list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Syriana on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Syriana/246515/default.aspx Title: Syriana
Year: 2005
Director: Stephen Gaghan
Plot: Oil drives greed in Oscar-winning Traffic screenwriter Stephen Gaghan's labyrinthine sophomore directorial effort that traces the corruption of the global oil industry from the backrooms of Washington, D.C., to the petroleum-rich fields of the Middle East. Based in part on the writings of former CIA case officer Robert Baer, Syriana combines multiple storylines to explore the complexities that befall a proposed merger between two U.S. oil giants. Reform-minded Gulf country prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) is in favor of making his nation more self-sufficient rather than U.S.-reliant, and his money-minded Western connections couldn't be less pleased. Before settling into a cushy desk job for the remainder of his career, CIA agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney) is sent on one last assignment -- to assassinate Prince Nasir and reinstate U.S. ties in the oil-rich region. Though his loyalty dictates that Barnes carry out his current mission despite lingering doubts of a previous blunder, his mission goes horribly awry when his field contact goes turncoat and Barnes becomes a CIA scapegoat. Meanwhile, up-and-coming Washington attorney Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) attempts to walk a fine line in overseeing a tenuous merger between two oil giants that's plagued with shady business dealings. Hotshot energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) is in talks to form a lucrative partnership with Prince Nasir, though the death of his son during a party at the prince's estate makes him question his loyalty to business over family. Back in Washington, D.C., Bennet's boss Dean Whiting attempts to undermine Prince Nasir's attempts to make his country less reliant on the U.S. dollar by planting the seeds of dissonance between the progressive prince and his money-minded younger brother Prince Meshal (Akbar Kurtha). ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 77
Number of Lists: 38
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:37:25 GMTSyriana2005Stephen GaghanOil drives greed in Oscar-winning <a href=/films/177786/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Traffic</a> screenwriter <a href="/players/P___277095/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stephen Gaghan</a>'s labyrinthine sophomore directorial effort that traces the corruption of the global oil industry from the backrooms of Washington, D.C., to the petroleum-rich fields of the Middle East. Based in part on the writings of former CIA case officer Robert Baer, Syriana combines multiple storylines to explore the complexities that befall a proposed merger between two U.S. oil giants. Reform-minded Gulf country prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) is in favor of making his nation more self-sufficient rather than U.S.-reliant, and his money-minded Western connections couldn't be less pleased. Before settling into a cushy desk job for the remainder of his career, CIA agent Bob Barnes (<a href="/players/P____13722/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Clooney</a>) is sent on one last assignment -- to assassinate Prince Nasir and reinstate U.S. ties in the oil-rich region. Though his loyalty dictates that Barnes carry out his current mission despite lingering doubts of a previous blunder, his mission goes horribly awry when his field contact goes turncoat and Barnes becomes a CIA scapegoat. Meanwhile, up-and-coming Washington attorney Bennett Holiday (<a href="/players/P____77607/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeffrey Wright</a>) attempts to walk a fine line in overseeing a tenuous merger between two oil giants that's plagued with shady business dealings. Hotshot energy analyst Bryan Woodman (<a href="/players/P____16762/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Matt Damon</a>) is in talks to form a lucrative partnership with Prince Nasir, though the death of his son during a party at the prince's estate makes him question his loyalty to business over family. Back in Washington, D.C., Bennet's boss Dean Whiting attempts to undermine Prince Nasir's attempts to make his country less reliant on the U.S. dollar by planting the seeds of dissonance between the progressive prince and his money-minded younger brother Prince Meshal (Akbar Kurtha). ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide77Tag Target (>10)38633http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t97492bt22d.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Syriana/246515/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/FilmCouch/Re_Question_from_FilmCouch_97_Are_there_any_pur/302/37584/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: FilmCouch
Post Date: 11/24/2008 1:58:27 PM
Body: Spy movies have definitely gotten away from the sort of glamorous travelogues that the original Bond movies kinda were. Most portray the life as being a tough, gritty one filled with betrayal, sacrifice and other depressing stuff. Even the "action" subgenre of spy films has that sort of thing (i.e. Bourne features all sorts of stuff about how being the spy eats up your life, etc...) So some examples of recent, less actiony spy flicks that you haven't mentioned in the podcast or in your post would include: Traitor (2008 - can't find it with the link to a movie tool thingy) - This is the recent movie starring Don Cheadle. There is some action and it's actually pretty cliched, but it's somewhat entertaining and it's much more focused on the psychology of terrorists than the spy aspect of it... The Good Shepherd - Again, not at all glamorous, but this seems to be a dry recounting of early CIA machinations. I didn't much care for this movie, but it's not an action oriented spy film and the one thing I did like was the sorta brinkmanship between Matt Damon's character and his Soviet counterpart. Syriana - Not glamorous and another movie I didn't particularly love, but it's got some interesting non-action spy stuff going on (mostly in the Cloony plotline - the others are not as spy oriented). It's too bad the plot is so intentionally obtuse. I got the feeling that Gaghan was attempting to play obscurity and for depth here. Three Days of the Condor - Ok, so this isn't anywhere close to recent, but it's a pretty good spy story told from a non-action-oriented standpoint. But I also agree with your inclusion of Spy Game, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and Breach, all of which I rather enjoyed (er, more than the films I listed above) I also thought of the Tom Clancy movies (Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and yes, even The Sum of All Fears), but those might better be characterized as action movies (still, there's an inordinate amount of non-actiony stuff in those films that kinda works well). Another that jumped to mind was Sneakers, though I'm not sure you could really characterize that as a spy film... That's all for now, but I'm positive I'm leaving something out...
