It's competently made but nothing too special. The characters are kind of stock.
But damn Ben Affleck looks fine with a shag haircut and in a brief shirtless scene.
So Ben's wearing a shag rug?
Mamma wants to bury her nose in his musty hole.
OP, You're too critical. Didn't you laugh a lot during the movie? Nice rip on Hollywood AND CIA.
I loved it. OK. I'm an eldergay. I'm 55 and I remember when it all happened. My parents were glued to the TV thru all of it. I thought Ben did a fantastic job of directing.
He certainly conveyed how dangerous the situation was and how volatile it was. The whole thing felt very "real" and authentic. I wondered where he shot some of it, if maybe they went to Turkey or something.
I can see a Best Picture nomination. The acting was well done, very competent, but there was no one person that was exceptional nor was it "ensemble" acting.
I loved Alan Arkin and John Goodman. Hilarious. I love Victor Garber who seems to always be a reassuring presence.
How was Bryan Cranston, I love him.
And Vincent Gardenia, timeless.
His tuchis is sweet stuff!
Bryan Cranston was great in it. He was very good.
Is Karen Black in it?
You're an idiot, OP. The movie was terrific. Loved it.
Except Ben twisted the story and stole it from the Canadians who were the real heros. Why was this necessary? I'm sick of this kind of US jingoism that has to invent US heroes.
They don't deserve awards for this story and what they did. I don't blame the Canadians for being pissed.
We loved it. The costume and production designers did a great job. It looked reall.
Alan Arkin was a hoot.
Loved the movie. Very funny. Very suspenseful.
Ben! Oscar's calling!
It is funny? Really?
Does he call out Reagan for doing backdoor deals to keep them hostages until after the inauguration?
r4 - It may have had a "real" feel, but it's just a thriller loosely inspired by real events.
[quote]When Argo had its world premiere at a TIFF gala at Roy Thomson Hall on Sept. 7, the suggestion was that CIA operatives were the true heroes in the six fugitives’ escape. 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.
[quote]“In reality, Canada was responsible for the six and the CIA was a junior partner. But I realize this is a movie and you have to keep the audience on the edge of their seats.
[quote]According to Taylor, several details of the plot are pure fiction. There was never any crisis about getting the plane tickets for the six, as in the climatic scenes of Argo, because he bought three sets of plane tickets, paid for by Pat Taylor. Nor did Taylor ever threaten to close down the Canadian embassy, leaving his secret U.S. house guests with nowhere to hide. Nor did the six ever go to a bazaar.
[quote]And oh, by the way, while in Tehran, Mendez was taken care of by the Canadian embassy.
Argo is dissing the Canadians in the same way Bridge over the River Kwai dissed the Brits.
Then why the fuck did Victor Garber allow this! Doesn't he realize Ben doesn't mean him any good? Shit! Ben bashed his head in and nearly killed him last time they worked together!
This is the first for-sure Oscar contender I've esen this year.
Affleck owns the Best Director Oscar beating out Spielberg this year.
It was a fantastic movie.
I was on the edge of my seat.
I was too young to have paid attention to what was going on then so I didn't really know what was going to happen. I didn't do my homework before I saw it and it was amazing and suspenseful.
The revolutionary guard at the airport was hot. Check him out.
I was on the edge of my seat, too. I sort of knew it had a happy ending (reviews said it was a crowd-pleaser) but I didn't know how it would play out among the many characters.
My partner and I were headed out to see Argo this evening and he freaked out because we didn't have time to stop at the dollar store to get his movie candy and made me turn the car around and go home. I'm glad I'm not alone, but relationships are not always easy.
So were the Canadians heroes or not? Was that a cover story? I am confused.
Thanks for the laugh, R25. You made me a little less sad that I'm having a date-less Saturday.
Ben and Keanu both getting Oscars how exciting.
[quote] So were the Canadians heroes or not? Was that a cover story? I am confused.
They were. It was Americanized
Movie was ok but very Hollywood-manipulative. It makes me a little worried that Iranians are for the most part depicted as evil fanatics, and the movie opens at around the same time there is talk of possible war with Iran. Wouldn't be the first time that Hollywood was used for drumbeats before the war.
I was shocked at how huge John Goodman is. I saw him on Letterman not long ago and he'd lost a ton of weight. In this movie he's bigger than I've ever seen him.
R26, The Canadian Ambassador clearly was a quiet hero for hosting the 6 for that length of time, in a country undergoing upheaval. They were also given Canadian passports enabling them to leave the country. Mendez came up with and exactly executed the cover story of phony identities.
What's all this fuss about corn starch? Get a life, you poopy heads!
The Canadians weren't just involved. It was the Canadian Embassy and its staff particularly Ken Taylor, a diplomat who is still alive, that took the greatest risk to save American agents. The film is asking like the CIA/AMericanss are the heroes but thanks Canada for letting us use your embassy. The original postscript suggested that Canada took the credit for security reasons.
It was Ken Taylor, the Canadian diplomat, who snuck the 6 americans away in various places, he helped hatch the plan to provide fake visas, alter their appearances under the guise of shooting a movie. Everything worked out, great! But, imagine had they failed? They would have all been captured/executed so Ken and the rest of the Canadians helped the Americans at great personal risk and such a contribution which amounted to saving their lives at a very turbulent time is worth mentioning and should not be disrespected the way Ben went about it.
If that was the story, why would they change it to make the CIA the heroes? Nobody likes the CIA anyway, and everybody loves Canada, so why change the story? I don't get this at all. Just give credit where it's due.
[quote] I was too young to have paid attention to what was going on then so I didn't really know what was going to happen
And after seeing this movie you still don't know what happened.
Shame on the filmmakers for this type of distortion. So Ben couldn't play a Canadian? One of the most offensive Oscar bids I have seen.
[quote]why would they change it to make the CIA the heroes?
Making the CIA into the 'good guys' is one of the reasons it came across as an agitprop piece. They briefly mention the CIA overthrow of Mossadeq and support of the shah at the beginning. Making the CIA the heroes is a way to redeem them in the eyes of the audience.
I was 9 when this all happened, and was too busy twirling in the backyard as Wonder Woman (yes, I'm a guy), so I didn't pay much attention to all this at the time.
Reading the truth (Canada) vs the fiction (CIA) has colored my response to the film. I thought it was more than competently made, solidly done, in fact, though even I could spot certain elaborations a mile away (the whole last half hour is patently ridiculous).
A shame that Affleck -- who is a smart guy -- had to go the rah-rah USA route. I wonder if there is enough of an outcry by the Canadian colony in Hollywood (James Cameron, Brendan Fraser, Ryan Gosling, Michael J. Fox, etc.), it might dampen Argo's chances at the Oscars.
Did no one recognize Adrienne Barbeau?
"What's all this fuss about corn starch? Get a life, you poopy heads!"
Argo: Go Fuck Yourself.
Good tag line for cornstarch.
I remember this. I remember being left breathless by gratitude to the Canadians. Prior to that, Canada was just a neighbor who complained (rightly) about acid rain from the industries in North USA. It didn't seem like they much liked us.
When they did this, it felt wonderful. We all felt so pummeled and powerless in this horrible situation that just went on and on. And Canada changed this. The whole country felt it. And that was really important back then.
So is it possible the CIA did more than they let on? Sure. I just wish they'd've done a better job of acknowledging the Canadians too. It was a collaboration. No matter how it happened.
And two openly gay actors have small parts: Tom Lenk plays a Variety reporter and Larry Sullivan plays Adam Engell's secretary.
I recognized Adrienne Barbeau, r40. She still looks great, and still has a nice rack.
[quote]Argo's Asinine Auteur and his American Audience: Are We Hostages to Hollywood History?
This comment may contain spoilers:
I don't think the Canadians were given short-shrift. They were an importnt part of the story and the escape. But it was the CIA that actually got them out, no?
And I understand the "fictions" near the end -- the tarmac chase, etc. We had to feel the tension and fear that the six felt. Since we can't see their internal fear (and even if there weren't as many check-points and near-misses, I'm sure the escapees feared there would be.) Their relief (and ours) was palpable when they left Iranian airspace.
Best movie I've seen this year.
R47 = Ben Affleck
Seeing a preview before reading any critical comments I thought that most of the CIA bureaucrats generally came across as unrealistic and even laughable, while the Canadians were a fine example of modesty, grace, and extreme competence under life or death pressure. Still I wish Affleck had consulted all of the Canadian parties involved before making his movie, for accuracy. Perhaps he's now praising the CIA because that's the only way this movie would be made. I'm reminded of the controversy over The Deerhunter. POW's weren't forced to play Russian Roulette. That was Michael Cimino's dramatic way of showing the randomness of who survived.
[quote]Perhaps he's now praising the CIA because that's the only way this movie would be made.
Considering they filmed on location at Langley and had Jimmy Fucking Carter do the voiceover for the end, I think it's safe to assume the film had CIA and governmental involvement.
r45 your link would be much more credible if the author (is it you?) had actually seen the movie, and wasn't such an anti-israel zealot.
The sold-out crowd this weekend applauded at the end.
We applauded at the end as well.
If its not a live performance and the filmmakers are not present, applauding at the end is sort of an idiot thing to do.
I think it's a spontaneous way of letting each other know we enjoyed the show.
Saw it Saturday night. Also a sold out screening, and also applause at the end. I'm betting Alan Arkin will be an Oscar favorite.
ArGo Fuck Yourself, R54.
Same here r56. Hmmm were you at the Coolidge in Brookline?
[quote]most of the CIA bureaucrats generally came across as unrealistic and even laughable, while the Canadians were a fine example of modesty, grace, and extreme competence under life or death pressure.
That is exactly how they all comes across in the film. It's easy to tell who in this thread hadn't seen it before popping off their ignorant "Canada got shit on!!!!11" comments here.
It's an amazing movie, and my theater also applauded at the end.
I was surprised to see that there was not one ad this weekend in the major New York newspapers -- the Times, the News and the Post.
You'd think that with the good reviews and strong box office (only 14% drop from first weekend) that Warners would want to toot their own horn a little.
If they give Alan Arkin another Oscar Eddie Murphy is going to slap whatever tranny he's blowing at the time.
Manipulating History to Suit an Insidious Anti-Iran Agenda
“Argo, Fuck Yourself”
by KIM NICOLINI
I have to admit that the numerous times I saw the trailer for Ben Affleck’s Argo (too many to count!), I wasn’t very enthusiastic about it. I wondered who the hell would want to watch this movie about the 1979 Iran hostage crisis as seen through a Hollywood-CIA covert operation. I tend to enjoy historical movies, but this one just looked so weird, scattered and unsure of its message. After seeing it the other night, I can say that while the movie is indeed a little weird, it is far from scattered. Its message is pretty clear and insidious. In fact, Argo is so un-scattered and linear that it is boring while also being politically dubious.
I checked out the reviews of the film before deciding to watch it. Metacritic turns up with an astonishing number of 100s from all the main press, and Rottentomatoes gives the film a 95% positive rating. I thought that maybe my initial impressions from the trailer were wrong. Given the overwhelming positive responses to the film, maybe Argo really is a good movie. So I went to see it. I should have trusted my initial instincts. As a movie, Argo is a total dud. Besides the fact that it is an exercise in problematic revisionist history, it’s just a crappy movie. I’m fine with using historical material to create a movie that is not wedded to being accurate, but at least the movie should be good, interesting or entertaining. Argo is none of these things. It is a crappy movie with an insidious political agenda. It turns a fascinating “real historical event” into a lousy and tedious screenplay. It is so wedded to its CIA-Hollywood patriotic narrative that the film completely lacks complexity and tension. Its tiresome linear progression mirrors the film’s “Middle of the Road” politics and ultimately left me both bored and bugged at the same time.
The movie is based loosely on real events: Tony Mendez’s account of the historical rescue of six U.S. diplomats from Tehran. “Loosely” certainly is the operative word here. Argo is a piece of cinematic revisionist history if ever there was one. Not only did I find the movie incredibly dull in its exceptionally linear narrative perspective of these historical events, but I was also more than a little annoyed by its historical manipulation.
For me, the only “good” thing about the movie was how it used the cinematic medium to recreate a historical time – 1979. Certainly Affleck’s recreation of history is visually accurate. If you’re interested in indulging in Set Detail and Costume Fetishism, Affleck’s cinematic recreation of 1979 fashions, technology and cars delivers the goods while also delivering six white Americans to safety. The cinematography perfectly mimics the look of late 70s film, and the integration of archival news footage lends a sense of authenticity. But there is only so much entertainment value that can be gleaned from indulging in late 70s fetishism. Once I oohed and ahhed a few times at the haircuts and television sets, I found the movie’s seemingly interminable 120 minutes so boring that I actually fell asleep twice.
The movie starts during the tumultuous riots in Iran when Iranians were demanding that Americans return their deposed Shah (Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī) for prosecution in their own country. The movie is packed with rioting American-hating Iranians with guns, yet the film has no tension whatsoever. Other than a brief history lesson in the beginning of the film and one scene in a public market when an outraged Iranian insists that the diplomats give him a Polaroid photo they shot and mentions that the Shah killed his son, the movie completely neglects to provide the Iranian’s side of the story. The film is a sanitized version of the events. It minimally alludes to the back story of the Iranian revolution but then turns the Iranians into window dressing. They are simply a backdrop that allows the film to tell its patriotic story of the American Hollywood-CIA heroic and covert operation to rescue the diplomats.
Speaking of authenticity, there is nothing authentic about the film’s manipulation of historical events. Its authenticity stops with its haircuts and its use of archival news footage and photographs to give a sense of historical accuracy. Underneath the set details, the burning American flag, and the mirror images from photo archives, Argo really is pure political propaganda. I have some questions to ask here. Why didn’t the Americans just return the Shah to Iran? Why do Americans feel it’s their right to take care of other countries’ business? Why not let the Iranians prosecute their deposed corrupt leader? What’s that old saying about “cleaning up your own backyard before . . .” Also, excuse me in advance if this sounds harsh, but given the vast number of people who have died in the Middle East (Americans, Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc.), why should we give so much attention to 6 white American diplomats who were saved by Hollywood and the CIA? What about all the other people from so many cultural demographics who have and are continuing to be massacred, murdered and tortured daily?
Needless to say, since it is based on true events, we know the end of the story before going into the movie, and that can take the wind out of a movie’s sails if the film is not done well. But why is it that Hollywood Lefties (Ben Affleck has a clear track record for leaning staunchly to the Left) made a movie about Hollywood joining forces with the CIA to save some diplomats right before the 2012 Presidential election? Why is it that in this film the fact that the hostages were released after Ronald Reagan was elected President and during his inauguration is completely ignored? Why is it that the film ends with the stamp of Jimmy Carter (the Official Voice of American Centrist Democrats) in an actual voiceover narration? And why does it manipulate the delivery of historical information and disregard all the covert financial wheeling and dealing that led to the release of the hostages?
I’ll tell you why. Because Argo, above all else, is a piece of conservative liberal propaganda created by Hollywood to support the Obama administration’s conservative liberal politics as we move toward the Presidential election. In addition, it also primes the war wheels for an American-supported Israeli attack on Iran, so that Leftists can feel okay about the war when they cast their vote for Obama in November.
