 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.254.156.234
A complex, multi-storied account of oil geo-politics told in the manner of the director's Traffic, i.e. simulataneous events interweaved.
Don't expect a simplistic good guys vs. bad guys typical Hollywood film here, it doesn't insult your intelligence.
Clooney and a host of other actors do excellent jobs but Matt Damon, as a world-class investing whiz, just doesn't project the chutzpah or "balls."
Further, there is one scene which is so out of place one wonders how it was included (the rant outside the building about "corruption").
Also, the final scenes with Clooney seem contrived and, though they don't detract from the overall impact at the time, later on with a bit of thought it does seem a tad... ridiculous.
Still, this is a remarkable film, rich in complexity, fine performances, realistic dialogue. It creates a very credible world and, for the most part, it delivers non-stop excitement with a healthy dose of suspense.
This movie is what The Constant Gardener could have been.
Follow Ups:
Did Damon really know when he switched cars? Or, was it just dumb luck? When he appeared at home it gave the impression that it was dumb luck and that he was over his head in a dangerous game. BUT, with all the double-crossing afoot . . .
I think he was being a gentleman letting the Prince's wife in the car with the Prince. I saw no connection between Damon and the other players. I sure was hoping "Bob" would have said something to get the Prince out of the Rover....C'est la vie
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
**
Music is Emotion
Actually, it's did the second best business. 12 big ain't bad for the comparatively small number of screens it opened on and considering it isn't geared to kids, either the small ones or the arrested development ones posing as American adults.
*
Music is Emotion
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
.
Gaghans's imagination who claims to have known some Iraqi warlord or something but never names anyone.
Music is Emotion
as
.
Tin,Decent film with strong performance from Clooney, but I thought Capote was far better.
Phil S. Hoffman captured the neuances of Capote so well. The film was so engaging from start to finish, that I didn't even kick the asshole infront me who kept on shifting in his seat.
Chris Cooper, once again, played it so very well.
Going to see "The Squid and the Whale" tonight.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
Anglaise " is the French word for preservative.
When it come to dicky´s....
The only truth I knows is when one tells " French lover "....
He-he...
Great performance by Jeff Daniels and by both kids.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
s
Syriana is dense and fascinating. The points that are made are provocative. Capote is a completely dissimilar movie, so a comparison is somewhat forced. However, PS Hoffman's performance is one for the ages in Capote, he communicates a whole world of complexity non-verbally. There is nothing to match it in Syriana. And, to be honest, at least one of the subplots in Syriana seems to be unnecessary and unrelated to the main thread. That is the story of the Pakistani worker in the Persian Gulf. Did anyone not know where that was headed from the earliest conversation in the guest worker camp? Of the two, which would I buy for the permanent collection? Capote, easily. The only movie this year that has prompted more thought and discussion for me was Grizzly Man.
I meant to bring that up earlier to Tinear but forgot. That subplot had nothin to do with nothin and was patently obvious after a few minutes of his character's air time.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
with the missing missle, with Connex losing their contract in the Gulf and the Chinese company telling them all to get lost and with how those kinds of poor displaced people are easy fodder for religious/political lunatics (the guy recruiting them for their mission was the guy to whom Clooney's bosses told him the Emir was sending money).Of course that doesn't mean it was well done.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
still being exploited by foreign interests--- which was clearly shown--- then young men like that Pakistani kid (not Palestinian) wouldn't have such a feeling of worthlessness and despair.
Maybe it was a stretch but I like a movie that comes up a tad short from trying too hard than one which hasn't a clue.
The guy was a free market zealot being charged with what is basically corruption and he was reacting to the very idea that it's even a crime. His reaction was foreshadowed by his Senate testimony which appeared to be about illegal campaign contributions and which was on TV in the background the first time Bennett let his father into his house.I think it was, by far, Clooney's best acting job ever.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
was poor. He was mimicking Ned Beatty's famous scene in the boardroom in defense of capitalism in "Network" and he failed.
