Acting under the cover of a Hollywood producer scouting a location for a science fiction film, a CIA agent launches a dangerous operation to rescue six Americans in Tehran during the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran in 1980.
British retirees travel to India to take up residence in what they believe is a newly restored hotel. Less luxurious than its advertisements, the Marigold Hotel nevertheless slowly begins to charm in unexpected ways.
In 1979, the American embassy in Iran was invaded by Iranian revolutionaries and several Americans were taken hostage. However, six managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador and the CIA was ordered to get them out of the country. With few options, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez devised a daring plan: create a phony Canadian film project looking to shoot in Iran and smuggle the Americans out as its production crew. With the help of some trusted Hollywood contacts, Mendez created the ruse and proceeded to Iran as its associate producer. However, time was running out with the Iranian security forces closing in on the truth while both his charges and the White House had grave doubts about the operation themselves. Written by
Kenneth Chisholm (email@example.com)
In keeping with the period in which the film is set (around 1979), Warner Bros. used their "Big W" logo, which was utilized on their releases around that time, and painted the Burbank Studios logo onto their water tower. It was the name of the building from 1972 until 1990, when Warners and Columbia Pictures were sharing the same facilities. See more »
While driving up to Dulles Airport outside of Washington, D.C., the terminal building was not shown accurately. One can see additions to the terminal that were not built until 1996. In 1979-80, the terminal was about half the size that it is now. See more »
This is the Persian Empire known today as Iran. For 2,500 years, this land was ruled by a series of kings, known as shahs. In 1950, the people of Iran elected Mohammad Mossadeqh, a secular democrat, as Prime Minister. He nationalized British and U.S. petroleum holdings, returning Iran's oil to it's people. But in 1953, the U.S. and Great Britain engineered a coup d'etat that deposed Mossadeqh and installed Reza Pahlavi as shah. The young Shah was known for opulence and ...
See more »
Past the photos of cast members and the real people they play, there's audio from an interview with then-President Jimmy Carter talking about the crisis. See more »
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
105 of 187 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?