An excellent movie, although I did not know the events of the storming of the American embassy in Iran, but the story of the film was very interesting and the level of representation in the film was excellent, the film made me on the edge of the chair of suspense I highly recommend watching it
Add a Review
-
jonathan_lee1269 October 2012Honestly, I came into this movie with so-so expectations as the trailer I saw in a different movie made me give myself a 50% chance to watch it, up in the air if you will. But from the moment the movie began up until the end, I was gripping for the characters the whole way, the way movies should be.
The opening of the movie played a huge part in setting the tone of the rest of the film. As I had no history or prior knowledge to the events that transpired in Iran in the 1980s, the brief amount of a history lesson was just enough to maintain my interest. Throughout the film, there are times when I might have started to wander through long bouts of dialog, but witty comments by the characters kept me entertained. By the time the climax was about to hit, I was sitting on the edge of my seat, biting at my fingers, awaiting their next move.
Well done Ben, well done. -
gregsrants9 September 2012No movie being showcased by this year's Toronto International Film Festival caught our interest as much as Ben Affleck's directorial follow up to The Town. Argo, based on a true story and starring Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman and Adam Arkin, tells the astonishingly true story of how a CIA exfiltration specialist attempts to free six Americans who have taken shelter in the home of the Canadian Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. The story opens on November 4, 1979 when Islamist militants took control of the U.S. Embassy in Iran. 52 Americans were taken hostage and held for 444 days until their eventual release. But six American's were able to sneak out of the Embassy and find refuge unbeknownst to the Iranian rebels. The CIA, lead by agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) hatched a plan to rescue the house entrapped Americans by posing as producers of a fictional science fiction film. The idea was that Mendez would land in Iran and then convince the six Americans to assume roles as screenwriters, directors and co-producers of the film and they would all fly out of the country together once location scouting was complete in 48 hours. In an effort to have the mission legitimized, Mendez recruited Hollywood producer Lester Siegel and Special Effects man John Chambers to green-light the script and give the entire project credibility. If the entire notion of the plan sounds like something that only Hollywood could come up with well, you're half right. But Affleck sticks to the facts of the true events and ravels a bite-your-nails type thriller that is guaranteed to be rewarded with year-end nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and most certainly Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin. Every note, every frame of Argo looks authentic. Affleck, who received incredible support for his last directorial effort, The Town, ups the ante and films Argo with the confidence of a maestro at the top of his game. The movie shifts between locations of Iran, Hollywood and both the CIA Headquarters and even the White House in this brilliantly crafted adventure. Each scene and character oozes with atmosphere and purpose and Affleck confidently and flawlessly directs himself as the expected hero of the film a man who risks his own life and career for the lives of six strangers. Towards the concluding chapters of the film, audiences are sure to be on the edge of their seats even if they are aware of the historically recorded outcome (shades of Apollo 13). Once the rescue attempt his its apex, the audience at the Toronto screening erupted in an applause never before experienced by this reviewer in his thousands of theatrical screenings. That reaction is a testament to Affleck's direction that grabbed audiences by the emotional drawstrings keeping us involved in our character's fates and caring for their safe return. Argo is not only an important piece of history that many of us were completely oblivious but it is also one of the better films of this or the past few years.
-
cheche112 October 2012This is a great movie. The story, acting, pacing, editing, etc. was just fantastic. Affleck's directing was solid, and the suspense will keep you entertained right through to the last seconds. I loved it.
It did have one irritating thing, though, kind of a big one. It pointed most of the accolades to Affleck's character and the CIA. This really was not true. It was Ken Taylor and the Canadians who really pulled 'the Canadian Caper' off so successfully.
"When Taylor heard a few years ago that Mendez had sold movie rights to his book (which, to be fair, is much more generous than the movie about Canada's role), "I said, 'Well, that's going to be interesting.'...."The movie's fun, it's thrilling, it's pertinent, it's timely," he said. "But look, Canada was not merely standing around watching events take place. The CIA was a junior partner."
"The old postscript sent the message that, for political reasons, Canada took the credit. A sarcastic kicker noted that Taylor received 112 citations. The clear implication was that he did not deserve them."(Sept/Oct., 2012, thestar.com)".
So the USA does another revision on history here. I believe 'Argo' goes this far. Yes, it's based on a true story - the movie does it's best to allude that it sticks to technical accuracy. And it really does, in some ways. Historical pictures of flag burners, rioters, gate climbers, etc.. up against Argo film stills run by during the credits make it seem that the facts were adhered to down to the tiniest detail. In reality, it wasn't Tony Mendez or the CIA who were responsible for the success of this operation; actually they were barely there.
Since the movie premiered, Ben Affleck has added emphasis on the movie postscripts since then that gives kudos to the Canadians' role. This was after Ken Taylor politely complained, as a Canadian would tactfully do. But Affleck did this only after pressure from Taylor himself.
I can understand the need to spice up events to make them as exciting and entertaining as possible, don't get me wrong. But this film needs to let the audience know that more explicitly than it does, even after the changed postscripts.
Still, a really entertaining and riveting film, very well done, and easily worth seeing. As a matter of fact, don't miss it. -
bkoganbing27 March 2013Ben Affleck who originally got acclaim for his collaboration with best bud Matt Damon on Good Will Hunting, went out gloriously alone and came back with a Best Picture Oscar for Argo, the story of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated in the last century or even in the short time this century has been around. I'm sure Matt Damon would love to have had a piece of this one.
Based on writings of CIA operative Tony Mendez who engineered the escape of six American diplomats who were lucky enough to get out of Iran during the Ayatollah Khomeini craziness during the Iran hostage crisis, Affleck who sports a heavy beard that makes him totally unrecognizable as Affleck, but no doubt Mendez had such a growth. Only the voice lets you know from time to time that it is Affleck.
Our protagonist has a history of pulling off good intelligence coups and he's given an assignment by his superiors. When they learn that the American diplomats are hiding at the Canadian ambassador's home he has to devise a scheme to get them out. He's one of several people put on this problem. His solution is to appeal to the Iranian's sense of celebrity. Affleck creates the cover story of a movie being shot in Iran, a science fiction spectacular like Star Wars and these folks were there scouting locations in the desert. Hollywood contacts John Goodman and Alan Arkin were most helpful, their sense of Hollywood hyperbole comes in handy. In fact both make several jokes about the movie capital. Arkin got a Best Supporting Actor nomination.
Of course we know what happened. I remember the news breaking that the Canadians had gotten these diplomats out who should have been hostages along with the others. The Iranians huffed and puffed and vowed divine retribution on Canada for aiding the Great Satan. It all came to naught however.
Argo which is the title of the pretend science fiction epic so far represents the summit of Ben Affleck's career. Why he did not get nominated for Best Actor and Director is quite beyond me if the Academy thought the film that good. Now that the story is declassified we now see that the CIA can occasionally get it right. -
rgblakey12 October 2012After years of being one of those actors that was hit and miss with people, who would have thought he would become one of the most sought after great directors in the industry. After his last film The Town received so much acclaim and award nominations everyone was wondering if it was just a fluke. His latest film Argo takes on the actual events during the Iran Hostage Crisis finds him once again taking on double duties with directing and starring, but can he bring these events to life and create another great film along with it?
Argo follows the unbelievable true story of six Americans that have found shelter with the Canadian ambassador in Iran when the revolution reaches a boiling point. The CIA works alongside some heavy hitters in Hollywood to create a fake film production to concoct a risky plan to try and get them out of the country. For a movie that focuses on a situation that was so dire and heavy, this film comes off a bit lighter than expected. Ben Affleck has crafted a brilliantly entertaining film on numerous levels. The story alone is intriguing watching their unbelievable plan come to life. During this time of the film it delivers some really funny moments, without falling to far off track and confusing the kind of film this is. The acting here is top notch with everyone involved, including Affleck himself delivering some awesome performances. The dynamic between Affleck and Breaking Bad star Bryan Cranston is perfect creating a duo that both entertain as well as keep this story on track. The biggest treat in this film are brilliant and a lot of time funny performances from John Goodman and Alan Arkin. These guys really bring all the Hollywood aspect to the film to life while delivering Oscar worthy performances that will hopefully be recognized. The gritty look to this film really helps to capture the vibe and tone of the film while combined with the attention to detail, helps take you into the time period it takes place.
Brilliant directing, acting, story and some fun sci-fi references throughout takes Argo into the realm of one of the best films to come along in some time. Affleck proves once again of his talent as a director and that The Town was no fluke. This is a must see film that will no doubt be all-the buzz when award season comes around and deserves every bit of it. -
The film starts with the title card "Based on a True Story". Yes, you can base a film on a true story and then fictionalize parts of it. But it is another thing to add way too many obvious tension-building fabrications to suggest that their escape was inches away from doom. Aside from these implausibilities within the manipulative plot, this movie jumps with energy by wise dialogue and quick pacing.
