Syriana Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8138.53 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x528 | 4451.59 MiB | 720p | |
|
544x222 | 700.61 MiB | divx | |
|
320x128 | 327.74 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Everything is connected
A missile disappears in Iran, but the CIA has other problems: the heir to an Emirate gives an oil contract to China, cutting out a US company that promptly fires its immigrant workers and merges with a small firm that has landed a Kazakhstani oil contract. The Department of Justice suspects bribery, and the oil company's law firm finds a scapegoat. The CIA also needs one when its plot to kill the Emir-apparent fails. Agent Bob Barnes, the fall guy, sorts out the double cross. An American economist parlays the death of his son into a contract to advise the sheik the CIA wants dead. The jobless Pakistanis join a fundamentalist group. All roads start and end in the oil fields.
| Kayvan Novak | Arash |
| George Clooney | Bob Barnes |
| Amr Waked | Mohammed Sheik Agiza |
| Christopher Plummer | Dean Whiting |
| Jeffrey Wright | Bennett Holiday |
| Chris Cooper | Jimmy Pope |
| Robert Foxworth | Tommy Barton |
| Nicky Henson | Sydney Hewitt |
| Nicholas Art | Riley Woodman |
| Matt Damon | Bryan Woodman |
| Amanda Peet | Julie Woodman |
| Steven Hinkle | Max Woodman |
| Daisy Tormé | Rebecca |
| Peter Gerety | Leland Janus |
| Richard Lintern | Bryan's Boss |
| Stephen Gaghan |
7.20 out of 10 (27052 votes)
Visitor Reviews
It's not What you say, it's How you say it!
posted on 29 Aug 2009I had come into this film with all my guns blazing to be a supporter of it. Clooney had won an Oscar and it had a huge list of supporting actors - it had to be worth a look.I was sorely disappointed to find that the film suffered on many lines. Most of my comments have nothing to do with the storyline "Big Oil Corrupts All". It has to do with the elements of film-making that failed. The most important failure of the director is that the narrative structure was so choppy and lacked any solid sequences. Most scenes were very brief and gave us no time to build the characters or story - and most importantly, CARE about them. I nudged my wife, and told her that somehow the characters and events would all make total sense in the end (a reveal like the Sixth Sense)but they did not.The pacing was painfully slow as well - I have been through many films that had a slower pace, but they kept my attention with strong characters, interesting scenes, and intrigue. I must admit the characters in this did NOT need to be really dramatic, as they came off like real people - kudos to the actors for this. But when you combined these portrayals with the short screen time that each had at one time, combined with the choppy narrative line, these characters were nothing more than sidekicks to the overall story (which was weak!) Clooney did not deserve an Oscar for this. He did a respectable job with what he was given but the character was extremely dull and forgettable.I really enjoyed the director's style with Traffic (which I loved and had some stylistic similarities to this film), but this does not hold a candle to it. All those comments that claim that one has to be intelligent to understand and admire this picture are gravely mistaken. It not what you are saying, it's HOW you say it.
