Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   While everyone's been going on about Skyfall and Twilight, Argo has quietly earned more than $100 million since its debut   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 80
    More: Cool, Ben Affleck, Argo, North America, box offices, Alan Arkin, historical fictions, Grant Heslov  
•       •       •

2396 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 10:20:17 AM  

FlashHarry: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It was a bit US centric but we're hardly talking U-571 here.

god, i almost walked out of that piece of shiat. i mean, if you're going to rewrite WWII history, at least be brash about it like tarantino in basterds!


I was in the UK when it came out. It went down like dysentery on the ISS.
 
2012-12-03 10:30:37 AM  

stoli n coke: Plus, it's interesting to finally see who did the actual work on that Good Will Hunting script.


There is a current Cracked article about artists who ressuscitated their carreers from the pits of despair, and one of them was Ben Affleck. They basically said that not only did his directing gigs improved his standing, it made people completely rethink his collaboration with Matt Damon, where Matt Damon before appears as the brain of the outfit, and now looks more like the dumb blonde of the couple.
 
2012-12-03 10:45:07 AM  
I liked "The Good Shepard"
 
2012-12-03 11:15:26 AM  
Its a movie. It is going to be exciting. It did that and entertained without making the Canadians look like crap.

It needed drama and excitement and it delivered.

Well made. Just because it made people look at the real story and figure it out that the movie wasnt 100% correct ( I know no one that thought that the movie was 100% factual after leaving) doesnt mean the movie sucked.

If movies like this were 100% factual they would be boring as hell.

I am sure Zero Dark Thirty will take a little license with the true story.
 
2012-12-03 11:43:30 AM  

Bored Horde: America has always projected it's own reality onto the world, and you can either roll with it or get rolled over.


Every country I've ever lived in has overstated their contributions to the world. This is not a singular American trait (nor is it one that Canadians don't share).
 
2012-12-03 11:44:56 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Flint Ironstag:
A very good point, in storytelling terms. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they went out of their way to state the British and NZ embassies didn't want to help when in fact they did. And to claim the Canadians were "allowed" to take the public credit only for political reasons, when in fact they did most of the work.

The bit about the British and NZ embassies seemed unnecessary but my take on the "public credit" part was that they were saying the Canadians would take all the public credit for political reasons, rather than part if the credit as would have reflected the events.

The film also made it very clear that the Canadian Ambassador was sticking his neck out in a big way.

It was a bit US centric but we're hardly talking U-571 here.


And the poor maid who had to flee to Iraq (in the movie). That was just sad.
 
2012-12-03 11:45:16 AM  
My wife wanted to see ARGO, and specifically asked me NOT to go on about any historical innacuracies.

Yes, the movie played up the CIA's role, and probably streamlined a helluva lot, but the meat of the story
was there, and it was a great film.

About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:27 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.



No. 70's hair was really that bad - like a dead raccoon draped over your head. I was there, man!
 
2012-12-03 12:00:40 PM  
"Ben Affleck has a lot going for him. Not everything, but a lot.
 
2012-12-03 12:03:18 PM  
As much as we all might want to hate on him, Affleck is batting 3 for 3 as a director.
 
2012-12-03 12:07:48 PM  
I really, really enjoyed Argo and it opened my eyes to a part of the historical story that I was way too young to understand when it happened in real life. I remember my parents watching the news in the evening and the hostage "days in captivity" counter on the screen.

I was impressed with how Ben A. set up the story without bogging it down - the whole movie used news footage very well. The movie inspired me to go back and familiarize myself with the details of what really happened.

Know what really shocked me? How young the 'guests'/embassy staffers were!! They were mostly mid-20s. Holy crappola! They were babies!

/Plus, I never realized what an amazing body Afleck has. YOWZA.
 
2012-12-03 12:12:10 PM  

oldfarthenry: DjangoStonereaver: About the only thing I can ding it on is the poor quality of the hairpieces, but that's something common to
any film set in the 1970s these days.


No. 70's hair was really that bad - like a dead raccoon draped over your head. I was there, man!


As was I, my friend, but while the hair itself was very sub-par, it at least moved. The wigs that the people
in the film needed to pull off the look make it look like they are all hydrocephalics with steel wool on their
heads.

/And don't get me started about the mustaches....
 
2012-12-03 01:59:28 PM  
The movie was good in my opinion, especially in the way it created tension even though I knew how it turned out for those people.

The movie makes clear that the problems were of US construction, and those people were only able to avoid capture and escape the country due to non US efforts. I think it's fair then, with that foundation, that the main characters were US citizens.
 
2012-12-03 02:24:49 PM  

graggor: Its a movie. It is going to be exciting. It did that and entertained without making the Canadians look like crap.

It needed drama and excitement and it delivered.

Well made. Just because it made people look at the real story and figure it out that the movie wasnt 100% correct ( I know no one that thought that the movie was 100% factual after leaving) doesnt mean the movie sucked.

If movies like this were 100% factual they would be boring as hell.

I am sure Zero Dark Thirty will take a little license with the true story.


Precisely.
 
2012-12-03 04:01:50 PM  

whooter: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

? Canada gets all kinds of props in the film... Or is there something I'm missing?


I think hes either trolling or hes never seen the film with the last 5 minutes also showing the hundreds of signs people made saying "Thank You Canada" as the people came home........

Oh and Skyfall was not that great, they seemed to gloss over a lot of the story and I just didnt buy Javier as being that gay, it was too over the top and he seems more effective in acting when hes being subtle.
 
2012-12-03 05:44:10 PM  

steamingpile: Oh and Skyfall was not that great, they seemed to gloss over a lot of the story and I just didnt buy Javier as being that gay, it was too over the top and he seems more effective in acting when hes being subtle.


I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.
 
2012-12-03 05:51:16 PM  

downtownkid: Flint Ironstag: Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.


Citation needed.


How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.
 
2012-12-03 06:01:15 PM  

downtownkid: Citation needed.


Or This account from The Slate?

The most disputed aspect of the movie's version of events has to do with Canada's role in the escape. 30 years ago, Canada received complete credit for the rescue, because the U.S. was worried about possible repercussions if CIA involvement was publicized. (They may also have wanted to maintain the plausibility of a similar ruse in future.) Argo corrects that version of events-or, rather, overcorrects it, downplaying the actual extent of Canadian involvement, which was considerable. The Americans were housed by two Canadians: the Ambassador Ken Taylor, and a Canadian embassy employee, John Sheardown. (In the film, all of them stay with Taylor; Sheardown does not appear at all.) It was Taylor who cabled Washington to begin the escape plan in earnest, and once the plan was decided on, Canadians "scouted the airport, sent people in and out of Iran to establish random patterns and get copies of entry and exit visas, bought three sets of airline tickets," and "even coached the six in sounding Canadian."

Almost none of that appears in Argo. Taylor himself has a major part, and is presented as a sympathetic and brave man who took great personal risks to save the Americans. But his actual role was even larger. He was "spying for the U.S. throughout the hostage crisis, at the request of Jimmy Carter." After some friends who attended the Argo premiere in Toronto described it to Taylor, he expressed concern "that we're portrayed as innkeepers who are waiting to be saved by the CIA," which is a pretty fair description of what the film depicts.
 
2012-12-03 06:10:10 PM  

thamike: I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.


This disagrees.

I dont care that he was gay, I just thought it was a poor attempt. I get how you think it rebooted it but I feel it basically just used this to get rid of any tradition and introduce young, pretty characters.

About the only actor that seemed competent in the new film was ralph finnes, the rest seemed in over their head and Javier was misused in this role, also they could have touched on why he hated a certain person so much instead of just showing his injury. Ehhhh it was ok but far from the best bond film.
 
2012-12-03 06:41:16 PM  
I saw Argo and liked it. Didn't see blond Bond and sparkly vampires.
 
2012-12-03 07:12:53 PM  

steamingpile: thamike: I don't think he was supposed to be actually gay. I think he was coming on to Bond to throw him off his game. Skyfall rebooted the entire series. In a good way.

This disagrees.

I dont care that he was gay, I just thought it was a poor attempt. I get how you think it rebooted it but I feel it basically just used this to get rid of any tradition and introduce young, pretty characters.

About the only actor that seemed competent in the new film was ralph finnes, the rest seemed in over their head and Javier was misused in this role, also they could have touched on why he hated a certain person so much instead of just showing his injury. Ehhhh it was ok but far from the best bond film.


That doesn't matter, as Javier Bardem agrees with me--

As for Bardem, the Spanish actor noted that while Silva's sexuality was "part of the game," his goal as the character was simply to create "uncomfortable situations" for the other players. "Within that, you can read anything that you want or wish," he said. "But it was more about putting the other person in a very uncomfortable situation where even James Bond doesn't know how to get out of it."

He was an unhinged character, murderously trolling MI6, and he pulled it off well, in my opinion, especially since Bond movies are not deep explorations of the human condition in any sense.

"Best Bond" is a bit vague. It was certainly one of the most interesting, and definitely the most enjoyable on its own merits of the Craig Bonds so far. Camp doesn't play well anymore, and all the geeks lose their sh*t when Bond is morbid. I think this was a good balance, and definitely better than the last one.
 
2012-12-03 07:29:53 PM  
Argo was good from the get-go. Never let up and is one of the best films this year. And it's based on events and takes liberties just like every other Hollywood film based on events. Now, if this was a documentary and the filmakers were screwing around with the facts, that's a completely different thing.It's not like the film is a Leni Riefenstahl production.
 
2012-12-03 09:35:40 PM  

jso2897: Actual people that I know keep saying it is good. That's unusual.


Umm... Do you know some fake (non-actual) people, too? Are you off your meds again?
 
2012-12-03 11:04:39 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Flint Ironstag:
A very good point, in storytelling terms. Still doesn't excuse the fact that they went out of their way to state the British and NZ embassies didn't want to help when in fact they did. And to claim the Canadians were "allowed" to take the public credit only for political reasons, when in fact they did most of the work.

The bit about the British and NZ embassies seemed unnecessary but my take on the "public credit" part was that they were saying the Canadians would take all the public credit for political reasons, rather than part if the credit as would have reflected the events.

The film also made it very clear that the Canadian Ambassador was sticking his neck out in a big way.

It was a bit US centric but we're hardly talking U-571 here.


This. Sorry that Joe the Angry Canadian had to get his toque in a knot over it, but I think that was made clear in the movie. Even at the end they have Carter praising Canada.
 
2012-12-03 11:09:12 PM  

thebravetoast: I went to a lecture given by Ken Taylor (the Canadian ambassador) and his wife a few weeks ago. Basically he said that many of the CIA-focused events in the film were dramatic additions to the story, rather then taking credit for things the Canadians had done.

A few examples he gave were the market scene (didn't actually happen), the ticket-buying fiasco (in reality Mrs Taylor just went to the airport and bought them), and all the drama at the airport--in reality they just got on the plane and flew off with no fuss.

He was much more annoyed by the insinuation at the end that the canadians were only allowed to take credit for political reasons, rather then by the dramatic license taken with the story itself.


The drama at the airport was ridiculous, chasing them onto the runway seemed like a dumb action movie thing to do. Why not call the tower and cancel the flight? Granted, my significant other pointed out that 3rd world bullyboys don't aways think their cunning plans through. So I shrugged. Also, the ending would have been kinda dull if they got on the plane and that was that. The market scene may not have happened, but it had a truthiness that felt appropriate to the movie.
 
2012-12-03 11:14:14 PM  

thamike: He was an unhinged character, murderously trolling MI6, and he pulled it off well, in my opinion, especially since Bond movies are not deep explorations of the human condition in any sense.

"Best Bond" is a bit vague. It was certainly one of the most interesting, and definitely the most enjoyable on its own merits of the Craig Bonds so far. Camp doesn't play well anymore, and all the geeks lose their sh*t when Bond is morbid. I think this was a good balance, and definitely better than the last one.


His scheme may have been pulled off well but thats the script not his acting, over the top acting is not his strong point and the fact that no matter how many times he says hes not playing it gay is irrelevant when every other film review says hes playing it gay and even the gay community says the same......

The days of camp roger moore are gone and personally I like casino royale more than this one, me and the GF both came out of it with a "meh" feeling.
 
2012-12-04 05:10:08 AM  

steamingpile: His scheme may have been pulled off well but thats the script not his acting, over the top acting is not his strong point and the fact that no matter how many times he says hes not playing it gay is irrelevant when every other film review says hes playing it gay and even the gay community says the same......


There's obviously nothing I can do for you.

steamingpile: The days of camp roger moore are gone and personally I like casino royale more than this one, me and the GF both came out of it with a "meh" feeling.



OK.
 
2012-12-04 11:28:44 AM  

Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: Flint Ironstag: Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.


Citation needed.

How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.


You claimed that the Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them. The link you provided is written by "one of six Americans who were rescued by Tony Mendez, TheCIA employee". Those are his words. The article goes on to say: "Our Canadian hosts kept us confident and comfortable, and the plan hatched by Mendez worked even better than Argo suggests". So thank you for the proof that you are full of shiat.
 
2012-12-04 11:48:50 AM  

Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: Citation needed.

Or This account from The Slate?

The most disputed aspect of the movie's version of events has to do with Canada's role in the escape. 30 years ago, Canada received complete credit for the rescue, because the U.S. was worried about possible repercussions if CIA involvement was publicized. (They may also have wanted to maintain the plausibility of a similar ruse in future.) Argo corrects that version of events-or, rather, overcorrects it, downplaying the actual extent of Canadian involvement, which was considerable. The Americans were housed by two Canadians: the Ambassador Ken Taylor, and a Canadian embassy employee, John Sheardown. (In the film, all of them stay with Taylor; Sheardown does not appear at all.) It was Taylor who cabled Washington to begin the escape plan in earnest, and once the plan was decided on, Canadians "scouted the airport, sent people in and out of Iran to establish random patterns and get copies of entry and exit visas, bought three sets of airline tickets," and "even coached the six in sounding Canadian."

Almost none of that appears in Argo. Taylor himself has a major part, and is presented as a sympathetic and brave man who took great personal risks to save the Americans. But his actual role was even larger. He was "spying for the U.S. throughout the hostage crisis, at the request of Jimmy Carter." After some friends who attended the Argo premiere in Toronto described it to Taylor, he expressed concern "that we're portrayed as innkeepers who are waiting to be saved by the CIA," which is a pretty fair description of what the film depicts.


And that article states that: "30 years ago Canada received complete credit for the rescue...Argo corrects that version of events, or, rather, over corrects it."

So Argo minimized the Canadian involvement, the extent of which had historically been greatly exaggerated and you are outraged? Get over it.
 
2012-12-04 12:38:24 PM  

downtownkid: Flint Ironstag: downtownkid: Flint Ironstag: Jim_Callahan: MadSkillz: Another Amero-centric movie to not even pay tribute to us helping them.

Arrogance. farking arrogance.

So... didn't see the movie, then? I mean, I can't imagine you watched it and yet missed the Canadians being the heroes for half of it.

The film showed the Americans being "in charge" and running the show but "allowing" the Canadians to get the public credit for political reasons. In fact Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them.
Also a character said no other embassy wanted to help them. In fact the six were taken in by the British embassy at first and hid for a couple of days and the NZ embassy helped as well. It was agreed by all that the Canadian ambassador residence was by far the most secure and suitable so they moved them. The British embassy helped other Americans in the country at the time and the New Zealanders drove the six to the airport. Hardly "Not wanting to get involved"

So yes, the film did take all the glory for the USA while downplaying Canadian, British and New Zealand contributions.


Citation needed.

How about the account of one of the six? His account of all the movements on the ground, all arranged locally from his account, by the Brits, Canadians and others.

You claimed that the Canadians were behind the rescue with the CIA supporting them. The link you provided is written by "one of six Americans who were rescued by Tony Mendez, TheCIA employee". Those are his words. The article goes on to say: "Our Canadian hosts kept us confident and comfortable, and the plan hatched by Mendez worked even better than Argo suggests". So thank you for the proof that you are full of shiat.


The CIA came up with the movie cover story. The Canadians organised the visas, passports, plane tickets etc. And that's ignoring the fact that the CIA only got involved long after the six had been sheltered by the British and Canadian embassies, all arranged locally.

That's the "minimising Canadian and British involvement".

Then there's the total lie in stating "The British embassy don't want to know" when in reality they had sheltered them first, and only agreed with the Canadians to move them because the British residence itself was under threat of being taken.

That's not "minimising" British involvement. It's not even "ignoring" it. It's stating the British did not want to help when it fact that already had.

Maybe a British director should make a film about D Day and have a British character say "We've had to invade France all by ourselves because the Americans don't want to know.." so I can see you defend that with "It's just a movie, it's no big deal"
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report