Argo

Argo (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.

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

This 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.

Argo 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.

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.