Argo (Ben Affleck)

[TGM]

ARGO

Director: Ben Affleck

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/)

http://i2.cdnds.net/12/38/618x914/movies_argo_poster.jpg

[megladon8]

The "true story" was Canadians.

Seems a bit weird that it was seemingly turned into an "America! Fuck yeah!" story.

[transmogrifier]

Canada needs to make a movie where they are the first to the moon, out of revenge.

[Ezee E]

Certainly one of the best movies this year. Affleck's best by far.

[eternity]

Four stars; one for each hysterical coincidence in the third act.

[Lucky]

Pretty good. Certainly tense enough, but the hostages weren't humanized enough for there to be any substantial emotional payoff a la Apollo 13. Arkin is the standout.

Anyone else reminded of Michael Scott when they resorted to posing as an elementary school employee in order to get someone's attention?

[Boner M]

Four stars; one for each hysterical coincidence in the third act.
More like four stars, with .25 subtracted for each coinkydink.

Anyway, it was pretty entertaining if forgettable. Kinda disappointed that Affleck's films as director are getting progressively more ordinary (wish he hadn't cast himself either).

[TGM]

Anyway, it was pretty entertaining if forgettable.

Pretty much how I feel. It was definitely good, though I can't help but feel like I'll completely forget about it in a week or two.

[Watashi]

The third act of this movie is beyond terrible. The tension in this was dramatized up the whazoo.

I still think Affleck hasn't topped Gone Baby Gone.

[Robby P]

Haven't seen this yet but I was disappointed by how generic and uninteresting The Town was compared to Affleck's previous effort. The plot of Gone Baby Gone may have been ridiculously contrived but the story was at least filled with thoughtful moral ambiguity and three dimensional characters. Affleck certainly got better at filming action scenes but it came at the expense of character development and astute introspection.

[ledfloyd]

The third act of this movie is beyond terrible. The tension in this was dramatized up the whazoo.
jim emerson pretty convincingly argues (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/10/argo_a_hollywood_ending.html) that that is the point.

[Watashi]

I didn't complain that the story was historically inaccurate. That's kind of a given in favor of all "based on a true story" films. I just found the whole "it's like a Hollywood movie! See!" meta-ness kind of silly. I don't care if the tension was fabricated, just make it tense, which it never was, because it was so ridiculous.

Also, the film was super xenophobic despite the "true story" implications behind it.

[ledfloyd]

Well if the climax didn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. It worked for me, despite how ridiculous it is. Emerson pointed out that this echoes the mission itself. It also highlights the power of Hollywood while telling a story about Hollywood quite literally saving lives.

I don't think it's a masterpiece or anything, but I was thoroughly entertained and I feel like it's a shoe-in for Best Picture. The Academy loves movies about the power of movies.

[Milky Joe]

Pretty good. Certainly tense enough, but the hostages weren't humanized enough for there to be any substantial emotional payoff a la Apollo 13.

I'm not understanding the connection. There were hostages in Apollo 13?

[Winston*]

I'm not understanding the connection. There were hostages in Apollo 13?

Historical knowledge means you know from the start that both the astronauts and the hostages are going to survive.

[Milky Joe]

Ah, right. Carry on.

[Henry Gale]

I liked this, but I thought it felt a bit, I don't know, overly methodical, maybe? It's not so much as what was clearly missing as much as what was on display just didn't have that extra something to really make it click and engross me as I wanted it to. (Yet it's seemed to work just fine for so many others.) As a director, I think Affleck's style is too derivative of so many other movies like this, that it didn't have enough of its own voice in how it wanted to tell this sort of great, complicated story. But he still manages to craft a strong, tight, picture that gets across all the right story angles and its own unique Hollywood satire wedged in there all at the same time.

But if there is a slightly bigger absence, it might be that I just didn't think any of the characters were given as much weight to them as they should have to really let the real-life plot points function beyond what you could very well already know going into it. The sequences with them, from the more mundane to when their lives are on the line, just didn't emote or resonate when it came to how the film portrays them at the center of the conflict.

