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. ho... Read allActing 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 1979.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 1979.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Won 3 Oscars
- 96 wins & 156 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
The film opens with an American embassy in Iran being stormed and the majority of people taken hostage, except a small group who flee to the home of the Canadian Ambassador and are hidden. The story is then about the extradition of this small group, before the Iranians work out that they are missing and hunt them down; with options limited, the plan is to send an agent into Iran posing as someone scouting for locations for a movie – and then leave the country with the small group acting as his colleagues and peers. This involves doing more than saying it out loud as it has to pass muster with the Iranians – so the CIA works with a Hollywood writer and a producer to greenlight a film, sell it to the press and take their small production into Iran. In telling the story the film pretty much plays it straight and allows the scenario to be whatever it is – so when it is a press junket then it is amusingly absurd but while it is in an Iranian airport it is really tense and the stakes are apparent. This approach works pretty well because it lets the film have these extremes alongside one another without one undercutting the other. The downside is that it does occasionally mean that the telling feels quite "ordinary" as it lacks an individual voice to the delivery – not boring by any means, but just surprisingly straight in the telling.
This can be seen in the cast because mostly there are not really characters here, since the film focuses on events and doesn't leave a lot of time for the people (understandably). Affleck doesn't really work in the lead and I'm not sure why he cast him; he is OK but his presence is not all it needed to be in such a straight film. The various hostages in Iran don't really make an impression beyond them being just that, but there is color provided by solid turns from Goodman, Cranston, Arkin and a few others. As director Affleck does a good job to make the mix of content work so well, but the real credit to the production is how of the period it feels – there is nothing that really seems out of place, from office to street it feels like it was filmed back in the late 70s.
Argo is an effective and engaging story that works partly because the telling is straight enough to let the events be however they are (absurd, tense, whatever). However this straight bat does also limit the film by making it feel a little ordinary in the delivery, without much flair or individual style to the telling, even if the attention to period is really well done.
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
Director Ben Affleck proves here just how incredibly mature and restrained a filmmaker he's become, molding what is inherently a political story, yet wisely setting aside the politics. He masterfully handles the changes in tone very fluidly, from one moment being edge of your seat tension, to the next of inspired comic relief. It brings back memories of 70's thrillers, when craft and entertaining went together hand-in-hand.
The cast of veteran character-actors is worth the price of admission alone. Nearly every speaking role is occupied by a recognizable face, with the likes of Philip Baker Hall, Bob Gunton, Michael Parks, Kyle Chandler, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and more. This is easily the best cast of 2012 and, better yet, they all brought out there A game.
'Argo' is not a film to miss, its subject matter being more relevant than ever and will be a major contender come award season (and deservedly so.)
9/10 -Pycs
But the real nail biter is their exit from Iran. As in other movies of this ilk, the chase heats up with the Iranians on the heels of the Americans. Affleck throws into this chase a huge boulder of an obstacle when President Carter pulls the plug on the film crew ex-filtration & decides to go with Delta soldiers instead. If you want to know what happens, I advise you to see the movie or read the news accounts.
This just goes to show you that not all CIA covert actions are led by armed fighters like Jason Bourne and launched by the Treadstone department. Affleck's character doesn't even carry a gun--he carries a script instead.
The opening of the movie played a huge part in setting the tone of the rest of the film. As I had no history or prior knowledge to the events that transpired in Iran in the 1980s, the brief amount of a history lesson was just enough to maintain my interest. Throughout the film, there are times when I might have started to wander through long bouts of dialog, but witty comments by the characters kept me entertained. By the time the climax was about to hit, I was sitting on the edge of my seat, biting at my fingers, awaiting their next move.
Well done Ben, well done.
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
Oscars Best Picture Winners, Ranked
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn an interview with Piers Morgan, former President Jimmy Carter said that he believes the film was a "great drama", and it deserved to win an Oscar for best film. However, Carter noted that although "ninety percent of the contributions to the ideas, and the consummation of the plan was Canadian", the film "gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. With that exception, the movie's very good," Carter said, but "the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador, who orchestrated the entire process."
- GoofsIt is stated that the British and New Zealand embassies refused to help staff from the American embassy. This was not true. Both the British and the New Zealand embassies sheltered the Americans, then helped to pass them on to the Canadians. Britain's Arthur Wyatt was later awarded the Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George for the risks that he took.
- Quotes
LA Times Reporter: What does the title refer to?
Lester Siegel: The Argo. You know, it's the thing.
LA Times Reporter: Like Jason and the Golden Fleece, or what?
Lester Siegel: No, no. It's the ship. It's the spaceship. It goes everywhere. It goes all throughout space.
LA Times Reporter: So, it's Argonaut.
Lester Siegel: No.
LA Times Reporter: What does Argo mean?
Lester Siegel: I don't know.
LA Times Reporter: You don't know?
Lester Siegel: It means "Argo fuck yourself."
- Crazy creditsPast 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.
- Alternate versionsAfter it screened at the Toronto International Film Festival, the postscript at the end credits was changed because it was felt that it slighted Canada's involvement in the rescue of the American hostages.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Episode #21.11 (2012)
- SoundtracksUpside Down
from In the Valley of Elah (2007)
Written by Mark Isham
Courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc./Summit Entertainment, LLC
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Escape from Tehran
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $44,500,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $136,025,503
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $19,458,109
- Oct 14, 2012
- Gross worldwide
- $232,325,503
- Runtime2 hours
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1