Gaghan's character is palpable with this first directorial outing
posted on 27 Aug 2009Syriana reviewed by Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.comrating: 3 out of 4In reviewing political thrillers, critics often use words like taut, gripping, thrilling, edge-of-your-seat, and suspenseful to describe the films. But with Syriana, I'm reluctant to use any of these. For as much as the film's marketing blitz promotes the "thrilling" parts of the film, Syriana, for the most part, is slow-moving. In fact, the first half of the film doesn't even lay out a discernible plot line. We're presented countless threads of information for this first hour, with numberless characters and different countries and representations, varying government agencies and motives, and all without any sense of a linear foundation. But the tagline reads, "everything is connected," and essentially with this statement come words of comfort. "You'll be confused and lost," the tagline says, "but in the end, your efforts will be made good." Syriana surrounds a fictitious merger between two oil conglomerates, Connex and Kileen. Jeffrey Wright plays Bennett Holiday, Sydney Hewitt's (Nicky Henson) stooge sent to look into the merger to dispel any corruption before the Department of Justice finds it. Clooney plays Bob Barnes, a CIA operative originally sent into Beirut to snuff out Prince Nasir Al-Subaai (Akbar Kurtha), the possible heir to the Iranian throne. And Matt Damon plays Bryan Woodman, the financial adviser to Prince Nasir, who's married to Julie, played by Amanda Peet. To explain the dozens of other, more peripheral characters and their connections to these primary three would take many more pages of explanation, and would ruin the fun of being utterly lost for Syriana's entire first act. Also, these three—Clooney, Damon, and Wright—are the only fully-dimensional characters of the film. They occupy the only roles capable of thoughtful and provoking performances, save Tim Blake Nelson's thunderous speech on corruption. All three actors do well, pulling in possible nomination nods, and accentuating Writer/Director Steven Gaghan's method of understated storytelling. Syriana isn't drenched in moody, colorful hues or rambunctious up-tempo scores; but, instead highlights the reality of the story's situation. Fernando Meirelles' late summer film The Constant Gardener worked on the drama of a similarly controversial situation, but did so with operatic conventions. Where The Constant Gardener is a theatric, Syriana is a documentary. And Gaghan is really the star of this film. The camera is hand-held, and is shot seemingly without post-production color correction. We're often given drab colors and over/under exposure. Gaghan strives to understate the drama of his situation, choosing instead to heighten the reality of it. He relishes this understated approach, and often slides in little bits of impressive style. For example, he has the tendency to overlap unconnected segments of audio and visuals. One scene puts Jeffrey Wright's character, Bennett, on a street walking towards camera, while the audio plays another character's speech spoken about Bennett's actions. Similar tricks are played with the camera's focus and perspective. Gaghan clearly has a hold over this film. From his fiery, cynical script to his muscular grip over the film's direction, Gaghan's character is palpable with this first directorial outing. I think my opinion of Syriana would benefit from a second viewing. Gaghan drops us head-first into this complex political situation, and forces us to not only piece together the loose ends of its web of stories, but also figure out where each character's motives lie. It wasn't until 90 minutes into the film that I finally understood what Damon's character actually did for a living. It reminded me of last year's puzzle drama 21 Grams, that forced us to piece together its non-linear scenes to figure out who was exactly who. Now imagine playing this same directorial game, but simultaneously also trying to untangle a knot of political intrigue. These puzzles work, but on one level disappoint. By handling dozens of loose plot threads in the opening act, without any hint of connections, the film gives the impression that each of the numberless characters is simply spinning their wheels. We don't see any progress of plot until it finally kicks into gear at the second act. But the advantage of such a method lies sneakily in our confusion; we pay more attention to these loose threads, desperately trying to find the connection; so when pieces finally do start falling into place, we have an extremely deep understanding of Gaghan's story. And now, with this thorough understanding of Syriana's characters, I'm itching to get back to the multiplex to try the film back on. Gaghan's script will finally show its particularly finessed nuances in this second viewing, and show its true, and much more impressive colors. But for this first viewing--which I'm obligated to review--Syriana forces the viewer to work on two separate, but equally trying puzzles. -reviewed by Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.com
Trust me, don't wait til the end "just in case it comes together"!
posted on 27 Aug 2009If you want to see a film, that isn't quite a documentary, but thinks about the world we live in? Don't waste your time on this... go and hire The Constant Gardener. Both make up an issue that perhaps is really happening in the world and appalls us that anyone could stand by and let it happen. It may be about Africa and not the middle east, however, The Constant Gardener actually holds your interest unlike this... gibberish. I think counting the amount of people leaving the cinema was more entertaining than the screenplay! Why oh why was I not smart enough to follow?
