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.

'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

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.

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.

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