|
Directed by: Syriana Starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon It doesn't get much more topical than Syriana. Big oil, war, covert ops, political and economic corruption, terrorism, economic unrest, Chinese threat, duty to family and country-this movie has it all. In fact, ultimately, that is the problem with this movie: it tries to tackle everything (and it takes its sweet time doing it). Yet despite its shortcomings, it is an interesting, thought provoking, good looking movie. Syriana is told from the eyes of four different individuals each playing a very different part in the scramble to gain control of the oil fields of Kazakhstan; one of the few remaining semi-untapped sources of oil left in the world. Bob (George Clooney), the CIA agent, Bryan (Matt Damon), a consultant, Bennet Holiday (Jeffery Wright), a government lawyer and Wasim (Mazhar Munir), a Pakistani migrant worker. They all see the world through very different eyes, yet each is involved in the convoluted mess that is the middle east. The story does move a bit slow at times and often the flow of time is hard to track. Bob's CIA wrinkle is a bit cliche-but the rest of the stories are strong. I found Wasim's story the most fascinating; the struggle of Pakistani trying to make it in the Arab world rings of US migrants and the progression of the story makes sense. The scenery was brilliant and beautiful. The acting is solid; Clooney is interesting as CIA agent even if the agent's story wasn't all that great. I think the movie suffers from its length, as well as the director cutting frequently between stories without clearly demonstrating how time passes (this is actually handled pretty well early, but ultimately falls apart over the course of the movie). I suppose it's not easy to tell this many stories at once though, so some slip up is to be forgiven. Problems aside, I enjoyed this movie; it really made me think about the middle east situation, despite the fact that I don't have much interest in what goes on over there. I think this movie is a viable alternative to the typical children's movie-romantic comedy crap saturating the market. Those movies will probably eat Syriana alive, unfortunately, so you probably are going to end up waiting to see this on DVD if you don't see it now. RATING: 3.5 PROS: Thought Provoking Intrigue CONS: Too long, yet still tried to cover too much ground ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
I will start off with the pro's, because for me to blast this movie continuously over this review would seem too biased for me to want to actually post it. First, the cinematography is stunning, and is able to capture the beauty of the landscapes (natural and artificial) of a place which most of us know little to nothing about. Also, the acting is solid. Now, here is what I disliked: The character's actions were difficult to keep track of, and their motives were even more of an enigma. The story swapped from sub-plot to sub-plot so often that most of the audience's time was spent attempting to keep track of everything that was happening. This movie attempts to tackle too many topics to really be effective. While this movie is tagged as a political thriller, I never felt a moment of suspense because I never felt certain as to what characters were doing or why. While this movie jumped from subplot to subplot often, at the same time it seemed to often drag which can be an absolute killer for 2 hour long movie. By the time that I figured out what would happen, (which, by the way, is quite predictable), I was completely disinterested with any of the characters because a mixture of confusion and boredom. This movie seemed like it wanted to have a lot to say, but in the end it seemed like it turned out to be a slow moving, confusing, "No blood for oil!" movie which really isn't effective at much other than slightly elaborating on the situation in the mideast. It seems like I was not the only person in the theatre who had these issues also, since I noticed at least 5 seperate groups of people leaving in the middle of the movie. If you must see this movie, rent it on DVD; however, don't be surprised if the majority of your time is spent riffing on the movie as an alternate source of entertainment. If you can handle it, I'm willing to bet that a second viewing would reveal a lot, which means it scores extra 'renter' points. Rating: 1.5 Pros: I got a chance to blurt out "drat STUPID AOL!" when George Clooney's character is having computer problems and got a chuckle out of several groups of people around me. George Clooney plays his part as Bob excellently. The movie attempts to elaborate greatly on the situation in the mideast (although it ultimately fails due to its flaws) Cons: Too long, slow, often boring and/or confusing, no sense of time, and little sense of motive. A good majority of the characters were hard to keep track of and you may often ask yourself: "wait.. who is this guy again?" unman zuu fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 10, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 10:11
|
|
|
Oustanding. A dense, thought-provoking film about wealth and power, what it takes to get it, and the consequences of that effort. Multiple stories intertwine to tell the story of a oil company's aquisition of drilling rights and the fallout that results. We follow a CIA operative, an oil industry analyst, D.C. power lawyers, the ruling family of a Persian Gulf emirate, and Pakistani guest workers in the emirate. The movie is 126 minutes, but flies by; while most of the film is taken up by dialogue, it's sharp dialogue, and there is never a dull moment. To say any more would be venturing into Spoilertown. Go see it. It's teriffic and important. 5.0
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 15:49