And Affleck gives himself the most thankless role of all. His Mendez seems purposely designed as a blank slate character for the audience to apply their own morals and foresight into him to understand his actions and state of mind. He's given enough smart dialogue to make him a strong and likable enough catalyst for the film's setpieces to move at a great pace, but his backstory basically consists of, "He's a good guy, and he has a son and wife he cares about but can't be with. So he better pull off this operation, right?"

So maybe it's just the overwhelming acclaim that raised my expectations a little too high, but I think down the line if I had all three of Affleck's films so far sitting in front of me, this would be the one I'd have the least amount of will to re-watch or have excitement to praise.

This all makes it sound like it did nothing for me. I thought it was good, I really did, but any specific aspects I might want to single out as being particularly strong, other critics and fans of the movie seem to have already shown to feel similarly, and significantly more enthusiastically. It's quite entertaining, it just left me a bit colder and with less to think about afterwards than I would've hoped it to.

*** / B

[Fezzik]

It's weird. As a film, Argo is pretty impeccably made. The attention to detail, the world it's in, the way its shot, everything...an incredibly well-made film that should get some more recognition for Affleck as a director...but thats about it.

It was tense, sure, and the supporting character actors were fine (Arkin's scene dressing down Richard Kind's screenwriter was my favorite), but despite all of that, it felt a little calculated and cold.

I don't know how much of that falls on Affleck, simply because he DID do a fine job directing this, but the material - the script - relied too much on nail-biter coincidences to ramp up the tension.

In the end, a good film, a very well made one, at that. Just not something I really want to watch again, at least not soon.

I did like the crosscutting of the actors reading the Argo script and the Iranian students reading the Ayatollah's 'press release.' A little on the nose, but well done.

I'd give this a B, maybe a B+ because of how well it was made.

[Mr. McGibblets]

Very disappointed by this. The tension didn't work not because it was a true story, but because it was all totally formulaic and the sense of danger was never created adequately. Things only ever went wrong for a few seconds at a time.

I think that making the story primarily a thriller was the wrong call. The best moments come from Goodman and Arkin when they're setting up the fake film. That's the interesting hook, people escaping with fake passports is not. Too much of the film is devoted to hitting all of the generic beats (especially the stuff with Tony's family) and not enough is given to make this a specific story.

[NickGlass]

jim emerson pretty convincingly argues (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/10/argo_a_hollywood_ending.html) that that is the point.

That's all clever and cheeky and everything, but it still exists outside of the experience of the film. Also, given the fabricated film at hand, wouldn't the climax have been a bit more campy and not just aggressive, Lumet-soaked mania?

Nonetheless, Affleck makes too many other specious, dressed-up choices in the last act of this movie (an achingly contrived arc for everyone!) to compensate for one that is ostensibly built into the story in the first place. It also leads me to further believe that Ben Affleck chose the right filmmaking material instead of the right filmmaking decisions.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment, however, was how lame the Hollywood scenes are--it's the chance for the film to have a bit of fun (with John fucking Goodman at your disposal!) and all it amounts to is a collection of quickly-spewed one liners about Hollywood being full of liars and bullshitters. Muahaha...ugh.

[number8]

The grossest historical inaccuracy in the movie is that the storyboards and production art look absolutely nothing like Jack Kirby drawings.

[number8]

Here are just some of the actual designs Kirby did for Argo back then:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JeEjJSqltz8/UH-ckalaroI/AAAAAAAAXBk/3VBnkgSch6g/s1600/Image+(9).jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8pyLpr7bnyw/UH-cjFCk99I/AAAAAAAAXBY/dzyGgVpk6y0/s1600/Image+(8).jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PqEzgpoSQqg/UH-cN_EPECI/AAAAAAAAXAI/Heub6zOdqh8/s1600/4.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l-U10JXPa6I/UH-chgVfLTI/AAAAAAAAXBQ/S2AsT8z__6Y/s1600/Image+(7).jpg

The original of that first one is now owned by Jim Lee, who had no idea of the historical significance of the drawing when he bought it at an auction, and only found out recently when he saw Argo and read more about it.