This leads me to why this movie is one big bore. It’s not a movie at all. It’s exceptionally underhanded political propaganda created by Hollywood to try to win over right leaning war supporters to Obama’s conservative liberal politics while appeasing centrist Leftists (which Hollywood embodies to the max) to feel good about voting for a President who supports war.
Propaganda, as a general rule, does not make good film. So why do so many movie critics love this movie? I seriously don’t know. If they were looking at the film critically, they would have to see it as boring and flawed.
Perhaps it is because movie critics are also part of the movie industry. The movie industry plays a considerable role in the patriotic heroics of this film. In Argo, Hollywood works with the CIA to save the day and the 6 American diplomats. Not surprisingly, Hollywood as an “institution” is the most entertaining part of the film. For the record, the movie industry is played by a tremendously amusing John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Their performances are enormously entertaining. They give us a chance to laugh, and they insert humor into this piece of propaganda as another level of making war comfortable by making it funny. Goodman and Arkin play the movie executives who work with Affleck’s Tony Mendez to create the fake film Argo as a ploy to get the diplomats out of Iran by “casting” them as members of a film team scouting for shooting locations for their science fiction film. The best part of the movie is Goodman and Arkin’s on-going joke “Argo Fuck Yourself.” After digesting the film’s conservative liberal patriotic agenda, I can pretty much say the same thing that Arkin and Goodman say about the movie they star in: “Argo fuck yourself.”
To wrap up the political agenda, the movie ends with Ben Affleck’s Tony Mendez returning home to reunite with his family as a hero, a father, and a husband. If you’re going to make a 2012 election year propaganda film, you’ve got to have your family values! Then finally, we get the reassuring “stamp of authenticity” as the film pairs photos of the real diplomats with the actors who played them while Jimmy Carter assures us that there can be peaceful resolutions to international crisis (even if a few thousand people die along the way, ahem). But the movie never talks about those people – all the ones (Iranian and American) who actually did die just because we felt like we needed to clean-up the world’s dirty laundry (so we could keep our American dirty hands in the oil supply).
Personally, I found the movie hard to stomach, not just because it is boring but because it is so ideologically problematic. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no enthusiast for Obama’s centrist Democratic politics, and never have been. However, I do understand how the politics of this country work, so I will be voting for Obama in November. I understand that as much as my ideals would like to believe otherwise, there are only two choices in this America – More and Less Bad. Voting for the Less Bad Democrats is the only way to beat the More Bad Republicans, and I do not want my daughter living in a world where Mitt Romney is President. She has already inherited the nightmare legacy of two Bush administrations. Despite my antipathy toward Obama and his policies, I sure in the fuck hope he does win the election because the alternative makes me puke. But Democrats are not saints by a long shot, despite what movies like Argo make them out to be. Argo is just another piece of Democratic Party Packaging made to win votes by walking a conservative line that somehow attempts to be liberal while also supporting the problematic politics of the conservative liberal agenda. (e.g. It’s okay for Israel to bomb Gaza on a daily basis.)
Am I sorry that I wasted my time and money watching Argo? No, I’m not. Watching a movie like this and thinking about why people like it so much when it’s so wrong is worthwhile. I put my money on this film to win the Best Picture Oscar (even though there is nothing remotely “best” about it) especially if Obama can pull off winning the Presidential election. Since Ben Affleck has made Argo, if Obama does win, Hollywood will be so happy with itself. It can give itself a big pat on the back for helping save the American diplomats back in 1979, for supporting the conservative Democratic agenda, and for helping the Democrats win the 2012 election. Argo may be the most self-congratulatory film Hollywood has ever made, but that does not make it a good film, not by a long shot.
"Manipulating History to Suit an Insidious Anti-Iran Agenda"
I stopped reading right there. Why bother spamming us with such bullshit? It only wastes your time.
Badly written "review," repetitive and short on specifics. And she fell asleep TWICE during the movie, undermining her shaky credibility even more.
I don't believe she even saw the movie at all.
He's channeling Dave Grohl there and the media are going gaga because he's a media favorite.
Fuck [italic]Counterpunch[/italic]. It continues to publish Israel Shamir. It wasn't enough for Shamir to support Lukashenko's dictatorial regime in Belarus. Shamir is now playing with revisionism of the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia. And fucking [italic]Counterpunch[/italic] published it.
Quit linking to that filthy site.
Oh stop everyone! R69 has decided to tell us how to think and what we can post!
Loved the movie but one thing I didn't understand:
Why was there no attempt made to alter the appearances of the 6 hostages when they were pretending to be movie makers, even slightly? The men even kept their mustaches and eyeglasses. Only the one girl changed her hairdo.
We also applauded with the crowds after yesterday's matinee.
And Ben's 6 second shirtless scene was SPECTACULAR!
R71 Yeah, and didn't anyone in the Iranian government wonder why the six filmmakers weren't staying in the same hotel as Mendez? Or in a hotel at all?
The movie was very suspenseful; it sort of reminded me of a 1980 version of "The Great Escape."
[quote]climatic scenes of Argo
I didn't notice a single scene that dealt with the weather.
Sorry, OP, but it's a very fine, restrained, elegantly directed movie with the kind of crisp screenwriting Hollywood used to do frequently in its golden age. And it's a great story which no one would believe for one simple fact. It's true.
Maybe Affleck is a Republican...listening to the right wing message of America is always good, Iran, evil.
I'm very sure our damn CIA caused the kidnappings anyway. Why is Affleck such a sucker? He was used.
It's a good little popcorn thriller, of the kind they used to make before all the "event" movies took over Hollywood. Ben is a capable director no doubt, but the lavish praise is out of control.
I enjoyed it.
Any shots of Ben's socked feet in the film?
John Sheardown, Canadian envoy who aided Americans in Tehran, dies
John Sheardown sheltered four American Embassy staffers during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis. His aid was called 'indispensable,' although he was left out of the film 'Argo.'
The real-life Canadian hero portrayed in the popcorn thriller "Argo" says the film's Oscar-nominated screenwriter "had no idea what he's talking about."
Canada's former ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor, took sly jabs at the Ben Affleck-directed box office hit during a talk with Ryerson University students on Thursday.
The movie clearly states it's *based* on a true story. It's a movie not a documentary. If you look up how the six Americans actually got out of Iran, it's a lot less spectacular than that nail-baiting escape at the airport.
That is why we go to the fucking movies. Jesus.
"Ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and consummation of the plan was Canadian, and the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA," Carter told Morgan.
It's just a good movie. What's wrong with just a good movie? Sheesh.
I remember when everybody was raving about The Town. And then I watched it and it was just meh (except for Jeremy Renners performance), plus Affleck is a really shitty actor, one of the worst in HW. I have no interest in Argo!
To people saying "It's just a movie", you're absolutely right. It is just a movie. But, in Argo's case, it's CIA political propaganda.
This anonymous comment from HuffPost summarizes it perfectly.
"Sadly people get their history lessons from the movies and Hollywood is well aware of this - Affleck included. To make a movie based on history and then omit major facts in that historical movie is political propaganda. That is really what this film is and to brush it off as entertainment when we all know people have walked away believing it was fact, is just disingenuous."
Saw it last night on demand and I really liked it. It is a good movie in the sense that, even though I knew the hostages got out, I was still on the edge of my seat.
Plus, Affleck looks totally hot with that shaggy hair and beard. And in that one quick scene where he is putting his shirt on, he's still got a great body.
Loved it. Still, the IMDb Goofs page is full of interesting trivia, if you're picky.
Interesting that, based on their accents, many of the "Iranian" characters are clearly played by Dari-speaking Afghans. Dari and Farsi are mutually intelligible varieties of Persian.
The guy who plays Reza, Omid Abtahi, is the go-to "Middle Eastern" guy on lots of TV shows. I've always found him hot but can't find out anything about him. I wonder if he's Persian, Afghan, or what. (In the scene in the bazaar, he's yelling to the extras in Farsi "Guys, don't look at the camera, thank you!")
[quote]"Sadly people get their history lessons from the movies and Hollywood is well aware of this - Affleck included. To make a movie based on history and then omit major facts in that historical movie is political propaganda. That is really what this film is and to brush it off as entertainment when we all know people have walked away believing it was fact, is just disingenuous."
I don't disagree that people get their history lessons from the movies... but whose fault is that? Hollywood isn't saying this is factual. I have a problem with people blaming Hollywood and Affleck because the movie isn't factual, when it's clearly billed as "based on" a true story.
If people are that lazy and expect to be spoon-fed everything, then Argo is the least of their problems.
R91, you're talking about the majority of Americans or people in general!
Unfortunately, everyone cannot be an erudite scholar like you.
I finally watched Argo last night.
Maybe I fell victim to high expectations (after all, most people now say it will win Best Picture), but I really don't get the fuss.
It was a well made movie (the opening scenes about the Embassy take over were excellent), but it was predictable and oddly paced.
And while Affleck is clearly a competent director he is not a great actor. He is dead in the eyes and boring on the screen.
Another thing that irked me is that it is based on a true story but they fucked around with the facts. They made the Canadians' involvement seem trivial, when it was actually crucial. The coda voiceover by President Carter saying he would like to have taken credit but he had to give it to the [undeserving] Canadians was pretty galling.
I think that the movie helped make the average person aware of the crises, and that history is sadly seen as not very important any more. Compare Argo's entertainment value to Lincoln, which many said was too boring, and even belonged
on PBS. Those who see movies as mindless escape don't always care about authenticity.
That's just the thing, R92. I am far from - as you say - an "erudite scholar". I do, however, recognize that there is a difference between fact and fiction. So after I saw Argo, I was curious, got online and read about the true story. And if an idiot like me could do it, anyone can.
I guess I would just hope that the American public is generally smarter than "I saw it on the screen, so it must be true."
It certainly makes them Moose-limbs look mighty bad.
R90 Totally agree on Omid's hotness. He looked good in "Homeland," too.
Hollywood loves revisionist history like in U-571, Battle of the Bulge, Bridge of the River Kwai, etc. Because these types of movies feed our jingoistic egos! Lord knows we cannot make a film where the good guys are portrayed by the Brits or the Canucks. Oh, surely, there are no good guys except us, Yankees!
If a movie is advertised as "based on a true story" and omits, distorts or ignores significant facts, then, it's nothing but pure propaganda. Hollywood knows that in a few years, it becomes the alternate history.
Argo was entertaining, but it surely does not deserve "Best Picture" or even a nomination. It was full of cliches --- airport car chase scene (which never happened), the blood-thirsty locals at the bazaar (which also never happened), the car that almost did not start (once again, which never happened), the angry mob who hated us simply for being Americans (very simplistic and, frankly, racist), etc.
It could not be any more predictable, anti-Iranian and a CIA propaganda movie, if it tried.
Exactly R99. Just another Hollywood masturbation movie. Sure, gloss over all the surrounding political issues to make tacky inside jokes all the industry Oscar voters will love. Distort the facts to make it a vanity piece for Ben Affleck so he can save the day. Make the entire hostage crisis about these 6 people and overlook the rest of it because it's too politically messy. And they'll give it an Oscar tomorrow, because the industry loves demi-political action movies that don't actually ruffle any feathers.
The father of a childhood friend of mine was one of the 52 hostages who was there for all 444 days. He still won't speak about it publicly.