|
|
|
I was extremely bored by this movie, and kept waiting for it to take off and become awesome, but it just never happened. However, I'm a sucker for footage of foreign countries and cultures. 2.5/5 EDIT: for clarification, I was not lost at all by the film. While I'm sure I didn't pick up 100% of the references, I always knew what was going on. That said, I still just think it was a bit weak. Eyecannon fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Dec 13, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 20:03
|
|
|
An intense portrayal of multinational politics and the interests involved in negotiations. The many plots and subplots aren't too hard to keep track of, as long as you can keep your old white men in order (at least that's my observation). While similar in format to Traffic, this one requires you to pay more attention to the characters, and their motivations, and how they all intertwine. Cinematography was beautiful. I found the movie to be intriguing and deep in its implications. I especially liked the Matt Damon and Prince subplot. And I disagree with rumblings I'd heard about the youths turned terrorists being portrayed too sympathetically. It's most likely fairly realistic. That's my short review. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 22:21
|
|
|
I didn't really catch reasoning behind some of the character's subplots, especially Clooney's son or Damon's wife. Jumping to scenes where these two talking to their families in a new random location, without any sense of time loss seemed to detract from the movie. The main plot, the acting, was great, and I particularly liked all the oil barons and the two princes. Their conversations with lawyers, and consultants are all great. The movie looked beautiful, the outdoor shots were absolutely fantastic. Im not really fond of the shakey-cam in board meetings but it didn't muss the movie and I quickly got over it. The deserts and gigantic oil refineries(?) are amazing to see. Overall, it was great if a little long. If you're into politics and the current tension about oil it will probably keep your interest, but hyper casual viewers wont dig it, and might get bored halfway through. 4.0
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2005 22:31
|
|
|
I went with a group of friends. Two of us liked it, 2 couldn't follow/understand it, and one hated it. Personally I like unorthodox and dense films, both of which Syriana is. Those that like the traditional "turn my brain off and listen to a story" will hate it, you really have to think about how each action influences the situation as a whole. I felt it was excellent, but it's not for everyone. It helps if you have some background of Middle East relations (even just keeping up to date with the news would be enough), but if you don't have much interest in international relations and commerce, or don't take joy in complex films, then you may be better off seeing The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Overall, 4.0. I only detract from the movie due to it's hit-or-miss nature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2005 18:46
|
|
|
heliX-- posted:Cons: Too long, slow, often boring and/or confusing, no sense of time, and little sense of motive. A good majority of the characters were hard to keep track of and you may often ask yourself: "wait.. who is this guy again?" Pros: I think the best parts took place in the Middle East. Two stories over there were the only ones I liked. The ending was good. I give it a rating of "okay." There are things worth seeing in it, but there's too much boring stuff in between. Not something to see at a theater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2005 01:46
|
|
|
I just saw this last night, and I have to say I was thoroughly confused the entire film. I haven't really been following current events at all, and I know nothing about the middle-east (I know, I'm a terrible citizen). That being said, I had no clue at all as to what was going on. The storyline spans a dozen different geographic regions, and drops names like there's no tommorow. I tried my best to follow the story, but failed utterly. There seemed to be no causality to events, I couldn't figure out who each character was, or why they did what they did, or even what was happening on the screen at the given time. That being said, one of my friends who also went to see it last night with me is a Political Science major thought it was all crystal clear and enjoyed the movie as a whole. I suppose I might have enjoyed it too, given the proper context, but as for now, I'm giving it a 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2005 00:01
|
|
|
This movie is great. That said if you don't pay attention to EVERYTHING you will be lost and hate it. The movie moves very quickly and there were times where I was trying to take in two things at once. I would say it is just as good as Traffic but Traffic is much easier to follow as there are only 3 story lines. If you like a movie that makes you think see Syriana. If you like a movie you can get stoned and laugh at, don't 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2005 00:19
|
|
|
