![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.105.137.224
Maybe my expectations were set too high. But it seemed like an exercise of dubious historic accuracy, decent if unexceptional acting, an intro that revolved around an explanation of the Iranian revolution that can at best be characterized as "half truths" and a total lack of character development. Was I supposed to feel something at the end when the stone-faced Ben Affleck came home?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Follow Ups:
They talked at length about Argo, and the inaccuracies mainly around the short shrift given to Canadian support of the stranded embassy workers. This quote in particular stands out:
Charlie Rose: "I'm struck that you say the Canadian government could have done this (extradition) and it would not have been as far-fetched as the ruse that they used by creating a movie team that came into Tehran."
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
.
Stupidity is NOT a victimless crime.
The ambassador had no reason to lie. He said the film didn't show the full extent of Canada's work to keep those Americans safe. You might want to listen to an actual expert instead of worship at the altar of hollywood and fawning over a silly article.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
about how Canada COULD have gotten them out... and with a less outrageous cover story.
So, again. Shoulda, coulda woulda. That's not what happened.
Stupidity is NOT a victimless crime.
d
I have no desire to watch pro-Carter propaganda.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Dr. Greg House
.
![]()
.
![]()
since we stopped all that extended face washing with prisoners.
![]()
Could you find out if she likes her popcorn with butter?
![]()
d
care to back that up with a link?
..."box of popcorn in the lap trick".
In your dreams with Pelosi.
...but it lacks the emotional impact of the better films this year.
Even Django...
The word is that Ben Affleck didn't want to overact, so he underacted.
Hard to see it so close to the top of many 10 best lists although I think it should be on the list.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
I mean, being chased down the run way with sirens blaring? Puhleeze. I enjoyed the first 60%.
![]()
--------------------------
A pox on his family and 100 years of bad luck for the inventor of "Intelligent Touchpads" for laptops!!!
Notice how all the state department and CIA strategies were no good. It took a couple of movie bigshots to save the day. Self-indulgent hollywood trash.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
.
Stupidity is NOT a victimless crime.
The film showed the brass recommending other covers, agricultural, educational, etc. Had those approaches been chosen and resulted in a successful operation, do you really think this movie would have been made? It was clearly a Hollywood movie about how great Hollywood is so that Hollywood producers could pat themselves on the back.
Where would the CIA be without hollywood. yeesh.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
and the CIA guy having the movie idea and an operative in the movie biz that helped make it happen.
Those really were the other ideas... it's all in the article I linked to in my previous post.
Stupidity is NOT a victimless crime.
The point, Steve, is that the only reason the movie was made was so Hollywood assholes could cast themselves as the heroes. If you think this film would have been made had the hostages been saved using the agriculture or education ruse, think again.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
facts.
What really bothered you about it?
...this is what saved all those lives. Not the CIA. All hail the great Hollywood.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
because in the movie I saw the State Department guys threw out those ideas and the CIA guys (and the hostages themselves) were the hero's) along with a CIA guy in Hollywood and then, yes, a single - actual - hollywood producer.
Stupidity is NOT a victimless crime.
The white house, state dept and Affleck's superior (played by Bryan Cranston) and others at the CIA who you clearly forgot about all told Affleck to not proceed with the Hollywood cover--that another cover was preferred. Briefly Affleck bullied Cranston and a few others to go along with his hollywood plan, but after the plug was pulled he DEFIED THEM ALL. And gee it's such a great thing he did because if not for the Hollywood angle, those hostages would surely have died. No other cover would have ever worked, right? If one had, would there be a movie about it? Of course not. Plenty of declassified CIA missions have been successful, amazing stories that saved lives, but Hollywood is making a movie about this one for self-serving reasons.
Affleck is the human embodiment of the public's love of Hollywood. And he had to to play the CIA guy who pushed the Hollywood cover, because we don't want any audience to see this character in any negative way, Now let's look at who played the characters in positions of authority. Yuck. Except for Cranston, who came around and did Affleck's bidding. It was annoyingly unsympathetic to the authorities in DC and Arlington, whereas the Hollywood good ol boys played by Goodman and Arkin were the witty intellectuals of the film who ultimately saved the day. After all, it was the storyboards, production company office and their ability to pick up the phone that saved all those lives.
Hurray for Hollywood! savior of all that's evil in the world.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: