Your opinions of "Syriana".

I just don't know. The subject of corruption in the oil business and geo-politics is pretty interesting to me, but I left the movie feeling pretty unimpressed.

:shrug:

I should have gone to "Good Night, Good Luck" at the dollar movie.

Its power was in it's subtlety, and also in it's power to draw parallels. Most of the movie, the majority of the audience I was with couldn't tell who they should consider "good" and "bad", which is rare in any media involving middle-easterners and the U.S. government. Sure, it wasn't as overtly political as other movies, but I left with a sense of satisfation that I was taken on an enjoyable ride with politically truthful undertones. BTW, go see "Good Night, and Good Luck", it's fantastic.

:D

This is usually the type of film I would. I thought it was sad, but I just left with this feeling the movie was "eh".

Thanks for the recomendation of "Good Night, Good Luck".

:hi:

I agree that most of the movie was underwhelming as a geo-political soapbox. Here's what I thought made up for it:

1. The portrayl of a young boy's conversion to a religious fanatic/killer. Very interesting.

2. The style of filmmaking, multiple scattered subplots converging towards a central conclusion, I loved that element.

3. The conversion of the two big name main characters, true believers in "the system" until they realized that it had stripped them of everything

4. The historical tie-ins, Mohammed Mosadegh anyone?

just my $.02 :hi:

I loved the movie "Crash", where you see how strangers touch others lives. I saw that aspect a bit in this film, but I just didn't care as much.

About 40 minutes into the movie, I just got to thinking that the movie was too long.

Did I miss something, because I was tired.

:shrug:

:shrug:

I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what it was about this film I didn't like, but I suppose my taste has no accounting. It also has a bad interest rate.

witch to deliver some 'ka-pow'...but clearly so much of what may well be going on is accomplished by the installment of players for whom low expectations are in fact required read: g.w. bush, as a for instance, while larger players are never seen or heard.

the real-time, net effect is to be underwhelmed. left unimpressed. and that plays to apathy; and that is what 'they' are hoping for. that we remain unimpressed with what geopolitical globalization ultimately has in store for us imo

I was unimpressed with the movie, and thought they could have made it somewhat more engaging. I think that most who go to see a movie of this type would not by nature have an apathy towards its subject matter. If that is the case, why bother to even go?

I enjoy seeing films that are different, and push the envelope. "Crash" is one of these films for me, that took many different people and challenged people's views on racism, and in doing so challenged our original opinions of the characters, which were wrong. I figured that this would be a movie I would seriously enjoy, because it presented a challenge. It wasn't all about eye candy or special effects. I was wrong.

'after career' book deal & had there within those sparse few, publisher decreed pages, all the essentials leaving the lit component somewhere far less than 'war & peace' so as to say. but there is clearly no mistake about it...

it is not 'crash'; crash is a flat-out construct, it is not 007 for that matter, and my sense is that the sweep of characters depicted (methodically plodding behind the scenes while seeking redress before a 'we the people' government you & i may never see) actually prefer you feel in these very same ways: "why bother to even go?" translation:

'why bother reading headlines' 'why bother being concerned' 'why bother voting'

syriana ran up behind h. potter ticket sales over this weekend. which i find heartening preferring americans do: step outside the cave if only symbolically from time to time. but it's hard to protract any long term wisdom beyond fauxnews prattle without an entry from 'dumber-er & dumber-er & dumber-er' on a screen somewhere near any three of us to juxtapose :shrug:

If I didn't care about what they were trying to say, I would not have bothered to go.

In '92, I was in Iraq. I was naive, and it took me a while to understand that my government, that I so believed in and fought for would use a soldier as a pawn, as George Clooney's character was used. I feel there is a lack of movies that cover the Middle East, and are even set in the Middle East, so I was eager to see this.


My purpose in my original post was trying to figure out what about this movie left me unimpressed, because I really wanted to be, and if anybody else had the same sentiments. As it turns out, I suppose it is just a matter of taste. It certainly wasn't a lack of concern or lack of interest in the subject matter.

After a couple of days, though, I am struck personality wise how the younger prince was similar to Bush.

though for me the relationship between the younger prince as an effete, elitist party boy, to bush as a like-wise yale 'walk though', likely bully puppet as well just lounging round waiting for the nod from his elder daddy, if you will, was a no-brainer :hi:

These types of characters show up in all cultures, I'm sure.

:)

http://www.nndb.com/people/554/000055389 as a mere for instance

I think it was in '82 or '83, and she placed.

She was a good horse.

redstone

:shrug:

If one goes to "Syriana" and expects to be taken on some thrill ride you're going to be seriously dissappointed. This is not a 'fun flick' and it was never meant to be.

Fictionally, "Syriana" presented what could be, and in many respects is, a really complicated situation.
Some respects I found it sad. The movie had those few charecters that wanted to do the right thing and paid the price for it.

Like how did George Clooney know that Christopher Plummer had his passports?

There were so many loose ends like this, I was actually quite disgusted by the film.

Everything is connected is the slogan on the posters, but so what if they are? These things should be interesting at least.

Whiting's involvement when they secretly met up at the movie theatre. I think Hurt knew, from working outside the CIA, that Whiting was about to be pulled down along with Danny Dalton as sacrificial lambs forthe sake of appearance.

But I can't be sure. There is too much left up to the imagination or conjecture.

Based on a serious and scary book. The director when quizzed about being "real" at a screening for Media Wunderstars in D.C. replied,flatly:
"True? We had to tone it DOWN for the Heartland"

Damon was great. So was Clooney. Also Bill Hurt and Christopher Plummer.

FWIW:popcorn:

he won the coin toss, it's an important film

But one of the reviews I read said you would need to see it at leaast twice to really appreciate and understand it.

I really wanted to like this movie.

:shrug:

Cast, Writing, Editing.:woohoo:

:)

as in real life there are greys and situations not easily resolved. it was a very provocative film.

A big problem with * is that he can't see the gray areas. I wonder how much of that is just politicking. I know a good deal of people who solely see things in black and white, they "split". Everything is either good, or bad. If one part is bad, the whole is bad. I suppose there might be just enough people out there that think this way for pandering politcally to them to pay off. Then, Bush could think this way, as well.

I was caught up in the suspense. It is definitely a slow, tense movie, not an action flick.

I wish (slightly) that the resolution of the various threads had been a little more interwoven.

The thing I kept wondering about was why Matt Damon's character went to the other SUV. Not sure if there was anything behind that, or not.

Well done. Extremly well edited. Top notch.:applause: :popcorn: :applause:

:kick:

EXcellent Movie!:woohoo: :popcorn: :woohoo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/12/world/main1116177.shtml :kick:

I liked it because it didn't force-feed any direction, it was scattershot.

It was realistic in that it covered the gray areas, and gave perspectives that aren't usually covered, or even cared about. I liked that about it.

I think it's a great film, precisely because it says so much about how our lives are interwoven in the geopolitical minefield that is the big oil industry. And it does that without preaching, just showing the people that collide in this milieu. I think it's incisive in its vision of how corrupt this industry and, by extension, much of the political posturing really is. The performances, particularly Clooney as the battle weary CIA op and the actor who portrayed the young Pakistani man (sorry, forgetting his name) who grows so disillioned, are uniformly fantastic ... and I think the pace of the storytelling drove the suspense as it hurtled toward a conclusion that was as sad as it is thrilling. At least for me, much of the power of the film is character-driven. The only quibbles I have are that Syriana may have been too short to compress all of that into 2 hours. Also, I'm still trying to clear up a few different motivations ... Other than that, clear as a bell to me and totally enjoyable.

I wanna see "Good Night and Good Luck" too, but it's not playing where I'm at.

It explains it all :smoke:

I may go see it if I have time. If not, I will buy the DVD. Seems like a quality cast in that film.