[number8]

Another related trivia: The original producer who optioned the Lord of Light novel that became Argo have been trying for years to get the movie restarted. He even asked Neil Gaiman to write the script at one point.

According to Gaiman, he's still really mad at the CIA.

[Mysterious Dude]

The grossest historical inaccuracy in the movie is that the storyboards and production art look absolutely nothing like Jack Kirby drawings.
It was also rather misleading when they showed him taking direction from Ben Affleck's character ("can it look more Middle Eastern?"). Kirby produced those drawings long before that guy came around.

[number8]

It was also rather misleading when they showed him taking direction from Ben Affleck's character ("can it look more Middle Eastern?"). Kirby produced those drawings long before that guy came around.

Well, the whole "make a fake movie" part of the film was misleading. Argo was never a fake movie the CIA put together. It was a real production that they hijacked an made unusable. Hence the producer still holding a grudge against the CIA.

In a way, I can't get that mad at Affleck. He bothered to include Kirby (I think the scene with Parks was originally longer) when if he actually told the real story, Kirby wouldn't even be in it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I thought it was pretty great. There were two close-ups that really caught my attention. One was on an ashtray bursting at the seams with cigarette butts as if Affleck was concerned the period detail wouldn't be authentic enough. And another was during the Arkin/Goodman diner sequence where we see a wall of celebrities, including Cary Grant and Burt Lancaster, but for some reason the camera seems to home in on Lee Majors, the six million dollar man. He also did The Fall Guy in the 80's in which he played stuntman Colt Seavers, a kind of employment that deals with make believe in the movies, an unsung hero. Like Tony Mendez perhaps? I'm probably reaching, but one of the last lines is telling. "An American what?"

I was also reminded of Apollo 13 when the CIA agents congratulated themselves on a job well done. Anyone else thought of the scene with C3PO in return of the jedi narrating to the Ewok population when Scoot McNairy was making blaster and spaceship noises to the national guard?

The ending on the runway was a bit overblown. I half expected Lee Marvin to start growling "Where the hell is McCoy?!" after which Chuck Norris obliterates the opposition with his missile-equipped motorcycle.

[Spinal]

Tense and engaging. I would say that the opening sequence works best. I liked the way the film uses archival footage. A few moments strained credibility and seemed a little too manipulative (the release of tickets at airport check-in, the phone call to the studio, the chase on the runway). I'm also not certain that there is a whole lot of story here. There's a set-up and a conclusion, but there isn't a whole lot in the middle. Still, the film should be commended for contextualizing Iranian anger and creating a palpable sense of tension.

[Spinal]

Just been reading up on the historical inspiration for this film. Boy, there were even more liberties taken with this story than I realized.

[Irish]

Just been reading up on the historical inspiration for this film. Boy, there were even more liberties taken with this story than I realized.

Read this.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/11/15/mark-cousins-on-argo-iran-and-formulaic-thinking/

[Spinal]

Read this.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/11/15/mark-cousins-on-argo-iran-and-formulaic-thinking/

Good stuff. I was caught up in the film as I was watching it, but I've felt kind of guilty for enjoying it ever since. Affleck's credits contain side-by-side pictures of images from both the film and historical inspiration as if to say, 'We did our research. You can trust us.' But it just doesn't seem like this film is very trustworthy historically. And while historical accuracy may not be essential for certain kinds of film, I think this is a movie that really needs to have that kind of integrity because it is dealing with sensitive relations between nations that are still a danger to each other.

[Dukefrukem]

Why does number8 get two votes?

This was great. Fantastic tension in the last act, I don't care about the coincidences/close calls. It works and it works great.

