SYRIANA

[moviegroupie]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9953/syrianaposter2bg.jpg

From writer/director Stephen Gaghan, winner of the Best Screenplay Academy Award for 'Traffic,' comes 'Syriana,' a political thriller that unfolds against the intrigue of the global oil industry. From the players brokering back-room deals in Washington to the men toiling in the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, the film's multiple storylines weave together to illuminate the human consequences of the fierce pursuit of wealth and power. As a career CIA operative (George Clooney) begins to uncover the disturbing truth about the work he has devoted his life to, an up-and-coming oil broker (Matt Damon) faces an unimaginable family tragedy and finds redemption in his partnership with an idealistic Gulf prince (Alexander Siddig). A corporate lawyer (Jeffrey Wright) faces a moral dilemma as he finesses the questionable merger of two powerful U.S. oil companies, while across the globe, a disenfranchised Pakistani teenager (Mazhar Munir) falls prey to the recruiting efforts of a charismatic cleric. Each plays their small part in the vast and complex system that powers the industry, unaware of the explosive impact their lives will have upon the world.
Also Known As:
Untitled (Warner Bros/Section Eight CIA Drama)
Production Status: Released
Logline: A political thriller that unfolds against the intrigue of the global oil industry.
Genres: Drama, Thriller, Adaptation and Politics/Religion
Running Time: 2 hrs. 6 min.
Release Date: November 23rd, 2005 (limited); December 9th, 2005 (wide)
MPAA Rating: R for for violence and language.
Distributors:
Warner Bros. Pictures Distribution
Production Co.:
Section Eight, Participant Productions
Studios:
Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
Financiers:
Co-Financier: Participant Productions
Filming Locations:
North Africa, the Middle East, Europe
Baltimore, USA
Morocco, Africa
Geneva
Texas, USA
Washington, D.C., USA
Produced in: United States
---------------------------------------------
i think this came out a few weeks ago for a very very limited release, but hopefully this friday? it goes wide. anyway, i really want to see this, especially after seeing what clooney could do in good night and good luck -- he's bound to be on a roll. and rolling stone gave it 4 stars so i shouldn't be let down (good night and good luck received 3 and a half)

[TylerDurden182]

I will definantly be checking this out when it opens nationwide. Looks excellent.

[Pigpen]

A definite must-see for me.
Can't wait.

[screamer581]

Looks excellent, I will hopefully check this out Friday.

[darkface]

It sparks an interest in almost anybody. SO yes, I will definitely be seeing this one this weekend.

[ChemicalRomance]

Oh what a sexy cast. Oh what a cool story. Oh what interesting writing and directing.

I'll see this one with my pops.

[ilovemovies]

It looks fantastic. I can't wait to see it.

[Rated R]

I am checking this one out on Sunday and I can hardly contain my excitement. This may be a bad thing as I might be setting myself for a letdown, but I doubt it. I know it won't be an action packed thriller, I know it will be more politically driven than chase scenes. What can also be pretty much guaranteed are great performances from a sharp script cutting to the core of the oil controversy throughout the world right now. This looks to be the most intriguing movie of the year for me.

[johnny_betts]

Quick warning - Syriana boasts the most misleading trailer of the year. If you're expecting a fast-paced, engaging, nail-biting, controversial thriller then you may be disappointed.

It's VERY slow paced, and I was quite surprised at how unemotional all the actors are. Clooney getting Oscar buzz? Please, the man sleepwalked through the role. He couldn't have come off as more wooden if he was playing the lead role in The Josh Hartnett Story.
In my opinion, of course.

[Digifruitella]

as previousely pointed out by johnny, I agree. Very slow paced and trailer was misleading. After the show, when I was out of the theater and in my car driving home I told myself "The trailer looked good, but the movie was alright"

Unfortunately I was left disappointed. I believe the problem, for me, was because I don't understand politics. To a person who likes them this might seem a good film. I'm not saying it wasn't. It was far from horrible. Storywise maybe, it was ok. Just my point of view.

I liked the directing though, I dug some of the shots.

[Lazy Boy]

5/10

Stephen Gaghan's effort is like a lesser, sister version of his Traffic script -- when it presents factual evidence, exposition, and statistics, it's quite interesting, but its failure to provide a human face for these people limits them to talking memo points and the film to a dull diatribe. Only the actor who played Prince Nasir felt like an attempt at a full fleshed character that tries to avoid the negative stereotyping of Middle Easterners. The meager, undernourished subplots for the characters (mainly dealing with fathers and sons) feels weak and unemotional. The acting is serviceable, but not Oscar-worthy in the least.

[ilovemovies]

I'm still looking forward to this but based on the last few comments I'm begining to think that this could turn out a lot like The Constant Gardener did. It was good but failed to really grip me. For that matter, I felt the same way about Good Night and Good Luck. Another movie that is good but I wasn't really wowed by it.

[chinton]

Constant Gardener and Good Night And Good Luck were two of my favorite films of the year. Gotta see this.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by chinton
Constant Gardener and Good Night And Good Luck were two of my favorite films of the year. Gotta see this.

Same here. Brilliant movies both. I hope Syrianna is as good.

[Lazy Boy]

This movie is nowhere near as good as those movies, but that's just my humble opinion. I'd definitely want to read your reactions, though.

[chinton]

Lazy Boy I must humbly concede to you. You were absolutely right. Heres a cut and paste of my short review form another forum.

Listen I loved Traffik and I love complicated films. The Constant Gardener was a also a jigsaw of a movie but at least at the core the film was essentially a tragic love story. This is something that we all can relate and gave it its power. It also ebcouraged the viewer to puzzle the movie out.

Syriana though is just massively overrated. Sure there were some good lines, good performances, and its relevant so I have to give it points for that.

But beyond that can someone please tell me what this film is about. I know its overhanging story but after an hour I really had no idea what was going which lessened what was supposed to be a tragic moment. I got really tired of desperately triyng to figure this film out and grew bored. This films doesnt ahve anything on Good Night And Good Luck, The Constant Gardener, or Batman Begins my favorite three serious films of the year.

5.5/10

[moviegroupie]

Jigsaw doesn't settle with me. i didn't know this was what I was in for.

Wasn't fond of the Constant Gardener, and wasn't fond of this.

5/10 sounds about right. coherence only comes with effort, lack of character development, and that's about all you need to not enjoy it.

[chinton]

There were no character to speak of just lot s of names bouncing around. It was all plot and no character.


Its so dissapointing becuase I love jigsaw movies

[Skellington]

One of the year's best film

9/10

[dman476]

Originally posted by moviegroupie
Jigsaw doesn't settle with me. i didn't know this was what I was in for.

Wasn't fond of the Constant Gardener, and wasn't fond of this.

5/10 sounds about right. coherence only comes with effort, lack of character development, and that's about all you need to not enjoy it.
Okay, I'm offically avoiding the film like the plague.
I'm with you on this one, moviegroupie. You hated Constant Gardner? Good man, that movie was total rubbish. Lackluster acting, poor directing, and I hate films that have the whole "africa" issue going on. I find them to be dull and boring. I was way pumped for the film int he beggining but was tremendously disappoited after seeing it. Besides, the film is too conceited for its own good.

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!







One thing in this movie REALLY confused me. Did the Clooney character die? I ask because Robert Baer is a real guy who isn't dead but it seemed that he died in the movie and that was very confusing to me.


Some of the business stuff confused me as well.

But overall I think it's a very strong movie with great performances and some really powerful scenes. Clooney's torture scene was intense! I rarely look away from a movie but I definately had to for that scene. And the ending was extremely suspenseful. Was on the edge of my seat.

I'm between a 7/10 or an 8/10. Not sure which one. Will have to see this a second or third time before I can fully digest this. Even so, it certainly comes highly recommended by me.

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
SPOILERS!







One thing in this movie REALLY confused me. Did the Clooney character die? I ask because Robert Baer is a real guy who isn't dead but it seemed that he died in the movie and that was very confusing to me.





Yes Baer is a real person who isn't dead, but the movie was fictional and the character of Baer although a real person, was just based on Baer. If that makes sense. So, basically Syriana and all its' characters are fictional. If you stayed during the credits its mentioned that all the characters (with an exception of archive footage) are fictional, although the issues and bla bla bla is real.

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
SPOILERS!







Clooney's torture scene was intense! I rarely look away from a movie but I definately had to for that scene.

What's interesting about my experience in the theater was that one woman in my row, a few seats to the right of me was going "Ohhh, oohh" during that scene. Also, before Syriana there was a trailer for HOSTEL, and when Clooney's torture scene came up I was thinking about HOSTEL and how Syriana's torture scene kind of prepares me for HOSTEL and what's to come in that movie.

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by Digifruitella
What's interesting about my experience in the theater was that one woman in my row, a few seats to the right of me was going "Ohhh, oohh" during that scene. Also, before Syriana there was a trailer for HOSTEL, and when Clooney's torture scene came up I was thinking about HOSTEL and how Syriana's torture scene kind of prepares me for HOSTEL and what's to come in that movie.

uh, Hostel Is a horror movie, and he(Clooney) was being tortured for information not for the sake of being tortured.

[NightStalkerGtx]

Sounds Mixed and im not that hyped up about it as i was b4, So I'll check it out if i have time... If not i'll def give it a rent.

[Rated R]

I don't get all the flak. I thought it was thought provoking, interesting take on the oil industry and corruption and connection with the government. Sure the characters aren't overly developed, but it was a movie about the events and personally I think that Bob Baer was well developed and that his plight was enough for me to really sympathize with him.

I guess I can understand why it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I liked the insecurity of my societal state in life feeling it left me with. It made me think and want to learn more about the oil industry and the politics involved and seperate the truth from fact. To me, this is behind Sin City only and is my #2 of the year.

9.5/10

[chinton]

I think the ending would have been suspenseful had I not been 5 scenes early trying to put things together.

[ilovemovies]

I actually did find the ending to be suspenseful. VERY suspenseful! It reminded me in away of the bus scene in The Interpreter, which was extremely exciting and suspenseful.

[silentasylum]

I saw this over the weekend and enjoyed it. although I'm not sure if enjoy is an appropriate word to use. The story is very ambitious, you have to give credit to the writer/director for being able to jumble the stories and still never have them lose the connection they have.


9/10

[chinton]

Wow I guess Im in the minority. Im glad there were some popel who could understand thsi film.

[bigred760]

My review of Syriana:

I guess my biggest problem with this movie is that I just didn't get it. I'm not too wise in the ways of the oil industry and the goings-on thereabouts; I was kind of hoping that I could learn a thing or two about by watching this movie . . . . . . nope. I got what George Clooney's character was doing, what Matt Damon was doing, and some of the other characters - I got their role in the movie; I just didn't understand what they had to do with each other and the price of tea in china (or should I say the price of oil :D). I still don't get what one guy was doing in the movie - investigating a merger of two oil companies, but what happened in the end is still a mystery to me.

I'm not saying that this is a bad movie, but for me, it's just not my kind of movie. It's a heavy political movie with little else to offer. The acting is excellent, the direction is topnotch, but the story is complex and there are a lot of characters to follow. As soon as I got used to all of them, I had to remember where I saw them in the movie.

But like I said, the acting is great. I liked the storylines of Clooney's and Damon's character; the Iranian prince was great as well. There was a lot of drama, little suspense, and just too many characters to remember - especially in the Chris Cooper & Jeffery Wright storyline. I guess the familiar faces (and I know a lot of faces in movies - mind you) helped me follow along with the characters. -And though I was interested in the terrorist-to-be story, I don't see how it had to do with the overall story.

Like I said, I believe the main reason that I didn't like this movie a whole hell of a lot was just because I didn't understand a whole lot about the subject matter. I was hoping for a little lesson about it, but didn't get much of it. If you like great acting, politically charged movies, and good directing - than this is the movie for you. Be warned that there are a lot of characters with different storylines that don't intertwine much. It's just a very difficult movie to follow.