Mainstream disguised as an independent film
posted on 23 Aug 2009Syriana seem to have all the makings of a great film. It starts out fine, lots of things going on all over the world, tangentially related to the oil business but with no immediate, linear connections. While you had to pay attention, it was not difficult to follow. This is not at all unusual in an independent film or in life. In fact it is what you have come to expect. Crash, Traffic,and Magnolia, to name three very fine films all start out the same way. You assume that the dots will get connected and everyone will have a significant part to play before it is over.We meet all the various people that are going to be involved over the first hour in their home environments and they gradually start crossing each other's paths in the ways you would expect. It is pretty clear that is not an oil-cowboy movie as we gradually find out that just about everyone has some dirty linen, skeletons in the closet, axes to grind, career compromises and so forth. It starts to get serious and people get closer and closer together, start impacting each other's lives in very dangerous and sometimes fatal ways. Yet we are not sure how this is going to play out, which is exactly what you have come to expect and want. But then things take a turn for the worse and we head towards melodrama with a tragic accident that does not seem to affect one of our main players to any great extent. It keeps going downhill, the various characters start playing very familiar roles as corporate and government semi-bad guys and so forth. You see the same scenes you have seen before in Tom Clancy type movies and other films of corporate corruption. We get the denouement which is unsurprising and the movie is over. All the various plot lines have been resolved, everything is wrapped up in a very neat and tidy fashion. There are no loose ends, nothing is left to chance. No one is left out there who might upset the apple cart, make a difference in the future. Though no one rides off into the sunset, it ends with essentially the same result. We end up with a very mainstream movie acting like an independent film. Too bad, it could have been a winner.
Intelligent, Complex, Thought-Provoking
posted on 23 Aug 2009Many reviewers and critics cite the complexity of Syriana's plot line, saying it is inaccessible and dense. I agree, it is complex, but I like that about the film. I like that everything isn't spelled out for me. Figuring out the connections between all of the story lines is almost addictive after watching the movie.A few of the sub-plots are unnecessary, in my opinion: Bob Barnes and his son; Bennett Holiday and his father. One of the themes of the film is fathers and sons, so I can see where those minor plots seemed like a good idea, but they've been whittled away to ineffectiveness. The time given to those relationships could have been better used on some of our main characters.The performances are, in general, solid and convincing. Alexander Siddig as Prince Nasir is the stand out of the mix, although George Clooney's against-type portrayal of Bob Barnes is worth of the accolades he is receiving. Matt Damon is the weak link, in my opinion. His performance is pretty much the same old Damon, but at least he makes the technical jargon his character has to deliver somewhat more accessible than it appears on the page.Overall, this falls just a little bit short of excellent, but it is still so worth seeing if only to get Americans talking seriously about our dependence on oil.
Good, but a bit too confusing
posted on 23 Aug 2009I did not know what to make of Syriana when it was released late last year. It looked engaging and looked to be much akin to Stephen Gaghan's other political film, the Academy Award winning Traffic. But, as that movie proved, you need to watch it at home and allow for the images and content to sink in order to fully understand and enjoy the film. So I waited, and after finally getting the chance to watch it, I am glad that I did.Syriana, at its heart, is all about the oil trade and what many companies and organizations are willing to do in order to get it. It tells various parallel stories, specifically lawyer Bennett Holiday's (Jeffrey Wright) search to ensure everything is legal in the merger between oil tycoons Connex and Killen, market analyst Bryan Woodman's (Matt Damon) financial and political advising to Middle Eastern Prince Nasir Al-Subaai (Alexander Siddig), and Bob Barnes' (George Clooney) continued work for the CIA. It has varying subplots, and has more than a few moments where the three story lines converge or intertwine.In one respect, Syriana is interesting and thought-provoking. Based off a true story, this fictionalized account of the oil trade and the terrorism involved in it is at points horrific, and at others, downright frightening. It is totally political, and while not being the same call to action that Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck. was, it still aims to be informative, and to shed light on the truth of what our governments are doing, and what they are continuing to do even as I write and you read this.The performances are all top-notch. Clooney's Oscar-winning role is very well played out, but in my mind, is no better than Damon or