[NickGlass]

In regards to Argo working overtime in the suspense department, check these video clips out.

Watch this:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-haneke-john-krasinski-films-390168

And then go to the full interview and listen to Terrio's comments (roughly 12 minutes in, I believe):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/video/writers-full-uncensored-interview-390250

[DavidSeven]

Nothing special. This is Transparently Manufactured Obstacles: The Movie. Competent from beginning to end and an obvious crowd-pleaser, but stirred very little in me either emotionally or intellectually. Trying to make this play like a historically accurate thriller was a mistake, I think. This story seems well-suited for some obvious Hollywood dramatization and at least a bit more tongue-in-cheek-ness.

[Bosco B Thug]

Haven't read up on issues of historical accuracy, but the best thing about this movie is how it directly deals with the political history and society of Iran. It's essentially an American film that half takes place in Iran and can be said to be about Iran, so it has that much credit for that. Affleck is an idealist, and miraculously not a simple-minded one - Argo retains the sense of even-handedness and willingness to engage evenly about touchy matters that is in his other films.

But I was disappointed, I thought it was hugely uneven. It's generally saved by Affleck remaining a confident visual filmmaker, but it completely derailed for me once Hollywood enters the picture and suddenly begins to move in schematic Hollywood-scriptwriting shorthand. And Affleck does not know how to meld the politics with the "fun stuff" without it turning over completely, e.g. the table read/hostage negotiating parallel editing... blech.

A good finish, though. The previously awful "Affleck's son" stuff is redeemed as a way to bring a 70s political thriller into the realm of 00s Affleck film, with the political thriller cipher finding his way into affecting Affleck-style home and hearth appreciation.

[Mal]

I'll take Hollywood Shit Your Parents Will Love for $200, Alex.

[plain]

OMG WILL ARKIN AND GOODMAN CROSS THE STREET IN TIME?

[DavidSeven]

OMG WILL ARKIN AND GOODMAN CROSS THE STREET IN TIME?

:lol:

[Rowland]

This is one of the movies I've seen this year that I most wonder if I may have overrated. My recollection of it keeps returning to Goodman's smarmy mugging and Arkin repeatedly telling the movie to fuck itself.

[Spinal]

I would probably change my yay to a nay if I were to vote right now.

EDIT: Oh, I can change my vote. Didn't realize that before.

[number8]

I don't know of I would, but my opinion of it certainly keeps lessening with time.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yes, retrospection isn't kind to it and I remember actually checking my phone in the middle of it (and I never do that), but I'm convinced it's pretty good and I roll my eyes at all the prominent critics getting all huffy and high-and-mighty on it. (Haven't dived into the Zero Dark Thirty Aesthetics and Politics debate yet.)

[transmogrifier]

If you took it on a meta-level - Hollywood invents a story, makes it as palatable as possible to the intended audience, and its only later when you think about it that you realize that it was all full of shit (and Argo does exactly the same thing, but we are the Iranians!) - you could argue that this is ballsy brilliance. But unfortunately, there is no real evidence of this actually being the main point of the film. Instead, it just seems that Affleck and co. have just filed the interesting edges off the story (e.g. the escapees originally sneaking from one empty apartment to the next before even ending up at the Canadian embassy; the Canadian parliament actually having the first emergency session since WW2 to allow fake Canadian passports to be made etc) and replacing them with audience-friendly Big Obstacles (the entire 3rd act) and Sad Personal Back Stories (Mendez). Why did they have to make the six Americans such passive little mice, when I read that a couple of them actually took to the story with gusto?

BUT...

Imagine if I had no idea that this was a true story, and in fact was just watching a Hollywood movie about stuff. I would have thought that the filmmaking was actually quite effective, that the tension at the end was well-coiled, that the start actually did quite a good job of laying out the political problem that instigates the whole thing, and that it is quite effortless in laying out its story.

So, well, you want me to make up my mind? Argo fuck yourself.

[Bosco B Thug]

If you took it on a meta-level...

[...]

So, well, you want me to make up my mind? Argo fuck yourself. Whoa. Like, that whole review is the movie, right? ;)

Seriously: you start off with the dark and roiling possible-brilliance, then begin describing the crappy middle segments, pull a switcheroo with a slam-bang capitalized intertitle, settle into middlebrow critical pleasantry, then cap off with the fuck you and we're still stranded with our opinion after some thinking time, post-reading you. So am I totally getting you, or am I pulling a transmogrifier on your Affleck? :P

[number8]

I'm fairly certain that this screenplay is nominated just because people fell in love with that pun.

[Irish]

I enjoyed this, for what it was. Mostly, I marveled at Affleck's ability, as a somewhat inexperienced director, to present a complicated storyline in such a straightforward manner. Plus, the sheer number of locations and setups is kinda staggering.

The whole "true story" bit -- and including the real-life photos during the credits -- seemed oddly defensive, as if Affleck was attempting to lend more profundity to his movie than it might have deserved.

If I have any kind of beef with this movie, it's that it is more about Big Historical Events than people, or any single story, and almost plays as a quasi-documentary (and might have played better as a pure documentary).

This is similar to "Zero Dark Thirty," in a way. I think both of these movies are well made, and entertaining, and worth seeing. But neither one strikes me as having depth, or breadth. For lack of a better word, they lack the heaviness and "epic" feel of something that might be called "Best Picture of 2012." To put it another way: I can't imagine anyone really wanting to see either of these movies more than once.

Fun fact: For the last five years, every winner of the Toronto Film Festival and ever winner of the Producer's Guild Awards has gone on to win the Best Picture Oscar.

"Argo" has won both of them.

[NickGlass]

Fun fact: For the last five years, every winner of the Toronto Film Festival and ever winner of the Producer's Guild Awards has gone on to win the Best Picture Oscar.

"Argo" has won both of them.

Sorry to be persnickety, but Argo did not win the TIFF People's Choice Award--Silver Linings Playbook did. Also, only two of the (highly dubious) TIFF People's Choice Award winners of the past 5 years have gone on to win the Best Picture Oscar (Slumdog and King's Speech, ugh).


For lack of a better word, they lack the heaviness and "epic" feel of something that might be called "Best Picture of 2012." To put it another way: I can't imagine anyone really wanting to see either of these movies more than once.

This, however, sounds like a Best Picture Oscar winner to me!

[Irish]

Sorry to be persnickety, but Argo did not win the TIFF People's Choice Award--Silver Linings Playbook did. Also, only two of the (highly dubious) TIFF People's Choice Award winners of the past 5 years have gone on to win the Best Picture Oscar (Slumdog and King's Speech, ugh).

That's not persnickety at all. Your post is accurate, mine wasn't. I was going off a tweet from Roger Ebert the other day, which pointed to a blog post he made last September predicting "Argo" as Best Pic winner (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/09/toronto_4_and_the_winner_is.ht ml) based on its performance in Toronto.

I should have read more carefully. Thanks for the clarification.

PS: I'm tempted just to make up Oscar facts over the next month, spread them around, and see if anyone catches on.

PPS: Did you know that Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep each won an Academy Award for Best Performance for "Heartburn" in 1986? It's the only time in Academy history that has ever happened.

[Grouchy]

Huh, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Inflated run-of-the-mill Great Escape bullshit. I love The Great Escape, don't get me wrong. But its claims to be a relevant "issue movie" are ridiculous. It's a big blowjob to the CIA and nothing more.

Affleck is a very good director, but both The Town and this, while well manufactured products, lack the interest of a truly ambiguous and compelling story like the one Gone Baby Gone had.

I was half-expecting the big inaccuracies, but the ones that bothered me the most were:
- That looks nothing like Jack Kirby's art.
- Looking at a picture of the real Tony Mendez, it seems like the perfect leading role for Luis Guzmán. I bet the movie would've been better with him.