]]>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:58:27 GMTmcioccoFilmCouch11/24/2008 1:58:27 PMSpy movies have definitely gotten away from the sort of glamorous travelogues that the original Bond movies kinda were. Most portray the life as being a tough, gritty one filled with betrayal, sacrifice and other depressing stuff. Even the "action" subgenre of spy films has that sort of thing (i.e. Bourne features all sorts of stuff about how being the spy eats up your life, etc...) So some examples of recent, less actiony spy flicks that you haven't mentioned in the podcast or in your post would include: Traitor (2008 - can't find it with the link to a movie tool thingy) - This is the recent movie starring Don Cheadle. There is some action and it's actually pretty cliched, but it's somewhat entertaining and it's much more focused on the psychology of terrorists than the spy aspect of it... The Good Shepherd - Again, not at all glamorous, but this seems to be a dry recounting of early CIA machinations. I didn't much care for this movie, but it's not an action oriented spy film and the one thing I did like was the sorta brinkmanship between Matt Damon's character and his Soviet counterpart. Syriana - Not glamorous and another movie I didn't particularly love, but it's got some interesting non-action spy stuff going on (mostly in the Cloony plotline - the others are not as spy oriented). It's too bad the plot is so intentionally obtuse. I got the feeling that Gaghan was attempting to play obscurity and for depth here. Three Days of the Condor - Ok, so this isn't anywhere close to recent, but it's a pretty good spy story told from a non-action-oriented standpoint. But I also agree with your inclusion of Spy Game, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and Breach, all of which I rather enjoyed (er, more than the films I listed above) I also thought of the Tom Clancy movies (Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and yes, even The Sum of All Fears), but those might better be characterized as action movies (still, there's an inordinate amount of non-actiony stuff in those films that kinda works well). Another that jumped to mind was Sneakers, though I'm not sure you could really characterize that as a spy film... That's all for now, but I'm positive I'm leaving something out... http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/3/30450.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/3/2008 11:35:28 PM
Body: A truly rare and unique documentary. "Manda Bala" has about everything good about it. Everything from in depth interviews from everyone involved with the wide range of topics this documentary approaches, to just plain old good filming. But about the movie. "Manda Bala" takes an unflinching look at an ugly subject. Interestingly enough, the subject of this movie is not really one you see people yelling about in the park. "Manda Bala" is about corruption and violence in Brazil, particularly Sao Paulo. The movie makes it very clear just how broad this topic is, but this does not stop the film makers from putting together this extraordinary film. I say film for a reason, this film is more than just a documentary, I would go so far as to say that this is a stand out in its field movie, it brings together facets of documentary and marries them with cinematic principals that are easily lost in the making of documentaries. "Manda Bala" stands out as a documentary for several reasons. It has in it a few simple topics that it it calls our attention to, corruption and street violence, and presents them without fooling around or going in circles over and over again. Poignant interviews and on-the-spot photography bring the viewer into the causes and effects of the corruption and violence in Brazil. Movies in general take these themes upon themselves all the time. "Syriana", although a decent and compelling drama on a similar subject, seems to loose focus on these themes, and not just because it is a fictional movie with drama and characters. "Manda Bala" has characters and drama in the sense that there are real people that the audience follows on journeys in their lives. There is even a sense of connection, compassion even, for people concerned, all the while stressing the brutality with extreme vividness. And finally, "Manda Bala" brings the good, the bad, and the ugly right on the screen so the audience can see it. The cruelty of politicians and murderers, the compassion of doctors and police. As a strait-up movie, "Manda Bala" also excels. Brazil lends itself to some cinematic qualities, vast cities with skyscrapers reaching out of sprawling slums, mountains covered in rain-forest, all under azure skies. This imagery abounds in "Manda Bala", blues and greens of nature splashed with the ochre tones of the slums and the skyscrapers. But there is also simply good filming, the way shots are set, the juxtaposition of interviewers and translators. Beautiful photography, with even quirky scenarios. It is strangely elegant. The film also uses its status as a documentary to punctuate this beauty with stark, edgy, stock footage. It is good to have these qualities in a documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", even though it is a good documentary, gets boring. "Manda Bala" also holds its own. "The Fog of War", another great documentary, it just one interview. Both of these movies are equally insightful, but "Manda Bala" has them beat in some way as documentaries, in addition to its cinematic qualities. Also as a documentary, "Manda Bala" is not for the fait of heart. It is one that can turn your stomach, but the audience of a documentary knows that this is the world. The audience faces the brutality of a movie like this for a reason. The fact that this movie pulls it off is truly a mark of great documentary film making. This is something to look for in the best of movies, stories, and particularly, documentaries. This is a great film. Well worth the while of any audience. But part of this fact is that it cannot be taken lightly, even when this movie has irony or dark-humor. "Manda Bala" is a wonderful portrait of the world we sometimes have to face. Directed by Jason Kohn Not Rated
]]>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:35:28 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/3/2008 11:35:28 PM A truly rare and unique documentary. "Manda Bala" has about everything good about it. Everything from in depth interviews from everyone involved with the wide range of topics this documentary approaches, to just plain old good filming. But about the movie. "Manda Bala" takes an unflinching look at an ugly subject. Interestingly enough, the subject of this movie is not really one you see people yelling about in the park. "Manda Bala" is about corruption and violence in Brazil, particularly Sao Paulo. The movie makes it very clear just how broad this topic is, but this does not stop the film makers from putting together this extraordinary film. I say film for a reason, this film is more than just a documentary, I would go so far as to say that this is a stand out in its field movie, it brings together facets of documentary and marries them with cinematic principals that are easily lost in the making of documentaries. "Manda Bala" stands out as a documentary for several reasons. It has in it a few simple topics that it it calls our attention to, corruption and street violence, and presents them without fooling around or going in circles over and over again. Poignant interviews and on-the-spot photography bring the viewer into the causes and effects of the corruption and violence in Brazil. Movies in general take these themes upon themselves all the time. "Syriana", although a decent and compelling drama on a similar subject, seems to loose focus on these themes, and not just because it is a fictional movie with drama and characters. "Manda Bala" has characters and drama in the sense that there are real people that the audience follows on journeys in their lives. There is even a sense of connection, compassion even, for people concerned, all the while stressing the brutality with extreme vividness. And finally, "Manda Bala" brings the good, the bad, and the ugly right on the screen so the audience can see it. The cruelty of politicians and murderers, the compassion of doctors and police. As a strait-up movie, "Manda Bala" also excels. Brazil lends itself to some cinematic qualities, vast cities with skyscrapers reaching out of sprawling slums, mountains covered in rain-forest, all under azure skies. This imagery abounds in "Manda Bala", blues and greens of nature splashed with the ochre tones of the slums and the skyscrapers. But there is also simply good filming, the way shots are set, the juxtaposition of interviewers and translators. Beautiful photography, with even quirky scenarios. It is strangely elegant. The film also uses its status as a documentary to punctuate this beauty with stark, edgy, stock footage. It is good to have these qualities in a documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth", even though it is a good documentary, gets boring. "Manda Bala" also holds its own. "The Fog of War", another great documentary, it just one interview. Both of these movies are equally insightful, but "Manda Bala" has them beat in some way as documentaries, in addition to its cinematic qualities. Also as a documentary, "Manda Bala" is not for the fait of heart. It is one that can turn your stomach, but the audience of a documentary knows that this is the world. The audience faces the brutality of a movie like this for a reason. The fact that this movie pulls it off is truly a mark of great documentary film making. This is something to look for in the best of movies, stories, and particularly, documentaries. This is a great film. Well worth the while of any audience. But part of this fact is that it cannot be taken lightly, even when this movie has irony or dark-humor. "Manda Bala" is a wonderful portrait of the world we sometimes have to face. Directed by Jason Kohn Not Rated http://www.spout.com/groups/Trailer_Park/Re_Burn_After_Reading/567/30202/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: Trailer Park
Post Date: 5/30/2008 1:39:18 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] WOO HOO! Burn After Reading just looks like a bunch of A-listers having lots of fun. http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/burnafterreading/ Personally, I can't wait. Even with George Clooney in it. :) [/quote] it's funny you mention this today, because Christopher has a post up on SpoutBlog about the trailer. Its kind of like taking George Clooney's role in Syriana and flipping it on its head.