Wright. They equally share a grand charisma and finesse in their roles, and all feel deeply invested within them. All handle their almost equal screen time well, and work great with their many co-stars including Christopher Plummer, Amanda Peet, Chris Cooper, Good Night alum Tom McCarthy, William Hurt and Tim Blake Nelson. Although, of the co-stars, I'd say that Siddig, best known as Dr. Julian Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, is the stand-out. He outdoes Damon in every scene they are in (and that's a pretty tough job), and has a great intensity that almost makes me feel that he should have won the Oscar, and not Clooney.But while Traffic basked in its many intricate plot lines and genuinely fabulous screenplay, Syriana has a few problems. In some instances, it becomes so boggled with things going on, that it becomes downright confusing. I had to hit the rewind more than a handful of times in order to grasp it all, and more than a few times I needed subtitles in order to understand what people were saying. It does this way too many times, and it takes away from its lasting appeal in the process. We understand that Gaghan wanted to make a vastly political film, and wanted to make a clear statement about the current state of the world. But in his depiction, he really has a lot of trouble focusing, and a lot of trouble not making it a confusing and non-understandable mess.Even for the most political of film fans, it proves an arduous task to find this film to be anything more than good. It is packed with great performances and a great storyline, but it is way too confusing at times. Too much is going on, and there is never too much focus on anything in order for the audience to fully understand it. It is good, and is a frightening portrayal of real-world situations, just do not expect to watch it once and fully comprehend it.8/10.
Good acting - Bad Execution
posted on 23 Aug 2009This film does a couple of things VERY well... it does not take sides and is honest. After that it goes downhill. The convoluted and sometime ambiguous direction of the plot was maddening. I could not, for the life of me, get involved with or care about the people in the film. The characters actually felt secondary to the plot. There were moments in which I felt narration would have been more effective than some of the hollow characters paraded in front of me. Matt Damon's relationship with his wife, Clooneys relationship with his son, The prince's relationship with his father... all of them related to oil... and all never fleshed out completely. Not one of them evoked a response from me emotionally. They did, however, make me look at my watch a couple of times, to see how much longer I had to sit there. So here is the upshot as I see it:OK - America has a love hate relationship and is addicted to oil - no surprise there. OK- America (and the rest of the developed western world) will take advantage of a foreign resource that they need and want and will take it. Particularly if it is profitable-- Ummm... No kidding. OK- so big giant businessmen and lawyers are corrupt. Jeez, tell me something new.Overall, I would not watch it again and I am glad I did not pay much for it. Even I, a tree hugger, Kyoto accord supporter, biofuel using, ex hippy, who has lived overseas could not remain involved in this film.
Mussawi
posted on 21 Aug 2009Maybe I'm just slow and I apologize if this sounds like a stupid question, but why did Mussawi turn on George Clooney's character the way he did? I know he was working for the Iranians...but I still don't understand that thread. Also, who rescues Clooney right before he is about to have his head chopped off? And why is he rescued? I saw the movie at 9:45 at night after a long day at work with two talkative nineteen year old girls who screamed when Matt Damon's kid died, covered their eyes during the torture scene, and talked for the rest of the film. All attempts on my part to understand certain key parts as you can guess, faced resistance. This is my first post on this website by the way and for some reason its not letting me post unless I type out ten lines of text. This doesn't make any sense because I've seen many messages on here with far less text than that. God, I am so slow!
*******SPOILERS WITHIN******* Can someone explain a few fine points of the movie to me?
posted on 21 Aug 2009The movie was complex, absorbing and suspenseful. It was like life in many respects (except there are always prettier people in the movies).But I digress...I need held understand a few points. Anyone that can help me with any or all of these questions, don't be shy. Jump right in.Okay, in the scenes near the end of movie when Prince Al-Nasir's caravan of SUVs is crossing a highway in the desert: 1) Why does Matt Dillon's character change cars? Is he aware of what is about to happen? 2) Why was George Clooney's character racing desperately out to the dessert to incept the caravan? What is his objective? 3) At the very end of the movie, someone is packing items from someone's desk into a box. A photo is placed in the box with George Clooney's character and two other characters that perhaps I was supposed to have recognized, but NOT! I had the feeling we were being let in on a secret in that scene. What were we being let in on?
