C

All my life, I thought the shortest path from A to B, is to go straight from A to B.

According to Syriana, it's AGFDGDFGRTGEGERGTERGERGRE and then finally B.

So I saw this on dvd with a friend who had to explain many scenes to me. It's not that the topic of the film is that hard to understand: each of the scenes can be summed up in a simple, clear sentence. It's just that the Stephen Gahan's style is to be as purposely elitist as possible, making stuff as inaccessible as possible when it could have been conveyed in a much more understandable manner.

For instance, the scene where we find Matt Damon's son dead in the water, I was confused into thinking that he had drowned to death and was wondering why nobody had tried to save him. Instead, he had been electrocuted to death by a broken bulb inside the water that the viewer was supposed to infer from an earlier scene where regarding security cameras. When something as simple as a child's death can be made so unclear, you know this director has an agenda to make things as difficult as possible on the audience.

In the end, I see no point to this movie. It's preaching to the converted what they already believe in. While those who may not know about politics are purposely being shut out from understanding this movie. This forces the viewer to have to READ print reviews on the movie beforehand in order to comprehend what's going on, which to me makes the film a waste of time since one can just do reading instead. C.

Though I'm hardly defending Syriana's structure, I found it interesting that your derisive analysis of it's pattern ("AGFDGDFGRTGEGERGTERGERGRE") resembles the rhyme scheme of a complex poem, or perhaps a symphony. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the director thinks in those sort of rhythmic terms...

As many have said, it can get confusing, and I think I picked up a lot of what I missed the first time around. My grade doesn't change very much...I'd still say it's in the B-range. I also agree about Siddig deserving the nomination over Clooney. Clooney was good, but he didn't wow me.

B+

Immensely interesting, Syriana is indeed very confusing, but rewarding to those who can keep up with it. It provides a lot to think about, and it has many points that are relevant to the world today. The acting is great, but the real standout is not George Clooney, who won an Academy Award for his (overrated) performance, but Alexander Siddig, who masters his role as Emir. Matt Damon was also surprisingly potent in his role, as I really got interested in what happened to his character.

It's certainly not for everyone, but for those who can at least kind of keep up with Syriana, it's a great experience and an extraordianry film.

A-

For me, the problem wasn't "keeping up with it", it was wondering why the director chose such a clunky structure for an otherwise very good film...

**Bursts out laughing, spills root beer on keyboard**

Because of outside circumstances beyond my control, I could not finish watching Syriana.

The first hour or so that I saw was pretty good, though.

Convoluuuuuuuuted.

Nicely crafted, and maybe it is rewarding to those able to keep up with it, but by the end, I just didn't really want to.

C+

Almost sig-worthy.

An overtly complex and intricate tale that's just a little too politically charged for me. While the film is very well-made, the plot is far too meandering and drawn-out, and it becomes clear that paying attention throughout is key to figuring out what the hell is going on. There are many different storylines involving many different characters, all tied to the central theme of oil in the Middle East, but there's never a real sense of connection between them all. In fact, several of the characters, and at least one full storyline, could have been cut loose without any real damage done to the film. A more centered story, and quicker pace, would have done this film very well and made it that much better.

I actually thought Clooney was very good - the best in the film - and didn't find his performance overrated at all. It was very subtle at times, quite a transformation from his usual roles. The acting was solid all-around, it's just too bad the story wavered so much. When it was good, it was very, very good. However, it quickly lost my interest by attempting to add depth to all the characters, something which slowed the film down dramatically. I would have preferred to focus on one character/storyline - specifically Clooney's character's - and then showed how the other stories tied in to that. Just my thoughts.

I actually found the direction very mediocre. The shaky cam is started to irritate me, as I prefer well-executed shots instead of the 'realistic' cinematography that the shaky cam offers us. I guess it worked well for this film, but I don't find it all that great. The visuals are okay if a bit underwhelming. I did like how they cut away from the explosions at the end instead of showing us a big effects shot - quite effective. The dialogue itself was quite good at times, but it, like the plot, strayed too far from the story sometimes. The acting, as I mentioned, was very good.

Overall, a very disappointing film. Though it is very well-made, with an interesting story and great acting, it quickly lost my interest through a confusing plot and a dragging pace. I can recognize that this is a good film, but I can't bring myself to appreciate it at that. It just didn't enthrall me or bring me into the story at all - I frankly didn't care for the characters. This film lacked emotion in a big way, something that would have done it good. Flawed but worthy.

See bradley, we do have common ground on a few things! I thought the topic was great and the way it was approached the subject was appropriate and sober (maybe leaning a little over to the paranoia angle, but it's a political issue and that's a valid way to approach it) but really the structure of the ensemble is what killed it.

I didn't find any problems following the oil story in short bits, but problems being emotionally connected or interested in the characters or the "bigger picture", one because there were so many, two because the character moments seemed really out of place with the aspirations of the story. Perhaps if the story was limited to the perspective of one or two people the same information could have been conveyed in a more elegant manner. Or perhaps this film is just too ambitious for the format.

In the end, the lesson is about oil, which may have been better served in a documentary. As a film, it's interesting but nonetheless a failure because the power of the message is lost in the story, even though technically (cinematography, acting, etc.) there's nothing wrong with it (and it is very good I might add).

I thought the character moments were just fine. That scene in the park where Matt Damon and his wife argue about the importance of politics, and walk away from each other, was brilliant. The wife's deliberate ignorance is a subtle reminder of a common selfish weakness among human beings.

Syriana was an awsome movie, It was one of the best last Year

A-

Boring and drab. C-

I really didn't care for this film. There is a very interesting plot hidden inside but given to the viewer in the most boring of ways. For a conspiracy which probably has much truth to it, I felt like it was presented in a newspaper fashion. C-

For what it could have been, I found the movie dull as all hell. I couldn't get into it. Acting was good, writing seemed ok, but plotwise it lethargically meandered and meandered as more and more two-dimensional characters were introduced plodding around the world sputtering this or that about oil middle east corruption blah blah blah etc. Not exactly unwatchable, but just flat and undercooked. Glad the theater lost power the night I was originally intending on seeing it. grade - C

Eight C's in the thread. Certainly a lot of people were mixed on it. I need to rewatch this.

Let me reitirate the Deep Space 9 reference.

THAT SHOW RULES! Bashir is cool!

Anyway, there are a couple of story lines that I really liked (George Clooney's, Matt Damon's) but the one with the lawer was just sooooooooooo booooooooring.

***

Seriously, if they had cut Jeffrey Wright's segment, this would have been in the A-territory for me.

Good point.

Finally saw it. I give it a B-. I never looked away and was never bored, but at the same time I too felt that it was trying to capture an entire novel (where multiple characters and plotlines can co-exist easier) into a 2 hour film... entire subplots could have been trimmed and other ones emphasized for a greater whole.

Plus I cannot stand hand held cameras. You spend millions on a film and can't spent a little extra for a friggn' tripod? When the camera movement distracts me from the film, then it's bad. Bad bad bad.

(Ironically, the same thing goes for the other extreme too -- a Kubrickesque tracking shot can be just as distracting.)

Good Points

The momentum of the movie got quicker and quicker the further in you got
Clooney does "disillusioned Guy" roles quite well it seems
It tells you the best way of not trimming you're fingernails
It makes you want to go out and kill evil capitalist stereotype people afterwards (if there that cartoony that is)
The Climax is shattering.
Its easy to understand......Yes you heard, whats complicated about it?

Bad Points

It may be easy on the attention span but it really jams to much into 2 hours. Its like a child with a hyperactive disorder desperately trying to fit everything in.
The sections with the out of work Pakistan fella feel way to forced and unnatural.
The climax may be good but its also very silly in a way. OTT would be the word to describe the airstrike.


Overall

B

Fantastic movie. A+

I only wish more Americans would see this movie.

C+

Not very good.

After first getting confused by this movie over two years ago in the theater, I finally caught this again, and unfortunately it didn't improve much at all. It's definitely an ambitious film, and you can feel brilliance trying to seep in, but in the end I was left with a bit of a meh feeling. I want to watch it once more (I got it as a Christmas present, so I'll have the chance), but it's still a mixed if well-meaning bag.

**1/2