Many things are done with assured direction that is easy to see why it was nominated for many Academy Awards. There is sharp exchanges between government entities. Using the "E.R." template, all these conversations take place in motion while the characters are en route to somebody's office or some other place. This type of staging is effective in propelling this risky drama in the backdrop of the hate-fueled protests in Iran in the late 1970s. I also enjoyed the tension-filled early technology, when a phone was still leashed to a wall inside a room.
But these spoilers had me groaning
I wonder if the potential hostages had to really parade themselves through a busy marketplace as part of their disguise. I really wish it was true that the CIA pulled the plug by deliberately removing the flight reservations (why??), and leave a CIA operative stuck in Iran empty-handed. I really wish it was true that the housekeeper of the Canadian embassy was interrogated as the Americans were heading to the airport. Or that one of the dozens of students piecing together shredded photos recognised one of the Americans as they were boarding the airplane. Or that police vehicles were chasing down the 747 as it was lifting off.
.End Spoilers
I really wish it was true that this winner of Best Picture earned it's stripes by the authenticity of this caper, based on a true story. But of course the intricate details of the event will not be available to the public to verify. I think Ben Affleck has a great sense of pace and intelligence, but I was feeling a little too manipulated in order milk the tension to the level of disbelief. -
kgmarra13 October 2012Ben Affleck directs and stars in the newest political thriller, "Argo". It is filled with A-list actors such as Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Victor Garber, and Bryan Cranston who each contribute to this incredibly moving film, which is based on a declassified true story.
It takes place during the Iranian revolution of 1979 and 1980 in Tehran. More than sixty Americans from the US embassy were held as hostages, but six of them escaped and were hiding out in the home of the Canadian ambassador (Garber). Tony Mendez (Affleck), a CIA extraction specialist, came along to concoct a plan to rescue these six Americans.
After speaking to his son while watching a movie one night, Mendez had a creative yet genius idea. He and the escaped hostages would pretend to be the film crew of a new sci-fi movie called "Argo". With the help of Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers (Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Arkin), this fake crew made their story quite credible.
Ben Affleck did a spectacular job directing this film, which pretty faithfully follows such an unbelievable story. Every actor is convincing as his/her character and the cast was impeccably chosen. Make sure you stay in the theater to watch the credits. You'll see some real photographs and clips that mirror Affleck's film and actors.
"Argo" is basically only rated R for language, making it appropriate for most teens, in my opinion. I definitely recommend this film to everyone, whether you're an adult who remembers watching this on TV or you're a kid who doesn't know anything about politics. It is extremely dramatic, exciting, and heart wrenching, but also hilarious on many occasions. When the movie ends, the entire audience applauds and cheers. It's an amazing story that deserves to be heard.
I give "Argo" a 10 out of 10. I have no complaints. -
siddharthksuri16 May 2018This is not the first movie, that attempts to commemorate America's "National treasure"s , but perhaps the winner amongst losers for the most implausible and condemnable pontifications of American greatness.
The Plot ? Don't worry this is not a spoiler, in fact it's history.
In 1979, Iranian Revolutionary Militia ran over the US Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 50 hostages.
The hostages were to be freed in return, for extradition of the former Shah , a violent dictator and Saddam Hussain's brother from an american mother.
"the hostage-taking was seen (by America) as an outrage violating a centuries-old principle of international law granting diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds' inviolability."
Jullian Assange may have cracked a smile.
Plot and history are as connected as marble rolling inside a matchbox.
The narration conveniently omits significant events in the timeline in order twist one of America's biggest international embarrassments into a story of triumph and righteousness.
While 50 hostages were kept at gunpoint, 6 US nationals manage to escape the scene only to be holed up inside the Canadian ambassadors residence.
So the plot my dear, is how a lone CIA agent manages to rescue these 6 people, against all odds, while simultaneously risking the lives of the remaining 50 hostages, and stealing from the noble nation of Canada the credit that they rightly deserved for their assistance during this crisis.
Argo is not a shabby movie, it's just winner's history. Luckily you can Wiki-search for another version of events. Julian Assange wouldn't mind the irony.
The actual story is touching. The characterization is strong, as are the screenplay & production values. If Argo was isolated from the of actual historical events it is based on, it might just make a compelling spy-flick.