Bold and provocative film making.
posted on 21 Aug 2009The makers of Syrianna could not have chosen a better time to realise this film. Giving the current political climate of the world I am pleased to say that someone has the balls to realise a movie like this.As Iraq plunges further into the deep, dark abyss we are told that the United States of America is responsible for the freedom of the Iraqi people and that Saddam Hussain was a brutal dictator that deserved to be hanged and the world is a much safer place and blah,blah,blah..... the Bush Adminstartion continues to lie and dupe so much that it just seems like a badly written comedy every time one switch's on Fox News or CNN. However what one tiny little fact that the Bush Adminstartion I'm sure was happy to leave out was the real reason behind there invasion of Iraq - Black Gold better known to the general public as OIL!Syrianna is an insightful look into what goes on behind the scenes of the oil business and how everything works and nothing is what it seems. We are shown a detailed depiction of from the people who work from top to bottom in this pyramid ranging from the CIA, multi-million dollar cooperations right to the people who work in the oil fields and how their lives are affected by what they do. George Clooney leaves behind his charming features at the door and takes what I feel could a very important fresh turn in his career as well as Matt Damon who performed equally as well. However I personally felt that the best performance belonged to Jeffery Wright who was probably the under dog but managed to sweat it out the whole way. The movie moved along at a rather slow pace but I felt that was required as the viewer needs to follow and take everything in however that can lead to it being a little dull in places.To conclude Syrianna is a very cleverly constructed political thriller realised in a time where the facts truly are in your face. It is exposing the corruption and ruthless exploits of all the big-wigs in the oil game and looking at the consequences it leads to whether it be personal tragedy or the growing presence of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle-East, it is not the best thriller ever made but worth a rental for fans of this genre.SYRIANNA : 8.1 OUT OF 10EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.
baffled, numbed, fatigued and propagandized out
posted on 21 Aug 2009Too bad this didactic slop was driven by the desire to lecture rather than depict characters in situations that people can relate to. The acting was, by and large, excellent. Camera work was fine. But the script was poorly conceived, and the pretentiousness of the whole thing was off the scale. It's a little bit scary to think how bad "Traffic" might have been had the writer been able to hijack the directing in that one to reduce the entire endeavor to heavy-handed propaganda, which is all that Syriana is. Too bad. What a waste. If Mssrs. Clooney and Damon can just wrench themselves away from their perceived duty to instruct the rest of us in the morals of liberalism and get back to acting in movies that people can relate to on a human level, they would be worth watching. Toodles.
Yet still they avoid the "Israel" question.
posted on 19 Aug 2009I will write what Robert Fisk said a bout this movie: Syriana, Clooney's epic of the oil trade which combines suicide bombers, maverick CIA agents (one of them played by Clooney himself), feuding Middle East Arab potentates - one of whom wants real democracy and wealth for his people and control of his own country's resources - along with a slew of disreputable businessmen and east coast lawyers. The CIA eventually assassinates the Arab prince who wants to take control of his own country's oil (so much for democracy) - this is accomplished with a pilotless aerial bomb guided by men in a room in Virginia - while a Pakistani fired from his job in the oil fields because an American conglomerate has downsized for its shareholders' profits destroys one of the company's tankers in a suicide attack."People seem less afraid now," Clooney told an interviewer in Entertainment magazine. "Lots of people are starting to ask questions. It's becoming hard to avoid the questions." Of course, these questions are being asked because of America's more than 2,000 fatalities in Iraq rather than out of compassion for Iraq's tens of thousands of fatalities. They are being pondered because the whole illegal invasion of Iraq is ending in calamity rather than success.Yet still they avoid the "Israel" question. The Arab princes in Syriana - who in real life would be obsessed with the occupation of the West Bank - do not murmur a word about Israel. The Arab al-Qa'ida operative who persuades the young Pakistani to attack an oil tanker makes no reference to Israel - as every one of bin Laden's acolytes assuredly would. It was instructive that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did not mention Israel once.
An engaging, but flawed movie
posted on 19 Aug 2009The multiple, interwoven plot lines are a bit hard to follow at first, but if you pay attention, by the end of the movie all the connections click and you quickly realize, the movie has fooled you into thinking it's all much more complex than it is. Any confusion the movie throws at you is more the confusion of the characters caught up in the mess of it all, which I'll admit, it's successful at conveying. Oddly enough, the two "lead" characters if you will, of Matt Damon and George Clooney, seem rather underdeveloped and shallow. It's hard to even call them lead roles though, as this movie stars with it's story, not any one character within it.It's kinda slow, but I was enjoying watching it unfold - That is, right up until the convenient and predictable ending. Clooney's character makes a complete and sudden 180 without proper motivation or build-up. I'm sorry but I just can't buy it. Further, despite many liberals (and I consider myself to be) insisting this movie is about the corruption of the oil industry, trying to cast light on a "dire" situation American's aren't paying attention to, I feel quite the contrary. This movie more-so highlights the obvious that we all know anyway: Big oil plays dirty. Woowoo... Well who knew? To the director's benefit, I don't recall him or anyone involved with the movie ever claiming to to deliver anything new or enlightening, it's more the hype that got going around it that got up and ran with this whole informative and liberating fiction idea.Overall, a semi-entertaining, but flawed ride. I'd recommend it half-heartedly for being an engaging espionage plot, but don't expect to be in awe of any revelations and please, don't take it too seriously and read a lot into it. The CIA and mega-corporations engage in covert stuff - This isn't news and nothing presented here is new. I'd have to say anyone shocked by this movie really needs to get out and read up more.
A Movie for Grown-Ups
posted on 15 Aug 2009My test for a good movie is simple - if you're still thinking about it the next day, and discovering things about the plot which passed you by when you saw it, it's worth seeing. Syriana is a dense movie. You need to pay attention to myriad characters, seemingly unconnected subplots and avoid trying to second-guess what will happen. Well-made political thrillers rarely turn out the way the audience expects. The plot twists and changing agendas of the characters are what distinguish the inventive movie from the mundane. It's always nice to have an "Aha!" moment. It happens so rarely. Fine performances and direction make this a movie for grown-ups.
The fog of war.
posted on 11 Aug 20092005 has been a blockbuster year for George Clooney, who won heady praise for his writer/director/producer role on "Good Night, and Good Luck," and for his performance as CIA Agent Bob Barnes in "Syriana," a collaboration with Stephen Gaghan (who scripted the similar "Traffic"). Clooney isn't the lead actor, by any means, as the film possesses an enormous ensemble cast of actors, including Matt Damon, Alexander Siddig (I loved DS9), Christopher Plummer (it's always terrific to see him), and Jeffrey Wright.The plotting of "Syriana" is murky, intentionally so, although it isn't nearly as difficult to follow as so many people seem to think. Many of the exact details of the international syndicate's actions remain undefined, but their general aim is clear, and motives are easily inferred.While Clooney is getting most of the 'buzz' this awards season, Alexander Siddig's excellent turn as Prince Nasir (his second character of that name this year) is perhaps even better. Nasir is an idealized reformist character, but Siddig makes him believable, and you truly want him to succeed, even as it seems clear that he won't. It's interesting to note the differences between this and Clooney's other political film; GNaGD argued that good men, like Edward R. Murrow, could topple villains like McCarthy if they stuck to their principles; "Syriana"'s ultimate message is that we're probably screwed, regardless of what we try to do, because the problems of the world are beyond anyone's ability to solve. Depressing, but almost sadly realistic.
Go See It
posted on 30 Jul 2009Initially I wanted to compare it with Traffic, same style and interwoven story lines, but the film itself stopped me from doing so. Thank you. Comparing films can so difficult, you know, the old apples v. oranges thing. This film stands on its own without the comparison or the similarities to Traffic.Just before I went to the movie theatre, I saw an interview with Steve Gaghan the director on the Charlie Rose Show, and probably this helped me to fit most of the pieces together. The scene where Bob (Clooney) is taken to visit Hezbollah leaders, is based on the exact experience the director had when researching the story. He said that most of the film was based on his or Bob's actual experiences.So what do we have....Oil, big oil, oil executives, oil analysts, oil geography, oil politics, big time oil power brokers, CIA, Islamic terrorists, Middle East culture....It's all there. And Steve Gaghan does a very good job in bringing it all together. His directorial debut. Very good acting all round, maybe the oldest boy and his mother Amanda Peet stand out.I walked out of the theatre in an emotional daze, if that's possible. I will see this film again.My coda.... What a rotten, ugly barrel of oil.
Jews
posted on 24 Jul 2009I can't compete with the eloquence of many reviewers here. But here's my 2 cents.Oil corrupts all, breeds terrorists, etc. CIA is evil. Oil emirates are medieval in their organization and psychology. Etc, etc.All that may (or may not) be true and worth considering. Bearing in mind that this movie is more about examining "issues" than entertainment.Acting is good. Story is riveting if you're the right viewer. Children and teenagers would get bored quickly. Adults with interest might look for, and expect, a deep examination of the entire "oil issue." Its complicated, of course. We want oil. We need oil. We, the U.S., are addicted to oil. We will strangle anything/anyone to get it. So, call us a "motivated buyer." The mid-east has nothing else to sell. Call them the "motivated seller." Does that alone breed terrorists? Corrupt businessmen? The CIA? What else could motivate Islamic residents of the Mid-East to hate us? The movie would have us believe it is "all about oil." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Beware of propaganda, however subtle. Sometimes it's not the lies someone tells you that deceive, but rather the omissions.I repeat my question: Does that (oil biz) alone breed terrorists? The Islamic people in the Middle East have never liked Isreal. That's an understatement. Iran is openly committed to their destruction. They're just being open about it. Imagine what Fatah and Hezobollah think about Isreal. Is that about oil? If Syriana is trying to present a dualistic view of how and why violence (suicide bombers) exist in the Middle East, then why doesn't the movie touch on Isreal. And, need I add, our multi-billion-dollar-a-year support for that country! Our contribution of tanks, bullets, guns, helicopters, bombs, etc, etc, etc, to that country! There are many reasons why some residents of the Middle East hate the U.S. Oil issues certainly rank high on the list. But, what about Israel? Is that insignificant? Who made this movie? What is their agenda? Now, Spielberg can launch into the diatribe of how the world has conspired against the Jews for centuries. The Nazis did this. Shakespeare said that. Okay, yes, there are many sins in history.What about now? 2007. What are the Jews (with our help) doing today? Is it anti-semitic to even raise the question? Some in Hollywood would say it is. It's even worth making a movie that completely ignores the effect of Israel (and our committed support to Israel) as a factor.The HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle) reduces oil consupmtion. It does not eliminate it. All that means is the Mid-East has 5-10 more years of life before their civilization collapses back into the sand dunes from whence it came. No offense to those from that region. But, like Matt Damon said: their second largest export is second hand goods, followed by dates for which they lose five cents a pound. In a movie that is all "message" and not "entertainment," is it moral to blame the actors for the movie's content? The actor can argue "I was just reading my lines." Did Mr. Damon really NEED the $5 Mil he made for this movie? How about Mr. Clooney? Or, are they just "hires guns?" Like the CIA. Blowing up "Big Oil's" enemies without really understanding why. Damon, Clooney, et al, didn't get where they are today by being dumb. I can't accept that they don't sympathize with the themes of this movie. Just because the conspirator didn't consciously understand his/her role in the conspiracy doesn't acquit them from liability. It doesn't make them innocent. The movie drummed that into my head over and over. In a movie about dark conspiracies, it is profoundly ironic that the movie makers are the scariest conspriators of all. They are the ones who would misdirect you, the viewer, from the hundreds of innocent Palestinian children killed by errant