'Argo' (2012)

[RRA]

Well, yes and no. Ultimately, everything is subjective, but I think my criticism of the screenplay, which is what I said makes the whole movie lifeless for me, is fairly objective. Every element of the structure is something out of a screenwriting handbook/class: the required but tacked-on scene to give us information about the protagonist's family background so that we care more for him, the required last-minute added tension for scenes that would normally not have any tension (the flight tickets not being approved right when they arrive at the airport), the character who doesn't trust the mission and the character who does... Everything in the script is SUCH a common-place thing they teach you in screenwriting class! A machine could have written it.

I was refering to earlier when you trying to find comparisons to other "bland" BP noms/winners. Many people were moved by FOREST GUMP and BRAVEHEART, the first I kinda liked but the other I despised.

[Jonathan]

It is mind-numbing that this lifeless script is receiving so much praise. In the old Hollywood days, the studios produced like, 20 scripts like this one per year. They were directed with exactly the same (or more) efficiency by the likes of Henry Hathaway, Lewis Milestone, Sam Wood, Michael Curtiz, W. S. Van Dyke, Mervin LeRoy… And nobody considered them Oscar material, let alone critics’ wins material. They’re not even considered minor classics nowadays, but just solid but impersonal movies.

In a weird way, this might be what attracts people so much to it? Nowadays in American cinema there's very little middle ground between the big blockbusters, the low-budget glorified B-movies and art house work. Argo is very much middle of the road - it's got that Hollywood formula, but it's not drowning in 5,000 visual effects shots. It's aimed directly at adults instead of stupid 15-25-year-olds, but it doesn't have any particularly nasty violence or artsy-fartsy characterizations/storytelling to weird you out. Granted, that explains how it became an audience hit more than anything (It's right in line with The Help or The Blind Side, which both got the oh-so-rare A+ from Cinemascore like Argo), and not-so-much critics. Actually...those two movies I just mentioned were very much dramatic chick flicks, and both came from no-name directors. What might give Argo the critical benefit is that A) After The Town, Affleck is beginnign to be viewed as some sort of solid, unpretentious Hollywood filmmaker, something we're in very short supply of these days, and B) historical thrillers are held up in a much, much better light critically than chicks flicks. I personally preferred Argo to The Help and Blind Side, but I see absolutely no reason why it should any more year-end notices than those two, let alone those Best Picture wins it's been picking up from the third-tier Critics groups.

[RRA]

I think you nailed it Jonathan.

[VSW]

If this didn't have Oscar buzz attached to it, I'm pretty sure reactions here would have been much better cos people would be able to appreciate this for what it is: extremely well-crafted film and solid pure entertainment! I really really liked this and I was so entertained throughout the whole thing. Maybe going in with no expectations at all really helped. My only complaint Is that it was perhaps too Well-crafted and well-made, if that makes any sense. Affleck just didn't take any risks so the payoff wasn't as great as it could have been.

[Gopher]

I LOVE this film. Some stories work with the Hollywood formula and Argo is one of them... in fact, that's one of the ways Argo is an ode to all things Hollywood. I didn't need an out-of-the-box narrative to reach a point where I was clenching my fists when the airplane took off.

Affleck really makes great filmmaking look effortless.

[McTeague]

Well, I think it’s rather obvious that, if I’m criticizing that the movie is too little to deserve awards, I’m talking about it in the context of awards, yeah, I’m not hiding it, so I don’t know where these “people are being harsher with it because of its awards prospects” comes from, and I think it’s a rather pointless thing to say when I’m making its awards prospects part of the conversation since the get go.

I haven’t said anything different than you: yes, it works, yes, it’s entertaining, yes, it’s tense, yes, it’s suspenseful, yes, it’s well crafter. I’ve given it 3/5 stars, a 7/10 grade, or whatever. And I’m absolutely sure I wouldn’t give this a higher grade if it didn’t have awards prospects. That doesn’t mean I cannot criticize the fact that a movie so formulaic is being considered the best of any token year.

[Artimus]

That doesn’t mean I cannot criticize the fact that a movie so formulaic is being considered the best of any token year.

No, but your position that it being "so formulaic" immediately raises suspicions that it could be great definitely is not as self-evident as you seem to think.

[Aaron Leggo]

I agree with McT about the assembly line script. I think Affleck is at his most polished here and he's got the whole intercutting thing figured out pretty well, at least in terms of fabricating a sense of breathless urgency, but he and the script are so eager to hit all the expected notes with such a safe and pedestrian approach that it all feels sort of empty and dull in the end. What really pushed me over the edge was the whole subplot with Affleck's kid and how of course Affleck needs to show up at the door right at the final moment so everyone in the audience can feel even cozier than before. Ugh.

[Thomas]

So this was good-ish?

I don't really know what to make of it, because it was at times a solid and well-paced thriller and at times just a pile of wink-wink, nudge-nudge lines that pandered to Hollywood voters.

I think Ben Affleck is very obviously finding his a rhythm as a director; the bookend action scenes were very well done, and intense.