]]>Fri, 30 May 2008 17:39:18 GMTlopezdashTrailer Park5/30/2008 1:39:18 PM[quote user="mercurial"] WOO HOO! Burn After Reading just looks like a bunch of A-listers having lots of fun. http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/burnafterreading/ Personally, I can't wait. Even with George Clooney in it. :) [/quote] it's funny you mention this today, because Christopher has a post up on SpoutBlog about the trailer. Its kind of like taking George Clooney's role in Syriana and flipping it on its head. http://www.spout.com/blogs/indieabby88/archive/2008/3/9/26013.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Bloggish review blog
Post Date: 3/9/2008 4:34:21 PM
Body: I'll admit that I'm a real sucker for interview shows. I've been a fan of "Inside the Actor's Studio" for years, so I was really looking forward to Professor Richard Brown's series of interviews with (mostly) well-respected actors, and for the most part, this disc delivered. I got "Leading Men," which contained interviews with George Clooney, Josh Lucas (huh?), Daniel Day-Lewis and Dennis Quaid.Clooney's interview provided a lot of interesting information about his background. I thought his description of his childhood and his idealistic journalist father really explained a lot about the kind of public figure the actor is today, and why he's taken on so many of the recent projects he has, like Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck. While he still seemed pretty self-important, Clooney's view that his stardom has everything to do with luck and ability, and less to do with arrogance was a great point of view to hear. It seems as though Clooney is very grateful that he's gotten to where he is today, and realizes that without the occurence of certain events, he might still be doing dozens of failed television pilots.Josh Lucas' appearance was very hard for me to understand. I know he's been working for a number of years now, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything that noteworthy. Whenever I've seen Lucas in a film, it's a supporting (or barely noticeable) role in a good movie like "American Psycho" or "A Beautiful Mind," or a bigger role in a terrible movie (see "Sweet Home Alabama"). I'm not sure what made Lucas think he was entitled to seem like a "serious actor" when talking with Brown, but all he succeeded in doing was making himself seem more puffed-up than he has any right to be. I thought this one was a definite miss in the series.Day-Lewis, on the other hand, was the interview I'd anticipated the most, and the one that I felt had the most in-depth disucssion of the actual craft of acting. Method actors have always fascinated me, and Day-Lewis is really the method actor's method actor. This is the guy who, on the set of "In the Name of the Father" spent the night being screwed around with in a jail cell and interrogated by British Special Branch officers for several hours just to better understand his character. That's some hard core devotion right there.Dennis Quaid's interview was by far the most enjoyable. It was clear the crowd got a big kick out of seeing him talk to Brown, and Quaid, in turn, seemed genuinely pleased at the audience's enthusiasm. His answers seemed very straightforward and honest, and he came off as a very nice, genuine sort of guy. I get the feeling that Quaid is the kind of guy all the other guys want to have a drink with. His body of work hasn't been consistently great (there'll always be "Dragonheart," after all), but Quaid was so charming and willing to talk that I ended up not caring.
]]>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:34:21 GMTindieabby88Bloggish review blog3/9/2008 4:34:21 PMI&#39;ll admit that I&#39;m a real sucker for interview shows. I&#39;ve been a fan of &quot;Inside the Actor&#39;s Studio&quot; for years, so I was really looking forward to Professor Richard Brown&#39;s series of interviews with (mostly) well-respected actors, and for the most part, this disc delivered. I got &quot;Leading Men,&quot; which contained interviews with George Clooney, Josh Lucas (huh?), Daniel Day-Lewis and Dennis Quaid.Clooney&#39;s interview provided a lot of interesting information about his background. I thought his description of his childhood and his idealistic journalist father really explained a lot about the kind of public figure the actor is today, and why he&#39;s taken on so many of the recent projects he has, like Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck. While he still seemed pretty self-important, Clooney&#39;s view that his stardom has everything to do with luck and ability, and less to do with arrogance was a great point of view to hear. It seems as though Clooney is very grateful that he&#39;s gotten to where he is today, and realizes that without the occurence of certain events, he might still be doing dozens of failed television pilots.Josh Lucas&#39; appearance was very hard for me to understand. I know he&#39;s been working for a number of years now, but as far as I can tell, he hasn&#39;t done anything that noteworthy. Whenever I&#39;ve seen Lucas in a film, it&#39;s a supporting (or barely noticeable) role in a good movie like &quot;American Psycho&quot; or &quot;A Beautiful Mind,&quot; or a bigger role in a terrible movie (see &quot;Sweet Home Alabama&quot;). I&#39;m not sure what made Lucas think he was entitled to seem like a &quot;serious actor&quot; when talking with Brown, but all he succeeded in doing was making himself seem more puffed-up than he has any right to be. I thought this one was a definite miss in the series.Day-Lewis, on