Isreali bullets and missiles in the past few years. What about them? Were those bullets fired from M-16s? Were those missiles lauched from American Blackhawk helicopters? Does Israel design and build their own helicopters? How about exploring THAT angle in the movie? Kinda missed that one. Accident? Not enough time in one movie? Weren't aware of that problem? Don't think so. This movie was made by someone well informed. That kind of omission could only be deliberate. Bush haters will find the movie comfortingly reassuring of their views. Bush is "Big Oil." His dad was the director of the CIA back in his day. He has connections. And, as we all know, he is ruthless and merciless. So, Bush commits terrorism, and under-educated Islamic recruits commit it back. Voila! It's all Bush's fault that the world has terrorists. Oh, and don't forget the Jews have been persecuted for centuries. Gas chambers and so on. They are Hollywood's untouchables. Unless you're a drunken Mel Gibson yelling incoherent anti-semitic remarks. For which he would later apologize profusely (and soberly).Bash away. He's making light of the Holocaust! Get him! No, I'm not. I'm making a point. The Holocaust was bad, very bad. Fine. Let's not forget the 10s of Millions of people who died under Stalin and Mao. We never rescued THEM! If I made light of their demise, who would object? Who would scream "Anti-Ukrain-isim" or "Anti-Kuomindong-ism"! How many movies has Spielberg et al made about those Holocausts? Sin of omission? Just forgot? No profit margin? Not commercial? Bias? You decide.
Finished this movie with empty feelings...
posted on 22 Jul 2009My brief impression of Syriana was that while it was definitely saturated with a theoretical storyline of oil corruption, I finished this movie feeling empty inside.I guess I feel a little misguided that there was going to be justice served to the "wrong doers" in Syriana. In the end, assassinations occur to people and corruption as well as life goes on.Acting performances were good all around but only skimmed the surface and inherently shallow. I merely felt that there was just too much going on to get me emotionally moved by this political movie. Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright, and George Clooney as well as some other actors were just there taking up their divided fragments of performance (though they are all good actors, this wasn't their movie). I just wasn't motivated to care about anyone in the movie, not even the Middle Eastern Prince with good intentions.This is only a movie, I recommend it only if you're into government conspiracies in the war for oil. This wasn't exactly my cup of tea as I may be guilty of expressing my bias against political or anti-political propaganda.
out of whack
posted on 22 Jul 2009Without going too much into the politics of this movie i don't think i necessarily agree with it or come to similar conclusion. As a piece of entertainment the movie works, as a piece of propaganda (no that's not a bad thing) i simply choose not to buy it hook line and sinker. I'll leave it at that.The plot in syriana is a complex weave of inter-connected events pertaining to politics, business, the middle east, Islam, and violence. The obvious comparison is of course this movie's twin, Traffic a similarly structured movie about the war on drugs. I think traffic works better for a few reasons. For one there is no real moral center in this film. In Traffic Bencio Del Toro plays an honest cop fenced in by pragmatics. In this movie everyone is something of a slime ball. The drug issue is a little easier to dispel because it's a lot easier to say end the war on drugs than it is to say end dependence on energy. Syriana also tack the interwoven style of traffic and revs it up a notch, but that leads to an overflow of hard to follow plots.The acting is fine and the direction efficient but not crisp enough. the movie could have taken more time and tried to flesh out character and plot but it would have been pushing four hours at that point. It is entertaining trying to put the puzzle together and even though it occasionally delves into cliché' (walking away from an explosion without flinching is hardly inconspicuous but looks cool on film). Multiple viewings may help clear up the plot but it shouldn't be necessary to watch twice.
Not What I Expected
posted on 31 Aug 2009On the back of the DVD a critic said something to the effect that this is an action packed movie that will leave you at the end of your seat. That's not what it is. I'm not saying I want a mindless action packed movie, but I thought it was boring. Very boring. It is a very slow movie. After watching an hour of this movie I realized that nothing has happened yet. If I were to summarize what I have seen I would have little to say. The second half of the movie was no better. I really thought that the big actors in this movie would have been bought for a good reason, because a good movie needed excellent actors, that was not the case. I have read many other reviews and I agree in what was said, but does not make for a good movie.