[Grouchy]

Huh, I clicked "Yay" instead of "Nay". Can a Mod correct me on this?

I'm a stupid fast-clicking punk.

[EyesWideOpen]

Huh, I clicked "Yay" instead of "Nay". Can a Mod correct me on this?

I'm a stupid fast-clicking punk.

You can change your own vote.

[Grouchy]

You can change your own vote.
How?

[EyesWideOpen]

How?

Looks like I'm wrong. I could have sworn you used to be able to do it yourself.

[TGM]

Looks like I'm wrong. I could have sworn you used to be able to do it yourself.
Yeah, that option was available on the old site. Doesn't appear to be the case here, though. :\

[Thirdmango]

Huh, I clicked "Yay" instead of "Nay". Can a Mod correct me on this?

I'm a stupid fast-clicking punk.

I can't figure out how to change your vote from mod side. You may have to be a yay forever.

[Raiders]

I can't figure out how to change your vote from mod side. You may have to be a yay forever.

It will have to be done at the database level. Essentially changing his vote from a '1' to a '0'. Not sure if there is a mod for 4.2 to add the "change your vote" feature we had before.

[Grouchy]

Then I demand you change the title of this thread to ARGO (A MOVIE WHICH GROUCHY STRONGLY DISLIKES) (Ben Affleck)

[number8]

Argo fuck your demand.

[EyesWideOpen]

Then I demand you change the title of this thread to ARGO (A MOVIE WHICH GROUCHY STRONGLY DISLIKES) (Ben Affleck)

To clarify I put you in as a nay in the database thread.

[Grouchy]

To clarify I put you in as a nay in the database thread.
Heh, thanks.

[Winston*]

Starting off the film by implying that British American Imperialism is to blame for Iranian Anti-Western sentiment, then rewriting history to promote American Exceptionalism feels a bit off to me. Can't believe they made one of the final shots of the film Ben Affleck reuniting with his wife in front of a billowing American flag.

Also this film casts a negative light on New Zealand for no good reason. IRL A Kiwi diplomat drove them to the airport for God's sake.

[Gizmo]

Are we still tabulating on the database sticky? If not, I'll stop bothering to post that I've seen films that I don't have much other things to say about them.

Any way, this was decent, but a little too contrived with the thrilling aspects of it in the last act. I'd rather have seen less thrills and more political maneuvering in a story like this, as that would be more true to life than them having narrowly escaped all the time.

[Stay Puft]

I just watched this and read through the thread. My reaction was similar to Irish's, though that's also because I'm watching it well after that fact of it winning Best Picture, and thinking to myself, This won the Oscar? It's so... insubstantial. There's little in the way of actual scene construction, and no sense of character. It's just hitting plot points in a generic thriller getup. Goes down easy, but doesn't merit any reflection. The political drama equivalent of a disposable blockbuster. It's entertaining for what it is, absolutely, but wow... it's such a bunch of nothing.

I could probably give it a pass but for the idiotic patriotism that sours the proceedings. I laughed out loud at that closing shot Winston mentions, and that whole "Nobody can know we're the best, fuck yeah" bit at the end with Cranston's character. What the fuck am I even watching at that point.

[MadMan]

The first half of the film actually tries to tackle the fact that the hostages and the six Americans are in deep shit because of stupid American foreign policy. Then the rest of the movie is a tightly wound suspenseful picture that works really well but is a bit too simplistic. The acting is top notch here and I really loved the cast, so overall I thought it was a great movie. Best picture worthy? Eh, no, but then most Best Picture winners aren't even the best movie from their respective years.

[Neclord]

Huh, for some reason I just felt a compelling urge to post in the Argo thread. Remember Argo? I sort of do.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I still haven't seen this Oscar-winning historical romp. I hear it's some kind of a thing.