Still, at times he brought the story only sightly below the surface level, and showed signs that he still has a few things to figure out behind the camera.

And then there's the final act, in which the movie basically just becomes a typical Hollywood narrative in that, "Oh, no Ben, you really didn't need to do that" kind of way. It sort of felt like he was doing his own thing, then panicked and threw something together at the end to make sure everyone actually liked the movie. Which was just unnecessary.

But people will like it, anyway. Voters, at least.

I totally agree with Andy again.
This makes great sense as an Oscar winner.
Affleck has never acted better.

This is not a terrible film but it is simple and easy to understand. ZD30 seems so complicated compared to this, and Argo is tighter than Django. I think that SLP in other years could have taken it down, though.

[Thomas]

(Btw, it strangely gives AMPAS a lot of street cred to disregard Affleck's meh direction..)

[Jonathan]

(Btw, it strangely gives AMPAS a lot of street cred to disregard Affleck's meh direction..)

That plus nominating Haneke and Zeitlin almost seem like an apology for the boringness of the Directing category over the last many years. Or an advance apology for the Bigelow snub, which, like, what the fuck.

[shooter_mcgavin]

If this didn't have Oscar buzz attached to it, I'm pretty sure reactions here would have been much better cos people would be able to appreciate this for what it is: extremely well-crafted film and solid pure entertainment! I really really liked this and I was so entertained throughout the whole thing. Maybe going in with no expectations at all really helped. My only complaint Is that it was perhaps too Well-crafted and well-made, if that makes any sense. Affleck just didn't take any risks so the payoff wasn't as great as it could have been.

I don't see how come a film that is seen was a "well-crafted film and solid pure entertainment" can not be considered as a Oscar winning film. If I can recall you can consider Lord of the Rings, The Departed, and even The Artist would fit in that category. And these movies were well accepted by the most people here.

Besides in terms of genre and style I can honestly say Argo is a step above similar movies like Runaway Jury and The Interpreter. Good entertaining thrillers with a political sub genre.

[Thomas]

The Interpreter is a good comparison.
Legend played the flute.

[McTeague]

I don't see how come a film that is seen was a "well-crafted film and solid pure entertainment" can not be considered as a Oscar winning film. If I can recall you can consider Lord of the Rings, The Departed, and even The Artist would fit in that category. And these movies were well accepted by the most people here.

Yeah hell no.

The Departed is a hyper-complex morality play, although it’s also entertaining as hell and people don’t pay attention to its many subtexts and layers of meaning, but it’s way, way deeper than Argo. And only in visual terms alone way out of Affleck’s reach.

The Lord of the Rings is an ambitious adaptation of a book that was considered inadaptable because of its mammoth size, a movie that gave respectability to the fantasy genre, and the book itself is way more poetic and thought-provoking than the Affleck film, even though Jackson banalised part of it.

The Artist is probably more comparable to Argo in terms of being just un-ambitious entertainment, but at least it chose an inspired and original way of telling an old story and giving it a post-modern bent, even if it’s superficial. In other words, its director had an inspired idea, and created a movie out of artistic inspiration, even if what he created ended up being fluffy to many (not to me). Argo seems created by a robot out of formula, not by someone who had a moment of inspiration.

[Thomas]

Argo is the Sesame Street version of ZD30. Reducing all political connotations to human emotions, using those emotions as plot devices. It's the spelling board version of International Relations for Dummies. The result? Affleck never once is a fish out of water.

[McTeague]

Argo is the Sesame Street version of ZD30. Reducing all political connotations to human emotions, using those emotions as plot devices. It's the spelling board version of International Relations for Dummies. The result? Affleck never once is a fish out of water.

ZD30 also lacks any insight anout International Relations and its political connotations are minimal and unimportant. It's only a much better genre piece, darker, grittier, tenser and with at least an edge of self-doubt, but not political insight, not at all.

[haqyunus]

I cant help but agree with Thimas and McT's posts above Argo snd ZD30. Argo is just so safe, predictable and hence dull.

[Aurelius]

ZD30 also lacks any insight anout International Relations and its political connotations are minimal and unimportant. It's only a much better genre piece, darker, grittier, tenser and with at least an edge of self-doubt, but not political insight, not at all.

That's because it does not focus on international relations. It's a morality play disguised as a tight procedural. I find it hard to judge if its political connotations are minimal and unimportant, a lot of Americans sure seem to think otherwise. But it doesn;t seem like it set out to be very political.

[McTeague]

That's because it does not focus on international relations. It's a morality play disguised as a tight procedural. I find it hard to judge if its political connotations are minimal and unimportant, a lot of Americans sure seem to think otherwise. But it doesn;t seem like it set out to be very political.

I agree, I just think Tomo was aggrandizing ZD30 to put down Argo in ways ZD30 doesn’t really deserve, because it’s about as political as Argo.

[Aurelius]

Its political implications are far greater than Argo, though.

I did like the cynical remark of the National Security Advisor in the film: "If this was political we'd be having this conversation in October when there's an election bump."
Because of course that's how politics works. Decisions are often made based on the political effects they have, not the actual effects.