And Helen, I know what you mean. But I didn’t mean that the second act has nothing to do with the film. Just that it feels like it because its tone is completely different from the rest of the film and it was interesting, unlike the rest of the film.

Argo is the first film I’ve seen where the second act was the best [and only good] part of the entire film.

The second act has almost nothing to do with the remainder of the film, in presentation. As a result it was entertaining and humorous and doesn’t belong in the film. Strike two!

The third act, as mentioned in your review Helen, was constructed in a way that just added random ways to make the sequence last longer. (- Oh no! My pen out of ink! – Oh no! The tickets weren’t booked! – Oh no! This sandwich has mustard in it and I hate mustard!). Strike three!

I was mostly bored with Argo because Affleck is the wrong director for it. The cinematography was bland, like of a TV series’; most of the performances were delivered without any conviction (aside from John Goodman and Alan Arkin who can do no wrong); and script was on autopilot from the start.

Argo is hailed as a triumph and a huge Oscar contender but I find it to be mediocre in every category. It’s as bland and mediocre as The Amazing Spider-Man and almost as long.

I watched it with a friend and we were both having troubles sitting through the film. That’s not good. Why can’t Ben Affleck make more movies like Gone Baby Gone?