(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetechnicolourhour.com%2Fstorage%2Fposter-xlarge.jpg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1336496767101&hash=68cd6734ab4fd633c89f9df679ea6dc537a923b0)
Release date: Oct. 12, 2012
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin
Directed by: Ben Affleck
Premise: As the Iranian revolution reaches a boiling point, a CIA 'exfiltration' specialist concocts a risky plan to free six Americans who have found shelter at the home of the Canadian ambassador.
Best Ensemble 2012 :bravo:
I haven't watched the trailer yet, but from the thumbnail it looks like Ben Affleck is cosplaying Hart Bochner.
EDIT: And now that I've watched it, I'm psyched for it. Three movies in, and I'm still caught off guard by how good a director Ben Affleck turned out to be.
With "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town," Ben Affleck has remade himself as a solid director of the sort of smart, adult drama's that would make Sydney Pollack proud. His latest, the 'declassified' true-story "Argo," leaves Boston for Iran and the infamous hostage crisis of 1979. The film opens with an intense sequence as the U.S. embassy in Iran is invaded by angry protestors during a time of political upheaval. As the doors are finally broken in and documents are shredded, a handful of Americans manage to escape through a back exit and take shelter in the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber). Affleck stars as Tony Mendez, a CIA 'exfiltration' specialist who is tasked with rescuing the 6 U.S. diplomats from Iran. But getting them out of the country is no easy feat and after a few ineffectual plans are abandoned (like giving them bicycles and sending them through the mountains).
Mendez comes up with a plan so crazy it just might work: to pose as a film production scouting exotic locations and sneak the hostages out as members of the crew. In order to be convincing Affleck hooked up with a movie makeup whiz (John Goodman) and Hollywood producer (Alan Arkin) to make the entire enterprise legit. Ads in the trades trumpted the film — titled "Argo" — which looked to be the sort of low-budget sub-"Star Wars" sci-fi fantasy that was pervasive in the late 70s/early 80s, Storyboards were created and table-reads were held to attract press because if their picture was less than convincing, the lives of 6 Americans could be at stake. If you've seen the trailer, you already know that the film vacillates between comedy and drama but what the clips don't demonstrate is exactly how well that works in the film.
It's an insanely tricky balancing act to shift from the inside-Hollywood heavy comedy of the first half to the more suspenseful final act but Affleck nails both effortlessly. As a leading man, he's solid (atoning for the years of appearing in less-than-stellar films) but his real strength continues to be behind the camera. He shows a real eye for period detail here, perfectly capturing the (mostly-awful) looking nexus between the 70s and 80s and making sure every supporting role is occupied by a top-notch actor. Between his last two films, he's now cast the three best leading men on television (Kyle Chandler and Bryan Cranston both turn in fine performances here as did Jon Hamm in "The Town.") Funny, intense, and highly entertaining, "Argo" is another big victory for the actor-turned-filmmaker.
ben affleck is the new ron howard (actor-turned-director of mildly entertaining, competently made, largely mediocre, and dubiously american movies), except ron never cast himself as a fucking LATINO CIA OPERATIVE. i can only hope ben follows ron's example and stops acting altogether. i can't take him seriously, ever. the only way i would buy ben affleck as tony mendez is if all the american refugees, upon finding out that he's the guy the u.s. sent to save them, systematically started committing suicide.
that said, it isn't terrible, it just isn't that great. it's a fairly effective political thriller with some impressively executed set pieces. the period detail is very well researched, which i know because of the helpful end credit sequence that juxtaposes stills from the film with actual photos. personally, i'd recommend staying home and taking a nap.
i bite my thumb at the first person who uses the movie's overused comedic catchphrase as a response.
I'll agree that his ambitions seem confined to thrillers, but what set him apart from Howard was also precisely that. Howard had loftier goals but took no risk for any of the stories of those magnitude to pay off. Affleck, meanwhile, aimed to thrill and I thought he did a fine job with The Town. He pulled quite a few genre set pieces - from Heat-like action sequences to that one near slapstick sequence with the neck tattoo. He's not Michael Mann yet, but those scenes in my opinion are much harder to pull off than anything Howard's done.
haven't seen argo yet, but he seems to be more of a sydney pollack, if we are going to put him in some awkward heir position. He's a more cynical dude than Ron Howard, a realist if you like. I guess that like Pollack, he will gradually act less and less, and who knows, maybe some day he will give great supporting turns in other people's films.
I didn't like The Town that much, it felt kind of boring and predictable by the end, but Gone Baby Gone was truly great. I hope this one's as good as that.
i haven't seen gone baby gone but nothing about argo or the town struck me as risky. i don't know that howard's goals were ever loftier than to make entertaining movies. emotionally speaking his reach is (far, far, far, far) more grandiose but i think he and affleck aren't interested in much more than appealing to the lowest common denominator. my point isn't that affleck is making schmaltz like howard has, but that he's equally useless in terms of perspective, and i don't find either of their movies to be overtly entertaining enough to compensate for that (as would be the case with spielberg in some cases).
SPOILSQuote from: samsong on October 14, 2012, 03:14:10 PM
i haven't seen gone baby gone but nothing about Argo or the town struck me as risky. i don't know that howard's goals were ever loftier than to make entertaining movies. emotionally speaking his reach is (far, far, far, far) more grandiose but i think he and affleck aren't interested in much more than appealing to the lowest common denominator. my point isn't that affleck is making schmaltz like howard has, but that he's equally useless in terms of perspective, and i don't find either of their movies to be overtly entertaining enough to compensate for that (as would be the case with spielberg in some cases).
