GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

ARGO - Worth Every Penny

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 14:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4763
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:22 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Saw Argo the other night and now I get why it's gaining momentum in the awards department, it is a brilliantly made movie.

Ben Affleck intelligently captures the essence of the Hostage Crisis of the Jimmy Carter era (circa 1979-1980). It is taut, concise and well directed and organized. He doesn't miss a beat. It is both tense and funny all in the right places.

Affleck paces this movie like a Swiss watch, precise and deliberate, but at no time does he leave out the emotion of the characters, from the Washington offices of the CIA, to the protest-filled streets of Iran, it was as though he meticulously and painstakingly tinkered with each scene as the story unfolded. I'm surprised he didn't get an acting nomination for his role as the main character, Tony Mendez. Affleck was flawless, one of his best performances since Shakespeare in Love.

This movie is so good that by the end you want to stand up and cheer, despite the fact that our government nearly botches the rescue. To me, there was only one very tiny minor flaw towards the end of the movie - the airport scene (but I will not spoil it), like I said it was a very minor flaw in an otherwise brilliant film.

Affleck is so good he has won Best Director awards from: BAFTA, Critics Choice, Golden Globes and Director's Guild of America, among others, and deservedly so.

I smell an Oscar win, mainly because this movie started gathering steam after the first awards show of the season, and it hasn't slowed since. I haven't seen Lincoln yet, but so far, Affleck and company have been steamrolling over the competition. Don't count him out.

Next: Zero Dark Thirty


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:53 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Hey Shiny!

For once I can read one of your reviews as I've already seen the flick in question. Hurrah!

What a superb film! Did you notice how they mirrored that scene when they storm the embassy with the archive footage of the time? I've not seen that done before. I was really impressed.

So far all three Afleck directed films I've seen I've really enjoyed. Who'd have known he would become such an accomplished director. I like the fact he's not 'showy' with the camera. He focus' on the points of the story and lets the scene do the work. He appears to not care about having a 'schtick'. He just gets on with telling the story.

Wonderful acting all the way through and great to see Alan Arkin being allowed to shine.

Afleck is my choice to undertake the difficult Episode VIII of the next set of Star Wars trilogies.

:D




°...Well here I am.°

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:10 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


I still haven't seen it but have not heard or read one bad thing about it, so I'll likely catch it on DVD soon since it comes out on the 19th I believe.

This year might be the most embarrassed the Academy could possibly be, because the guy who is raking in all the awards from everyone else was not even nominated for Best Director. I'm not sure if that means Argo has more of a chance at Best Picture or not.

They damn well better not give the Oscar to Les Mis.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:52 AM

SUASOR


Excellent flick, very well done. The only flaw I could detect was early on when they gave some "history" of the revolution that portrayed Iran as the victim of Western imperialism. That totally left out the fact that Iran has been the neighborhood bully for thousands of years and hasn't changed much. What the Iranians hate the British for most is preventing Iran from taking Arab oil, or anything else the Arabs had that was worth grabbing in the past 200 years. Iran was more angry about the Turks, but the British drove them away in 1918 and the US got the Russians to back off in the late 1940s. For anyone who knows the region well, trying to portray Iran as a victim is just, well, unsettling. But aside from that brief burp, the rest of the movie was brilliant.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:52 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Thanks for the history; I wuz thinking we were clearly the bad guyz. I gess we were only murkily the bad guyz in this case.

I liked the movie. Seemed a little uneventful to me but thats kuz I had just finished a Marvel Movie Marathon.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:07 PM

WHOZIT


"Argo" will be punished by the Academy, "Lincoln" will sweep and "Life of Pi" will get a couple of hand outs. They have to learn not to mess with the mighty Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, they're like the Great and Powerful OZ.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 15, 2013 11:31 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Sleepy,

Thank you for your positive words, but what I do is encapsulate my thoughts and motivations about the movie, I'm giving a short version. Partially because I'm so busy these days, but also because I'm an amateur, a lover of movies (as I believe you are as well). As part of my college curriculum I studied film and grew to love it even more, as the professor opened up my tastes for the medium (I once hated foreign films, ah youth!).

But nonetheless, you make some good points, Affleck has become stronger with each film he directs, Argo, by far, is his best and damn near a masterpiece. I truly enjoyed the way in which he told the story, it was, as you say, not showy and very much on point. I agree that he allows the scene to unfold quite naturally. I found it very organic, like drinking a glass of milk after eating a chocolate chip cookie. Of course, I remember those harrowing days.

He approached the camera work much like a narrator would in telling a story, subtle and with measured pacing. He definitely invoked the "less is more" approach, both in his camera work and in his acting. No schtick here.
Simple and concise, I was thoroughly engaged. Solid acting by the entire cast. You know, I never actually gave him a thought regarding the next Star Wars trilogy, but it sounds like a plan.

Talk to you soon,

SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:05 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey EC,

I'm liking your post:

This year might be the most embarrassed the Academy could possibly be, because the guy who is raking in all the awards from everyone else was not even nominated for Best Director. I'm not sure if that means Argo has more of a chance at Best Picture or not.

Correctly stated. The Academy should be ashamed for not having nominated Affleck. The reason why exactly is not known, at least to me, for the snub, now that I've seen the film. Kudos to both him and Clooney for obtaining the rights to this material (that, I imagine, was the hard part).

Now I have not seen Les Mis, but I think the pre-Oscar buzz may have fizzled out once the movie was released. Critics were not too kind, which could kill any momentum (Old Mo) for any buzz for a film. It may have opened a crack in the door for Lincoln (which I have yet to see as well), to step through. Spielberg is a heavy hitter in Hollywood, that, along with the fact he hasn't won since Schindler, may factor in. Who knows, maybe Argo's awards success may influence academy members, then again, maybe not.

Tinsel Town is fickle. One thing I can guarantee is that next decent picture he makes he will get a Best Director nomination, that's how they work. It's artistic politics.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:36 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Suasor,

"The only flaw I could detect was early on when they gave some "history" of the revolution that portrayed Iran as the victim of Western imperialism."

Given the theme of the movie, the well-known Hostage Crisis of 1979-80, and the not-so-well-known story of the 6 escapees, I thought the synopsis, although brief, fit to a T. Besides, in context, it was as accurate as the declassified facts would allow. The US Government did prop up and support the Shah (King) of Iran.

"During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a US-backed coup d'état overturned the regime and brought back foreign oil firms,"

"other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and UK backed coup d'état against Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran."

I remember when the Shah was granted asylum here in the US, due to so-called "medical reasons." It is curious to me why a nation that revolted against British Monarchy would support a Islamic Monarch. Nonetheless, the opening sequence to the movie did serve the theme of the story however distasteful to our current political sensibilities.

You bring up some interesting points about the "bullies" of the Mideast. In Iran's overall historical background spanning thousands of years, they may have been just that. The US Government, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to contribute to a piece of that history. Was it to gain access to the untapped potential of the region's oil? I'm not smart enough to know the answer to that.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:42 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Whosit,

What was the fallout with the movie? I only heard bits and pieces, something to do with the laughable comments made by some of the Hollywood characters in the movie (namely those portrayed by Goodman and Arkin).

Do tell!


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:12 AM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Whosit,

What was the fallout with the movie? I only heard bits and pieces, something to do with the laughable comments made by some of the Hollywood characters in the movie (namely those portrayed by Goodman and Arkin).

Do tell!


SGG



I'm not sure, all I know is Affleck was snubed by the Academy (for best director) but is winning everywhere else. This must piss off those old fart voters at the Academy. I'm sure "Zero Dark 30" won't win anything because it isn't the love letter to Obama most people thought it would be.

It is rare a flick wins for best picture when the director isn't nominated, last one was "Driving Miss Daisey" over 20 years ago. It doesn't matter this year though, the show will draw big ratings because most of the films nominated did great box office.

I think all the flicks nominated belong on the list, last year was a great year (for Joss ) for the film bizz. I think the big question at this years show is will Seth MacFarlane suck as host?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:15 AM

SUASOR


There are very few countries a major nation does not have diplomatic and economic relations with. Iran sold the West oil and the West sold them all sorts of stuff. You cannot maintain good relations if you are constantly trying to overthrow other nations' governments because they are run by people who could not win an election in the US. Actually, the Shah was always under pressure from the US government to shape up. In the region he was considered a failure because he did not support Islamic conservatism. Nor did his father, who had a famous showdown with the religious establishment. The mullahs blinked. The son did not have the same will to keep the religious fanatics under control and continue modernization. All that freedom and economic opportunity went away with the Shah. The police state tactics (SOP in that part of the world, and for the Iranians for thousands of years, they could be said to have invented that sort of thing) did not go away with the Shah, but got worse. Go find some Iranians in the West and ask them what changed after the Shah fell. You can't ask Iranians in Iran those questions because it could get them killed.

Also keep in mind that during the Cold War, if you did not make nice to a country, they would invite the Soviets (Russians)in. This sort of thing was poison in American domestic politics. All politics is local, not just in terms of place, but also in terms of time.

Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Suasor,

"The only flaw I could detect was early on when they gave some "history" of the revolution that portrayed Iran as the victim of Western imperialism."

Given the theme of the movie, the well-known Hostage Crisis of 1979-80, and the not-so-well-known story of the 6 escapees, I thought the synopsis, although brief, fit to a T. Besides, in context, it was as accurate as the declassified facts would allow. The US Government did prop up and support the Shah (King) of Iran.

"During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a US-backed coup d'état overturned the regime and brought back foreign oil firms,"

"other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and UK backed coup d'état against Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran."

I remember when the Shah was granted asylum here in the US, due to so-called "medical reasons." It is curious to me why a nation that revolted against British Monarchy would support a Islamic Monarch. Nonetheless, the opening sequence to the movie did serve the theme of the story however distasteful to our current political sensibilities.

You bring up some interesting points about the "bullies" of the Mideast. In Iran's overall historical background spanning thousands of years, they may have been just that. The US Government, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to contribute to a piece of that history. Was it to gain access to the untapped potential of the region's oil? I'm not smart enough to know the answer to that.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:20 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Sleepy,

Thank you for your positive words, but what I do is encapsulate my thoughts and motivations about the movie, I'm giving a short version. Partially because I'm so busy these days, but also because I'm an amateur, a lover of movies (as I believe you are as well). As part of my college curriculum I studied film and grew to love it even more, as the professor opened up my tastes for the medium (I once hated foreign films, ah youth!).



No probs Shiny. It was good to be able to read it. Usually I have to stay clear as I'm not that current with newly released films. So I was happy to be able to click on your post this time :D Interesting you also studied film. I did that too. The first time was on an academic level and I enjoyed that. (I developed a profound love for Film Noir) the second time was a practical endeavour, which almost destroyed my love of films.

Quote:

But nonetheless, you make some good points, Affleck has become stronger with each film he directs, Argo, by far, is his best and damn near a masterpiece. I truly enjoyed the way in which he told the story, it was, as you say, not showy and very much on point. I agree that he allows the scene to unfold quite naturally. I found it very organic, like drinking a glass of milk after eating a chocolate chip cookie. Of course, I remember those harrowing days.



Indeed. I usually don't like 'Based-On-True-Events' Films. Not my favourite genre. But as I watched I just sank into the story, without concern for the film. That's unusual for me.

Right now I like Affleck styles a lot! He isn't using his films as a calling card or as a platform to illustrate some kind of 'style' or 'fashion'. It means he's taking on projects that he genuinely likes for the story.

Quote:

I never actually gave him a thought regarding the next Star Wars trilogy, but it sounds like a plan.


I think he could pull it off.
I like JJ Abrams but his work does have a 'look'. Wether that will interfere with the new Star Wars material I don't know, but for something like star wars that has an established look and feel, JJ's 'design' may jar with the content.
We'll see. Just out of curiosity, who would be your choice?
S


°...Well here I am.°

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2013 4:17 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Studying film could be both a blessing and a curse. Having said that, I love film, particularly the end product. It is art that engages the senses, but inspires the imagination. During my study I became more enamored with the medium, and I recently completed another step in my development, I read Sidney Lumet's Making Movies. If you haven't, read it. It should be required reading for film students and aficionados. I sometimes find myself critiquing, rather than enjoying a movie.

But with Argo it was different, as you said, I was engaged and transported by the story and how it was portrayed (until the chase on the tarmac where, I felt Hollywood's "hand." Probably for dramatic effect). My fav is sci-fi, but I have a soft spot for Film Noir as well.

I agree that Affleck has focused, quite correctly, on story over style. That sets him apart. The actors he has worked with have all sang his praises. Abrams, on the other hand, does lean more toward style, although he does have an interesting approach to storytelling. Star Trek was half good, but he relied heavily on style. I liked it, but was not Wow'd. I believe he has great potential, but he's still searching for his approach, whereas Affleck already knows.

For Star Wars, I like your idea for Affleck, and I also like Joe Johnston.
At one time I liked Jon Favreau (Iron Man), but his Iron Man 2 was disappointing. Then there's Joss. I think he would make a great director for the next chapters. Of course my all-time favorite is Irvin Kershner.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Sleepy,

Thank you for your positive words, but what I do is encapsulate my thoughts and motivations about the movie, I'm giving a short version. Partially because I'm so busy these days, but also because I'm an amateur, a lover of movies (as I believe you are as well). As part of my college curriculum I studied film and grew to love it even more, as the professor opened up my tastes for the medium (I once hated foreign films, ah youth!).



No probs Shiny. It was good to be able to read it. Usually I have to stay clear as I'm not that current with newly released films. So I was happy to be able to click on your post this time :D Interesting you also studied film. I did that too. The first time was on an academic level and I enjoyed that. (I developed a profound love for Film Noir) the second time was a practical endeavour, which almost destroyed my love of films.

Quote:

But nonetheless, you make some good points, Affleck has become stronger with each film he directs, Argo, by far, is his best and damn near a masterpiece. I truly enjoyed the way in which he told the story, it was, as you say, not showy and very much on point. I agree that he allows the scene to unfold quite naturally. I found it very organic, like drinking a glass of milk after eating a chocolate chip cookie. Of course, I remember those harrowing days.



Indeed. I usually don't like 'Based-On-True-Events' Films. Not my favourite genre. But as I watched I just sank into the story, without concern for the film. That's unusual for me.

Right now I like Affleck styles a lot! He isn't using his films as a calling card or as a platform to illustrate some kind of 'style' or 'fashion'. It means he's taking on projects that he genuinely likes for the story.

Quote:

I never actually gave him a thought regarding the next Star Wars trilogy, but it sounds like a plan.


I think he could pull it off.
I like JJ Abrams but his work does have a 'look'. Wether that will interfere with the new Star Wars material I don't know, but for something like star wars that has an established look and feel, JJ's 'design' may jar with the content.
We'll see. Just out of curiosity, who would be your choice?
S


°...Well here I am.°


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2013 10:30 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:


Quote:

(until the chase on the tarmac where, I felt Hollywood's "hand." Probably for dramatic effect).


Yes this was the only point where I did find myself wanting to check this out too for authenticity. However given the outlandishness of the 'real' events I sort of could believe it.

Quote:

Abrams, on the other hand, does lean more toward style, although he does have an interesting approach to storytelling. Star Trek was half good, but he relied heavily on style. I liked it, but was not Wow'd. I believe he has great potential, but he's still searching for his approach, whereas Affleck already knows.


Totally agree!

Quote:

Then there's Joss. I think he would make a great director for the next chapters. Of course my all-time favorite is Irvin Kershner.


Joss would be great, and the best writer for the job too, but there's a part of me that doesn't want him becoming involved in Star Wars. It's like crossing the streams. You don't cross the streams! :D

Kershner R.I.P.

°...Well here I am.°

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:53 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


That's understandable, some movies just don't do it for you. I'm that way with Scarface, don't see the fascination with this movie. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon puts me to sleep as well, and I love period pieces.

But not all movies are all things to the people at large. Me, I get a kick out of Singing in the Rain and Yankee Doodle Dandy, but not so much with Dolly. Go figure!

Still though, you're here, discussing movies. That's A-Ok in my book.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by AFRICOAT:
I'm no film pundit but I found both Argo and Lincoln extemely boring, to a point where I fell asleep during the movie. Maybe it had to do with knowing the events that took place beforehand


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:08 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey there EC,

A funny thing. I got an e-mail alert, from your last post, on my phone and read your comments with great joy (I admire your candor), but, for some reason, when I went to my computer, I couldn't find it within this thread. Strange!

Anyway, just wanted to drop a note that I will respond either later tonight or tomorrow (Oscar Sunday). I'm like a little kid in a candy store, I know it's extremely political, but I can't help myself. Been watching since I was a kid (I get that it's redundant for me to say that though, lol).

Lots to say, but I'm eating right now. Talk to you later.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:28 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


The reason you couldn't find it here is because my last response to you was in the "Your Oscar Picks" thread.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:32 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


You know Sleepy, with that scene on the tarmac, I wonder if Affleck chose to do that or was he given a "note." Would love to pick his brain on his choices, but then, I don't think he would go "full disclosure" and give away his secrets.

