f13.net

Just saw this. It is really well done. If you like historical or spy type of stories it is a very good one.

I am very much interested in seeing this.


But really, was it even close to being as good as Cloak and Dagger (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087065/)?  :why_so_serious:

My 11 year old self loved that movie!  Thanks for the reminder.

Affleck has gone 3 for 3. Absolutely worth seeing.

Is that the code for a dead hooker in his trailer?

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this one.

Affleck directed and has Bryan Cranston in it? Yes, please.

That's a 10-82

Actually, he's Mr. 94.

(http://i.imgur.com/G4HkO.png)

 :thumbs_up:

He was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!

Went to see this on Friday with the husband and my mom.  It was excellently done.  I was only in 7th grade in 1980 so I don't remember much about the whole hostage situation except for the yellow ribbons and that they were held for over a year.  No recollection of the 6 that escaped or anything; mom says she doesn't really remember anything about them either, so it was a good history lesson as well.  I do remember thinking "did people really smoke that much then?"

Saw this a few weeks ago with a friend of mine when I was back in the US - very well done. Showing the process of document (and back then, visa stamp plate) destruction was a nice touch.

The portions in the consular section towards the beginning made me chuckle a bit, especially the applicants not knowing how to complete the applications - I guess some things never change.

I also hear it's good.  I also hear from folks who know about it that there wasn't enough about the Canadians.  


edit: editing

Saw this a few days ago just before it disappeared round here. Really enjoyed it, would be a great DVD pick up if you missed it. Stands comparison with Charlie Wilson's War, its not quite on the same level, but worth seeing for all the same reasons.

I considered the blu ray, but was demoralized by the complaints about historical inaccuracy (all foreign heroes changed to Americans) and a horrible portrayal of Iran (every Iranian is either angry and shouting or a victim getting beaten by the former).

The first complaint does not make sense to me because the film clearly identified several non-US heroes and included a scene in which the Canadians are openly thanked. Which hero was converted to an American?  There aren't that many characters.

6 State department employees > all Americans
CIA characters > Americans
Canadian Ambassador and his wife > Canadians
Iranian housekeeper > Iranian

What other non-US, non-Iranian people were involved in the incident that were ignored or converted to American?

As far as the angry Iranians go, that matches my memory of the events as portrayed by the US news media at the time. (Yes, I am old enough to remember.) I also don't think their anger was misplaced or unjustified.  They had been ruled by a butcher much like Saddam Hussein for 30 years and he was scooped from the jaws of justice by the foreign power who put him in place!

The film was about America, Americans, American attitudes (good and bad, personal, institutional, and public) and a little bit about conflating Hollywood with real life, for good or ill. The Iranians aren't really filled out because the film isn't about them. If you want you can bitch that nobody makes films about Iranians, but that isn't the fault of people making a film about America.

Anyway, best picture? Why not I guess. Nothing stands out as head and shoulders above it.

Good speech by Affleck, half expecting him to say 'so we can all forget about Gigli now right?'

Who knew cameraman from True Lies is a producer and classy by Clooney to not even speak. That dude is just too fucking cool.

Hopefully this will mean he no longer feels the need to cast himself in his movies from here out.

I saw Argo on a plane last week.  It is a good movie.  The fact that is won Best Picture says a lot (not good) about film as art these days.  The movie does not belong in the same zip code as films like Shine, The English Patient, et al.  None of the nominees were of that quality (according to what I heard since I only saw Argo).

The English Patient was awful.  Fargo or Shine should have won that year.

This winning best picture isn't some grand statement on the current state of film as art.  It's just the way the Oscars work sometimes.  Hell, Shakespeare in Love won in '98 against American Beauty, Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan and Elizabeth; all of which were superior films, artistically.  That was just two years after The English Patient won in '96.

American Beauty is overrated there I said it.  :why_so_serious:


(This does not mean Shakespeare in Love should've won, of course, that was certainly odd as well.)

I liked American Beauty. A bit pretentious, but still well done.

The English Patient was fucking romance novel dreck masquerading as art and I hated every second of it that didn't involve Sayeed from Lost.

To say American Beauty is dire would be massively understating things.

I just don't get why people hate Afflec so much, I mean he's done some stinkers but what actor hasn't? In my mind he's proved he has some chops as an actor with his latest movies.