I agree, this kind of 'risky film', or anyone who deems it as such, is stuck in the past. If this film came out right after the CIA files were declassified then maybe it would be controversial. the only thing that makes people say its risky is the fact that it's shot gritty, and actually talks about some American middle eastern politics at that time. All well documented so not really exposing anything. risky is a concept, and message, usually not the film making itself; especially when this type of film form has become the norm (traffic, syriana, hurt locker etc...). the bottom line is it's very much a pro-america film. so in that way it's actually safe. it's not a contemporary all the presidents men, the difference being that all the presidents men was showing how patriots sometimes have to go against their government in the search of the truth. the only moment you get a sense of this in Argo is the moment that Affleck says he's going ahead with the mission and everyone in the agency backs him despite the fact he doesn't have the power to do so. which of course is nonsense, and never actually happened. so should it be like all the presidents men? in my opinion no, but it shouldn't be labeled risky or controversial, simply because it's not.
Which leads me to a bigger point. It's actually a massive revisionist film. I too, like the audiences at TIFF were very annoyed with a lot of the changes made in history for the sake of storytelling. It's not that I have a problem with 'creative leeway', it's that the changes were oh-so-typical for an American film. A couple examples. the fact the Canadian Ambassador was actually shuffling them around Tehran in various safe houses, so they would never be found changes his active enrolment in the operation. it wasn't a three month house party, eating fine foods and drinking a lot of wine. he actually stuck his neck further out than the film portrays. Ironically as it stands, the Iranian housekeeper looks like she had more at stake in this depiction, which is ridiculous. Also he was the one that bought the plane tickets, not the CIA. basically for the sake of the film the CIA was credited with all of the decision making, which was not true and their actual role was minor. They left a lot of it up to the Canadian ambassador because he knew the climate of the city better than they did. There are many more examples, but I won't bore you with them.
You see, being Canadian, we don't often have moments of great heroism because of our low population and minor military and intelligence influence in the world. so you might think it's kind of silly to care about all of this, but when you have only a few moments when you can feel proud (and the rare opportunity of getting thanks from America, rather than giving it) you end up feeling cheated because a hollywood film steps in and changes it all to depict, once again, USA on top and in total control. This happens a lot, and I'm sure not only to us. It happened in Band of Brothers, once again giving America credit for liberating Europe, when it's well documented that Canada were major factors in Italy and Holland; to the point that Netherlands still loves Canada to this day. I'm sure other commonwealth countries have similar stories of WWII revisionism in Hollywood, and are equally annoyed.
I do like the fact that after the TIFF screening, Affleck did care about the Canadian reaction, even though it was a little too late by that point, the film was already made. From wikipedia:
"After the film was previewed at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2012, criticism arose that the film unfairly minimized the participation of the Canadian government, particularly that of Ambassador Kenneth D. Taylor, in the extraction operation. This included the addition to the film of several fictional events for dramatic reasons, as well as a postscript text indicating that the CIA let Taylor take the credit for political purposes, implying that he did not deserve the accolades he received.[9] Affleck noted, "Because we say it's based on a true story, rather than this is a true story, we're allowed to take some dramatic license. There's a spirit of truth."[10] However, Affleck did respond by changing the postscript text to read, "The involvement of the CIA complemented efforts of the Canadian embassy to free the six held in Tehran. To this day the story stands as an enduring model of international co-operation between governments."[11]"
I'm curious what you all think of this. Am I, and certain other Canadians just overreacting?
so is this film being lauded as "risky" by the mainstream???
what I've read so far leans more in the direction of being admired as a slick, well paced thriller for grown ups with enough undercurrents to be celebrated. no one can call this risky in the same sentence as many other true risky films from USA coming out this year. that's why I was making the sydney pollack comparison. he was never risky either, but you could enjoy his films and be confident they will be of above average quality. nothing wrong with that.
shit, sorry I hadn't read pete's comment when he mentions the work "risk" before posting.
so now I know where all the "risky" debate was coming from.
still, pete´s right that some of the set pieces are pretty great, and we should never forget that it takes real talent to make those in an effective way.
sorry about the confusion.
I wasn't responding to pete either, it's more to samsong's response and what i've seen from television coverage of it.
in terms of the set pieces, i can't help but think about that james gray masterclass where he talks about how boring it was to shoot the car chase in we own the night. not to say all of affleck's set pieces have been car chases or only action oriented but still. speaking of whom, james gray is a guy who i think actually deserves the kind of attention and acclaim affleck is enjoying as a director.
socket, i don't think it's too violent a reaction to be miffed by the way canadians are presented in argo, especially if the facts are that they played a much more active role in the operation than the movie suggests.
SPOILERS
i found it wholly unnerving that at the end of the film, the cia is made out to be the altruistic, unsung hero of the whole thing. the film would've been far more compelling and truer to the tacked on postscript had the focus been on how the canadians and u.s. collaborated to make this happen which it seems to have actually been instead of it being put squarely on the shoulders of [the character affleck cast himself as]. undoubtedly montez's ingenuity was integral to the mission's success but it wreaks of messiah complex the way it plays out in the movie. i will say he was smart to have given a moment to one of the six to play an active role in their escape but i thought it was too little too late.
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.
Quote from: polkablues on October 15, 2012, 02:48:30 AM
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.
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on October 15, 2012, 06:10:02 AM
Quote from: polkablues on October 15, 2012, 02:48:30 AM
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote from: RegularKarate on October 15, 2012, 06:02:28 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Alexandro on November 11, 2012, 11:17:48 PM
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
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.
It was hugely entertaining. Really quite tense stuff. But yeah, little depth. Also, I was thinking about horses all throughout watching it.
Quote from: Lottery on March 27, 2013, 05:16:51 PM
Also, I was thinking about horses all throughout watching it.
Hah.
I'd like to say I'm really proud that our Argo thread is barely 2 pages.
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.
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.