I have a chance to see Argo this weekend. Should I, or shouldn't I?

[Smarmie Doofus]

I don't care about quality of the acting, writing, etc. I understand it's top notch.

But any kind of revisionist history/propaganda that omits mention US involvement in overthrowing the Mossadegh democracy in 1954, and installing and maintaining the fa$cist regime that ruled for the next 25 years is more than I can sit still for.

I'm assuming that Hollywood , in producing Argo, has stuck with the traditional M$M bullshit narrative of crazed Iranian savages being mean to unsuspecting, well-meaning Americans doers-of-good.

Am I wrong? Is the embassy takeover put in any sort of realistic historical context?

[Recursion]

1. The overthrow of Mossadegh is mentioned quite a few times

Remember it's from the POV of the embassy staff, who were some of the few Americans who actually understood what was going on.

It's a pretty decent movie; I liked it.

(Though, as a reminder, it is very possible for both the US to have done bad things and for the people who held diplomats hostage for over a year, engaging in mock executions to relieve their own boredom, to be very bad people themselves.)

[temporary311]

2. You're wrong.

Its put into context right at the start of the movie. And yes, you should see it. One of the best movies of the year.

[LTR]

3. Aw, screw it!

Go see "The Hobbit".

Some people take entertainment way too seriously.

[Pirate Smile]

4. It is good. Definitely go. You will not be bored. It seems pretty realistic and they do a quick run

through re what happened & why they were not fans of the USA. It made it quite understandable, not cartoonish. That bullshit narrative really isn't followed. You can understand the Iranian POV and anger yet still feel for the danger & vulnerability of the Americans simply doing a job in the embassy & hiding to try to save themselves.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Ok. If people ( myself included) come out of the film less dumb...

... and less *brainwashed* ... than they were when they went in, then Affleck & Co. deserve my 12 bucks.

[Pirate Smile]

13. Let us know what you thought after you see it.

[Marie Marie]

5. Saw it - loved it.

And yes, they did explain right up front how we ousted their democratically elected leader and put in the Shah. The story then goes to a few of our embassy workers who escape to the Canadian Embassy and how we got them out of the country. I never knew about this "back story" and found it very interesting. How much was dramaztized for effect I don't know but the movie had me engrossed. And that dear Smarmie, is my humble review. Roger Ebert I'm not.

[SunSeeker]

6. Go see "Lincoln." nt

[bottomofthehill]

7. Sure go see it. It is not a bad movie

And you will even see speaker oneill back in the 70s when we had great democratic leadership in tH? House.

[NV Whino]

8. Sounds like you don't want to see it

So don't.

Personally I loved the movie.

[Hekate]

9. Loved it. Very involved, a whole new story we never heard before, suspenseful

If it comes out in DVD at Costco, I'll get it so I can watch it again.

My favorite line is from John Goodman, who plays the great Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers, starts telling the CIA agent in charge of the operation "Argo f**k yourself" in moments of tension.

It actually is very well done.

[deutsey]

10. I thought it was good

As Affleck says, it's a dramatization, not a documentary, but I found it true to what I know about the context of those times.

It's a huge cut above the quality of most movies today, imo.

[taterguy]

11. It's a great movie. Go see it.

[TuxedoKat]

14. Ditto to all the positive comments

above. I don't usually bother to see many movies but this one was well done and from what I've read, pretty accurate historically. Be sure to stay through the end when they are rolling the credits because Pres. Carter speaks at the end of the film about what was going on at the time. I don't think he would have participated if the film had been revisionist history. There is one part that is a little hyped up for the dramatic Hollywood factor and you will know what it is when you see it, but that was the only thing and doesn't detract from the movie as a whole.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. OK. But I'm not so sure about this part:

>>>Pres. Carter speaks at the end of the film about what was going on at the time. I don't think he would have participated if the film had been revisionist history. >>>

Is this the same President Carter that was partying at the WH with the Shah, calling him a great friend of freedom and of the USA while said Shah's goons were shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets and dragging others off for torture and incarceration by the US trained and armed SAVAK?

That's MY memory of it, anyway.

Either Carter's revising history or I am.

[TuxedoKat]

17. Well

he doesn't talk about the Shah, only confirms the part about the US trying to get these people out of the country but how nothing could be said about it at the time, or even immediately after the fact. I didn't feel like the negative parts of US involvement were glossed over and the film was fair to the Iranians too. They weren't portrayed as evil or having no justification for protesting.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. The movie opens with the overthrow.

This is one of the few movies I saw at a theater this year, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Edge of your seat excitement.

[CTyankee]

18. It's an exciting, engrossing movie. Intelligently done. Affleck is great.

Even tho you know what happens, you'll still be biting your nails. It really takes you for a suspenseful journey...