Argo is based on a true story. Somewhat loosely based it will turn out. Director Ben Affleck bends some historical truths in an attempt to make his film more exciting. The story of the rescue of six American diplomats from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis is certainly compelling. But it turns out the real-life story, ironically involving a fake Hollywood movie, was not dramatic enough for a real Hollywood movie. Affleck had to jazz things up, create tension in places where there really was none. That effort fails largely because some of the fake incidents Affleck throws in are such obvious Hollywood creations. No way it happened like that you're thinking as you watch the movie. All the contrived razor-tight close calls fall flat and actually come across as a little silly. Silly is not what you're looking for as you ramp up to the big finish of a thriller. Seeing as it is more or less a true story, meaning you know the ending, it is admittedly hard to create that great dramatic tension. Some films which tell true stories overcome this problem better than others. Apollo 13 comes to mind, that was real edge of the seat stuff. Argo is not. It's not nearly as gripping and exciting as you would hope. Affleck seemed to realize this and tried desperately hard to make it more exciting but those efforts end up hurting the film more than helping it.

So this is a bad movie then? No, not at all. It's a good movie, maybe not as good as you would hope, maybe not Oscar-worthy but good nonetheless. Yes it has its flaws but the overall package is more than acceptable. It is a great story, the CIA working with Hollywood to create a fake movie to get Americans out of Iran. It's in the putting together of that fake film that Argo really shines. The inside Hollywood stuff, helped immensely by great performances from Alan Arkin and John Goodman, works really well. Bryan Cranston also does fine work, bringing good energy to his role as a CIA supervisor involved in putting the plan together. The one real flat performance unfortunately comes from the star, Affleck himself. He plays CIA operative Tony Mendez, the man who will ultimately go to Iran to get the Americans out. And Affleck doesn't bring much to the role. Everyone around him is more interesting than he is. It's an oddly bland character, the guy is supposed to be some kind of CIA super-spy but there's very little personality there. The gang of six who are to be rescued don't infuse the film with much life either. We don't really get to know those characters very well which maybe doesn't make us as invested in their fate as the film needs us to be to really succeed.

There is a lot to quibble with but there is a lot to recommend the film as well. The opening scene of the Iranian takeover of the American embassy is brilliantly done. The film may lack some needed tension later on but this opening gives the film a thoroughly gripping start. The real-life plan to extricate the six Americans was brilliant and this film does an excellent job as it puts that plan together. It's a story which has to be seen to be believed. The story draws you in and you expect the big, dramatic payoff to come with the ultimate rescue. But that rescue is not as exciting as you would hope. Affleck tries really hard to make it more thrilling. But he tried too hard, forced it too much. Much of the film's final act comes off as much too fake. You know it didn't happen like that so you don't really buy in. Couple that with the sense of inevitability that lingers with any true-life story in which you know the outcome and these final scenes can't help but be a little disappointing. It's a good effort from director Affleck but there is the nagging sense this film got much more acclaim than it deserved. A good film but greatness definitely eludes it. And movie star Affleck didn't help director Affleck very much.