Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Film: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Release: 2014, theatrical
Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Redford, Scarlett Johansson
Directed by: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: After a black-ops operation on a hijacked U.S. ship, Captain America starts having doubts about the integrity of S.H.I.E.L.D. as an organization and he soon discovers that maybe modern day America isn't as black and white as the world he came from.

Hans' thoughts:

When you summarize the names of superheroes that will do well internationally in your head "Captain America" is scarcely the first one that comes to mind. Grounded deeply in the American reaction to the Second World War, the character was created basically as a propaganda piece to sell warbonds. One of the most well-known images of the character is simply him giving Adolf Hitler a punch to the jaw. However Captain America: The First Avenger actually turned out to be one of the more well received entries in what is now named "Phase one" of the shared Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), consisting of (in order of continuity): Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger and ending with The Avengers in 2012. So far "Phase two" of the MCU is also looking decent enough, while Iron Man 3 received some critical panning and the tie-in TV-show "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." has been deemed a failure by many fans Thor: The Dark World was considered one of the best entries to date. So how does The Winter Soldier hold up? Surprisingly well actually. 

Unlike Iron Man 3, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is very scarce in referencing the events of The Avengers, instead The Winter Soldier gives us a more in-depth look at the intelligence bureau known as S.H.I.E.L.D. Where our titular hero portrayed by Chris Evans, a man of simple values and straightforward methods, is having trouble fitting in with the methods of his secretive boss Nick Fury, portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson. Evans portrayal of Cap is as good as ever, his arc in this movie is very much about having old world viewpoints in a new world and while the actor himself turns in a good performance, and the writing is actually really good. I can't let the fact go however, that his costume has never really been all that good in any of the movies thus far and unfortunately it's the same case this time around. Costume designers seem to just be unable to get it to look good, and that makes total sense since the original Captain America suit was designed in the 1940's and has seen little to no updates in the years since then. This time they decided to make his ears be free from the hood part of the suit and unfortunately that makes them seem huge. I quickly got used to it, but in the first few moments of the movie I had to remind myself that this was not a comedy. The movie has a lot of returning actors and it works to the advantage of the piece, as instead of throwing a lot of new things at us we have the growth of already established characters with the exception of newcomer Sam Wilson, portrayed by Anthony Mackie. Mackie fits right in with the old cast however, and quickly sets up himself as another well-known Marvel character. His special effects are actually done really well and though his action scenes in full get-up are few they are very enjoyable and doesn't take away focus from the main cast - though unfortunately his costume design for this movie follows the Hollywood trend of removing as many colors as possible from superhero get-ups as was the case for the MCU's version of Hawkeye. The other newcomer is seasoned veteran Robert Redford as the chairman of S.H.I.E.L.D. and he has a lot of great moments in the movie. His portrayal made one of the twists of the movie all the more surprising. Scarlett Johanson returns as Black Widow, once again showing new sides of the character and seems to just have a lot of fun portraying the character. Nevermind the fact that she's not held back by a tacked on romantic sub-plot that probably would've been present in a lesser movie. Black Widow is thus far the only female superhero set up in the MCU, but she can definitely stand toe to toe with the likes of both much more seasoned actors Samuel L. Jackson and Robert Redford. 

The elephant in the room in this review thus far is of course The Winter Soldier himself, this is not because of his portrayal (the character is actually done a lot of justice and I enjoyed every single scene he was in) but because his identity is supposed to be a complete secret. Rest assured Marvel fans, there's no big fake out moments here as was the case with The Mandarin in Iron Man 3. More than that I'm not really willing to say, even though promotional material for the movie has not been all that secretive I feel that non-comic book nerds should discover this awesome plot twist for themselves. So there's that. Moving on to the action of the movie, it has a fair amount of "shaky cam". Meaning of course that the camera is moved frequently in the film to up the intensity of some of the scenes. Unfortunately it makes some scenes fairly hard to follow and I heard complaints from one of my companions that he could barely see what was going on in some of the bigger action scenes at all. It's a big shame because on the other hand the hand-to-hand combat scenes are really good and the choreography makes the action in these scenes seem very intense without needing the added effects of shaking the camera. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a much more eventful movie than its already strong predecessor and stands as a testament to the really great thing Marvel Studios has going at the moment proving that the high quality of "phase one" wasn't a complete freak of nature. The special effects of the movie are great, even if we're not able to see as many of them as we would like due to the rapid camera movement and the writing of the story is spot on - taking one of the major plotlines of Captain America's comic line and updating it for modern movie going audiences and the setting of the MCU.

Story-liners: Batman: Arkham Origins (2013)

Game: Batman: Arkham Origins
Release: 2013, Retail
System: Playstation 3/Xbox 360/PC/Wii U
Starring: Roger Craig Smith, Troy Baker, JB Blanc
Directed by: Eric Holmes
Previous in the series: Batman: Arkham City
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: For two years, rumors has spread across the city about a mysterious vigilante known as "The Bat" - though no official pictures or recordings exist to prove his existence. Fed up with losing men to him, the powerful crime boss known as Black Mask sets a price on The Bat's head on Christmas Eve. Anyone who would care to try is given one night to cash in on the reward of 50 million dollars - if they can.

Hans' thoughts:

Continuing the best-selling game series about the worlds greatest detective, Arkham Origins give us a prequel to the events of the previous titles. Batman has only been active for two years and has yet to meet most of the now iconic supporting cast of his stories. This game marks a couple of firsts, this is the first game in the Arkham series to not be created by Rocksteady - instead the title is handled by by Warner Bros. Games Montréal and Splash Damage Studios. This is also the first title in the series to not have Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy play The Joker & Batman respectively. Conroy and especially Hamill have been voicing these characters on and off since the hugely popular Batman: The Animated Series that ran in the early 1990's and have become iconic in their roles. This leaves a huge gap to fill out and I'm glad to say that both newcomers, Robert Craig Smith as Batman and Troy Baker as The Joker do a really good job at filling out their shoes. Especially Smith sounds like Conroy from time to time and Baker, while channeling Hamill's performance, does a more reserved version of the voice that, honestly, works really well for the character. The other voices also do a pretty good job of conveying their characters, though I have to stress how easily it becomes to recognize the same voiced when you hear them again and again - I'm of course talking about the nameless flunkies that appear throughout the game. Special type characters have special voices, such as the big musclebound ones but when the ones you hear mostly all have the same three or four voices it quickly becomes routine to hear the same banter over and over again. I understand why this was done, voice work is hard, good voice work is even harder and there's only so much time and resources you can put into the unnamed characters - however it bears mentioning all the same.

Arkham game fans can rest assured however, the gameplay is pretty much copied directly from the two previous titles with only minor tweaks in the form of new combo's for new types for mobsters. We also have two new gadgets in the game, giving room for new interesting puzzles. Unfortunately, like with Arkham City most of the puzzle solving comes from the Riddler side-mission. Find the unlockable, solve the challenge, on to the next. It's pretty much a thing for the completists among you. A positive improvement is a fast-travel system, made unlockable by solving some of these side-missions so at least that's a carrot for the rest of us. Design-wise the game is very much "same old". Since it takes place on Christmas Eve, it's once again a snow-filled landscape and therefore the creators have ported some of the environments directly from Arkham City. The old church, the courthouse and other such locations are all present and accounted for. Thankfully, there are new areas added to the mix as well but the old environments still take up about half of the game map. The designs of the characters are, on the other hand, pretty good. A younger Bruce Wayne, bearing a much heavier armor makes one think of the Dark Knight Trilogy, yet it isn't a complete copy most notably coloring-wise. This made me, personally, breathe a sigh of relief as I'd like each iteration of the Batman to be it's own separate thing (And frankly, I've never been a fan of any of the cinematic Batsuits). The character designs for other characters are, as they should be, a lot less colorful and outlandish than in previous titles. Keep in mind that this story takes place prior to the public knowing that the caped crusader exist and therefore Batman is mostly found dealing with "normal" criminals this time around. This also serves to enhance the few present colors more than ever, which the designers thankfully have used to their advantage making the presence of colors either restricted to billboards or to the special events.