6/10

[Pigpen]

I loved it. 9/10.

[chinton]

Personally I dont see whats so great about Clooneys acting in this movie. He sleepwalks through the film

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by chinton
Personally I dont see whats so great about Clooneys acting in this movie. He sleepwalks through the film

I don't see it, either. Maybe because he gained some weight and looks disheveled and pained.

I bet this thought flashed through his head in order to get that look:

"God, why did I do Batman and Robin? Why??"

[Atlas1982]

"Mr. Gaghan doesn't insult our intelligence, but he demands our attention. If you're up to those demands, you'll be rewarded."
-- Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWS (rottentomatoes.com)

-Personally this sums up what you need to know going into the movie. It worked for me. I'm not particularly politically savy but I felt like I was moreso after watching this film. It's nice to be given the opportunity to put a visual representation of what is going on in that world as opposed to hearing it on CNN.

Acting: Good not great. The prince is the only one who I really felt an emotional connection with. But on the other hand, do we feel emotional connections to politicians/kings/oil analysts/and CIA agents in real life? I thought the film might have done this intentionally. (spoiler) And when Clooney threatened the politician I was pretty excited too.

Final Thought: My friends who didn't like this movie are the same friends who smoke bongs full of marijuana too and go see movies. I'm not a smoker but I think that might make it difficult to follow the film

8/10

[vote4pedro]

I agree with some of the reviews, but for some people like me i think a second viewing will help to really understand what the message of the movie is, it doesn't help having your hommie doze off throughout the movie and having to wake him up every 10 mins. But it is a great film though dont get me wrong, its just, there's too many different things going on the movie that it's easy to get confuse.

8/10

[Atlas1982]

agreed

[DaveyJoeG]

I loved it. I think the big point that a lot of people are missing is that you're NOT supposed to get it. Stephen Gaghan knows what he's doing and he very deliberately made the connections and the motivations of the characters vague. The whole idea is that the entire oil issue is not understood by the people involved, much less the people on the outside.

He made it so you only really understood what was happening for each individual scene, but you weren't entirely sure where each character was coming from, or where they're going. That made it so you could sympathize with all of the characters even though they may be fighting for different interests.

Edit: For instance Prince Nasir. You have a different interpretation of his character in the beginning of the movie than you do at the end of the movie. At first he's shown as a terrorist or a 'bad guy,' but by the end you have seen things from his perspective and you grow to respect him and what he's trying to do. Then you step back and realize, it's a lot more complex than just who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys.'

[jaw2929]

Wow, I've just gotta say that this movie was one of the WORST pieces of shite I've ever had the mispleasure of buying a ticket to see.... It was SO bad in fact, I walked out about an hour into it, just atrocious!

I went to this with my Mom and Brother, more or less because my mom thinks that Clooney is an attractive guy.... Other than that, the trailer didn't really grab me, as I'm not too interested in this kind of movie... Since it had to do with the oil industry...

It just starts out throwing you right into the middle of the story, no introduction of characters, no explanations of anything being presented to you on-screen... I felt like a dumbass, cuz I never walk outta films that seem "too smart" for me, cuz I'm not a stupid man by any stretch of the imagination....

But this was just a jumbled fuckin' mess, following 3-4 different storylines on the same topic ala Traffic and Crash, but the subject material was just fucking BORING AS HELL! Clooney and Matt Damon did alright in their roles, but nothing overly impressive... I really can't say anything good about this flick, except that it was semi-interesting to see the perspective shot from the people actually working IN these oil plants in the Middle East, and how life/religion and other things affect them....

I would NOT recommend this pile of shite to ANYONE, as it was a pointless pretentious nonsensical excercise in it's attempt to try and seem smarter than it truly was...

[chinton]

I dont buy that so it s brilliant cause it deliberately confusing. Nice out for the movie. Oh you dont understand it cause youre not supposed to. That doesnt work for me.

[Atlas1982]

This movie wasn't very difficult to follow as long as you don't have to pee every 15 minutes cuz you drank too much coke. Also, it makes sense if you don't get yourself stoned stupid beforehand. I have a feeling the majority of the people who hated this movie (if it is because they didn't get it) is because they had one of the two problems above, or the just didn't have the attention span. Granted the trailer was misleading, but it was a nice surprise. There aren't too many movies these days that make you do some of the work. I don't like paying $20 (me and my girlfriend) to have someone else think for me for two hours. Sometimes its is nice I'll admit, but Into the Blue every time you go to the theatre is too much.

Very refreshing movie and definately watchable more then once.

[Lazy Boy]

Don't be so condescending. It won't make you very popular on these boards.

The problem with the movie wasn't that it was difficult (it wasn't), but that it wasn't good. Not because people decided to get high in the theater or take a piss break.

[Shenan]

I thought it was great. 8/10. I walked in 5 minutes after the movie had started and still got it. The only storyline that I didn't completely understand was the lawyer one (who's side he was really on), because that seemed to be setup in one of the first scenes that I missed.

The thing about this type of movie is that you have to be geared up for it. If you have no concern about oil, politics, foreign relations, etc, there won't be much there for you. On the other hand, if you have an interest and follow world news regularly, you'll love this. It was thrilling and suspenseful to me. I would like to watch it again.

[Atlas1982]

Didn't mean to sound condescending Lazy Boy. It's just that my friends who saw it and had the same complaints had the latter problem I named. You do have to be geared up for this type of movie and if you are then it should be rewarding imho.

[lennyd43]

7/10 I like traffic more

but I agree with this one quote from the movie..

"Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation . . . We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street. Corruption is why we win."

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Atlas1982
This movie wasn't very difficult to follow as long as you don't have to pee every 15 minutes cuz you drank too much coke. Also, it makes sense if you don't get yourself stoned stupid beforehand. I have a feeling the majority of the people who hated this movie (if it is because they didn't get it) is because they had one of the two problems above, or the just didn't have the attention span.


I usually use the restroom before the movie because I hate getting up during the flick (as I hate it when others leave as well) and I don't smoke. So, that blows your theory.

Care to try again?

[Edie0027]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
The problem with the movie wasn't that it was difficult (it wasn't), but that it wasn't good. Not because people decided to get high in the theater or take a piss break.

I beg to differ-- it was too difficult for me to follow, and I sat in my seat the entire time. I went with 3 other people who also couldn't follow-- and I promise you they are relatively bright. I read a review where a guy said he had to see it 3 times before he understodd it. I bet that if I watched it two more times I could understand-- but that alone doesn't make for a good movie. Oh, and why did Clooney have to put on the weight?

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!!

Brilliant movie. I loved every second of it. Is it complex and hard to follow at times? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Hell fucking no. Considering all of the mainstream Hollywood garbage that I (and others) sit through on a regular basis, it was refreshing to have a movie challenge the viewer. I loved that close attention must be paid to keep up with the narrative. I loved being engaged like that. Thankfully, the story is interesting and relevant enough to make it worth the effort. Oil and politics. To me, fascinating topics. Gaghan did a fantastic job of weaving all the storylines together and the editing is outstanding. The cast is superb. If I have any complaints, it's that Jeffrey Wright's character remained a little too underdeveloped, but I suppose that is a consequence of telling a story with so many characters and locations. IMO, a very small price to pay. I can't understand not liking a movie because it's too complex. Boggles my mind. I found almost all of it to be easy to follow, thanks to Gaghan's top-notch storytelling. And he wraps it all up nicely in the end. The pieces fit together. Along with Munich, something I'd like to see again soon. One of the year's best.

9/10

[someguy]

I liked the movie a lot too, it was intriguing throughout (I actually didn't want to stop watching it since I had to know what was going on). The acting isn't exceptional but the great story and screenwriting makes up for it. Definitely requires a second viewing to process it all completely, but I got it pretty well after watching it the first time. Like Madsen said, it's odd to see people complaining that a movie is too complicated. One of the best movies of 05. 8/10

[Atlas1982]

Edie0027: "Oh, and why did Clooney have to put on the weight?"

Are you serious? Was that some kind of subtle joke? Who cares why he had to or hadn't? If he was a twig would you think him a better CIA agent? C'mon!

[Mr. Durp]

"syriana" is a film that consists of facts and ideas that CNN informs people with on a regular basis. it is a film that didn't really teach me anything new. having said that and read most reviews from major critics, i must say that knowing about the subject enabled me to understand the movie much more. notice i said "understand" - i didn't really enjoy it - but i did understand it.

this flick was very quick and jumped from one story to the next. it didn't so much as set up these stories either - you were just kinda thrown into the middle of them. most of them i found intriguing, particularly matt damon's and george clooney's (especially when clooney's wrapped up).

having comprehended the majority of the movie, i was still lost at points. sometimes the characters were speaking too quickly in political jargon, and with a movie like this, there's no time to sit and think about it. they just move on. while this might turn off most viewers, i actually don't mind it one bit. the key to watching "syriana" is to not try and get it as it comes to you, but rather to take what you can and just watch as it unfolds. questions will be answered, fuzzy issues will become more clear. you just have to sit and watch.

since this movie moves so quickly though, you don't really have much time to feel the characters. it lacks heart, and that's the films biggest problem. that's where "traffic" succeeds and "syriana" fails. this movie gets caught up in following all it's stories and characters, and if it's run time equalled that of "traffic", then maybe "syiana" could've been more.

the cast was great, but you couldn't really feel much for them. george clooney was good, but so was matt damon, jeffrey wright, chris cooper, and the middle eastern guy who played prince nasir. just because an actor gains weight and goes through issues during a shoot shouldn't guarantee award nominations - but then again, if "good night and good luck" wasn't getting so much attention, clooney's performance would probably be overlooked.

complaints aside, i felt this was a good, interesting watch that kept me captivated and was worth what my theater has now bumped up to $9.25. another watch once its out on dvd would probably bring more understanding to the flick, but more than that - i don't think so. it's a film that should be watched by all for certain reasons. if you get it, then it's an intriguing story that's worth your time. and if you don't, then you should educate yourself on these issues, since this is the type of world we live in today.

7/10

[veddhead83]

A thought provoking film, which almost makes me feel pitiful to be an American - "Corruption is how we win."

[Commodore]

I don't have a problem with taking a true story and changing some plot elements around for entertainment value. But what Clooney and the makers of this movie have done is to completely change crucial facts to fit a political agenda, namely that the American governent is corrupt and that the CIA conducts operations to benefit corporations.

The story is based on a CIA operative who was sent to assasinate Saddam Hussein, but in the film, the agent is sent to kill a kind and gentle Arab prince in order to help rich oil companies. The agent was almost killed by the Palestinian terrorist orginaization Hezbollah, but in the movie, Hezbollah rescues the agent!

The fact that these idiots from Hollywood would make up facts in order to denigrate the people who work at the CIA, who are out there every day risking their lives to help prevent another 9/11 attack, is a major reason why I will never pay money to see a George Clooney film.

I don't mind movies with an agenda, even one I may not agree with. But at least be truthful about it.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by Commodore
I don't have a problem with taking a true story and changing some plot elements around for entertainment value. But what Clooney and the makers of this movie have done is to completely change crucial facts to fit a political agenda, namely that the American governent is corrupt and that the CIA conducts operations to benefit corporations.

The story is based on a CIA operative who was sent to assasinate Saddam Hussein, but in the film, the agent is sent to kill a kind and gentle Arab prince in order to help rich oil companies. The agent was almost killed by the Palestinian terrorist orginaization Hezbollah, but in the movie, Hezbollah rescues the agent!

The fact that these idiots from Hollywood would make up facts in order to denigrate the people who work at the CIA, who are out there every day risking their lives to help prevent another 9/11 attack, is a major reason why I will never pay money to see a George Clooney film.

I don't mind movies with an agenda, even one I may not agree with. But at least be truthful about it.
I admit I haven't read the book - BUT - you mean to tell me that there is never governemnt cover-up or corruption in order to make a profit? Look at Halliburton! Even if it were a shoe company instead of oil - commpanies merging or our countries greed has a huge effect on everyone whether they like it or not. Democrat or Republican - greed and corruption is negative and can never solve anything, just hurt!!!

[Commodore]

I don't mean to turn this into a political thread, but what you said gets right to the issue of using media and Hollywood to promote a political agenda, often through misinformation under the guise of "artistic license", as was clearly done in this movie, and not for any noble purpose.

What about Halliburton are you referring to? Have they been convicted of a crime we don't know about? Is being awarded a government contract a crime? Is getting paid to help rebuild Iraq or supply our military forces a crime? This kind of loose talk about greed and corruption gets thrown about on TV and in Hollywood with no basis in fact. Then it gets repeated by people like yourself who don't know any better.

[Madhatter]

Originally posted by Commodore
I don't have a problem with taking a true story and changing some plot elements around for entertainment value. But what Clooney and the makers of this movie have done is to completely change crucial facts to fit a political agenda, namely that the American governent is corrupt and that the CIA conducts operations to benefit corporations.

The story is based on a CIA operative who was sent to assasinate Saddam Hussein, but in the film, the agent is sent to kill a kind and gentle Arab prince in order to help rich oil companies. The agent was almost killed by the Palestinian terrorist orginaization Hezbollah, but in the movie, Hezbollah rescues the agent!

The fact that these idiots from Hollywood would make up facts in order to denigrate the people who work at the CIA, who are out there every day risking their lives to help prevent another 9/11 attack, is a major reason why I will never pay money to see a George Clooney film.

I don't mind movies with an agenda, even one I may not agree with. But at least be truthful about it.

I am assuming that you are talking about author Robert Baer who wrote "See No Evil", you should know that he was in the movie, so I don't think he had nay problems with the movie. Also they have mentioned that Clooney's chracter is differnt from Baer's account in his book.

Here is an Interview of the guy (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=5140)

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by Commodore
I don't mean to turn this into a political thread, but what you said gets right to the issue of using media and Hollywood to promote a political agenda, often through misinformation under the guise of "artistic license", as was clearly done in this movie, and not for any noble purpose.

What about Halliburton are you referring to? Have they been convicted of a crime we don't know about? Is being awarded a government contract a crime? Is getting paid to help rebuild Iraq or supply our military forces a crime? This kind of loose talk about greed and corruption gets thrown about on TV and in Hollywood with no basis in fact. Then it gets repeated by people like yourself who don't know any better.
It's not a crime, but our vice president is profiting because of Halliburton is cleaning up the mess our government made in the first place. I just find it too convenient that Halliburton is the company cleaning up the mess. Loose talk? The last time I checked this was America - freedom of speech or do you want them to take that away?

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Commodore
What about Halliburton are you referring to? Have they been convicted of a crime we don't know about? Is being awarded a government contract a crime? Is getting paid to help rebuild Iraq or supply our military forces a crime? This kind of loose talk about greed and corruption gets thrown about on TV and in Hollywood with no basis in fact. Then it gets repeated by people like yourself who don't know any better.

You should consider a career in politics.

[TrippingBalls]

I gain more enjoyment from a movie when I know what the fuck actually happened during the movie. Rushing from scene to scene without giving clues as to what's going or even explaining to the viewer what's going on is lazy filmmaking disguised as art. Unless it's like Memento, where the complicated plot is part of the whole puzzle and is the whole point of the film, in whch case I haven't seen Syrania but what I"ve read about it, it's not. So there should be no excuse as to why over 90% of the people seeing it don't understand a damn thing going on while watching the movie.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls
So there should be no excuse as to why over 90% of the people seeing it don't understand a damn thing going on while watching the movie.

I agree completely. It is not that hard to follow. You just have to turn your brain on and pay attention. Not too complicated. At least it shouldn't be.

[firelight]

I wanted Syriana to be the type of movie that could fuse the relevant and important issues of greed in the oil industry with a human sense of drama to send a message, but this was clearly just wishful thinking. In my opinion, (although I'm sure it's been said) those who feel lost while watching this film aren't inattentative or uneducated, they are subjected to a vastly confusing style of scattershot directing. The director never clearly takes the time to develop the characters and the story sorely craves some backstory for each of their motivations. The abundance of characters and locations simply overwhelm the story, the pacing doesn't allow anyone in the audience time to gather sense in the events unfolding before them. I did pick up on the, "gist," of what the movie was trying to communicate, I even liked a few of the ideas portrayed, (the hoplessness of the issue even though there are those who would try and change it). Sadly the film goes skimpy on the one thing it should've amplified, HUMAN SUBSTANCE!!!! Syriana is such a cold and lifeless exercise the dialogue can't provide meaning, it simply flows and flows without control or tangibility. At times the directing in the scenes is so poorly executed that the dialogue is rendered completely inaudible, (whispering during conventions/meetings is handled carelessly). This film is endlessly being compared to the far more comprehensible Traffic. The two films may possess the same talented writer, but only Traffic is directed by Soderbergh, who weaves the stories together in a logical way. Gaghan could've used Soderbergh's touch on this film, especially when the issues at stake have the potential to greatly affect audiences. I wanted this film to be a thought provoking work of cinema, instead I was overwhelmed by how underdeveloped it actually was.
A frustrating 5/10

[The Heart Collector]

MILD SPOILERS



I'm gonna have to join Madsen and someguy's camp. I didn't see what the hell was so hard to understand about Syriana. There was only one plot point that seemed kinda sudden, but the rest was perfectly followable. And I wasn't even like paying full attention. COME ON, GUYS.

Anyways, onto the movie. My main problem with Syriana was that, as many have said, it feels kinda emotionally hollow. I mean really, most scenes are barely a minute long. However, its kinda interesting how the movie works out. You don't feel much emotion as the movie goes along, but in the end, you do. In the end you think of all those scenes that seemed boring the first time around and think "yeah, that part was sad". The movie is a 7.5/10 throughout most of its duration, but the ending easily elevates it to a 8.5. Rarely do I see such a bleak, cynical, hopeless ending. And personally, I love that. That's real fucking life.

The acting was very good. Clooney was great, considering most of his acting was just through facial expressions. Damon was terrific too, especially his scenes with Siddig at the desert and Peet near that water fountain thing. Jeffrey Wright was good, but his storyline wasn't as interesting as the other two. The only lame acting was courtesy of Tim Blake Nelson and that stupid fucking accent he had, which made his corruption speech lose half the impact.

The torture scene = most excrutiating scene ever. Dear fucking god. I have an aversion to anything involving nails, so I damn near wept.

Soundtrack was phenomenal too.

So in conclusion, I haven't seen many 2005 movies, but Syriana is easily the best serious one.

[eurydice]

I agree Heart Collector. I loved this movie. And Alexander Siddig-Dr. Bashir from Deep Space 9 -should get kudos for his portrayal of the arab prince.

[spacemonkey]

I just saw this last night and didnt like it.

I got the jyst of the story, but got lost in the political jargon. And not only did they often times talk in a vocabulary that regular joe of the street wont understand...they talked it fast! For large portions of this movie I was like "what?" That doesnt happen to me very often, I enjoy movies that are complicated, but this one was just really hard to follow.

Characters would suddenly jump from one country to another (and back!) without any indications that they have traveled, you just have to guess that they are in another country. When they showed important notes on the screen, they wouldnt leave them long enough for you to read em, they would just cut away. Things were taken for granted that they happened but not shown...it felt like watching a movie on fast forward, as if I was skipping titles on my DVD.

But above all, the movie was not entertaining in the least. It had its moments here and there, but it bored the hell out of me.

This movie is ONLY for people who enjoy politics and read about politics on a regular basis. Everybody else will feel LOST.