the other hand, was the interview I&#39;d anticipated the most, and the one that I felt had the most in-depth disucssion of the actual craft of acting. Method actors have always fascinated me, and Day-Lewis is really the method actor&#39;s method actor. This is the guy who, on the set of &quot;In the Name of the Father&quot; spent the night being screwed around with in a jail cell and interrogated by British Special Branch officers for several hours just to better understand his character. That&#39;s some hard core devotion right there.Dennis Quaid&#39;s interview was by far the most enjoyable. It was clear the crowd got a big kick out of seeing him talk to Brown, and Quaid, in turn, seemed genuinely pleased at the audience&#39;s enthusiasm. His answers seemed very straightforward and honest, and he came off as a very nice, genuine sort of guy. I get the feeling that Quaid is the kind of guy all the other guys want to have a drink with. His body of work hasn&#39;t been consistently great (there&#39;ll always be &quot;Dragonheart,&quot; after all), but Quaid was so charming and willing to talk that I ended up not caring. http://www.spout.com/blogs/chrismorrell/archive/2008/1/20/24130.aspx Post By: chrismorrell
Post To: chrismorrell Blog
Post Date: 1/20/2008 10:03:26 PM
Body: Within the first few scenes ,you may well be saying ,"yes yes i geddit"...under cover cia agents ,covert selling of arms ,big business and arms dealing all mixed up with possible collusion of Governments. i fell asleep ..we know that all this sort of thing goes on ..why not make a proper documentary?...instead we get something that could have worked better as a fast -paced T.V show , or mini series like "24"or whatever ,a sort of "faction". I recommend the brilliant work of Adam Curtis.."the Power Of Nightmares" and "the Trap",both available online.
]]>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:03:26 GMTchrismorrellchrismorrell Blog1/20/2008 10:03:26 PMWithin the first few scenes ,you may well be saying ,&quot;yes yes i geddit&quot;...under cover cia agents ,covert selling of arms ,big business and arms dealing all mixed up with possible collusion of Governments. i fell asleep ..we know that all this sort of thing goes on ..why not make a proper documentary?...instead we get something that could have worked better as a fast -paced T.V show , or mini series like &quot;24&quot;or whatever ,a sort of &quot;faction&quot;. I recommend the brilliant work of Adam Curtis..&quot;the Power Of Nightmares&quot; and &quot;the Trap&quot;,both available online. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2007/12/10/22688.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/10/2007 9:05:45 AM
Body: I elected to watch Syriana next because it was an Oscar winner that came up in my Netflix recommendations, and that I had otherwise missed at the time of its release and ensuing buzz/accolades. Also, I have been watching several quirky comedies of late (and one mediocre romantic comedy) and decided that I needed a change of pace. So, I reordered some of the next movies in my queue a bit, putting off "Music and Lyrics" for another time, and popped this one in. I have decided, upon finishing this certainly intelligent but complicated film, that Sunday night, when one is looking to relax before Monday morning and the work week dawns, is no time to watch a movie like this. Syriana portrays a highly complex interweaving of interests, both tangible and non-tangible, tied to the production of oil in the Middle East and the United States' almost addict-like dependence upon it. There are almost too many to list. It is hard to summarize this plot with any decent efficiency except to say that all of the storylines revolve around the succession of one of two brother princes to emir of some unnamed Arab country. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir!) plays the reforming older brother; the younger brother (actor unknown) is power-hungry and America-friendly. George Clooney plays Bob, a CIA-agent turned scapegoat. Matt Damon plays a corporate energy consultant who, through personal tragedy, connects to the older prince and his ambitions. Amanda Peet plays his estranged wife. Christopher Plummer plays a partner in a prestigious law firm caught up in the web of corporate maneuvering and behind-closed doors government endorsement surrounding the younger brother. Jeffrey Wright plays one of his attorneys who likes to play all sides for the security of his own future in spite of his troubled past and present. Chris Cooper plays the CEO of an oil company that merges with another big oil company, both of which have a stake in the cat-and-mouse game. In the meantime, the viewer is treated to humanistic portrayals of conditions in the Middle East, Islamic teachings, and is offered a sympathetic eye to the possible motives of suicide bombers.This movie, inspired by non-fiction events as the footnote at the conclusion of the film notes, is ambitious, intricate, multilayered, intelligent, deftly neutral when considering the topic and the possible parties involved, well-written, and well-acted. George deserved his Oscar, playing a weary, field agent facing the death of his career and possible future with nothing to lose and completely against type. It is a role I have never seen him play. He only smirked coyly once, and that alone impressed me. Jeffrey Wright was also amazing and was possibly the more compelling of the two performances, as he played this attorney who never fully reveals his agenda to anyone, even the viewer, until the end of the film.The trouble is, though it is so intricately woven, with all of these parties deftly spun into the web, the story is very convoluted. Watching this movie, I had a sense that the filmmakers wanted to be didactic and wanted to present an argument. The sheer volume of characters and situations the film introduces, however, makes it impossible for the viewer to really be interested in any message or outcome unless the topic itself is one of interest to the viewer going in. I must confess that I was only interested in this film because of the Oscar attached to it when I started watching, and my interest in following all of the different storylines ebbed and flowed throughout the film. If there was an argument to be made, I can only guess at it less than twelve hours after finishing the film.That's not to say that I had trouble following it. None of the scenes or situations, as they were, felt out of place because of the strength of the performances and the script. There was simply too much to keep straight, too many lines to connect, to make the film effective. That is, of course, part of the film's message: oil and the inevitable profit margins and war and terrorism and corporate/political collateral affect and are affected by more human beings than the average moviegoer realizes. Another part of the message: this oil crisis may be the downfall of civilization (that's overdramatizing but, inevitably, the subtext is there). Unfortunately, the average moviegoer is probably going to be completely turned off by this film, if such a person managed to muster the courage to watch it, and any message or appreciation of that message will be lost.I am not an average moviegoer, and I am still kind of turned off. It was a smart film but not one I will ever watch again because of the subject matter and my inability, caused by the film, to connect to any part of it. Thusly, it does not pass my test. It will not be purchased or owned in any way in the future.Ironically, filmmakers are often criticized for oversimplifying stories, either taken from pre-published print materials or real-life accounts, for the sake of art and appealing to the viewers. Sometimes, I am one of those critics, especially when the edit is blatantly manipulative. This time, however, I really feel that Syriana could have benefitted from a slimmer set of stories; or, if the large and tangled web appeals, a few more minutes of straightforward exposition, even a written blurb at the beginning of the film, to orient the viewer to what is happening and to whom the viewer will be introduced would have helped. Also, while nothing felt out of place, per se, there were times when I felt something was missing, some piece of the dialogue, perhaps, that was left on the cutting room floor. I can't think of a specific example right now, but, to me, those moments undercut even the overarching point of the entire piece.I applaud the filmmakers for their ambition, but, in the end, this was not a movie that interested me. I think, personally, I have to give this movie a 7.5, a step above shaky, but there were too many flaws in my eyes to warrant an 8. I appreciated the intellectual challenge and the courageous subject matter but, be forewarned, this movie is not for everyone.
]]>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:05:45 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts12/10/2007 9:05:45 AMI elected to watch Syriana next because it was an Oscar winner that came up in my Netflix recommendations, and that I had otherwise missed at the time of its release and ensuing buzz/accolades. Also, I have been watching several quirky comedies of late (and one mediocre romantic comedy) and decided that I needed a change of pace. So, I reordered some of the next movies in my queue a bit, putting off &quot;Music and Lyrics&quot; for another time, and popped this one in. I have decided, upon finishing this certainly intelligent but complicated film, that Sunday night, when one is looking to relax before Monday morning and the work week dawns, is no time to watch a movie like this. Syriana portrays a highly complex interweaving of interests, both tangible and non-tangible, tied to the production of oil in the Middle East and the United States&#39; almost addict-like dependence upon it. There are almost too many to list. It is hard to summarize this plot with any decent efficiency except to say that all of the storylines revolve around the succession of one of two brother princes to emir of some unnamed Arab country. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir!) plays the reforming older brother; the younger brother (actor unknown) is power-hungry and America-friendly. George Clooney plays Bob, a CIA-agent turned scapegoat. Matt Damon plays a corporate energy consultant who, through personal tragedy, connects to the older prince and his ambitions. Amanda Peet plays his estranged wife. Christopher Plummer plays a partner in a prestigious law firm caught up in the web of corporate maneuvering and behind-closed doors government endorsement surrounding the younger brother. Jeffrey Wright plays one of his attorneys who likes to play all sides for the security of his own future in spite of his troubled past and present. Chris Cooper plays the CEO of an oil company that merges with another big oil company, both of which have a stake in the cat-and-mouse game. In the meantime, the viewer is treated to humanistic portrayals of conditions in the Middle East, Islamic teachings, and is offered a sympathetic eye to the possible motives of suicide bombers.This movie, inspired by non-fiction events as the footnote at the conclusion of the film notes, is ambitious, intricate, multilayered, intelligent, deftly neutral when considering the topic and the possible parties involved, well-written, and well-acted. George deserved his Oscar, playing a weary, field agent facing the death of his career and possible future with nothing to lose and completely against type. It is a role I have never seen him play. He only smirked coyly once, and that alone impressed me. Jeffrey Wright was also amazing and was possibly the more compelling of the two performances, as he played this attorney who never fully reveals his agenda to anyone, even the viewer, until the end of the film.The trouble is, though it is so intricately woven, with all of these parties deftly spun into the web, the story is very convoluted. Watching this movie, I had a sense that the filmmakers wanted to be didactic and wanted to present an argument. The sheer volume of characters and situations the film introduces, however, makes it impossible for the viewer to really be interested in any message or outcome unless the topic itself is one of interest to the viewer going in. I must confess that I was only interested in this film because of the Oscar attached to it when I started watching, and my interest in following all of the different storylines ebbed and flowed throughout the film. If there was an argument to be made, I can only guess at it less than twelve hours after finishing the film.That&#39;s not to say that I had trouble following it. None of the scenes or situations, as they were, felt out of place because of the strength of the performances and the script. There was simply too much to keep straight, too many lines to connect, to make the film effective. That is, of course, part of the film&#39;s message: oil and the inevitable profit margins and war and terrorism and corporate/political collateral affect and are affected by more human beings than the average moviegoer realizes. Another part of the message: this oil crisis may be the downfall of civilization (that&#39;s overdramatizing but, inevitably, the subtext is there). Unfortunately, the average moviegoer is probably going to be completely turned off by this film, if such a person managed to muster the courage to watch it, and any message or appreciation of that message will be lost.I am not an average moviegoer, and I am still kind of turned off. It was a smart film but not one I will ever watch again because of the subject matter and my inability, caused by the film, to connect to any part of it. Thusly, it does not pass my test. It will not be purchased or owned in any way in the future.Ironically, filmmakers are often criticized for oversimplifying stories, either taken from pre-published print materials or real-life accounts, for the sake of art and appealing to the viewers. Sometimes, I am one of those critics, especially when the edit is blatantly manipulative. This time, however, I really feel that Syriana could have benefitted from a slimmer set of stories; or, if the large and tangled web appeals, a few more minutes of straightforward exposition, even a written blurb at the beginning of the film, to orient the viewer to what is happening and to whom the viewer will be introduced would have helped. Also, while nothing felt out of place, per se, there were times when I felt something was missing, some piece of the dialogue, perhaps, that was left on the cutting room floor. I can&#39;t think of a specific example right now, but, to me, those moments undercut even the overarching point of the entire piece.I applaud the filmmakers for their ambition, but, in the end, this was not a movie that interested me. I think, personally, I have to give this movie a 7.5, a step above shaky, but there were too many flaws in my eyes to warrant an 8. I appreciated the intellectual challenge and the courageous subject matter but, be forewarned, this movie is not for everyone. http://www.spout.com/blogs/lopezdash/archive/2007/11/8/21527.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: The Movie Blog
Post Date: 11/8/2007 12:46:47 PM
Body: Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts over at the Washington Post are reporting that the Washington premiere of Lions for Lambs was a veritable who's who of Hollywood and DC insiders. In addition to stars Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and his wife Katie Holmes, DC insiders in attendance included "Dan Snyder, Madeleine Albright, Ted Leonsis, Lynda carter, George Stephanopoulos, David Gregory and a bunch of congressfolk..." events I'm very much looking forward to "Lions for Lambs" and am intrigued by the way Hollywood is interfacing with (and portraying) a post-9/11 world. For many years following the attacks, references to 9/11 or to terrorism were simply not allowed and did not appear in mainstream US cinema. The past couple of years (particularly since the release of World Trade Center and United 93) have seen a growing interest in film that is critical of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. My theory on this, and please tell me what you think, is that, WTC and United 93 provided the cinematic closure (the type of catharsis that is inherent in the moviegoing experience) that the American people needed before we could move beyond (but never forget) those events. In a way, reliving the tragedy restored the ability to question the decisions made in response to it. Recent films that touch on the post-9/11world relative to US foreign policy include Syriana, The Kingdom, No End In Sight, and Vantage Point.
]]>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:46:47 GMTlopezdashThe Movie Blog11/8/2007 12:46:47 PMAmy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts over at the Washington Post are reporting that the Washington premiere of Lions for Lambs was a veritable who&#39;s who of Hollywood and DC insiders. In addition to stars Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and his wife Katie Holmes, DC insiders in attendance included &quot;Dan Snyder, Madeleine Albright, Ted Leonsis, Lynda carter, George Stephanopoulos, David Gregory and a bunch of congressfolk...&quot; events I&#39;m very much looking forward to &quot;Lions for Lambs&quot; and am intrigued by the way Hollywood is interfacing with (and portraying) a post-9/11 world. For many years following the attacks, references to 9/11 or to terrorism were simply not allowed and did not appear in mainstream US cinema. The past couple of years (particularly since the release of World Trade Center and United 93) have seen a growing interest in film that is critical of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. My theory on this, and please tell me what you think, is that, WTC and United 93 provided the cinematic closure (the type of catharsis that is inherent in the moviegoing experience) that the American people needed before we could move beyond (but never forget) those events. In a way, reliving the tragedy restored the ability to question the decisions made in response to it. Recent films that touch on the post-9/11world relative to US foreign policy include Syriana, The Kingdom, No End In Sight, and Vantage Point. http://www.spout.com/groups/FilmCouch/Re_FilmCouch_18_Sympathy_for_the_Devil_what_mak/302/8549/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Puhnner
Post To: FilmCouch
Post Date: 5/11/2007 9:15:54 AM
Body: an interesting, but truthful twist (at least as I see it ) on this would be show the good ol' USA as the jackboot or suit wearing, arms dealing villain metaphorically/allegorically or just 'there you have it'...you could start with The Quiet American, Casualties of War, Syriana , Little Big Man, Lord of War : hell the list goes on and on now that I think about it. I don't find that we have the 'camp' factor that I associate with Nazism, but we sure have the jingoism/xenophopia/deathdealing
]]>Fri, 11 May 2007 13:15:54 GMTPuhnnerFilmCouch5/11/2007 9:15:54 AMan interesting, but truthful twist (at least as I see it ) on this would be show the good ol&#39; USA as the jackboot or suit wearing, arms dealing villain metaphorically/allegorically or just &#39;there you have it&#39;...you could start with The Quiet American, Casualties of War, Syriana , Little Big Man, Lord of War : hell the list goes on and on now that I think about it. I don&#39;t find that we have the &#39;camp&#39; factor that I associate with Nazism, but we sure have the jingoism/xenophopia/deathdealing http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2007/3/7/6103.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 3/7/2007 1:33:00 AM
Body: Syriana (2005) portrays the complex melange of international oil interests, governments, resistance fighters, and the host of people involved in peripheral roles. If the movie has a main plot it might be summarized as follows: When two Middle Eastern brothers struggle to succeed their father as emir (king), the older brother who is the reformer loses to the younger brother who makes a pact with big oil interests and, through them, the US government. Syriana is realistic, and that is its strength. Unfortunately, it is so realistic that it is impossible to understand. In real life we do not understand why a lot of things happen. In art, however, we expect some sort of pattern artificially and artistically imposed on the semi-chaos of life. Or as I said to the fellow in the video store who asked if he should rent it: “Everything you need to know to understand the movie is edited out when they cut short the scene between the big-time oil manipulator and the younger brother seeking to be king.”Jim Bell
]]>Wed, 07 Mar 2007 06:33:00 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog3/7/2007 1:33:00 AM Syriana (2005) portrays the complex melange of international oil interests, governments, resistance fighters, and the host of people involved in peripheral roles. If the movie has a main plot it might be summarized as follows: When two Middle Eastern brothers struggle to succeed their father as emir (king), the older brother who is the reformer loses to the younger brother who makes a pact with big oil interests and, through them, the US government. Syriana is realistic, and that is its strength. Unfortunately, it is so realistic that it is impossible to understand. In real life we do not understand why a lot of things happen. In art, however, we expect some sort of pattern artificially and artistically imposed on the semi-chaos of life. Or as I said to the fellow in the video store who asked if he should rent it: &ldquo;Everything you need to know to understand the movie is edited out when they cut short the scene between the big-time oil manipulator and the younger brother seeking to be king.&rdquo;Jim Bell http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176179607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrorism/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrorism
Number of films tagged: 981

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT98149117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oil/MemberTagFilms.aspxoil
Number of films tagged: 230

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 40

]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:53:12 GMT2303040Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/political/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitical
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:21:55 GMT512965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Fascinating/MemberTagFilms.aspxFascinating
Number of films tagged: 24

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 32

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:51:25 GMT242732Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/CIA/MemberTagFilms.aspxCIA
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 48

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:32:53 GMT312648Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/wealth/MemberTagFilms.aspxwealth
Number of films tagged: 749

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 70

]]>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:18:07 GMT7492670Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Didnt-Get-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxDidnt-Get-It
Number of films tagged: 36

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 42

]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:46:38 GMT362242Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terror/MemberTagFilms.aspxterror
Number of films tagged: 273

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 23

]]>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:10:29 GMT2732023Tag