My meaning is this - it's a movie about faking a movie to do the Great Escape. Was it a comment on making movies? Wow, I just got chills!

For me I would have preferred ending with the guards getting stuck at the gates, there was still significant drama while leaving Iran airspace. But that's me. I heard someone say on TV that it was not authentic, just a bit of Hollywood.

I kind of understand your take on Joss and Star Wars (crossing the streams....bad!). I remember the wimsy in the original three, which was seriously lacking in the prequels, Joss would take it to parts unknown and unfamiliar to the core of the fans (and I couldn't bear Joss being hated and losing his momentum, there's too much at stake). So I think I understand. Having said that, then my choice would be Joe Johnston (I absolutely love his Rocketeer). Do you think Affleck would take it on were he asked? I'm not sure, I don't see him as a sci-fi guy. Truth be told, I could see him as a Han Solo-type character though.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:


Quote:

(until the chase on the tarmac where, I felt Hollywood's "hand." Probably for dramatic effect).


Yes this was the only point where I did find myself wanting to check this out too for authenticity. However given the outlandishness of the 'real' events I sort of could believe it.

Quote:

Abrams, on the other hand, does lean more toward style, although he does have an interesting approach to storytelling. Star Trek was half good, but he relied heavily on style. I liked it, but was not Wow'd. I believe he has great potential, but he's still searching for his approach, whereas Affleck already knows.


Totally agree!

Quote:

Then there's Joss. I think he would make a great director for the next chapters. Of course my all-time favorite is Irvin Kershner.


Joss would be great, and the best writer for the job too, but there's a part of me that doesn't want him becoming involved in Star Wars. It's like crossing the streams. You don't cross the streams! :D

Kershner R.I.P.

°...Well here I am.°


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 25, 2013 2:07 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Well it won Best Picture, not that I care about that, but I guess I chose wisely by watching it last night. It is the only one of this year's nominees that I have seen, so I'll have to wait until later to say if it deserved it. While good, I wouldn't say it is a great film, but it was entertaining.

Affleck may be a great director one day, but it's too soon to tell. He's only directed one film in which he did not act, Gone Baby Gone, and that one was just okay, fairly predictable. I've always wondered about actor/directors. They must have a very good assistant director to help out or else things could get overwhelming for them.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 25, 2013 3:52 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:

Affleck may be a great director one day, but it's too soon to tell. He's only directed one film in which he did not act, Gone Baby Gone, and that one was just okay, fairly predictable. I've always wondered about actor/directors. They must have a very good assistant director to help out or else things could get overwhelming for them.



I would think acting and directing is the harder thing to do, so the fact that he's improved as he's gone along is impressive.

Gone Baby Gone, I thought was a very good film. As you say fairly predictable, but so are about 98% of films. Thereafter I thought the strength of it lay more with it's moral ambiguity. That was an interesting thing to sit through.

I too think it's too hard to tell if he's a great director or not. That label tends to fly around quite easily nowadays. However what I do like about him is his subtle approach and the fact that he doesn't have an identity or at the very least it's not 'showy'. Too many directors have a look that is stamped upon every project they undertake irrespective of the content. This is why I'd pick him for one of the up coming Star Wars films.

In terms of acting and directing it is very difficult. You need a fantastic crew behind you. Clearly he's managed this. I must check to see if he's used the same crew for all his films... Be interesting to see.



°...Well here I am.°

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 25, 2013 4:18 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I was pleasantly surprised when it won, but my take on his film is that it was solid from start to finish pretty much. A good story that was told in a good way, no frills, just the story. There was emotion without melodrama, there was pace and timing that helped to drive the story.

Well, basically, what made it such a good film is how Affleck told the story. It was all-important to it's success. And yes, you chose wisely my friend. Usually, when an actor directs and acts in a movie, they hire a DP, Director of Photography or Assistant Director. A good DP is essential to the look of the film, and knows the technical side of it.


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Well it won Best Picture, not that I care about that, but I guess I chose wisely by watching it last night. It is the only one of this year's nominees that I have seen, so I'll have to wait until later to say if it deserved it. While good, I wouldn't say it is a great film, but it was entertaining.

Affleck may be a great director one day, but it's too soon to tell. He's only directed one film in which he did not act, Gone Baby Gone, and that one was just okay, fairly predictable. I've always wondered about actor/directors. They must have a very good assistant director to help out or else things could get overwhelming for them.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 25, 2013 6:44 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
. . . it was solid from start to finish pretty much. A good story that was told in a good way, no frills, just the story. There was emotion without melodrama, there was pace and timing that helped to drive the story.

I was told that Argo was a true story, but noooo! It is a movie "inspired" by a true story.

One of the actual diplomats, Mark Lijek, noted that the CIA's fake movie "cover story was never tested and in some ways proved irrelevant to the escape." The departure of the six Americans from Tehran was actually mundane and uneventful. "If asked, we were going to say we were leaving Iran to return when it was safer," Lijek recalled, "But no one ever asked!...The truth is the immigration officers barely looked at us and we were processed out in the regular way. We got on the flight to Zurich and then we were taken to the US ambassador's residence in Berne. It was that straightforward." - www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21003432

Furthermore, Jimmy Carter has even acknowledged that "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian [while] the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA...Ben Affleck's character in the film was only in Tehran a day and a half and the real hero in my opinion was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."

The Americans never resisted the idea of playing a film crew, which is the source of much agitation in the movie. (In fact, the “house guests” chose that cover story themselves, from a group of three options the CIA had prepared.) They were not almost lynched by a mob of crazy Iranians in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, because they never went there. There was no last-minute cancellation, and then un-cancellation, of the group’s tickets by the Carter administration. (The wife of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor had personally gone to the airport and purchased tickets ahead of time, for three different outbound flights.) The group underwent no interrogation at the airport about their imaginary movie, nor were they detained at the gate while a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard telephoned their phony office back in Burbank. There was no last-second chase on the runway of Mehrabad Airport, with wild-eyed, bearded militants with Kalashnikovs trying to shoot out the tires of a Swissair jet. - www.salon.com/2013/02/18/why_argo_doesnt_deserve_the_oscar/



The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 25, 2013 3:02 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


One of my criteria for classifying a movie as great or not is, will I buy it to watch multiple times? The answer for Argo is no, I doubt I'll ever feel the need to see it again.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:48 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Very good point, EC. The greatness of a movie is it's "legs" or longevity, Casablanca, most notably, falls into this criteria very well.

SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
One of my criteria for classifying a movie as great or not is, will I buy it to watch multiple times? The answer for Argo is no, I doubt I'll ever feel the need to see it again.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:50 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Yeah, thanks EC I found it much later on.

SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The reason you couldn't find it here is because my last response to you was in the "Your Oscar Picks" thread.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:51 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


My comment was strictly regarding Affleck handling of the material, not as to it's validity.

SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by two:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
. . . it was solid from start to finish pretty much. A good story that was told in a good way, no frills, just the story. There was emotion without melodrama, there was pace and timing that helped to drive the story.

I was told that Argo was a true story, but noooo! It is a movie "inspired" by a true story.

One of the actual diplomats, Mark Lijek, noted that the CIA's fake movie "cover story was never tested and in some ways proved irrelevant to the escape." The departure of the six Americans from Tehran was actually mundane and uneventful. "If asked, we were going to say we were leaving Iran to return when it was safer," Lijek recalled, "But no one ever asked!...The truth is the immigration officers barely looked at us and we were processed out in the regular way. We got on the flight to Zurich and then we were taken to the US ambassador's residence in Berne. It was that straightforward." - www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21003432

Furthermore, Jimmy Carter has even acknowledged that "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian [while] the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA...Ben Affleck's character in the film was only in Tehran a day and a half and the real hero in my opinion was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."

The Americans never resisted the idea of playing a film crew, which is the source of much agitation in the movie. (In fact, the “house guests” chose that cover story themselves, from a group of three options the CIA had prepared.) They were not almost lynched by a mob of crazy Iranians in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, because they never went there. There was no last-minute cancellation, and then un-cancellation, of the group’s tickets by the Carter administration. (The wife of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor had personally gone to the airport and purchased tickets ahead of time, for three different outbound flights.) The group underwent no interrogation at the airport about their imaginary movie, nor were they detained at the gate while a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard telephoned their phony office back in Burbank. There was no last-second chase on the runway of Mehrabad Airport, with wild-eyed, bearded militants with Kalashnikovs trying to shoot out the tires of a Swissair jet. - www.salon.com/2013/02/18/why_argo_doesnt_deserve_the_oscar/



The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL