No movie being showcased by this year's Toronto International Film Festival caught our interest as much as Ben Affleck's directorial follow up to The Town. Argo, based on a true story and starring Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman and Adam Arkin, tells the astonishingly true story of how a CIA exfiltration specialist attempts to free six Americans who have taken shelter in the home of the Canadian Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. The story opens on November 4, 1979 when Islamist militants took control of the U.S. Embassy in Iran. 52 Americans were taken hostage and held for 444 days until their eventual release. But six American's were able to sneak out of the Embassy and find refuge unbeknownst to the Iranian rebels. The CIA, lead by agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) hatched a plan to rescue the house entrapped Americans by posing as producers of a fictional science fiction film. The idea was that Mendez would land in Iran and then convince the six Americans to assume roles as screenwriters, directors and co-producers of the film and they would all fly out of the country together once location scouting was complete in 48 hours. In an effort to have the mission legitimized, Mendez recruited Hollywood producer Lester Siegel and Special Effects man John Chambers to green-light the script and give the entire project credibility. If the entire notion of the plan sounds like something that only Hollywood could come up with – well, you're half right. But Affleck sticks to the facts of the true events and ravels a bite-your-nails type thriller that is guaranteed to be rewarded with year-end nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and most certainly Best Supporting Actor for Alan Arkin. Every note, every frame of Argo looks authentic. Affleck, who received incredible support for his last directorial effort, The Town, ups the ante and films Argo with the confidence of a maestro at the top of his game. The movie shifts between locations of Iran, Hollywood and both the CIA Headquarters and even the White House in this brilliantly crafted adventure. Each scene and character oozes with atmosphere and purpose and Affleck confidently and flawlessly directs himself as the expected hero of the film – a man who risks his own life and career for the lives of six strangers. Towards the concluding chapters of the film, audiences are sure to be on the edge of their seats – even if they are aware of the historically recorded outcome (shades of Apollo 13). Once the rescue attempt his its apex, the audience at the Toronto screening erupted in an applause never before experienced by this reviewer in his thousands of theatrical screenings. That reaction is a testament to Affleck's direction that grabbed audiences by the emotional drawstrings keeping us involved in our character's fates and caring for their safe return. Argo is not only an important piece of history that many of us were completely oblivious – but it is also one of the better films of this or the past few years.

It's an important movie because the incident that began this whole Middle East muddle in which we now find ourselves -- let's think of it as the index incident -- is fast disappearing down the memory hole. The Iranian takeover of the U.S. embassy in Teheran in 1979 is as remote from younger Iranis as the Vietnam war is to our college students. It's something they read about in history books. The mutual enmity has become functionally autonomous; it's an ongoing thing and now feels as if it's always been there.

So it's important if only for its educational value. It's also a suspenseful story in itself. While the enraged Iranis storm the American embassy and occupy it, six of the staff escape out the back door and are finally given safe quarters in the house of the Canadian ambassador, while the rest of the staff are not so lucky. No one has any idea of what will happen to the six escapees. They could be caught and murdered momentarily. And they have no way of getting out of the country.

Enter Ben Affleck as Tony Mendez, intrepid agent of the CIA, whose book this screenplay is based on, alas. I hope no one expects a personal memoir by a CIA hero to reflect any characterological weaknesses such as self doubt or vanity or hesitancy or fear. Affleck is grimly determined throughout, despite the company's attempts to shut the operation down. "I will get you out. That's what I do," he tells his terrified wards repeatedly. The outrageous plan is to give the six Americans new identities as location scouts for a film company.

The script, and Affleck's performance, turns Mendez into a cipher. He seems to have only one trait -- that obsession to get them out. But then the script doesn't give any of the six hostages any personality either. They each have one trait, if that many, and are otherwise impossible to distinguish from one another. Well, that's not entirely true, because you can tell the men from the women.

The story itself is intrinsically strong. The problems of getting a new identity and fooling the house-to-house Irani searchers at the airport, are spelled out in a jumbled kind of way. But Affleck, the director, and his cameraman seem to have caught some sort of palsy that has been endemic in Hollywood for the last decade or more.

The hand-held camera is hardly ever still. The cuts come quickly, one upon the other. There are swish pans, wobbles, innumerable close ups of static faces where there need be no close ups at all. That's during the contemplative periods. During the action scenes, forget it -- a kaleidoscope of flashing images. As a result, the movie has taken on some of the visual qualities of a rock video, or a TV commercial for pimple cream, exercycles, or SUVs with Ma Deuces on top. ZOOM, BANG, Ooops, pardon me! The stylistic quirks juice up a story that needs no more juice than it already has. A suspense thriller doesn't need to convince us that it's supposed to be thrilling. I mean, cf., "All The President's Men", and count the close ups and wobbles.

But the directorial and editing style may just be trying to keep pace with the headlong layout of exposition. A brief but very valuable and dispassionate historical introduction is quickly tossed aside in favor of in favor of shots in which some Suit rushes into an office somewhere, grabs a phone and shouts, "WHAT? They can't DO that!" And I couldn't tell who "they" were or what they weren't supposed to do.

Except for Affleck's robotic honcho, the performances are okay, and some are better than that. Thank God for Alan Arkin and John Goodman, who inject a necessary dose of humor and cynicism into the movie. Even without them, the movie would have been better than the average junk pouring out of the studios, if only because of its political and historical significance. Yet, I'm getting awfully tired of being yanked by the ear from one place to another. Why don't "they" take a breather and watch "Lawrence of Arabia" again?

What is nothing more than a competent Political Thriller has managed to once again tick a lot of people off at the Academy Awards and rightfully so. There are times when healthy debate can arise among Movie goers and Film lovers about the Best Picture winner or nominees, but occasionally there are mind bending and head scratching entries. Opinions can vary and discussions can ensue about the Art and the crafting of Film.

This one goes nowhere new and is rather boring and unremarkable in most respects. All of the characters on screen look and act as though they are truly in a Hollywood Movie that is about a non existent Hollywood Movie. Affleck is the worst of the bunch. Here he has one expression throughout and is totally unconvincing. His one emotion, seen here, is rolling his eyes toward Heaven when they are given the go ahead at the airport. That's it.

The Movie is without doubt overrated to the extreme and is not bad it just isn't much. It has nothing exceptional and nothing outstanding. It is rather stale and stodgy with fake emotion and it tries real hard at being matter-of fact, but when delivered it is Movie of the Week mediocrity and melancholy to a fault.

Historical inaccuracies or not. It just doesn't matter. This does not have the substance or Artful integrity to matter. The only matter worth mentioning is its undeserved attention and pawing patronizing. That alone is a matter of great mystery and deserves discussion.