Argo

Thumbs up. Great acting and great production values. I have no idea how they got that 70's look, particularly for the parts shot in Burbank and Hollywood. (If you grew up in the 70's you'll be going "Oh my god! That kid has a 2XL!" and so on a lot.) The direction and pacing are also sort of a throwback; it reminded me of All The President's Men, with the vast majority of the movie having no real onscreen action, and no tension or conflict other than the overarching tension and conflict that come from the fugitives' situation and their agonizing over whether the CIA's plan represents their best chance at survival. It's really a movie about talking, tension, guys smoking cigarettes and agonizing over what the right thing to do is.

The script itself is good but not great. (Spoilers coming, I guess, if you don't know how the real-life situation turned out.) They're in a bit of a tough spot because everyone knows the outcome. I mean, I had never heard of this part of the incident before I started seeing stuff related to the movie, but I certainly figured I would remember if these people had been captured or killed. The dialog in the movie is really pretty great, and well-delivered by everyone. But my one disappointment is they pussy out at the end, and tie on a traditional Hollywood "exciting finale" that I assume was totally made-up (if not, holy crap!). Given how understated the movie was up to that point, I found that a real letdown.

But that's just one problem in what is an otherwise excellent two hours. Definitely recommended. Man, who knew Ben Affleck would turn out to be a good actor and really good director?

Agreed with all your points, even the ending.

I think it's pretty impossible to not like this movie, really.

My understanding is that a lot of the excitement in the film in addition to the ending is manufactured, as the operation was pretty open and shut. Not that it wasn't audacious in its conception, but rather that the execution would have made for a pretty dull affair by Hollywood standards. While angrier reviewers have put it differently, I think it's important to be clear that the movie is about late 1970s US citizens on location rather than really being anything substantive about Iran; I think the trailers were pretty clear about that but you never know.

Also, I'm Koontzing here, because I don't really want to see the movie but am interested in its reception.

I'm pretty sure a movie where the finale is simply that they go the airport, pick up their tickets, and get on the plane with nothing exciting happening whatsoever would be a bit of a letdown.

But yeah, very good film. I think it captures the plight of the fugitives quite well. I mean, how much would you trust your life to a stranger who shows up with the most cockamamie plan conceivable where any mistake on any part would spell a horrible death for not just you but your friends and loved ones? How much pressure is that? It's pretty incredible.

It's a very likeable movie. I filed it in the same folder as things like Apollo 13--dramatized/fictionalized accounts of very competent people performing really well under very high pressure and stakes. I like seeing stories about competent people doing competent things. For a couple days after seeing it, I wanted less keenly to commit nerd-ragey violence against boring usual type of workplace incompetence complicating my days, both by the feel-good reinforcement and providing some perspective about pressures and stakes that actually mattered.

If you're taking requests, I ask that you write 500 words on how the unofficial tagline "Argo fuck yourself" is a ciphered white supremacist screed that really gets right to the heart of why the movie is only liked by racists. Perhaps by way of fucking oneself being the semiotic signifier of genetic purity as opposed to fucking others, or The Other, therefore racism. Something like that, I don't know.

Movie is good. Criticisms are valid. Movie is still good.

Wet. Lemon. Good.

The movie is very clear that it's about this particular group of people (the "Houseguests," as the six escapees are called) and their situation, not about Iran in general. The only real meta/political stuff is the opening narration that sets up why the embassy occupation (which is the first thing that happens in the movie) happens. If anything, that narration puts the fault at least as much on the US as anybody.

I'm sure there's the normal group of people complaining because unruly Iranian rebels were portrayed as being unruly and rebellious, but you're going to get that no matter what you do. The movie took time to present the rebels' side of things (both in the opening narration and in several scenes showing the rebels listing their grievances with the US), so to the extent that it also showed autocratic Iranian government officials and had US people talking about the threat of torture and execution of the hostages, I think they were trying to strike a balance.

I saw the move on the plane and loved it, but then when I looked into the actual incident it annoyed me at how much the film minimizes the contributions of Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand (the former was supposedly actually running the operation, and the latter two never turned the Americans away - they actually stayed at the British embassy for a day). Affleck says that this was done for dramatic reasons, but it's still kind of shitty. Also that the ending was entirely constructed from whole cloth bugged me a bit, but that was more understandable. It did kind of ruin the tension, because you know they're going to out so all the close calls feel really artificial.

Wait wait wait the part where a car is chasing a plane didn't really happen?

Anyway they should have just included a conversation between the producers about how they don't like it when movies take liberties with the real events they're based on and add dumb car chases and stuff, and that way it would have been Adaptation.