A fantastic film but really requires a lot of attentiveness by the viewer. Very little pure exposition occurs and seemingly innocuous statements and actions occur that carry great weight only if you understand their context. In that sense, it's one of the least forgiving films I've ever seen and is less polarizing than it is impenetrable. But in a sense that's the films greatest success as the realistic topic it deals with is carried off by the same form of confusion and distraction by very smart people this very day. When considering films with multiple storylines (such as predecessor Traffic), the balance of each storyline can be a critical failure if you're given too long a period of time between threads that you lose track of the storyline. Syriana by contrast juggles between them all quite often which was frenetic but excellent in the sense that I always got a sense of the momentum of each one. This was especially nice towards the end of the film as commentary from one segment applied to another. Acting is all around very good. Standouts were Alexander Siddig as Prince Nasir and Mazhar Munir who played an impressionable Pakistani. They really elevated a difficult role as influential and potentially world changing leader and a hard working foreigner in a foreign land practically driven into the hands of terrorism from charicature into something completely relateable. The filmmaking was very natural and clear and less showy or obtrusive as Soderberg's in Traffic, which is not to say that either was better or worse but rather distinctive in their own ways. The films negatives are probably intwined with the way that it's constructed such that the passage of time is really only inferred and can make the film seem unconnected at time. While a meaningless detail it would have assisted in feeling the flow of events more. And while I rather enjoyed the scenes with Bob's son and Bryan's family (especially after a key event), I never really understood or connected with Bennett and his father other than a rather minor amount of character development. While I felt Bob's son brought a sense of humanity to the life of a spy, I really could only get the sense that even an alcoholic father could be disappointed with the choices his seemingly successful son was making. If that was the suggestion, it didn't feel weighty or delivered well enough to justify it. Overall, I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in world events and for deep and intelligent filmmaking. This film is really rewarding after thought and discussion in ways that few films are and doesn't spoonfeed you conclusions as to whether a character is doing something good or bad. Rating: 4.5/5.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2005 15:53
|
|
|
I thought I had fallen asleep and missed some important scenes about 30 minutes into the film because I was so lost as to who was doing what to whom and for what reason. When it was over I turned to my friend and she said "I didn't understand a thing". There were general grumblings along the same lines by other theater patrons. It was a good looking movie, but the characters were coming at you  to keep track.Overall, it was just a cluster gently caress of characters with too many subplots. Clooney's other film Good Night and Good Luck is much better. 2/5 Ambitious, good looking, possibly worth a second viewing with a cheat sheet of characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2005 07:10
|
|
|
Very dense movie, you need to pay attention to the subtleties and keep thinking because most of the plot is not explicitly outlined. It's unfortunate that the movie was too complex for a lot of viewers but it had a lot to say in a very effective way. I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone that prefers brain dead action movies or ones where their hands are held during a linear progression. Rating it 4.5 for being a refreshing change from all the mindless poo poo that hollywood is cranking out. This film definitely warrants multiple viewings. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Dec 17, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2005 10:54
|
|
|
Having lived in Saudi Arabia, I do give the film a heck of a lot of credit to showing the masses the typical power structure of countries there, and how the royals live their lives (with a lot of money and no care about tomorrow). Matt Damon's quote in the desert when making the business proposal sums up the whole situation there. The subplot about the workers was somewhat thought-provoking, about how those that end up in their situation are outsiders, and this film gives insight into their mentality. However, the OMG OILLLLLLL EEEEVILLLLL and CIA = EVIL AND DOESN'T CARE plots just gets out of hand and clichéd. Traffic was much better. 3.5/5, only for the plotline of Bryan, and for the workers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2005 04:57
|
|
|
Loved this movie if only for its portrayal of geopolitics between corporations and national leaders. It is quite necessary to pay attention since there is so much subtext in every scene that taking your mind off it will result in confusion. The use of the handicam in the boardroom gave those scenes a more intimate feeling and I think it was an excellent choice by the DP. Actually, the whole film was a beautiful thing to behold. The humanization of the migrant workers from Pakistan who must turn to terrorism is very well done and I think was handled objectively. Also, I'm sure that there is some thread of truth in the dealings between the CIA/multinationals, as has been evidenced in the past. Anyways, great cerebral film. Please don't see this if you want an OMG ACTION WANKFEST like King Kong. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2005 08:14
|
|
|
While it was a bit confusing at times, I was stunned by how amazing this movie was. I couldn't leave my seat, even though I was on the verge of pissing my pants, because I was afraid that I'd miss something and not know what the gently caress was going on. This is a slight con, yes, but the movie just kept me rivetted to my seat. The climax and the ending of the movie was simply loving amazing. A good half of the audience "aww"ed or mumbled softly to themselves during the scene with Wasim's father playing cricket and Wasim's departure. My one complaint was that it was sort of difficult to keep track of which of the two Saudi princes (they were Saudi, right?) was the 'good' one and which was the 'evil' one. The ending made it rather clear, though. The end of Bob's story confused the poo poo out ofme, but elsewise, all of the others ended amazingly. It was slightly trite, but the quick cutting between the awards ceremony and, Wasim, and the other characters was seriously amazing, one of the most powerful scenes I've seen in a while. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2005 23:44
|
|
|
I went in expecting something like Traffic with oil, and that's what I got. I liked it, and I'm certain that once I'm able to see it again, I'll love it. Traffic was a little more cohesive, and didn't rely on the viewer to stay interested of their own volition until the big pay off at the end, but Syriana is a way cooler name, and, I think, a more topical and interesting film overall - just less accessible. It was certainly dense, and it definitly requires a lot of attention to fully pick up on all the plot lines, what's going on, and why. That type of movie can be great, and I think this one was. 5/5 If not for excellence in its own right, for not being the typical LOTR knockoffs and comedies that seem to be all that exists lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2005 05:05
|
|
|
Frankly, I found the difficulty of deciphering the overall plot all the more effective because as the climax of the film unfolds, you finally begin to understand how all the threads fit together, and that's a great moment. It's a difficult film to try and rate because it's so unconventional. Some would deride it's length and density, I personally wouldn't because a) 2 hours isn't very long, and b) I enjoyed having to pay attention to every detail, because this movie makes that a very rewarding experience. If I had to make a criticism, I'd say that the scene with George Clooney's son was superfluous and really broke up the flow of the film. Also, a few scenes are shot in such a way that initially you can't tell who the characters are...I found that to be a little too much. Easily the best film I've seen all year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2005 10:47
|
|
|
I saw this film with my wife, who had no clue at all what was going on in the movie. I had to explain the whole movie to her afterwards. I don't think women read subtitles. The film did jump quickly from one plot to the other. I think this movie was trying to make a point about how corrupt oil etc. is. Yes, it is corrupt. I already knew that. I don't think this added much to my understanding of the global oil economy. However, i think this may add to the understanding of people who never studied economics, or read global news. I guess the idea with the CIA storyline is to take what a CIA agent could possibly do and show it to us... which is supposed to be thought provoking. I personally thought it was kind of cheesy. Also, my wife (and another post) said they had a hard time distinguishing the arab princes from one another, etc. About six months ago, I started working with a lot of people from different nations including syria, pakistan, india, etc. (i'm an intern at a large hospital in downtown detroit), so i've been reading about culture, looking at maps, etc to learn about all my different co-workers. I guess this gave me a little bit of an advantage with the pakistani/arab storyline. However, the one brother was a complete idiot (the younger one, i believe) and the other one carried himself as if he was an educated man. I thought they looked totally different in their dress, facial hair, etc. The things that I did like about the film were the cinematography and the scenery. Simply beautiful. Also showing the living conditions of the migrant workers and how they pass the time, etc. I also liked how George Clooney picked up that the guy who took the missile at the beginning was arab. I honestly can't believe there is oscar talk around this movie. The acting was decent, but the storyline was not that great, and it didn't really send out a thought provoking message. edit: 2/5 renfield33 fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Dec 20, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2005 19:13
|
|
|
Terrible. Nothing like the previews. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2005 00:14
|
|
|
radium posted:Terrible. Nothing like the previews. This is true. They played it up to be kind of an action movie, and it really, really wasn't, I don't remember one shot fired through the entire movie. However, I went in knowing what to expect based on the director's previous work, and I loved it. I think the studio really dropped the ball in promoting the movie in the way they did - misleading people into seeing a movie is a lovely thing to do. It wasn't Reign of Fire level deceptive advertising (advertised as dragons vs helicopters, if you don't remember - actual dragon vs helicopter content: ~30 seconds), but it was pretty misleading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2005 08:37
|
|
|
I just saw this movie for the second time and I have to say it certainly gets a lot better the second time you see it. I think many people walk out the first time thinking the entire film is so fragmented the only messages that register are the cliched ones already mentioned in the above reviews. I thought I got all the connections between the characters the first time but after seeing it again this movie becomes more and more of a spy thriller. Is Dean Whiting still a CIA agent or an agent of the oil companies? Was Masowai working on his own or on behalf of the prince? Thought provoking and interesting if you're willing to invest the time. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2005 06:14
|
|
|
I loved this movie. I confess that I didn't understand what was going on in most of the plots until the very end, and some things still pass me by entirely (like basically the plotline that takes place in America and involves the oil executives), but I enjoyed watching it anyway. I'm very critical about films about the Middle East, because usually they're totally unrealistic poo poo that say, "Yeah, both sides have good arguments, it's so sad that they have to fight, but it's all so complicated." Munich would be an example. In Munich, people have political arguments. Israel guys get their piece. Then poor Palestinean fighter stands up and has HIS say. No, that is NOT how things roll in the Middle East. THIS is how it rolls in the Middle East: Side #1: No, it is YOU who are wrong! Side #2: How dare you say that. You are a terrorist. I am going to use my CIA influence to call in an airstrike on your family while you walk to mosque. And this movie really showed that. Go Syriana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2005 01:32
|
|
|
I hated this movie, I see what they were trying to do, but they muddled it up terribly. The cinematography was good, the story and editing were awful. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2005 00:03
|
|
|
The story was perfect. It was complicated but that was intentional. The information is all there for you at the end and if you have been paying attention the climax is extremely rewarding. It is a daring movie because every character is heavily flawed and nothing is overexplained. After watching it I thought about different outcomes of the movie's last 15 minutes and every single one I could come up with was just as dark and down. Syriana respects the audience's intelligence. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2006 09:03
|
|
|
I understood this movie fully, but I found it to be horrible. The only thing this movie had going for it was the cinematic sequences that really developed the setting. Syriana took itself too seriously, and when it should have succeeded it became even more uninteresting. Save your money, or go see Munich instead. 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2006 07:01
|
|
|
I thought Syriana was fairly decent, and I was glad that I actually understood what was going on from the beginning. It's true that near the end of the movie everything is explained, but that's convenient for people who don't want to watch the movie. Just fast-forward a little bit and voila, there's the story for you. Personally I wouldn't have felt bad about not seeing this movie, but I had nothing else better do so why not. I thought the acting was good, one of Matt Damon's better moments but still not excellent on his part. Overall I gave it a 4/5. It had much more potential, but for now it's a decent time-waster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2006 07:10
|
|
|
A fascinating, bold film which attempted to show - well, this is a cliche, but - the "seedy underbelly" of the oil industry and how it interacts with Washington and the Middle East. For me, Syriana is a film which consists of long, dry interviews between old rich white men, punctuated by moments of sheer honesty and bold political expose which are pretty impressive when you consider that the audiences seeing this film could have opted for a no-brainer like "The Ringer" instead. I suppose I wanted more, at the end. I wanted more mention of peak oil, for one thing, although it was at least hinted at. And I left the film with the feeling that it perhaps may have been more successful as a short, given that the scenes containing its most powerful insights made up less than ten percent of the film's running time. Ultimately, though, I'd definitely recommend it to anybody looking for a contemporary, thought-provoking political thriller. In many ways I am astounded at how topical and up-to-date this film is, given the fact that geopolitics and the oil industry have experienced constant change over the duration of this film's production. 4.5/5 Edit: I should probably add that it struck me that none of the individual characters' motivations really mattered - they were merely there to illustrate the fact that we are all pieces on a chessboard, in terms of the global oil power play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2006 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
I think your enjoyment of this movie will have a lot to do with how educated you are on world politics and business. I am not trying to sound like an rear end, but I saw this movie with two of my friends who I attend college with and we all were very impressed and talked about how ideas brought up in this film were similar with things we had learned or thought about; we all liked it a lot. Then I went home for Christmas break and talked to two of my friends who saw it, but they unlike my other two friends don't know who ariel sharon is and they didn't get the movie and just thought it jumped around and didn't make much sense. I think this movie is written for people that come in with prior knowledge surrounding its various subplots and doesn't really take the time to explain what an oil exec means when he says "economies of scale" and how achieving that is why they need some oil contract. This choice is going to hurt sales for mainstream americans, but for people with interest in the instablity in the middle east, big business and globalization, and/or the plight of poor arabians I highly reccomend this movie. 4.5/5 Pros: good acting, really interesting plot and consiperacy theory, really cool shots of the arabic landscape and culture Cons: not much, some characters were a little bland, but this movie was more about ideas than characters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2006 09:35
|
|