An Oscar winner should have excellent writing in the script, excellent direction, excellent acting, and excellent special effects. The Movie Argo has all of these things. On top of that, it's a very enjoyable movie with an interesting and moving story line that people enjoy watching. That sounds like an Oscar winner to me!
I think that Argo deserves an Oscar nod. It was the best movie I have seen in quite a long time. The reviews for the film were great and it did pretty well in the box office too. Everyone I know that saw the movie had nothing but positive things to say about this film.
The movie Argo is a great movie. It was awesome in all areas. The special effects were awesome. When they directed this movie they spared no expense in their budget. It really worked out for them. The movie had high ratings and grossed a lot of money. I know I sure enjoyed the movie.
The movie was very well made. The story was very touching and kept you glued the whole time. The acting was also very original and well made. Also considering the great actors involved in the movie such as Ben Afflec, is in direction of a movie to receive an Oscar. The movie keeps you interested and not a in any way of tempting yawn during the play
How did this movie win best picture over Lincoln? Do you think people are still going to be talking about ARGO in 30 years LOLOL! Give me a break! Lincoln is an instant classic that people will be watching and discussing for generations and it lost out to this campy, boring piece of crap. I literally stopped watching ARGO half way through because it was boring. I don't get it. I really just don't understand how Lincoln didn't take best picture.
Argo isn't necessarily a bad movie, but come on! The ending was obvious from the very beginning. It all seemed too good to be true; the last minute escapes, the fact that they escaped from a heavily guarded airport and even the last minute reply to the telephone. The plot was simple with almost no twists and turns in the story. The movie is more of a cheap thriller than an Oscar-winning classic. The fact that this movie beat Life Of Pi and Lincoln is painful and frankly, unbelievable.
Many movie goers seem to be unaware of the factual inaccuracies studded throughout ARGO that render the CIA operatives 'heroes' will minimizing and distorting the direct influence of Canadian diplomatic staff whose courage, and wisdom under fire, was essential to the strategy that saved American hostages lives. A rousing piece of fiction perhaps, an emotionally-dishonest and distorted rendering of an important historical event, and the essential role that Canadian courage, modest and grace played in securing a successful outcome.
Argo is one-sided, behalf of American history. The 'topper' terrorist organization CIA-America & Co cheat the whole world with bloody-mined policy. If Iran makes a cinema on this incident the story will be different. The cinema dedicated to America & Co. Before showing the hostage crisis the director should show the pre-history of that incident. I think there is a conspiracy .
Life of Pi, The Dark Knight Rises and The Master are all superior films compared to Argo. Ben Affleck's direction is still not that impressive compare to David Fischer or Christopher Nolan, yet. The movie undertones Canada's involvement and makes the CIA sound like God, does it not? Messing around with facts should never win. In 2008 , they didn't nominate the Dark Knight. In 2010, Inception or The Social Network should have won. In 2011, Moneyball and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are far superior films compared to The Artist. In 2012, Christopher Nolan continues to be snubbed.
Some say it was all an evil plan developed by the CIA to gain popularity (I mean, the first lady presenting the Oscar for best picture - are you kidding me?). Argo is not a great movie, it is just an okay movie, really. The Town is far superior. And as someone else said, it didn't even get the facts right. Plus, how come Life of Pi didn’t win best picture? The best director (Ang Lee) must’ve filmed the best movie, right? Well, apparently not. Instead, the film which won the Oscar was the one whose director wasn't even nominated. Weird!
Life of Pi deserved that award!
Argo? Seriously? Its filled with bull crap. Just another thriller down the road. And now I'm hearing they twisted the entire plot just to make it 'more thrilling.' I totally lost my head halfway through the movie because it was so freaking predictable. I can't seem to comprehend how either Life of Pi or Lincoln could lose best picture to this utter melodramatic crap. The academy has either lost it or they're shifting towards politics. Ultimatum- ban the Oscars. They're basically free awards now.
If the definition of "best picture" is that it addresses sensitive issues and has a very original script, then "Argo" deserves an Oscar, or even 10 kilograms of diamonds. But if the "best movie" is defined as "a movie which redefines the art itself and has the same potential as the world's greatest movies ever made", (bear in mind I am comparing it with the world's movies and not just the USA's films) then it is a mockery of the phrase "best picture".
First of all, Oscar has nothing to do with the White House. I like President Obama, but there is nothing to do with the First Lady and the Oscar Award. I have a feeling this is a political award.
Secondly, I think either Pi or Lincoln are far better than Argo. Based on the history of Oscar, the best director usually also wins the best motion picture award. This time the best director is an Asian, and so they don't want to give him the best picture.
Argo seems to have won the Oscar because it made Hollywood look like a hero. The lengthy sequences describing the preparation for the movie within the movie was too detailed, boring and largely irrelevant. Trying to get the hostages out was tense and exciting, but this didn't redeem a yawn-inducing piece of narcissistic, back-slapping monotony.
Argo was a decent film. That is to say, it was well acted and written, with scenes of humor and tension. However it didn't give me anything I have not seen before. I didn't feel the thrill I get while seeing something truly groundbreaking or remarkable. I like Argo, but I can't love it. Zero Dark Thirty was far more uncompromising in its vision and kept me on the edge of my seat. I would even count Beasts of the Southern Wilds and Lincoln ahead of Argo
I will pick "Lincoln" or "Life of Pi" before I chose "Argo." "Life of Pi" is a film that had been considered unfilmable but director Ang Lee took the challenge and made it so well that it deserves the Best Picture. "Lincoln" is a film has historical value, director Steven brought us to an era that we can appreciate what president Lincoln had done to this nation. It deserves the Best Picture with all aspects.
Will it be thought of as a great choice, or will it join the pantheon of "Crash", or "Kramer vs Kramer", as what most think was a bad decision. I'm talking about the general consensus here. I personally liked "Kramer vs Kramer" winning, but a lot didn't.
I feel it will be thought of as similar to "A Beautiful Mind." Not great, but not bad, really just a throwaway to reward the director. I don't think it will age well.
First of all, it's not a movie that you can remember for long when you compare to movies like Life of Pi, Les Miserables, and Lincoln, to name a few. I would say even Django Unchained was more original than Argo. And plus Argo messed up a few things with the plot. It's a good picture, no doubt, but IN NO WAY does it deserves an Oscar.
Les Misérables was a FAR superior film to Argo. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't like Argo...But compared to "Les Misérables" and "Lincoln" it was really, really bad. "Les Misérables" was something new, a musical film! To the best of my knowledge, no other film like it has won the award. It was a story that kept you wanting more! With "Argo", one couldn't help but think "can we move on please...?". To me, "Argo" winning best picture was just as big a disappointment as "The Hurt Locker" winning the award two(?) years ago.
I only have only one question, If Argo wasn't nominated for any award would anyone have complained? Of course not. From an artistic point of view the movie isn't bad, but its not great either, its good and that's it, there was at least a dozen better films in 2012 (The Master being the best in my humble opinion). Then there is the political point view, I cant believe that people saw nothing wrong with Michelle Obama presenting the award, just cause the Iranians said its a political move mean its not true, this was clearly a very backed film from up and high for political purposes (inciting people against Iran to gain support for a new war maybe).
You would ask if it was a backed film then why didn't Affleck get nominated for best director? (Which he surely didn't deserve) Well ... Since he was "awarded" all the Best director awards in the previous award ceremonies(golden globe, Bafta ....Etc) people would find it strange that he wasn't even nominated in the Oscars and therefore would say he deserved to be, and that way they would change people's opinions from attacking the film to defending it. On the other hand if they handed him all the Best film and best director awards some will ask .... (Isn't this a bit too much???) You strengthen something by attacking it ...... POLITICS 101.
At least three of the other films nominated were much better!!! Is the academy kidding? I thought Argo was pretty bad. Plus I am reading that it wasn't even totally factual. Seriously, I don't think I am ever going waste three hours again watching an awards show that clearly isn't rewarding talent or good work. I don't know what it is rewarding, but if they should leave the political statements out of it.