Argo

Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Victor Garber, Tate Donovan

Dir. Ben Affleck
Scr. Chris Terrio

Critics have piled praise on Argo, heaped it on, up to its eyeballs. I have to admit I was underwhelmed. The film does one thing very well – tension. I felt nearly physically sick from the opening scenes until near the end of the film. It’s uncomfortably tense, which is good. But aside from that … It just was. Not terrible. Just not particularly memorable either. If you have an interest in the era and the events, I imagine you’ll enjoy it, so by all means see it. And if you’re Canadian, see it – it’ll give you warm fuzzies.

Argo is based on true events. In 1979, angry revolutionaries stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 Americans hostage. A group of six escaped and took refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence, holed up for weeks while awaiting some sort of rescue. Enter the CIA and a plan so crazy that it just has to be true. CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck), posing as a movie producer scouting exotic locations for a sci-fi movie called “Argo”, attempts to retrieve his fellow Americans and leave Iran right under the noses of their wannabe captors.

Argo is a ‘film within a film’ film, a classic caper flick. And while there is certainly humour – some of it quite dark, some of it in-jokey – this is a pretty grim film. It’s sobering and, as I said, tense. Interestingly this doesn’t jar against the Hollywood satire elements of the story, although it certainly (on paper) had potential to. And all credit to Terrio and Affleck for this. While it doesn’t jar, it doesn’t always mesh either. It tends to jump around a bit too much not to be distracting.

My biggest problem, however, was that I just didn’t care enough. The onslaught and maintenance of tension didn’t necessarily equate to actually being concerned about whether the diplomats lived or died, were rescued or not. It’s a cold film, which is hardly surprising. But a certain something is lacking that meant not only didn’t I care, but I had also largely forgot about the film hours after seeing it. I accept that I seem to have taken up residence in an extremely lonely minority on this, but it is what it is.

The acting is mixed, though I don’t think it’s fatal to the film. Affleck is just fine as Mendez. He’s never going to set the world alight with his acting prowess, but he’s not awful here. And he has pleasing and era-appropriate facial hair. The actors playing the hidden Americans are largely forgettable, which is unfortunate and certainly problematic. There are some shining lights. Cranston, playing Mendez’s supervisor O’Donnell, is his usual excellent, watchable self. And Arkin and Goodman – the Hollywood connection – are funny and engaging.

Argo seems to be a little confused about what it’s trying to be. Is it a caper? Is it a docudrama? Should it have been funnier? Or less funny? For me, it didn’t gel and it certainly didn’t shine. And that’s seems quite unforgivable for a film with so much crazy plot potential. See it, by all means, I don’t care. I don’t recommend or not recommend. Which is an odd place for me to occupy.

--------------------------

John Chambers: You need somebody who's a somebody to put their name on it. Somebody respectable. With credits. Who you can trust with classified information. Who will produce a fake movie. For free.