But does it deserve a watch ? Ar-go-f#$#-yourself. -
Michael_Elliott9 November 2012Argo (2012)
**** (out of 4)
Excellent thriller based around the secret CIA mission to try and rescue six Americans hiding out in Iran shortly after the hostage crisis broke out. CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) decides to hatch a plot to make a fake movie and get the six out. It's only early November as I write this but I'm going to make a bold prediction that ARGO hears its name called out quite a few times come Oscar night. Director Affleck has once again created an incredibly well-made, incredibly tense and downright entertaining thriller that works on all levels and really comes across as something special. We've seen hostage movies before and we've seen political movies before but there's never been anything quite like ARGO. Thank God it's based on a true story or else who would believe this story? The secret mission of the CIA is just so incredible that it has to be true and using the Hollywood backdrop just makes for some pretty fun scenes and especially when you know a couple of the names like Oscar-winner John Chambers. The actual look of the film is quite striking as you certainly feel as if you're in the middle of the 1979-80 time period. Affleck has a great eye for the style of the picture and the cross between the 2.35:1 aspect ratio and some of 8 and 16mm footage. The performances are also another major plus with Affleck, Alan Arkin, John Goodman and Bryan Cranston all doing terrific work. Each and every actor no matter how small or major their part really comes across terrific and this helps brings so much credit to the story. I'm certainly not going to ruin the final thirty-minutes but they'll have you on the edge of your seat the entire time. After GONE BABY GONE and THE TOWN, Affleck had certainly put his name on the map for young directors and now ARGO just takes that to a new level. This here is certainly one of the best movies of the year and one of the smartest and most intelligent thrillers in a very long time. -
I finally got to see this film when it came out on DVD. And my question, having done so, is: just what is all the fuss about?
I was still a callow youth when the actual events on which the movie is supposedly based happened, but I remember feeling really sorry for those taken hostage. But that's the problem with this film. I really didn't feel any connection at all with the 6 people shown being hidden in Iran by the Canadians, before being taken out under fake identities. The scene on the Swissair flight when it becomes clear they have actually got out is nice, but no more.
Most objectionable is the politics, with American heroism and ingenuity being talked up, the role of the Canadians being reduced to a supporting act, and the British, who also helped, not being mentioned at all.
There are some plus points. The acting is mostly good. The climactic scene as the Iranian authorities chase a jumbo jet along the runway at Tehran airport is fictitious and implausible, but exciting all the same. The music is effective.
When all's said and done, though, the film just doesn't deserve the awards it won– but, to be fair, I wouldn't give it any Razzies either.
Rating: 6/10 -
Pycs12 October 2012'Argo' presents maybe the greatest, if not the most absurd, account of American foreign policy espionage widely unbeknownst to the greater majority. The story, which falls perfectly into the category of you-can't-make-this-kind-of-thing-up, is based upon Tony Mendez's rescue of six isolated US diplomats out of Iran, during the time of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, through the means of creating a fake film production as cover.
Director Ben Affleck proves here just how incredibly mature and restrained a filmmaker he's become, molding what is inherently a political story, yet wisely setting aside the politics. He masterfully handles the changes in tone very fluidly, from one moment being edge of your seat tension, to the next of inspired comic relief. It brings back memories of 70's thrillers, when craft and entertaining went together hand-in-hand.
The cast of veteran character-actors is worth the price of admission alone. Nearly every speaking role is occupied by a recognizable face, with the likes of Philip Baker Hall, Bob Gunton, Michael Parks, Kyle Chandler, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and more. This is easily the best cast of 2012 and, better yet, they all brought out there A game.
'Argo' is not a film to miss, its subject matter being more relevant than ever and will be a major contender come award season (and deservedly so.)
9/10 -Pycs -
asc8515 October 2012In general, I liked this film, as well as the other films that Affleck directed - Gone Baby Gone, and The Town. The problem at this point with Affleck is that his films start out very strong, but like a Grisham, novel, he has problems closing them.
The opening of the film, which purports to show the storming of the American Embassy in Iran is amazing, and sets the tense tone of the picture. The rescue, back story, etc. are all amazing, and I can see why this became such a hot project to be attached to.
My problem with this movie is the ending. Now I know that they are saying that this movie is "based" on a true event, rather than the actual event. So that gives them some poetic license. But in this movie, their escape onto the plane is literally seconds away from being blown in multiple instances, and I'm sure while this escape was daring, stressful, etc., I'm sure it wasn't this razor-tight. For me, even if boarding the plane was more uneventful than shown, I still would have liked it, and probably thought it was more faithful to what really occurred. I didn't need to be hit over the head on how dangerous this operation was, and how courageous all the operatives were to get this done. -
jamesthealchemist26 January 2013I am severely disappointed in this film for the main reason that we see US movie makers twisting the truth so that they come out looking like heroes. And I am not alone in this. The UK and French governments were quite rightly upset by the movie saying that their embassies had refused to help out the Americans in trouble. The UK embassy took the refugees in at great risk and kept them there until the Iranian guard was getting suspicious. Ben Affleck claims he had the refugees refused because he wanted them to appear to be isolated would be funny if it wasn't so clear that he actually wanted it to be the US who really saved them. At least the movie makers did have the Canadian embassy involved as it had been at the time. The movie should have said at the start that the facts had been changed in the name of drama. Movie makers have a responsibility when making movies based on the truth to let people know what really occurred. When they don't they are actually guilty of trying to change history and worse people believe what they see on the screen. And lastly seeing the guards at the airport chasing the jet in order to try and stop it was absurd. Why didn't they simply shoot at it or have the Iranian air-force force the jet to land. A joke of a movie so far removed from what actually happened and to say its 'based on the truth' really shows just how far the truth gets abused.
-
CalRhys24 February 2013Argo is the political thriller based on the 1979 Iranian hostage situation in which 6 Americans were left to fend for themselves in the centre of Tehran. CIA Operative Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck) is sent into Iran to evacuate the Americans out safely under the cover of being a film production crew working on a picture called 'Argo'.
The film is absolutely amazing and definitely one of the best films I've seen in a long time, throughout 2012 and 2013 so far we have been treated with some great films such as Skyfall, Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty and more, but in my own personal opinion Argo takes the bait as the best of them all. Proof is present as it won 3 BAFTA's for best picture, best director and best editing, also nominated for a further 8 Oscars in 85th Academy Awards.
The film is packed with a sense of threat, peril and intensity all portrayed exceptionally well through the ensemble cast including Ben Affleck (The Town), John Goodman (Big Lebowski), Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), Alan Arkin (Edward Scissorhands) and Victor Garber (Titanic). The ending is by far the most intense ending I have seen in a long time, visually presented in such an astounding way.
Director Ben Affleck started out his auteur career after his directional debut Gone Baby Gone became critically acclaimed, three years later The Town came out with an Oscar nomination. Now 2 years on we have Argo, Affleck's best film by far. -
PWNYCNY16 October 2012This is a good movie which probably would have been an even better movie if the story had been based on actual facts. The operation to smuggle out the six Americans was primarily a Canadian, not American, action and the lead hero was the Canadian ambassador who protected the Americans and then arranged for them to leave the country. This is not to say that the United States had no role, because it did, but contrary to the movie, it were the Canadians who took the lead. Also, the fact that the American official sent to escort the Americans was Hispanic is not even mentioned, which would have added another dimension to the story. The movie also demonizes the Iranians who are portrayed as little more than uncontrollable rabble, when in fact, what happened in 1979 was the culmination of a long series of grievances harbored by many Iranians against the United States. This does not mean that the Iranians should be excused for what they did when they stormed the embassy, which was a blatant violation of international law governing the protection of embassies, and for which the Iranian government must be held to account, but their actions must be examined within a larger historical and political context, something which the movie to its credit alludes to, but does not incorporate more fully into the story. Ben Affleck gives an excellent performance as the CIA person and the story moves forward at a brisk pace with a lot of tension and excitement; it's a good movie. But it's not a documentary.
-
macktan89412 October 2012Ben Affleck continues hitting them out of the park. Based on a true story, Argo re-enacts the events that freed American foreign service employees from their hideout in the Canadian Embassy. The setup involves Affleck's character, Mendes, putting together the cover story of a Canadian film crew scouting locations in the Mideast for a sci-fi movie. Alan Arkin & John Goodman are hilarious as Hollywood hotshots producing this surefire scifi hit. The process follows Mendes as he enters Iran and has to BS his way to some skeptical and hostile Iranian theocrats who almost don't know how to respond to the possibility of a scifi movie set in Iran. Mendes must also deal with frightened and reluctant Americans who are being forced out in the open to pose as a movie crew. Affleck does a good job of injecting suspense and dread all through this section.
But the real nail biter is their exit from Iran. As in other movies of this ilk, the chase heats up with the Iranians on the heels of the Americans. Affleck throws into this chase a huge boulder of an obstacle when President Carter pulls the plug on the film crew ex-filtration & decides to go with Delta soldiers instead. If you want to know what happens, I advise you to see the movie or read the news accounts.
This just goes to show you that not all CIA covert actions are led by armed fighters like Jason Bourne and launched by the Treadstone department. Affleck's character doesn't even carry a gun--he carries a script instead. -
rmax3048237 September 2013It's an important movie because the incident that began this whole Middle East muddle in which we now find ourselves -- let's think of it as the index incident -- is fast disappearing down the memory hole. The Iranian takeover of the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979 is as remote from younger Iranis as the Vietnam war is to our college students. It's something they read about in history books. The mutual enmity has become functionally autonomous; it's an ongoing thing and now feels as if it's always been there.
So it's important if only for its educational value. It's also a suspenseful story in itself. While the enraged Iranis storm the American embassy and occupy it, six of the staff escape out the back door and are finally given safe quarters in the house of the Canadian ambassador, while the rest of the staff are not so lucky. No one has any idea of what will happen to the six escapees. They could be caught and murdered momentarily. And they have no way of getting out of the country.
Enter Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez, intrepid agent of the CIA, whose book this screenplay is based on, alas. I hope no one expects a personal memoir by a CIA hero to reflect any characterological weaknesses such as self doubt or vanity or hesitancy or fear. Affleck is grimly determined throughout, despite the company's attempts to shut the operation down. "I will get you out. That's what I do," he tells his terrified wards repeatedly. The outrageous plan is to give the six Americans new identities as location scouts for a film company.
The script, and Affleck's performance, turns Mendez into a cipher. He seems to have only one trait -- that obsession to get them out. But then the script doesn't give any of the six hostages any personality either. They each have one trait, if that many, and are otherwise impossible to distinguish from one another. Well, that's not entirely true, because you can tell the men from the women.
The story itself is intrinsically strong. The problems of getting a new identity and fooling the house-to-house Irani searchers at the airport, are spelled out in a jumbled kind of way. But Affleck, the director, and his cameraman seem to have caught some sort of palsy that has been endemic in Hollywood for the last decade or more.
The hand-held camera is hardly ever still. The cuts come quickly, one upon the other. There are swish pans, wobbles, innumerable close ups of static faces where there need be no close ups at all. That's during the contemplative periods. During the action scenes, forget it -- a kaleidoscope of flashing images. As a result, the movie has taken on some of the visual qualities of a rock video, or a TV commercial for pimple cream, exercycles, or SUVs with Ma Deuces on top. ZOOM, BANG, Ooops, pardon me! The stylistic quirks juice up a story that needs no more juice than it already has. A suspense thriller doesn't need to convince us that it's supposed to be thrilling. I mean, cf., "All The President's Men", and count the close ups and wobbles.
But the directorial and editing style may just be trying to keep pace with the headlong layout of exposition. A brief but very valuable and dispassionate historical introduction is quickly tossed aside in favor of in favor of shots in which some Suit rushes into an office somewhere, grabs a phone and shouts, "WHAT? They can't DO that!" And I couldn't tell who "they" were or what they weren't supposed to do.
Except for Affleck's robotic honcho, the performances are okay, and some are better than that. Thank God for Alan Arkin and John Goodman, who inject a necessary dose of humor and cynicism into the movie. Even without them, the movie would have been better than the average junk pouring out of the studios, if only because of its political and historical significance. Yet, I'm getting awfully tired of being yanked by the ear from one place to another. Why don't "they" take a breather and watch "Lawrence of Arabia" again? -
nithubp9 January 2022Huh watching movie is a serious business. Felt like there is any acting ?so natural and So well done. The locations, ppl, chaos was just perfect. The movie takes on a ride, u will be with them throughout the take off of the flight ! Board the flight with them.
-
drakula200516 January 2013This review may be coming a little bit late, considering i saw the movie back in November, but i wanted to check one or two things before i write it.I wanted to see whether or not the movie will receive any Academy awards buzz from the the Golden Globes and the various Guild awards.I wanted to wait, because i could not believe the hype surrounding it.I saw it, and i was not that impressed at all.So after some amount of time has passed and the seven Academy nominations have been announced, i thought it was time for a second viewing, in order to try and change my mind about the movie, but-no.
First of all, i enjoyed Gone Baby Gone and The Town of Affleck's repertoire much more than i did with Argo.I would even recommend Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow's recent take on historical events, that are important to American society)ahead of Argo.That being said, Affleck's based-on-true-story-sci-fi-flick has it's strenghts.
The fact that the movie is solid enough and that a thorough enough background-check on the events depicted in it, are made, admittedly do the movie some justice.It's well and accurately written, but a nomination is as far as it can stretch itself.Never mind the fact that Affleck is still weaker in front of the camera, than he is behind it, this is clearly visible.One might even wonder how he has that experience as an actor and as a director and be so far ahead with the material when at the helm of a movie.
So, the era is accurately depicted, even the jokes, sets, clothing, music-all fits the bill, although Led Zeppelin's When the Levee Breaks is probably 10-12 years earlier, thus not from this period.But i'm willing to close my eyes on this one, considering the love i have towards Plant&co.On that subject, Aerosmith and Dream On were more accurately chosen, although only for the trailer.
The technical part of the movie was almost excellent, i mean there isn't any breakout aspect to put in the running for some awards (although some people obviously think there is), all in all everything was good enough.Maybe only William Goldenberg can get a nod over the others, but he'll have stiff competition from his other movie, Zero Dark Thirty and himself.As this is pretty evident by now, he has two nominations in one category for two different movies.So, it will be pretty interesting to see which movie do the critics hold in higher regard-this category will tell.For me, that should be "Zero".
So, technically good, historically accurate, even a little tense, so what's the matter, you might ask.Very simple.Contrary to popular belief, that has been planted in most people's minds, there actually was no acting in this movie.Not a single part was properly played by nobody, including you, Mr. Arkin.I can't understand where did this nomination come from, but in my eyes it is totally undeserved.Arkin and Goodman were of course fine, fun to watch, but the parts they played, others have played so long ago and to a better extend.When we start off with Sunset Blvd. and stop at present-day Hank Moody, there are people much more prepared to the challenges of playing a movie guy.Arkin was fine, but for 10 minutes of screen time you just can't receive that kind of reception and you just can't make this big of an impact.It is not normal.Not that they are, those awards and guild-members.
So, if i have to sum it up in a nutshell-the screenplay was good enough, the directing was decent as well, the acting was stiff at best (i'm looking at you, Ben), the era was pretty impressively(although inaccurately story-wise) depicted (still looking at you, Ben), the technical part was top-notch (William Goldberg), but all in all this does not make up for the "masterpiece" many of you claimed it to be.
If i had to recommend it, i would, simply because of it's must-see- based-on-true-story(although if we have to go there, discussing how accurate it really is, we'd be in for a long night) factor.But, as i said earlier, i'm not that impressed and there is nothing all that much to be impressed with.And Best Picture?No way!!
My rate: 6.5/10 -
billygoat107119 October 2012We already know that Ben Affleck is better as a director than an actor. He tells a story uniquely with his own cinematic art and style. In Argo, this is a new challenge for him. Making a large and historical drama thriller. Argo is based on a declassified true story about Tony Mendez rescuing six US diplomats from Iran. The movie depicts the story in a much suspenseful way. Affleck's directing talent shines once again with modern and old Hollywood vibe. The film is both dark and light, funny and thrilling. Argo is undeniably entertaining, compelling, and exciting.
Firstly the performances, Bryan Cranston did what he does best. John Goodman and Alan Arkin are the delight and the comic relief of the film. Ben Affleck portrays Tony Mendez pretty well. He gave enough depth to the role. Now as a director, you may notice his trademarks(Though, it's not set in Boston and there were no masked criminals). He brings his style of suspense to the picture. The storytelling is not only straightforward, but it also builds the tension starting by exploring what's going on until it proceeds to the next action. It never stops being gripping.
What's impressive is it can balance its various tones decently without being a mess. Outside the storytelling is a solid craft. The film looks credibly retro. They obviously wanted to make everything look the same to the real life story. The production design really captures the eighties like their vehicles, clothes, and the awesome mustache and beard. The camera is shaky which larges the scale and makes the absurd climax exciting.
Argo is sensational as a film directed by Ben Affleck. It provides great suspense, drama, and humor which made itself so remarkably charming. This film proves that Affleck can make bigger films than just Boston crime dramas. His style of bringing tension is the classy formula of the film. The rest of the filmmaking is solid. Argo is simply a classic. No matter how ridiculous the premise sounds, it's still undeniably smart and spectacular. -
nicposfuture23 March 2013The storyline itself makes for a great film if time was given to explore characters more and background more, the film hits the ground running then its given the rest of the time it has to try and elongate a very specific part of the story which culminates in a fevered 15 minute ending.
I would watch it again but not biased on the reviews that others have given it. I did not approach the film from an historical point of view only from an entertainment point. So please find that this review has no shouts of the film being racist, anti-Iranian, anti this and anti that I only wish that people reading this review do not take into account some other reviewers offering reviews biased on their political and religious opinion. Just review the chuffing film. please -
I will readily admit that I am a very critical person when it comes to movies. After all, a normal person doesn't contribute over 13800 (and counting) reviews to IMDb! However, "Argo" is an unusual film because I honestly can't think of a single negative thing to say about it! Really...it's THAT good! The film is about a joint effort by the Canadian government and the CIA to rescue a group of six Americans stranded in Iran during their revolution in 1979-80. It seems that most of the Americans in the US embassy were captured by extremists but a small group of folks escaped and sought shelter in the Canadian embassy. What happened next? See the film.
It's odd. In light of the film's greatest strength, how could the Oscar folks NOT have nominated Ben Affleck for Best Director? After all, in so many ways the film was wonderfully directed. Although I knew the fate of the six refugees, I STILL found myself reacting to the incredibly tense ending. I was actually chewing my fingernails and could feel my heart pounding. Additionally, the film was wonderful how it kept weaving the characters into a VERY complicated and wonderful story. The other unsung heroes of the film were the producers (and there were many) and makeup folks. They managed to really capture the look of the era and look of the actual characters in real life. And, finally, the script was just terrific. Overall a magnificent film--one that clearly is in the running for Best Picture this year. And, incidentally, the audience at the showing tonight broke into applause when the film ended! I can't say that it should win, as some of the films nominated are so different and I haven't yet seen them all. Heck, I'd love to see a couple take home the statuette as it's been a very good year for films.
By the way, if you are the sort to leave when the final credits roll, DON'T. Watch and see. -
Hitchcoc22 January 2013Had this movie been made twenty years from now, when facts become distorted, the people who followed the details are either dead or indifferent, and the whole thing is pretty much ancient history, this would be a great story. Just like "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is a fun movie, even if it is about ninety percent inaccurate. This is because the producers would like you to believe all of the near misses, the interventions, and so on were truly what happened. There are enough people on the internet who will happily discount them, using good evidence to do so. Now, this leads us to an interesting pass. Can we accept any historical movie as being well done when those making it didn't have the wherewithal to see the events. LIke historical fiction, as soon as we quote dialogue, we are on untrustworthy waters. However, this would dismiss many great movies. I'm afraid this one is still too fresh in our consciousness. I'm wondering if someone in 2045 will see this and comfortably absorb the "facts" as presented. Divorcing myself from reality, I can see this as a great yarn. Like "The Killing Fields" or other historical dramas where people face their mortality at every juncture, can we enjoy the very intense situations that our people have been thrown into. This is a very individual thing. I enjoyed this movie for the most part because I found the characters engaging, the "enemy" human and righteous (considering our connection to the Shah), and the situation terrifying. I expect this will get a lot of attention at awards time. I saw Jimmy Carter at Obama's second inauguration the other day. This movie must not be a pleasant experience for him because he was vilified because of his performance. Reagan was able to pick up the pieces because the Iranians had already humiliated Carter, which was part of their agenda. Watch with a grain of salt and realize this is not a documentary.
-
woodiphora9 December 2012A reasonably competent movies from a technical point of view, but in other respects very misleading.
What I liked was Ben's restrained performance as the CIA field operative, and fun to see John Goodman in a straight role, but everything else was a bit lacking. Iran is an extraordinary, culturally rich and diverse country, but it is portrayed as populated entirely by thugs and fundamentalists, with the rest of the population invisible or cowering victims. I'm not being an apologist for a state with poor human rights and a dictatorial government - but it is not what is portrayed in this movie.
The basic fact that for a short period several American consulate workers were in hiding and were flown out under fake identities is true, but a lot is missed out. They first hid in the British consulate, but were moved to Canada House on British advice (as best as I can glean from various Internet sources), and the whole operation was a joint venture between at least three countries. What we get is a 'Yankwash.'
The film-makers have said that people forget that "this is a movie", and deliberate latitude and creativity is necessary for entertainment purposes to make it watchable and engaging. Okay, so if that is the case then what is left is formulaic: bad guys do something bad - maverick individual comes up with a daring plan - plan almost fails at the last minute - car chase - everyone alright now!
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the excuses. This is a lazy way of film- making. The more accurate story could have been well told - with acceptable dramatic liberties such as condensing number of characters, timescales and even adding the (actually never happened) car-chasing-a- jumbo-jet-bit as they finally flee - without having to rewrite history t a degree that becomes offensive.
So, averagely enjoyable if it was fiction and a polished production from a acting and technical point of view, but a desperately inaccurate pastiche of what really happened - a great shame as the real story would have been just as good, if not better for being real.