Anyhow, absolute agreement on George C. He should get an Oscar nod.
for posting an informative review without giving away key plot elements. Too many reviewers just tell you the story, they MAY leave out the ending, but Hell, I like to be surprised by at least some elements of the storyline.You really thought it Oscar worthy? Hmm, may be on the hit list tomorrow.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
adfg
It wasn't the best THIS year. I'd easily put Proof above it and quite possibly Broken Flowers. But opinions about movies definitely fall into the YMMV category.I had no problem with the executives being cartoonized. Bad guys in flicks are often portrayed in over the top manner. I think you also overstate the extent to which you believe corporations go to maximize profits, but thats a discussion for another board on another day. On to the movie,
Every scene with Clooney's scruffy character in it was good. Period. While not OSCAR worthy (IMHO) he did an excellent job. A man shat upon undeservedly by his superiors will always be sympathetic and he pulls it off perfectly.
On the "Shatting" upon. Tell me why this medalled man, who was tortured, was treated with such malevolence by the agency. Was it the Lortab for after tennis pain that caused me to miss something? Hes tortured by Mossawi, and then the CIA starts planning his disgrace?
Second, how does he know where to intercept the caravan? Again , this may be Lortab related.
We could see the final denouement coming a mile away. However, it was effective. I could imagine the headlines the next day, "Leading Al Queda figure killed in CIA missle attack".
Christopher Plummer stole all of his scenes. The one where he dressed down the young prince was sublime. Unfortunately, there are assholes like him in D.C. who are very connected.
Amanda Peet had a thankless role.
William Hurt, excellent as a private security consultant. Perhaps he gave Bob the intel on the caravan's whereabouts?
All in all, recommended, even if quite unbelievable. Actually pretty low key for a Geo-political thriller, even if the director didn't give it the epic feel it begged for. It defintely asked for the audience's attention. Was the reward for that attention an Oscar caliber production, No. If your're a lib, I can understand why you'd go bonkers, but remember Tin, it IS fiction. ***, Joe Bob says check it oout.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
See, I have a problem with *any* type of character being so treated, but especially when it's the antagonist -- it diminishes the accomplishment of the hero.Was the Baer original like that, I wonder?
clark
they behave outside the bounds of normalcy that define their being, right? That them makes them cartoonish in many cases when compared to the values that the protagonists hold sacred. Or something like that. Actually, I thought the CIA came off worse than the oil execs. The attornies? Total sleazes, but thats hardly a flash for the evening news.Dallas coming back against the Chiefs, so Road Warrior issuing an "Over and out"
NP - Cowboys/Chiefs, DUHHH!
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
stemmed from the fact that publicly he humiliated his superiors. I found the similarity to Joe Wilson quite powerful.
I didn't say 'twas the finest film in ten years but placed it above most Oscar winners of that period.
I also found the denouement and his finding the caravan a bit... over the top.
Still, for its handling of such a critical subject in such an entertaining and thoughtful way, with such clearly drawn and powerful characters, I rate it very highly: art can be topical and meaningful and not just ethereal, right?
I haven't seen Capote or the Whale movie yet but I was disappointed a bit in Broken Flowers. A good film but way below the bar set by the other aging guy flick, Lost in Translation.
You should read "See No Evil" the book upon which the movie is based. I started reading it after seeing the film and it's fascinating.They don't spell it out in the movie but the CIA turning on Clooney's character is, I believe, a nod to the thrust of the book which is that the modern CIA is more concerned with political correctness, politics and technology than it is to their human resources. Basically he was considered a has been and a pain in the ass from the old days.
When he was waiting to talk to the (I assume) Condi Rice based character you could overhear them laughing at the idea that doing great work in Beruit in the 80's meant anything and later he was in trouble for having told her a truth that condradicted what she wanted to hear (or at least what the CIA wanted her to hear).
Not saying it was reality but I thought his being turned on made sense in the movie.
Still, I found the movie highly plausible as a sketch of how things really work/happen (though I freely admit my political leanings - which are more anti runaway corporate power than "left" per se - left me predisposed to do so).
I really liked Proof. Haven't found more than a couple of people who felt the same way.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
Saw it with Mrs. Nasty and her two sisters. It was a huge gamble as the evil sisters lean more toward mindless action flicks. They were blown away and I was considered a good husband (for at least a day). There was one jaw dropping moment in that film, and I know you know what I'm talking about, that made the audience collectively catch its breath. I honestly believe it'll be mostly overlooked when Oscars are handed out. That will be a great, great shame. Paltrow as Best Actress, Hopkins as Supporting Actor, and several others are deserved.I think your point that Clooney was considered an embarassing dinosaur is prolly correct. I remember that conversation you referenced and his subsequent interview.
Give corporations a chance. They're made up of, by and large, decent, educated people. Of course there are exceptions (ENRON!!!), but they aren't the rule. Movies rarely portray their true character (that wouldn't be any fun would it?).
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
It paints the oil industry and the people in government who do their bidding in a very negative light (very negative).Of course I believe it was probably, in many ways, the most accurate portrayal of such things ever made.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
as
...that, although the lefties will cheer and jeer, the public won't buy it?Alternatively, has there ever been a (major) movie where corporate executives are rendered as skilled, intelligent people who earn their high pay? Instead of comical/invidious cardboard cutouts?
Extending this argument: While many movies portray evil Germans, have the Stalinistas (who after all slaughtered up to ten times as many as the Nazis) been depicted as evil Russki geniuses?
What's the story here? I mean, you're in Hollywood...
clark
"Syriana has a lot of big, important things to say about big, important things... It's as earnestly, politically left-leaning as Jarhead is coyly apolitical; it's also the kind of movie that requires a viewer to work actively for comprehension, and to chalk up any lack of same to his or her own deficiency in the face of something so evidently smart."...and there's no reason given for the double-dealing, power plays, and American capitalist thuggery that shape the landscape. (What little humanity this trio of clueless, overmatched American men retains is conferred by fleeting interaction with kin...).
"While those with an eye for vast left-wing conspiracies are welcome to believe that Gaghan planned all along to make a movie shaped like a big-picture that fails to take into account small-picture human needs, I am not one of those conspiracy junkies; I think the absence of soul is just the filmmaker's big gaffe."
B-
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum
Other reviews too remarked on the cartoonish quality of the oily oil men. It's all so simple, when businessmen are the baddies.
clark
Of course she covered that by saying that the film malkes you feel it's your own fault if you don't get it but, frankly, it's not hard to get so she's either not terribly bright, didn't really care or wasn't really paying attention.Also, the movie definitely had soul and compassion (provided by Clooney, the Emir, the Pakistani guys father and Matt Damon's wife) and Clooney getting double crossed and double crossed again wasn't arbitrary if one is paying attention. Also there was no nuclear weapon anywhere in the movie (nor any allusion to any)
You should see it and should try and un-makeup your mind that you won't like it.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
I asked you a couple of questions about why Hollywood hates businessmen on the screen. You chose instead to assume that I had my mind made up not to like it, or even to see it. You couldn't be more wrong (although I hardly know you -- maybe you could be!): I actually made up my mind *to* see it. Whether I'll like it is a separate matter.Nor did you address my questions! I was hoping you'd note the irony of the hatefulness portrayed on screen, compared to the utter savagery with which businessmen do behave in Hollywood.
As for calling a woman "not terribly bright"... or, worse... well... I'm forwarding your note to NOW. Expect a punch on your nose.
clark
They are tough for sure and they don't think much of some American laws, but they also express a sense of patriotism and altruism. It's not all greed and selfishness that drives these men. There are plenty of movie portrayals of evil capitalists. This is much more nuanced.
as executives should, i.e. make decisions to maximize profits. Corporate law prohibits officers from having any other motive than stock appreciation.
I don't expect oilmen to express altruism so I didn't feel the portrayals were negative. They seemed accurate.
z
(do you pride yourself on a closed mind?), so follow his lead and just stay home and read reviews, preferably the same ones he does.
You are the only guy around here who argues about a film without having seen it. You'd probably need more than three guesses to understand why.
in realistic terms with their only true motivation the maximizing of profit which, by law, is all corporations are allowed to do. Do you imagine CEOs stand around in their penthouses wondering how to better the world? (Bill Gates is renowned for it precisely because of his singularity).
Perhaps someday a movie will show oil execs sitting around the mahogany table ruminating on how best to bring true democracy to oil rich ME countries... but that film would be sci-fi.
of being able to separate reality from fiction ;)I try not to let, unless the rant is WAYYY over the top and factually inaccurate in the extreme, politics interfere with my enjoyment of art. I testified for two days last year for the plaintiffs, a public body, against a MAJOR oil company accused of fraud. We won and I couldn't have been happier. Hugged every juror after the trial. Big oil pulls some nasties on occassion....I still support their right to pursue a profit commensurate with the risk they take, but they have to play by the rules. (Outside rant over)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]