Argo

[©brad]

Personally, I don't care if the movie claims my mom was the Ayatollah's personal handjob consultant as long as it's as well-made as Argo is.

Agreed. Just came back from the screening, this film is a solid 7.6 in my eyes. Most notably, great attention to period detail, even had the 70's WB logo.

Yeah I'm on this team. Samsong/Socket, I think you boys are overreacting a bit. Not to belittle your revisionist criticism, which is valid, but overall the movie doesn't pretend to be anything beyond what it is - a well-made, surprisingly funny thriller. I agree with mod that this movie toes a fine line in balancing the tone and Affleck pulled it off well, not to mention the airport climax which, come on, you can't say wasn't awesome.

If I had to nitpick I'd say Affleck as an actor was unremarkable. He pretty much has one brooding facial expression the entire movie. I think we needed a tad more backstory as to what happened with his wife and son to justify the final scene, and the film is a little too proud of itself with its comedic catchphrase. But overall, this was a lot of fun. 

[samsong]

i'm not a purist when it comes to historical accuracy but i feel like the changes that socket mentioned were substantial to the point that alteration to the facts seems egregious, and extremely reductive.  but to be completely honest these weren't things i was privy to before the film.  the shit in the canadian embassy did strike me as odd though.  at the end of the day i just didn't find it to be particularly rousing or well made.  and as far as it not purporting to be anything it isn't, the historical context alone gives it an inherent weight that the movie does little to nothing to address.  this isn't ocean's 11.  that it claims to only be based on a true story doesn't change the fact that that true story happens to be a semi-pivotal moment in history.  i couldn't help but think of munich while watching argo and sure, they can be viewed as apples and oranges but spielberg takes a historical event and gives it a hefty dose of genre kineticism and entertainment value without neglecting the political/moral implications of telling that story at that time, which i really do think affleck has with this film.   

and to say affleck was unremarkable in argo is the understatement of the year. 

[RegularKarate]

I thought the film was pretty well-made and great for what it was. I enjoyed it and while I think it will probably get WAY overrated, I like what Affleck is doing, taking classic, so-so movies and making them enjoyable as hell.

I think the "revisionist" claims are a little reaching. I'm pretty sure the changes made were all made for cinematic reasons.

The only thing that really bugged me was the "please give us an Oscar" reel at the end. I don't need to see how accurate the movie was visually... all that really did is show me that they should have cast Luis Guzman as the lead instead.

[socketlevel]

how much cooler is the actual poster they made:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Argo_poster.gif

That shit looks like a film I'd check out. The Affleck film gave it a B-movie feel, like buck rogers. the actual one looks like Alien or the Terminator.

Further reading on the Canadian Issue:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Affleck+rescue/7386683/story.html

I think the "revisionist" claims are a little reaching. I'm pretty sure the changes made were all made for cinematic reasons.

well I didn't really explain all of the changes, just two. Another is the fact that the Ambassador booked two flights to mislead the Iranian army, and also the fact that Mendez didn't actually drive with them, he was sitting in the wings. Who actually drove them was the Ambassador's wife.

[Alexandro]

this film is ok, but it doesn't the deserve this discussion.
fine pace, well made thriller, great action climax. but yeah, I kept being taken out of the story because it's just filled with hollywood cliches that undermine the potential. there are too much to mention, and the artificiality of it prevented me from enjoying the parts that I thought were better handled.

this film is so massively overrated that it wouldn't surprise me if it wins best picture and director at the oscars.

[HeywoodRFloyd]

this film is so massively overrated that it wouldn't surprise me if it wins best picture and director at the oscars.

And PTA will finally inherit the Scorsese Curse

[Jeremy Blackman]

This was entertaining, but strangely forgettable.

They had 2 hours, and yet almost everyone was undercharacterized. The pace is remarkable, I'll give them that (it felt like 1 hour), but it seems like more could have been accomplished. The most we got in terms of character was Affleck's cliche "separated/estranged parent" plot, and Cranston's cliche "determined bureaucrat doing the right thing" plot. They should have spent more time in that house, and perhaps more than 5 minutes with the ambassador and his wife.

This was among the worst movie scores I've ever heard. It didn't surface very often, but when it did, boy did it make its presence known. Bombastic and manipulative past the point of self-parody. Given the number of scores Alexandre Desplat is doing, I'm guessing he spent about 3 days on this one.

Some of the classic rock music cues lasted literally 5 seconds, for example just to establish a mood when we see John Goodman start to walk somewhere, and it would abruptly fade out once we got the idea. My first theory was they were hoping clips that short would fall under fair use.

In addition to the aforementioned self-congratulation in the end credits, that last sequence of still life shots of movie memorabilia felt like gross pandering just a bit. It was their "tribute to The Movies" as if they were making it specifically for the Oscars broadcast. The length of those shots made me cringe.

[Lottery]

It was hugely entertaining. Really quite tense stuff. But yeah, little depth. Also, I was thinking about horses all throughout watching it.

[polkablues]

Also, I was thinking about horses all throughout watching it.

[©brad]

Hah.

I'd like to say I'm really proud that our Argo thread is barely 2 pages.

[wilder]

I saw this recently and didn't care for it -- but I have to say the movie is way more entertaining if you imagine that Affleck's character is plastered for the entire remainder of the operation after that montage of him drinking in his room.

[Mel]

It is very well made heist movie, if you're looking for more than that you'll be disappointed. I didn't care for real story at all, so I don't have issues with historical accuracy.

I was looking for low-tech bank robbery and I got it. I just don't buy heist movies with sci-fi gadgets. Romance films have problems with finding obstacles for lovers right now - the deeper you go into the past, the easier was to write believable story. Heist movies also don't quite fit into 21st century, often ending up looking like comic book adaptations.

I will champion Argo for this. On other hand it got acclaim for wrong reasons and this is why critique of missteps in presenting historical events (very shallow presentation also) is relevant. Zeitgeist for this film was perfect, with everything going on in middle east at the time (and still going on to be honest) and questioning if USA is still relevant after the enonomy crisis. That mixed with "true story" promotion lead to reception Argo got. Easy choice for accolades, but also easy target for bashing.