AFFLECK WAS THE BOMB IN PHANTOMS, Y0!

I understand and agree.  All of those films were much more Oscar worthy than Argo. Argo was a solid drama.  It got lucky to be released in a year of weak competition.

Daredevil.

(http://cdn03.cdn.socialitelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Jennifer-Lopez-Ben-Affleck-Relationship-Sightings-Red-Carpet-Various-11282011-10-400x470.jpg)

He has been in or made plenty of good movies.

But he hasn't been a good actor in any of them.

This statement is not factual.

I've heard that Daredevil is actually not a terrible movie if you see the director's cut, as they apparently cut out a lot of important stuff.  I'm not willing to find out personally, though. 

I've heard good things.  :grin:

(http://content7.flixster.com/movie/27/63/276305_det.jpg)

I'm not saying he's done stinkers but we forgave Clooney for batman and robin didn't we?

It doesn't make it a great movie but it does make it better.  It's a hell of a lot better than fucking Elecktra that's for sure. 

Well, there's a reason I said 'not terrible' as opposed to 'good'.  :grin:

Elektra isn't even terrible.  I've seen it three times, but can't remember a single scene, or even a line.  It doesn't even manage to be memorably bad.

--Dave

I'm just trying to say Afflec has been in stinkers but so has everyone, Tom Hanks in war of the roses anyone? I admit he's has a sort of douchey quality but so do a million other actors. I guess I'm just wondering why he gets singled out, maybe it's just hard to dislike Matt Damon in any way so the hate has to go somewhere?

Who is this Afflec person?

I think Affleck picked up a lot of badwill when he was everywhere with Jennifer Lopez. He also looks like the smug guy you want to punch (or at least did when he was younger).

But he's a great director and his acting has improved as he's no longer cast as the smug git.

As for "Daredevil" - Affleck is okay, but the script / theatrical edit makes it a weak film. I've got the Director's Cut, but haven't watched it.

I'd rather watch "Daredevil" than, say, "Spider-Man III".

Clooney was not the problem in batman.

Affleck was (one of) the problems in Daredevil. And Argo for that matter.


He is not good at acting. He plays the same 'mildly frustrated, slightly out of his depth, and quite arrogant young man' in every scene and it is tiresome.

I don't want to see him on a cast list, just like I don't wish to see Steven Spielberg or JJ Abrams on a cast list.

War of the Roses was Michael Douglass and Kathleen Turner.  I think you mean The Money Pit, which was him and Shelly Long.  It was also hilarious if you've ever done any sort of renovation work.

No I was thinking Bonfire of the Vanities actually.

DiCaprio?

The quick and the dead.

Wait, hold on.


....Did you actually just express an opinion that could in some way be construed as negative towards The Quick and the Dead?

Titanic......

(http://i.imgur.com/rmFa0nI.png) (http://imgur.com/rmFa0nI)

This. It's a mediocre movie in the director's cut. It's a HUGE improvement from the theatrical. But yeah, Elektra? There isn't a cutting room floor big enough to make that movie not be total shit.

"The Quick and the Dead" is awesome and I rewatch it every time it comes on tv.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding the English language that is used here correctly. Is there someone here who is saying "The Quick and the Dead" is a bad movie?

There are much more believable alternate history westerns.  Wild Wild West, for example.

--Dave

I mean, is the prevailing view that it was a good movie? Cause you know, it wasn't.  Fun to watch maybe? I could see that angle but definitely not good.

Hollywood saves the world.  What could go wrong?


I like the  :tinfoil:  that the CIA partly funded Argo (and Zero Dark) to help its image.  "We get things done".

A variant take on Argo… (http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2013/02/oscar-prints-the-legend-argo.html)

Well, yeah.

So what ?  Same as it's been for years.

And? The entire star trek franchise is about human exceptionalism, think of the poor Romulans.  Have you ever seen any movie made in China? The amount of excessive patriotism and nationalism is staggering. 

In short, everyone does it, old news, yadda yadda yadda.

I actually thought the little explanation at the start of the film was a pretty even-handed (if not sympathetic) explanation of why Iranians were pissed off at the U.S., something that isn't exactly broadly acknowledged as having any legitimacy.  As usual people use a movie like this as an opportunity to pontificate.

Except that Star Trek isn't based on a true story. If it were, the Klingons would probably want a word too.