This brings us to the story. As is tradition for the series, the writers have tried to incorporate as many well-known Batman characters as possible. Unfortunately the set scenario makes some of these cameos extremely unplausible compared to the other games. Both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City took place in prisons, which is why it made sense that Batman would have to deal with all the big names from his rogues gallery. However, in this game we're expected to believe that Batman would have his first encounter with several of his most well-established villains all in a single night. The most immediate threat in the story is that of the assassins out for the 50 million dollar bounty on Batman's head, fortunately the writers has kept the assassins down to, at the very least, character who are known to be mercenaries in the comics as well. Lesser known characters like Firefly, Electrocutioner, Deadshot and Lady Shiva all make an appearance, some more well-known than others but all definite C or D-list villains, in spite of the recent appearance by Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, he's also normally considered a lesser known Batman villain. But then we're also exposed to The Joker, The Penguin and even The Mad Hatter. While they all are done excellently, Mad Hatter especially makes a much bigger appearance than he did in Arkham City, you can't really help but question the validity of all this taking place in a single night. The game becomes way too crowded, and some of the assassins are only finally dealt with in optional side-missions. This is actually a pretty big problem, as I found myself being more interested in solving the optional missions than engaging in the story. At the very least, the ending of the story is a lot better than the outlandishness of the ending of Arkham Asylum, staying a lot more true to classic Batman form. The game also sees the return of the more outlandish scenes, similar to the Scarecrow sequences of Arkham Asylum. We get an interesting and trippy look into the mind of Batman on more than one occasion.  Sad as it is though, I don't expect casual Batman fans to get much out of the game compared to previous entrances in the series - while the voice acting is excellent, the story is just way too crowded with characters and events and it makes a lot of the struggles in story seem like they have little to no impact. Not to mention the obscurity of some of the characters only serving to make them sideshow characters once the more well-known villains show up to play. It has some very cool moments, but they're far in-between. If you just want a Batman sandbox game however, the side-missions are very entertaining and the higher focus this game puts on actual detective work is a refreshing change making the game at least the turning point for an entertaining weekend.

The Avengers (2012)

Film: The Avengers
Release: 2012, Theatrical
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johanson, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner
Directed by: Joss Whedon
Next in the series: The Avengers: Age of Ultron
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: At a secret underground facility, The international agency S.H.I.E.L.D. has hired the brilliant Dr. Erik Selvig to develop a sustainable energy source from the mystical tesseract, used by The Red Skull during the second world war, however things turn sour when the tesseract reacts to something not of this world.

Hans' thoughts:

Perhaps one of the greatest gambles in movie making history, The Avengers is the culmination of what is now known as the first "phase" in a large shared universe project for in-house adaptations of various Marvel comics superheroes. The "phase" in this case being the movies that tie in with this one, starting with Iron Man, followed by The Incredible Hulk, then Iron Man 2, Thor and finally Captain America: The First Avenger. All good movies in their own right, this film stands in front of the enormous task of making a satisfactory climax to all the little hints and after-credits scenes that the former movies has made - Iron Man 2 as an example suffered under almost completely being a trailer for this movie. The film is headed by one of the "Kings of the Nerds", Joss Whedon, creator, director and writer of several big name movies and tv-series that have frankly waved between being fantastic and being all style and no substance. 

One could argue in this particular case, the writers pretty much had their work cut out for them beforehand. Most of the characters (with only one notable exception) has not only been established in former films, but films that all sold exceptionally well in theatres meaning they can rely on everyone knowing exactly who the characters are coming into the movie. This makes the entire movie feel like a 2 and a half hour third act, giving us our very first action scene by the 3 minute point. Fans are of course quickly given exactly what they came for, not much time is wasted one explaining why all these characters would be in the place at the same time and our heroes are all pretty much introduced by what we best know them for. Bruce Banner is on the run from the government, Iron Man is out doing something scientific, Capt. America spends his time punching stuff and Thor is introduced with a thunder storm. When they're mentioned in passing, the audiences know exactly what kind of scene is coming up next: "Ladies and gentlemen, now Robert Downey Jr. will say something funny", "give a big hand to Chris Evans being stoic and old fashioned" is what they pretty much could've been said outright by Samuel L. Jackson whose appearance as Nick Fury pretty much works as the stage announcer. It's like a rock band playing their greatest hit as their opening act as the lights are turned on.

The movie doesn't leave you much time to actually think about several missing plot points between the former movies and this one you're quickly distracted by all the things that are constantly thrown at you, to it's credit, the film indulges the fans in both the "who would win in a fight between.." and "Wouldn't it be cool if.." department, the very recognizable nature of the different characters also make them visible even when the action sequences falls victim to modern technique of "shaky-cam". This kind of thing was a big problem in films like The Transformers movies where you literally couldn't tell which giant robot was fighting which but the looks and designs of the costumes of the characters are kept so true to form that it doesn't pose a problem in this instance. Not much time is spent on character development as the little downtime the movie actually has is spent on quarrels between the teammates or someone relaying exposition. The movie actually spends most of it's lines on short immediate exposition to make the audience ready for what is coming next. Introductions between the characters are pretty much reduced to "Hey, aren't you that guy in the metal armor?" "Yeah and I heard you turn big and green sometimes". It feels unnatural but it's pretty easy to understand why they did it this way: Audiences already know all the big name characters and the writers know that they have to give people what they came to see. While it certainly works for most of the established characters, the character of Clint Barton aka. Hawkeye poses a problem in that regard. Aside from a single scene in the Thor movie, audiences are never really introduced to who Hawkeye is. All we really know is that he's a guy who prefers using a bow to using a gun. This is not helped much in the movie, as he spends most of the film being mind controlled by the movie's villain. We know nothing about the character, so rooting for him when he joins the big climactic fight at the end is neigh impossible unless you know the character from other media.

On the other end of the spectrum we have The Incredible Hulk, Mark Ruffalo being the third person to play the character in the span of merely ten years and the second person to play him in the Marvel Shared Universe continuity. The last person before Ruffalo to play Bruce Banner was Edward Norton, an award winning and hugely popular actor, so Ruffalo stood before the task of being accepted by audiences in a role that has not seen much stability. This is very reminiscent of the comic book Bruce Banner as different writers also tended to treat the character very differently, some having the Hulk persona take over entirely for extended periods of time to simple not deal with having to write drama for the character. Thankfully, Ruffalo does a very good job of making a very withdrawn but hot-headed professor, nervously joking about his condition as a means to cope with the stressful situations he's put into. That combined with his version of the Hulk being the most entertaining thing in the movie, makes sure he more than lives up to taking up "the mantle", if you will. Though it does seem like The Incredible Hulk, incredibly shrunk sometime between it's appearances. The movie, as I said, doesn't go into much detail during it's explanations and one can't help but ask: Where was Col. Rhodes aka. Warmachine who had his origin story in Iron Man 2 during this entire debacle? The question is pretty much ignored in both this film and Iron Man 3. We're just asked to accept that a government agency would rather ask for the help of a loose cannon billionaire than an actual military officer who has a very similar suit of armor. 

On the villain side we have the least substance of all. As with the original first comic book appearance of The Avengers, our main villain is Loki the god of mischief. Tom Hiddleston reprises his role as the character from Thor and in this film he just seems a lot more threatening than his initial appearance. From his very first scene in the movie, he quickly shows off that he is clearly more than enough of a feat to have to be taken on by the entirety of Earth's Mightiest. However, It is never explained what happened between his final scene in the former film and how he ended up allying himself with such a powerful force - force of what exactly? This is the problem with having the film focusing mostly on spectacle, we know next to nothing about the alien race of "The Chitauri" (as race that was made up for the movie by the way) and why they have a reason for attacking the planet earth, instead we have an army of grey-ish monster beings that doesn't talk and pretty much works a living punching bags and cannon fodder for the writers to show off the heroes and their individual superpowers. Had it not been for the talent and charisma of Tom Hiddleston in the role of Loki, the villains of the movie had not been interesting at all. 

The Avengers, while perhaps one of the most accurate and entertaining comic book movies in recent years is a classic example of trading in substance for the sake of style and spectacle. What little drama there is in the movie is simply used as a catalyst for having the heroes go out and punch things and if you expected a film that would work well on it's own I'm sorry to disappoint. The Avengers is pretty much just one long third act of a much larger story, like the last episode of a season of a TV-show. Wrapping up the overarching immediate plot that's been developing little by little in the background throughout the last couple of episodes. Therefore it highly necessitates having watched one or more of the former films in order to be enjoyed properly. If you haven't, all you're left with is a series of spectacle scenes, really well shot and sometimes funny action scenes to be sure but you're not given much explanation for what is going on. For fans, the film is a dream come true: Actually seeing these characters fighting alongside each other in a movie that's not only accurate but actually entertaining and successful is something no one would've ever thought possible - be warned though, while fun and entertaining while you watch it it can pretty easily be picked apart in the plot department. I recommend this film by all means, but I also highly recommend watching the former films in the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" first to truly get the most of it.

O.K. Connery (1967)

"Operation Kid Brother: is too much
for one mother!" sounds like a different
movie altogether

Film: O.K. Connery
Alternate Titles: Operation Kid Brother, Secret Agent 00, Operation Double 007
Release: 1967, Theatrical
Starring: Neil Connery, Anthony Dawson, Lois Maxwell, Adolfo Celi
Directed by: Alberto De Martino
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The evil organization Thanatos is planning to take over the world with a new magnetic superweapon. In his master spy brother's absence, the surgeon/hypnotist Neil Connery is called in to assist MI6.

Hans' thoughts:

In the 1960's, one of the most booming sub-genres in the film industry was the spy movies - mostly due to the success of the James Bond movies. This movie is an odd little existence from that time. "Operation Kid Brother" is a James Bond rip-off with, just that, Sean Connery's actual brother Neil Connery playing a character of the same name. The movie is also littered with actors who's played characters in the actual James Bond movies. I don't know if this was a serious money grubbing effort, or the most elaborate prank in the history of the world. However, it exists, so let's dive right into it.

So a thing you will quickly notice about the movie is the sound department. The main theme of the movie is a riff on the iconic Bond music, sounding just different enough to pass off as something else. Though I suspect even the most unconcentrated viewer can hear the giant similarities right away. You'll also notice that movie is, unfortunately, poorly post-produced. The actors dubbing themselves apparently have a hard time hitting their own lip movements, and in the case of Neil Connery himself he wasn't even present for the re-dub due to an illness. Therefore, you unfortunately don't get that trademarked Connery type voice as you never hear his own voice in the movie. I don't know who post-dubbed Neil's lines, but the lack of even a fake scottish accent disappointed me. Another sign of a poor post-production is some VERY ugly sound cuts, not even bothering to at least fade or overlap the sound at some points. The movie has sudden jumps of complete silence between scenes and it is painfully obvious.

Plot Wise you get pretty much what you would expect from a James Bond type-movie. It is over-the-top with some weird gadgets and one of the main characters abilities is to hypnotize. It's an interesting spin on the super spy ideal, though I will point out that the character of Neil Connery is very much a Mary Sue (or, well, Marty Stu since the character is male), a character that is way too perfect to be true and feels like a confidence-boosting self-insert, created for wish fulfillment if you will. On that note, Neil Connery is not much of an actor, however not to a degree that it takes away from the experience and seeing the other Bond actors there makes up for in that they at least have talent enough to make it entertaining. 

If you wanted another Connery-era type Bond movie, this is the next best thing. Defying the lack of substance by, at least being a curious bit of history and by not relying too hard on the action like later Connery movies would end up doing. If you can track this down, I recommend giving it a watch if curious.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Film: The Man Who Knew Too Much
Release: 1956, Theatrical
Starring: James Stewart, Doris Day, Daniel Gélin
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: A small American family from Indianapolis is visiting Marrekesh, Morocco. By chance, they are thrown into international political intrigue, a kidnapping, and the knowledge to stop a murder.

Hans' thoughts:  

When you first watch this movie, it seems like a typical Hitchcock movie - A small unassuming family is vacationing in Morocco. Everything seems fairly simple - if a bit slow. However, do not get disheartened, because while the first part of the movie is slow - probably for the sake of character development, Everything suddenly picks up when our main character Doctor McKennan is relied the details of an international murder plot. Thus becoming, you guessed it, The Man Who Knew Too Much!  

This movie is actually quite suspenseful, although it knows when it needs to give the audience a break to catch their breaths. Littered with small humorous moments and red herrings to keep you guessing. On the road we learn more about our characters, as they at the same time might just learn a little about themselves. Our main character, played by James Stewart, starts out as an unassuming naive everyday man. He's on vacation, so he's more trustful than he would've been at home. Taking his wife's worries at a distance, reassuring her at every turn. At the same time, when the movie starts becoming more about the mystery he tries to deal with everything himself. Even keeping his wife out of the loop. Unfortunately, Stewart seems to be playing the same character he's played in other Hitchcock movies, which is becoming sort of Old Hat for me by now. He's good at what he's doing, but he seems very typecast. I miss energy in his performance. He was way too laid back, his eyes seeming empty in some scenes.

The wife is a famous singer, fittingly played by the real-life singer Doris Day. This incidentally is the movie where she sang the hit song: Que Sera, Sera (Whatever will be, will be) that won an Oscar for Best Original Song in 1957. The song is introduced in the beginning of the movie and returns later as a nice little break from the drama. She's also surprisingly good at acting, carrying one or two scenes in stride.

I'd like to tell you that the movie follows fit with being just as good as the song. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have a lot of really nice twists, some funny moments, good musical arrangement and a few imaginative shots. Unfortunately, it just seems like this movie wasn't made with as much care as others. Falling just short of being great. I'd say my feelings about this movie are lukewarm at best, though I do not hate it or dislike it, it just didn't do anything for me. I miss some information from the main plot, why did they want this man killed? Who were they? Information was sparse at best. The movies representation of law enforcement officials weren't exactly flattering either, making them seem like someone that just stands in the corner, gently nudging the bad guys to stop what they're doing and giving up at the first bump on the road.

So yeah, this is one of those movies that will entertain you while you're watching it, but when you start thinking about it you start finding a lot of problems with it. So is it good? Well, considering it drives your suspension of disbelief enough to make you oversee all the problems, I'd say it does it's job. Which is all anyone can ask for.

Korkusuz (1986)

Film: Korkusuz
Alternate title(s): Rampage, Turkish Rambo
Release: 1986, theatrical
Starring: Serdar Kebapçilar, Hüseyin Peyda, Sümer Tilmaç
Directed by: Çetin Inanç
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When a wealthy businessman is captured by a gang of mountain bandits, the only one that can save the day is the war veteran Serdar - His only goal, to live honorably!

Hans' thoughts:

Sometimes, a movie comes along that is just so crazy that it's really hard for me not to have at least a slimmer of affection for it. No matter how absolutely ridiculously bad it is. This is such a movie.

This movie is actually harder to describe than I thought it would be, In essence it's a pretty blatant rip-off of the Rambo movies but with a original plot. Serdar is some kind of commando/war veteran that gets blamed for the kidnapping of a wealthy businessman. He's sent to jail, and makes a deal with his cellmates to help break them out if he can join the mountain bandits that did the kidnapping in the first place. Throughout the movie, Serdar himself doesn't really speak a lot of dialogue. Instead he just stares at the camera. 

Had this been a better movie, less would have been more. Serdar is obviously not all that good an actor - this is visible even through the dub. Making him be mostly silent could have been a very good choice. Unfortunately, the camera work of the movie is just not strong enough to convey what the actor can't so instead the characters motivation become sort of vague. Why is he doing this? Why is he doing that? I found myself getting kind of distracted by looking around the room to pass the time because I barely understood any of what was going on, on screen.

While the other characters motivations are definitely clear, their actual personalities are barely existent. This is a shame because some of these actors seem like they could have done a very good job with a better script. Instead the villains are dimensionless and the heroes are kind of, wooden. A lot of the henchmen also do a lot of laughing for no apparent reason. The movie seems to try and set up Serdar as this patriotic, family oriented hero. At one point he saves a family from a gang of mountain bandits and while it could have been a very fun little scene, it feels kind of forced.

As for the actual action, it is what you would expect from a low budget production. The weapons act kind of off, although the explosion work is actually pretty good. Unfortunately, the main source of action in this movie is hand-to-hand combat. The hand-to-hand combat in this movie is one of the most ridiculously over-the-top spectacles I have seen on screen for quite a while. I've seen student projects with more believable combat than what this movie provides. On top of that, the stage falls have this kind of unprofessional delay, sometimes with a whole second after the cause between the falls. Indeed, even the death-scenes are kind of awkward, as the actors in question seem like they tried to make their falls as comfortable as possible, or are just careful not to damage equipment. An old man in this movie clearly puts his walkietalkie neatly to the side before lying his head down on the ground, dead. 

Speaking of the walkies, if you're going to use toy-walkies for your movie, here's a hint: Do not zoom in on the logo saying "Junior". The walkies even looked very believable, so the choice to zoom in on them just baffles me. I have to say though, props for sticking to your guns and straight up roll with it. I'm guessing the budget was the cause of using children's toys, but other film makers had tried to hide that fact as to not kill the audiences suspension of disbelief.

All in all, this movie was a neat little piece of history, a testament to how utterly strange the world is sometimes. I have to say though, this DVD will most like not be seen again in my household for quite a while. Until such a time comes, it will sit on my shelf as a fun little oddity alongside Reptilicus. I'm not saying that I regret I saw it, I probably just won't revisit it.

Argo (2012)

Film: Argo
Alternate title: Operation Argo
Release: 2012, theatrical
Starring: Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin
Directed by: Ben Affleck
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When revolution stirs up in Iran, CIA and Canada conducts a fake film project to extract endangered American diplomats from the country

Hans' thoughts:

One of the dangers of adapting real stories for the screen is making one side look cartoonishly evil. Fortunately, just like the real world this movie is a lot of very grey areas. While the Iran government is still set up somewhat as the "bad guys" the movie constantly reminds you that America started the whole debacle themselves. The movie doesn't seem like it wants to show some kind of political agenda, rather it just tells what is a very good story. This movie is very straightforward in that aspect "here's what happened, with a bit of sprinkles to make it interesting" much in the same vein as Zero Dark Thirty from the same year. The most entertaining part of the movie is the middle part, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin almost paying tribute to The Producers in their performance. Especially Arkin is very fun to watch. However, they manage to lighten up their part of the movie without belittling the situation the movie is depicting. The climax is also very suspenseful and I was at the edge of my seat for most of it. I have to say, while Affleck may not be the most animated of actors, he definitely has his place in the directors chair.