Monday, October 15, 2012

Argo


Ben Affleck’s Argo tells a sort-of true story about the very real story in which a sole member of the CIA (one evidently equipped with very big balls) attempted to retrieve six American diplomats out of Iran during the country’s hostage crisis of the late ‘70s-early ‘80s.

This is a rather plot-heavy movie, so before I dive into how it all went down, let me throw you a few hyperbolic messages of praise. Argo is an impossibly tense, superbly acted, wonderfully entertaining political thriller. In typical George Clooney fashion (he acts as a producer here), the film is also a worthy throwback to the best of ‘70s American cinema. The 1970s brought with it the finest crop of domestic films this country has ever seen in one single decade. So, to warrant legimate throwback praise, your film must really be doing something right. Which Argo does. By a long shot.

In the film’s faultlessly paced opening minutes, Islamic militants infiltrate the U.S. embassy in Tehran as a means of retaliation for America’s support (and refuge of) Iran’s recent, controversial Shah. Somehow, six workers manage to escape the embassy and take shelter at the nearby home of the Canadian ambassador. Months later, the six diplomats are still in hiding, and CIA operative Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) takes it upon himself to bring them home.
To do this, Mendez cooks up a ridiculous plan to create a fake, big budget B-movie sci-fi flick, enter Iran under the guise of the film’s producer, and leave with his six scouting “crew” members. The idea is consistently and refreshingly hailed as a bad one, but, as Mendez’s boss (played by Bryan Cranston) says at one point: “It’s the best worst plan we have.”

I’m purposefully leaving out much of the plot here, but in knowing that that is just the basics, it’s obvious that this story has a movie treatment written all over it. Point in fact, I haven’t a clue why Argo (which gets its name from the “fake” movie Mendez was pitching) hasn’t been made before. But under the terse, confident direction of Affleck, I’m certainly glad it hasn’t.

Everyone in Affleck’s packed cast delivers and then some. Beginning with the man himself, I’m hard pressed to think of a better Affleck performance than his Tony Mendez. Affleck has a problem as an actor, and it is his scream. He can never fully hit that level of dramatic emotion that directors so often implore him to attempt. His even-tempered Mendez is a perfect role for him.
Same for Alan Arkin and John Goodman, who bring an appropriate amount of Hollywood smut to their respective characters. The (many) government goons are played by some of our best working actors, and played well. There’s Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff (side note: how cool is it to hear Coach Taylor say “fuck”?), Chris Messina, Titus Welliver, Bob Gunton, Philip Baker Hall, and so on. And as for the hostages, Tate Donovan (who is humorously tasked with being Argo’s fake director), and Kerry Bishé (a student of Edward Burns' micro budget school of cinema) stole it for me, but really, everyone who has face time in this flick does the film justice.

Argo is that rare film in which, despite the fact that much more is said than done (meaning, there are far more war room discussions than explosions here), the movie does not once, for a second, become uninteresting. It keeps moving and evolving and increasing its intelligence. It is, simply put, one of the finest recent political thrillers I can recall.

Sure, the film is getting some flak for not being entirely accurate to the story, but I think that as years go on, more and more people are taking that “Based on a True Story” title card a little too seriously. It’s silly to assume that any narrative movie is 100 percent rooted in truth. Hell, most documentaries (discreetly) implore certain levels of artifice to make their tales interesting. That is, after all, part of the wonder of the magical world of films. A-

33 comments:

  1. Seeing Thursday and can't wait. Have also put $100 on it for Best Picture at 9-1. :D

    Will read review after I see it but glad you are giving it an A!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice man! It really is a very well made film. But with that in mind, you're going to lose that $100. No way will this win Best Picture. Trust me!

      Delete
    2. Realy!? I've taken Les Mis at 7-1 and Siver Linings at 7-1 as well but I think it's between these 3 for sure.

      I think Lincoln will fall flat, The Master is no chance, Life of Pi a small one.

      Delete
    3. Lincoln and The Master won't cut it. Les Mis might, if it's a big hit. Silver Linings, if it's upbeat enough, and Life of Pi, if it's inspiring enough. Argo is a little too heavy-handed for the Oscars. Bet cha ;)

      Delete
    4. Great review Alex, I think I agree it's one of the best political thrillers I've ever seen. Didn't quite love it but it's pretty awesome.

      Also, having now seen it, I'm still happy with 9-1 odds for it! Think it's got a great chance :)

      Delete
  2. With you all the way here, Alex. Affleck couldn't have ask for a better socio-political climate for the movie to open. It's impossible to not watch the Argo without current real-world events seeping in, which only adds to the drama on screen. Affleck is having one of the best career resurgences in film history. Good Review, one of the year's best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jeff! Glad we agree here. Argo really worked for me in every way. I actually just saw Affleck on a TV show, and he said it's kind of disheartening that America's relationship with groups depicted in his film is pretty much the same as it was in 1979. So, yeah, definitely a topical movie right now.

      Delete
  3. Yes -- good grief -- people shouldn't get so hung up on "based on a true story." Unless somebody tells me otherwise, I read that as "loosely based on fact." Even documentaries are mostly hype and opinion these days.

    John Goodman and Alan Arkin are in this? I need to see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goodman and Arkin are FANTASTIC in this. Perfect roles for them.

      It seems like now more than ever, people believe that Based on a True Story title card. There are no restrictions or merits of fact checking in order for a director to begin their film with that. So, yeah... don't take things so literally, people!

      Delete
    2. Seriously. And people have a responsibility to read/watch things critically and check the facts for themselves if in doubt. Not that I always take my own advice, mind you, but at least I don't blame the writer or film-maker for it.

      As the professor said in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, "Honestly, what do they teach in schools nowadays?" :-P

      Delete
    3. Ha, love that quote. And honestly, what you described in your first paragraph is the basis of much of my life education. I saw things in movies, then looked them up and studied them until I was satisfied. That got me into SHITLOADS of trouble at school, but oh well! Teachers don't really like when a student knows more about the Holocaust or slavery than they do haha.

      Delete
  4. My mom rarely goes to the movie theaters, but she is anxious to see this. I'm opting to see Perks of Being A Wallflower, just because I've been waiting for its theater release for a long time and it's finally in my area. In my eyes Affleck has yet to disappoint...except for Gigli. :)
    Thanks for the review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know your mom's movie tastes but I really don't think she'll be disappointed by this one! I agree, Affleck's career choices as of late have been exceptional.

      Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

      Delete
  5. Good review Alex. In my humble opinion, I don't really think that this is one of the best movies of the year, simply because of the way it ends. We all know that there's going to be a story about survival and life, so why the hell should we feel on the edge of our seat when the ending is already known basically? Still, Affleck does an effective job as director and shows that he can do almost anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've touched onto an always-pertinent movie argument: how can you enjoy films that you already know the ending too? It's tricky to pull off. For example: everyone knows the ship is going to sink in Titanic, so James Cameron's job is to make it as engrossing as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

      For the record, I didn't already know the ending to Argo. Decades old American foreign politics don't interest me at all, so I was in the unknown.

      Delete
  6. Surprised on how great the ratings people give to this movie. I don't have any expectation, and I don't really like Ben Affleck as an actor. But reading your review makes me want to check it out. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Andina! I honestly didn't expect to like this as much as I did either. I hope you get a chance to see it!

      Delete
  7. Excellent review man. I was slightly underwhelmed with the film, even though it's very well-executed. Right now I'd give it a solid A-, but I'm going to see it again. It looks like a film that might grow in my estimation after another look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see it again too. This thing was so goddamn tense, I actually think I'd like it better the second time around. Who knew Affleck had such good directing chops?

      Delete
    2. Well, judging from Gone Baby Gone, I thought he did. ;)

      Delete
    3. Ha, no doubt! I knew back then that this guy had it. Crazy shit.

      Delete
  8. Haven't seen Argo yet. hmm, the story sounds familiar to Wag The Dog (1997)...that was a producer creating a fake war.

    Affleck's last one, The Town (2010), was a good thrill ride, nothing more than that in my opinion. Argo looks like a step up for Ben Affleck as a director, does his latest strive for anything other than entertainment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would definitely make a good double bill with Wag the Dog, but Argo is far from satire or absurdist humor. It has a dead serious tone.

      I agree about The Town. I loved Renner and Lively in it, but it is pure entertainment. Argo is way past entertainment. It is entertaining, sure, but it accomplishes so much more than that. I highly recommend it.

      Delete
  9. Great review! I must say I'm not too fond of Affleck - either actor or director, I didn't really like Gone Baby Gone and The Town was only all right. But I will see Argo, it seems like a serious BP contender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I definitely dig Affleck as a director, and Argo is his strongest yet (even though GBG remains my favorite of his). Hope you enjoy it!

      Delete
  10. Great review, Alex! I couldn't agree more with your description of "impossibly tense." I was childishly nervous every step of the way, even though I was pretty sure I knew how things would turn out. Argo is entertaining and eerily relevant to our world politics today. A+ for a great review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Fly! I was right there with you - wrapped up in tension, waiting to see how it all panned out. Loved it!

      Delete
  11. Wow, interesting to see such an amazing review for Argo. It was always on my To See list of his autumn, but now it just might be on top. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My pleasure! I think people really need to see this one, for a number of reasons. It's a very fine film indeed.

      Delete
  12. "In the film’s faultlessly paced opening minutes"
    Agreed, 100%. Those opening minutes - which are not actually "opening" the film if you consider the history lesson - are stellar. That and the final scouting through Tehran's Bazaar are the two scenes I keep thinking about again when I think of the movie.

    "This is a rather plot-heavy movie"
    On the other hand, I disagree with this, to be honest. Not that it isn't plot heavy, but I think it's really straightforward. I don't know if you read my review, but that's actually the problem I had with the film. It was densely plotted without ever feeling substantial on a contextual level. I always felt like he could explore the politics more. Then again, I'm accused of being biased because I know the story well and I wanted him to delve into it more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I meant by plot heavy was that I didn't want to get into many of the plot mechanics in my review, because I detest spoilers, so I try to get my reviews as plot-limited as possible.

      I do think the flick was very heavy on plot (which certainly isn't a dig) but definitely straight forward.

      See, I actually knew nothing whatsoever about the real story. Sections of American/foreign politics don't interest me nearly as much as they (probably) should.

      Going over to read your review soon!

      Delete