Argo

Honestly, 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.

Ben 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.

This 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

Ben 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.

Argo interested me not only because it was rather breathlessly discussed by critics when it came to "best film of 2012" time, but also because it was a true story that I knew nothing about – from detail to the ending it was all news to me. Watching it I still took it with a pinch of salt simply because I think it is wrong to approach any fictionalized version of a true story and assume that it is entirely gospel. The film walks a fine line between the dramatic and the absurd, almost to the point where if you left the cinema during one scene and then returned during another, you would be forgiven for thinking you'd come back into the wrong screen. It does this but yet it mostly pulls it off.

The film opens with an American embassy in Iran being stormed and the majority of people taken hostage, except a small group who flee to the home of the Canadian Ambassador and are hidden. The story is then about the extradition of this small group, before the Iranians work out that they are missing and hunt them down; with options limited, the plan is to send an agent into Iran posing as someone scouting for locations for a movie – and then leave the country with the small group acting as his colleagues and peers. This involves doing more than saying it out loud as it has to pass muster with the Iranians – so the CIA works with a Hollywood writer and a producer to greenlight a film, sell it to the press and take their small production into Iran. In telling the story the film pretty much plays it straight and allows the scenario to be whatever it is – so when it is a press junket then it is amusingly absurd but while it is in an Iranian airport it is really tense and the stakes are apparent. This approach works pretty well because it lets the film have these extremes alongside one another without one undercutting the other. The downside is that it does occasionally mean that the telling feels quite "ordinary" as it lacks an individual voice to the delivery – not boring by any means, but just surprisingly straight in the telling.

This can be seen in the cast because mostly there are not really characters here, since the film focuses on events and doesn't leave a lot of time for the people (understandably). Affleck doesn't really work in the lead and I'm not sure why he cast him; he is OK but his presence is not all it needed to be in such a straight film. The various hostages in Iran don't really make an impression beyond them being just that, but there is color provided by solid turns from Goodman, Cranston, Arkin and a few others. As director Affleck does a good job to make the mix of content work so well, but the real credit to the production is how of the period it feels – there is nothing that really seems out of place, from office to street it feels like it was filmed back in the late 70s.

Argo is an effective and engaging story that works partly because the telling is straight enough to let the events be however they are (absurd, tense, whatever). However this straight bat does also limit the film by making it feel a little ordinary in the delivery, without much flair or individual style to the telling, even if the attention to period is really well done.