Well for my final review in America I am going to do a film of patriotism and bravery that was apparently so good it was Oscar worthy...no not Lincoln, Argo. Yes, the film that is beloved by Americans( but not other countries so much) about the American spirit( in spite of it being a covert operation) and gave us the facts of the operation hidden from us for so very long( but changed a lot to add extra action, tension and suspense).
OK, as far as you have been reading my reviews, you know that I don't like this movie. Not the worst, but not the best either. It's boring, slow, historically inaccurate and overrated. ( I should point out in my list of overrated films, the list extends from overrated slightly but still good to extremely overrated and quite bad.)
As you know, since most of you saw it , the story is about Tony Mendez(played by a not Mexican
Ben Afflec) and his plans( you know not Canada) to extract six American hostages from a hostile
1980s Iran. And how is this done but by making a fake movie and using Iran for test shots( I won't lie, that plan is incredible) the rest of the film is a race against time to remove the hostages before they are discovered.
The film suffers from extreme patriotism by stuffing it down our throat how hurt America is by this crisis that they come up with the idea and did most of the work and put themselves on the line to commit such a daring deed. It also glorifies America and the CIA even though they were the contributing factor to this uprising. They also underplayed Canada's role, who had pretty much supported the idea the whole way throughout, making them seem against the plan as it might endanger Canada and its embassy.
I think some of this directorial decisions came from Afflecs time on Pearl harbour(because let's be honest they are both similar). Lets see: based on a true event, certain points are dramatised, made out
to promote American spirit and patriotism, first half good due to character development and
progression of story, while the second half is poorly done and both glorifies Afflec and America.
Much of this criticism relies on how much you realise the academy have made mistakes over the years. These films were not bad, just the competition that year was clearly better.
Example 1: Gone with the wind won best picture as the academy believed this film to stand the test of time better than The wizard of Oz.
Example 2: Citizen Kane lost to how green was the valley, remember that film...no, we'll OF COURSE NOT.
Example 3: Although I have yet to see it, Gladiator is believed to be cliched and pretentious and many question why it won.
For more examples check out watchmojo.
For all the problems I have with this movie it has but one saving grace, build-up. The first half of this movie was done very well with good supporting by John goodman and Alan Arkin. I liked seek the process that went into this plan and the interactions. But ultimately it just struck a bad cord with me due to its slowness, confusing plot points, forced patriotism, boring and taking an idea a bad place. There is two ways they could have gone, one they could have followed it the whole way through with the history and it accurate and not offend the Canadians. Or they could have taken the concept and taken liberties with it the whole way and placed it in a different time period or country and get across the same messages.
If any snubbing happened it would be that films like Lincoln, life of pi, django and armour had everything Argo had and more. Lincoln had patriotism, historical accuracy, powerful delivery by all the leading actors and supporting. Life of pi dealt with faith, had amazing visuals and emotion, Django told a story with class and fun, it was well written and the academy is too stuffy for controversy( they try to avoid it but that also limits their ability to award artistic integrity). Of all the films that were nominated in the Oscars, save for armour and frankenwenie which I have not seen, any of them would have been better as best picture. I know it's against all my blog stands for, but Argo, why don't you Ar-go f**kyourself. I hope you enjoyed please comment if you believe there is a snubbed film out there.
OK, as far as you have been reading my reviews, you know that I don't like this movie. Not the worst, but not the best either. It's boring, slow, historically inaccurate and overrated. ( I should point out in my list of overrated films, the list extends from overrated slightly but still good to extremely overrated and quite bad.)
As you know, since most of you saw it , the story is about Tony Mendez(played by a not Mexican
Ben Afflec) and his plans( you know not Canada) to extract six American hostages from a hostile
1980s Iran. And how is this done but by making a fake movie and using Iran for test shots( I won't lie, that plan is incredible) the rest of the film is a race against time to remove the hostages before they are discovered.
The film suffers from extreme patriotism by stuffing it down our throat how hurt America is by this crisis that they come up with the idea and did most of the work and put themselves on the line to commit such a daring deed. It also glorifies America and the CIA even though they were the contributing factor to this uprising. They also underplayed Canada's role, who had pretty much supported the idea the whole way throughout, making them seem against the plan as it might endanger Canada and its embassy.
I think some of this directorial decisions came from Afflecs time on Pearl harbour(because let's be honest they are both similar). Lets see: based on a true event, certain points are dramatised, made out
to promote American spirit and patriotism, first half good due to character development and
progression of story, while the second half is poorly done and both glorifies Afflec and America.
Much of this criticism relies on how much you realise the academy have made mistakes over the years. These films were not bad, just the competition that year was clearly better.
Example 1: Gone with the wind won best picture as the academy believed this film to stand the test of time better than The wizard of Oz.
Example 2: Citizen Kane lost to how green was the valley, remember that film...no, we'll OF COURSE NOT.
Example 3: Although I have yet to see it, Gladiator is believed to be cliched and pretentious and many question why it won.
For more examples check out watchmojo.
For all the problems I have with this movie it has but one saving grace, build-up. The first half of this movie was done very well with good supporting by John goodman and Alan Arkin. I liked seek the process that went into this plan and the interactions. But ultimately it just struck a bad cord with me due to its slowness, confusing plot points, forced patriotism, boring and taking an idea a bad place. There is two ways they could have gone, one they could have followed it the whole way through with the history and it accurate and not offend the Canadians. Or they could have taken the concept and taken liberties with it the whole way and placed it in a different time period or country and get across the same messages.
If any snubbing happened it would be that films like Lincoln, life of pi, django and armour had everything Argo had and more. Lincoln had patriotism, historical accuracy, powerful delivery by all the leading actors and supporting. Life of pi dealt with faith, had amazing visuals and emotion, Django told a story with class and fun, it was well written and the academy is too stuffy for controversy( they try to avoid it but that also limits their ability to award artistic integrity). Of all the films that were nominated in the Oscars, save for armour and frankenwenie which I have not seen, any of them would have been better as best picture. I know it's against all my blog stands for, but Argo, why don't you Ar-go f**kyourself. I hope you enjoyed please comment if you believe there is a snubbed film out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment