Lewis, but here the characters are too flimsy and don’t really get interesting until later on, which is ultimately why this isn’t as good as his previous work. There does remain some very beautiful imagery throughout the film that it will be a pleasure to have endure in my memory, and overall I’d say I liked it despite its overly indulgent tendencies, though it would be interesting to know where exactly the division here exists between Malick, Fisk and the cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. Not for the first time in his career, Malick has axed footage of other famous actors from the movie entirely, amongst them Jessica Chastain and Rachel Weisz. Perhaps Affleck’s character was getting too much action. Christian Bale was originally slated for the role that Affleck plays but he pulled out and will feature in Malick’s next two films instead.

One can imagine the casting…

MALICK :   Ok, Olga, love your limited work so far by the way, so we’d like to cast you so we can have you frolic around sensually showing off your body, and then have you lie down on some manky wet marshland, how does that sound, exciting yes?
OLGA :   Em, why?
MALICK :   There is no why …. Only beauty…
B.AFFLECK :   Hey Malick can I be your movie and then have it released around the time of the Oscars so I can say I was in an art house Terence Malick flick, and am therefore a SERIOUS GUY, and my torrid history bashopic ‘Argo’ can have better odds of winning best film?
MALICK :   Yes. But you may not open your mouth again for the entirety of the film. Unless it is in wonder at the beauty….
B.AFFLECK :   Well can I least take my shirt off?
MALICK :   Let me have a look. Beautiful, yes we can work together.

Argo  (2012)    31/100

Rating :   31/100                                                                     120 Min        15

The sheer and unequivocal arrogance of this film is grotesque and abhorrent to say the least, as the filmmakers rewrite a now well documented piece of history giving the American authorities credit for other people’s bravery and work, and making cheap political digs at Iran’s expense in the process.

Leaving aside the factual debacle for the moment, the film follows the events surrounding the storming of the American embassy, and subsequent hostage taking of the diplomats, in Tehran in 1979 by a mob of angry Iranians (many of them students) over Jimmy Carter’s decision to allow sanctuary in the States to the deposed Iranian Shah. During the panic a small group of Americans managed to get away and find secret refuge with Canadian diplomats elsewhere in the city. CIA exfiltration expert Tony Mendes (Ben Affleck – also the director of the film) is hired to think of a way to get them out of the country, and comes up with the notion of passing them off as a Canadian film crew, location scouting for a new, fake, Sci-Fi film entitled ‘Argo’. The rest of the film follows that escape attempt.

The style and feel of the film is accessible and noteworthy, with a lot of attention being paid to the fashion and trends of the day, and a decent amount of humour has been sewn into the script for the first half of the film. The direction is also well paced and involving for the first half, music is well used throughout, and there exist a lot of nice touches, especially with the fake Sci-Fi movie, even if some of them feel a little too modern, such as the robot they create for it. It is perhaps easy to see why people in the industry love this film, as we get a glimpse of the behind the scenes world of Hollywood via Oscar winning makeup artist and CIA helper John Chambers (John Goodman) who aids the set up of Argo to look authentic, one of the few things it gets historically correct. There are more than one or two digs at Hollywood as an industry, and nods in the Academy’s direction with mention of multiple Oscar winners ‘Network’ and ‘Kramer versus Kramer’ (‘Argo’ itself is nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture).

The film suffers a severe problem with its marketing, in that if you’ve seen the trailer, you can pretty safely infer several key things about the film. With that in mind, a lot of the tension that Affleck tries to create feels entirely artificial. This is taken to the point of lunacy as, despite the fact they have been in hiding for seventy nine days, about four or five things converge at pretty much the exact moment in time in order to try and escalate the tension as much as possible, but to say it’s unbelievable would be like saying it’s a little chillier in space than it is here on Earth. At one point an Iranian guard has a huge rant in Farsi at a befuddled Affleck and co even though we’ve already been told these members of the military were likely educated in the west, and sure enough we later hear him speaking in English, all purely so the situation seems more extreme. It ends up being much the same as watching an action film where the hero escapes by always being one second faster than the hail of bullets and explosions dogging his shadow, and by the lack of any real intelligence in the bad guys.

Purely viewed as entertainment and ignoring history completely, I would rate this somewhere in the lower sixties. However, what this film has done with history simply cannot be ignored. Jimmy Carter has said himself in interview with Piers Morgan (something showing in itself a lack of political savvy) that ninety percent of the entire rescue operation was Canadian, whereas ‘Argo’ would have us believe that statistic belonged wholesale to the U.S. administration. A secondary great evil is that in the film it is stated very clearly that both New Zealand and The United Kingdom refused to give sanctuary to the American diplomats, something which is an outright disgraceful lie, both countries actively helped – one of those involved in the events, Bob Anders, said after seeing the film “They put their lives on the line for us. We were all at risk. I hope no one in Britain will be offended by what’s said in the film. The British were good to us and we’re forever grateful.” How in the name of hell do George Clooney and co. (he is one of the producers) think it is ok to rewrite history as they see fit? I mean, they have actually stated the very polar opposite of what actually happened, both here and generally (although Tony Mendez did come up with the Argo idea and did work for the CIA). Affleck has said that he lied about the other countries involvement as he wanted to show that these people had nowhere else to go, but since they ended up with the Canadians eventually, because everyone agreed it was becoming too dangerous everywhere else anyway, why in the name of bloody hell don’t they just tell the truth!!! The Red Dragon watches a good many films, and when it comes to history in the movies you learn to always take it with a pinch of salt, however even I, though I thought it strange, was inclined to believe them when they said sanctuary was denied because it is presented as fact, and it’s the sort of thing that you think well surely they wouldn’t make that up?

This is just the beginning of the gross make believe that was put into the film, indeed, almost everything in the second half is a complete fabrication. Including the Iranians forcing children in a sweat shop at gun point to reassemble shredded mug shots of the consulate staff – there were no mug shots, and consular documents were reassembled by the Iranian students who could read English. There are several ironies here too, one being when Alan Arkin’s character (another fiction by the way) bemoans the Canadians taking the credit for the operation, and another the efforts taken to make the actors playing those in hiding look like their real life counterparts as they show during the end credits – if they are going to go to those lengths for cosmetic details which do not matter ultimately why in the name of God not make the actual story accurate, or for that matter cast Affleck as Mendez who is in fact Mexican? Indeed, in reality it seems Mr Mendez, come the day of the actual exfiltration, slept in by half an hour, and had to actually be woken up by one of the New Zealand diplomats that the film claims turned the Americans away! See the Guardian article here for more details.

Another outrageous lie is delivered via a sinister choice of quote from Jimmy Carter, also as the end credits play, as he states “Eventually we got every hostage back home safe and sound, and we upheld the integrity of our country and we did it peacefully” – this is with regard to the remaining hostages who were the ones actually seized by the Iranians and properly held captive, whose fate ‘Argo’ makes no other reference too. Well, in reality the Americans attempted a military rescue which was a complete and unmitigated disaster, resulting in abortion half way through and the death of several American service men and one innocent Iranian civilian. It is generally thought to have been a major factor in Carter losing the presidency later that year, and indeed literally minutes after he had left office, Iran released all the hostages.

This film is an absolute disgrace, and it deserves to be lambasted, not rewarded as, unfortunately, it is in danger of being at the upcoming Oscars. Even its inclusion of a dilapidated Hollywood sign on Lee Hill is ironic as it had actually been repaired by the time of the events depicted, and the film itself represents Hollywood at its most careless. On the back of this we can look forward to Affleck’s next project about the Americans who invented ice hockey, and then his piece on the beginnings of the industrial revolution, in Philadelphia. His last two films (‘The Town’, ‘Gone Baby Gone’) were both great, but if you can’t make the truth work on film, to the point where you’re advocating and propagating a lie, then you have no right to be working in the medium.

Argo fuck yourself Ben Affleck.


Quotes

“’Hmm let’s see. Well, this one’s got an MA in English, she should be your screenwriter. Sometimes they go along on scouts, because they want their free meals. Here’s your director.’ {Chambers}
‘You can teach someone to be a director in a day?’ {Mendez}
‘You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director in a day.’ {Chambers}” John Goodman/John Chambers and Ben Affleck/Tony Mendez

“So you want to come to Hollywood, and act like a big shot, without actually doing anything? You’ll fit right in.” John Goodman/John Chambers

“If he could act he wouldn’t be playing the minotaur” John Goodman/John Chambers

“Ok, you got six people hiding out in a town of what, four million people all of whom chant death to America all the live long day, you want to set up a movie in a week, you want to lie to Hollywood, a town where everybody lies for a living, then you’re gonna sneak 007 over here into a country that wants CIA blood on their breakfast cereal, and you’re going to walk the Brady Bunch out of the most watched city in the world…. Right. Look, I, I gotta tell you, we did suicide missions in the army that had better odds than this.” Alan Arkin/Lester Siegel

“Hi, I only got a couple of minutes, I’m getting a lifetime achievement award… I’d rather stay home and count the wrinkles on my dog’s balls.” Alan Arkin/Lester Siegel

“If I’m doing a fake movie, it’s going to be a fake hit” Alan Arkin/Lester Siegel

“Well, what can I say. Congratulations. But see, it kinda worries me when you say that, and let me tell you why. Couple of weeks ago I was sitting at Trader Vic’s enjoying a Mai Tai, when my pal Warren Beatty comes in, he wishes me well, we have a little chat. Seems he was attached to star in Zulu Empire, which was going to anchor that MGM slate, but Warren confided in me that the picture’s gone over budget because the Zulu extras want to unionise. They may be cannibals, but they want health and dental so the movie’s kaput, which means that the MGM deal ain’t gonna happen, and your script ain’t worth the buffalo shit on a nickel. So, the way it looks to me, through the cataracts I grant you, is that you can either sign here, and take ten thousand dollars for your toilet paper script, or you can go fuck yourself. With all due respect.” Alan Arkin/Lester Siegel

“Bad news, bad news. Even when it’s good news it’s bad news. John Wayne’s in the ground six months, this is what’s left of America.” Alan Arkin/Lester Siegel

“Fade in on a star ship landing. An exotic middle-Eastern vibe. Women gather offering ecstatic libations to the sky gods. Argo, science fantasy adventure.” Ben Affleck/Tony Mendez

“Hi, my name’s Kevin Harkins and, I’m going to get you home.” Ben Affleck/Tony Mendez

“This is what I do. I get people out. And I’ve never left anyone behind… My name is Tony Mendez, I’m from New York, my father worked construction, my mother teaches elementary school, I have a wife and a ten year old son. You play along with me today I promise you I will get you out tomorrow.” Ben Affleck/Tony Mendez

“Brace yourself, it’s like talking to those two old fucks on the Muppets.” Bryan Cranston/Jack O’Donnell

“This is the best bad idea we have sir, by far.” Bryan Cranston/Jack O’Donnell