Seriously, it doesn't bother anyone that it's a made-up story (so *loosely* based on the real truth), that most of the stuff depicted in the movie didn't really happen as portrayed -- not just painting CIA as hero instead of Canadian diplomat, inventing and inserting chase and pursuit that did not occur -- Argo supposedly portrays the rescue of 6 American diplomats from Iran in 1979, by an intrepid CIA agent, who leads them out of Tehran disguised as members of a film production crew. The movie is like a recruiting ad for the CIA. Except for the fact that the idea for the escape, the false passports provided to the Americans, the reconnaissance of the Tehran airport etc. etc., came not from the real-life CIA character, but from plucky Canadian diplomats, led by their ambassador Ken Taylor.

But I suppose it no different than past "historical" films -- U571 (where courageous American troops retrieve the Nazi Enigma code machine by boarding a German submarine in disguise when in fact it was the British who captured the Enigma and broke the code), The Last Samurai (American soldiers led by Tom Cruise save the day for Japan when they are brought in to train the Japanese Imperial army against a 19th century uprising but in reality, it was the French who trained them), JFK (fraudulent & cartoonish, and worse, makes doubting the "official" story look like soiled Bircher fare) & The Patriot (so historically egregious and misleading, even Smithsonian withdrew and disavowed any association).

Problem is, most people watch these and it becomes their accepted and honored version of history. Might not have been as large a matter when people actually read (which too is littered with untruth, but not to the degree and impact moving images implant).

Holy shit, you mean to say that movies have lots of historical alterations and untruths. Mind blown...

Saying that a film is inaccurate is never an interesting point. The interesting point is, "Inaccurate in which way, and to what end?" Which is where Naum's comment is spot-on. You could make this same story be just as taut and interesting as a thriller with Canadian diplomats as the central movers of the plot and the occasional CIA advisor or contact as a dangerous, unreliable wild card that might ruin the whole thing. Hell, you could make the Iranian housemaid the heroine if you angled the story another way.

Christ, what a horribly written article.  Not sure if the Douchebag even watched the movie, the comments he makes are so off base.  It DID explain why the embassy was over run, why people were pissed, and I felt gave a fair portrayal.  He's mad because the movie showed post revolutionary Iran as being violent?  It god damned was!  Read any book or accounts by actual Iranians!  Blarg, that whole thing read like the left wing equivalent of a redstate article.  All brainless hyperbole.

You can quibble about how the Canadians were marginalized and other things like that.  Trying to say it was a hit piece on Iran?  GTFO.  The film was just a fun romp that this guy is over thinking.  Truth is a Canadian/CIA operation happened that saved 6 Americans.  It told a Hollywood version of that which was fun, and over all harmless.  It wasn't some ultra patriotic masturbation piece like The Patriot.

You mean William Wallace did NOT bang and impregnate the Queen of England?  :psyduck:

Get ta fook out wit ye!

Personally I disliked the Patriot, U571, and The Last Samurai because they are terrible movies.

But in Argo the inaccuracy stuff seems to matter even less because the message of the film, unlike those above was not "America! Fuck yeah!".

The film I saw (some critics appear to have seen another version idk) covered the issue of the US contribution to the problem right at the start, and America as a chaotic entity making both good and bad decisions was writ through the whole damn thing.

If they had introduced more characters of other nationalities they would have ended up sanctifying one team or another just through lack of screen time, which would have weakened the whole film.

The focus on Americans allowed the film to build a more complete commentary on America and America's views of the wider world, which made for a better film.

Any film that I enjoy that is 'based on true events' just encourages me to go do some reading and research into the actual event. It's a movie, it's primary motive is to entertain and if it helps encourage me learn something new, good for it. 'Argo' wasn't a documentary.

I saw this Sunday afternoon and pretty much agree with everything eldaec said.

I'll be honest though, having people in the theater cheering and clapping at certain scenes was a much more annoying thing than the historical inaccuracies.

Actually it was Poles who broke Enigma, the submarine service used an extra wheel on the machine which is what they recovered from a submarine.

New Zealand has done a bit of complaining about "Argo" since the film shows their embassy refusing to help when in reality they provided a safe house for the diplomats at great risk to themselves (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/nz-embassy-worker-corrects-argo-events/story-e6frfkui-1226599088453).