• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Film: Syriana

Rate it

  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/1star.gif[/img]

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/2stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/3stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/4stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 11 32.4%
  • [img]http://i.bluelight.ru/g//543/5stars.gif[/img]

    Votes: 14 41.2%

  • Total voters
    34

Banquo

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 6, 1999
Messages
5,701
Location
USA
So many great-looking films coming out in the next month, it's going to be hard getting around to seeing even half of them.

TRAILER:
http://syrianamovie.warnerbros.com/

IMDB PAGE:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365737/

SYNOPSIS:
A political thriller that unfolds against the intrigue of the global oil industry. From the players brokering back-room deals in Washington to the men toiling in the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, the film's multiple storylines weave together to illuminate the human consequences of the fierce pursuit of wealth and power. Each character plays a small part in the vast and complex system that powers the industry, unaware of the explosive impact their lives will have upon the world.

syriana-0.jpg
 
Im really excited about this movie....

Its the same guys that made traffic.....Which i thought was relatively realistic portrayal of the drug war.

Hopefully this does the same thing with the Oil industry
 
i was disappointed by the movie. it was very jumbled and had a lot of build up for almost no ending. and there were lots of little subplots that showed up thru out the movie, but added nothing to the "big picture".
 
I was psyched to see this movie because I read such great reviews of it. Then I was reminded by friends that the great reviews could have been due to the political inclinations of the reviewers. I wonder how much of that is true.

I just remember Fahrenheit 9/11 getting great reviews from really respected critics. That movie was a piece of shit. Politics aside, it was just an extraordinarily crappy movie.

I hope Syriana isn't the same.
 
I really liked this movie. To oversimplify it -- it was like Traffic but instead of being about drugs it was about oil. The tone was almost part documentary or National Geographic film. There are lots of fantastic shots of desert and/or Middle Eastern urban/industrial landscapes -- something that hasn't been done that well in mainstream cinema to this point. The storylines cover a wide range from government officials to the average Joe.

I certainly understand why a lot of people will find this movie boring. There is a lot of talking and a lot of character arc to follow. However, with some attention it shouldn't be too hard. Terrific performances. The lawyer character was my favorite.

**** (out of five)
 
i probably won't get around to seeing this in the theatre because i don't like shelling out that much cash for ANY movie. guess i'll just wait for the DVD.

this movie absolutely attracts me though, as do most political movies. and it's something i (we) can relate to because of the present conflicts. doesn't sound like a couple of you liked it though? we shall see.....
 
can't wait to see this and absolutely excited and glad that somebody has made a film about the subject. if it's half as good and realistic as traffic i'll be satisfied.
 
to elaborate on my previous post:

while traffic had several plot lines, they all tied together. syriana include some plot lines that i would have like to see either more devolped or not at all. such as the lawyer's alcoholic father. i also thought some of the scenes were poorly constructed. there was alot of build up for the swimming pool scene, and then it was over in flash. or the two teens, they seemed to take back burner and i would have liked to get more insight into them...

i'd go into specifics but don't want to give away any spoilers :)
 
*** SOME ALMOST SPOILERS BELOW***


yeah, speaking of spoilers, there are some twists in the movie that i haven't quite figured out -- namely, the motivation of one of the main characters towards the end and his appearance in a strategically placed photograph. some of these things may have been left purposefully ambiguous, but they leave some important questions. again, trying not to give too much away, the behavior which motivates the lawyer is absolutely cool. i think the alcoholic father and missing handshake is a big clue to where he ultimately ends up.
 
SPOILER ALERT

What photograph Banquo? At the CIA headquarters? That was satellite imagery... but you should know that. Something tells me that I'm missing something big if I don't know what your talking about.

the behavior which motivates the lawyer is absolutely cool

Can you go more in-depth what you are talking about here?

i think the alcoholic father and missing handshake is a big clue to where he ultimately ends up.

He ends up being corrupted and bought out like everyone else. I don't see what his father (how'd you know he was his father?) and the handshake had anything to do with this.

I thought it was a great movie. My only complaint is that they spent too much time building up on the whole corruption theme, when they didn't need much time to do that at all.

Questions:

Why did Clooney sell those rockets in the beginning? He worked for the CIA at the time...

What was Clooney trying to do at the end? I don't really understand what his intention was - maybe save the Prince, but how did he find him and why was he shocked to see him if that was his reason?

And can someone remind me what Clooney's question was at the theater that we as the audience don't get to hear the other guy's answer to?
 
*** SPOILER DISCUSSION ***


CreativeRandom said:
SPOILER ALERT

What photograph Banquo? At the CIA headquarters? That was satellite imagery... but you should know that. Something tells me that I'm missing something big if I don't know what your talking about.
I only read about this, but I remember the scene. At the end, someone is clearing out their desk, and there is a picture on the desk (allegedly) of Clooney and (perhaps) Whiting shaking hands. Whiting was Christopher Plummer's character -- he was the very despicable top-dog lawyer. If these two were, in fact, doing business together it makes Clooney's past seem considerably more evil. Again, I haven't seen this movie in a while now, and certain parts and character motives are getting fuzzy (especially when combined with egg-nog :) ).

the behavior which motivates the lawyer is absolutely cool

Can you go more in-depth what you are talking about here?
The lawyer [Jefferey Wright, Holiday] is portrayed as so straight-laced, altrustic, and upstanding. He is the moral force, the force of truth trying to save the oil company and get to the bottom of any malfeasance. Suddenly, his alcoholic father is brought into the mix (from almost out of no where), totally contrasting the cool togetherness and wealth of everything around him. We also see how shitty Whiting treats him. Something in him snaps. He sees the good life that Chris Cooper is living and decides that he wants his share. At this point, he turns on his boss. This character is very identifiable, imo, for anyone who has worked for a despicable, overly-wealthy, boys club boss in their lifetime, while at the same time fighting real world family problems, like an alcoholic relative. And, fuck, I was almost rooting for him to get his revenge on those bastards. Anyone who has had to pull themselves up on their own, only to end up working with an elite who have had everything handed to them can't help but carry a certain amount of resentment.

I don't see what his father (how'd you know he was his father?) and the handshake had anything to do with this.

As stated, his character is the squeaky clean straigh-laced guy for much of the movie. Something changes in him. Something snaps. imo, the alcholic father is so out of place that it explains why the lawyer character suddenly veers off. the fact that Whiting would not shake his hand (in the restaurant) explains why he decided to turn on him.

I don't know where it is stated, expressly or impliedly, that the character is his father, but i think it's a safe assumption that he's a relative at least.

Why did Clooney sell those rockets in the beginning? He worked for the CIA at the time...

It was a set up to kill the person who bought them. Either the rockets or the car were rigged. It made the playboy MDMA user vulnerable to Clooney, who otherwise may not have been accessible. It's meant to show Clooney's loyalty to the Agency.

What was Clooney trying to do at the end? I don't really understand what his intention was - maybe save the Prince, but how did he find him and why was he shocked to see him if that was his reason?

I think this was purposefully left ambiguous. Most people seem to agree that he was trying to save the prince. Others have said that he was part of the plot to slow the motorcade down so that the assassination could take place. This take on it would parallel Clooney's story more closely to the suicide bomber boy (and was actually my first impression). Thinking back, most of the evidence seems to suggest that he didn't want to be a CIA pawn anymore and actually had motive to fuck up their assassination shceme.

And can someone remind me what Clooney's question was at the theater that we as the audience don't get to hear the other guy's answer to?

don't remember.
 
Last edited:
Thinking back, most of the evidence seems to suggest that he didn't want to be a CIA pawn anymore and actually had motive to fuck up their assassination shceme.

Really cool.

I can buy that. I can really buy that. If this was true, that would be so Traffic-esque - that no matter what you do, the system will make it worthless. The big picture is everything. Despite Clooney's effort, and his rebellion, he still played into the hands of the CIA. By trying to stop being a CIA pawn, he acted as the biggest pawn possible.
 
Take Traffic. Replace drugs with oil. Now you have Syriana.

Maybe I just thought that because it has the same exact storyline "gimmick". Which is not to call it a bad movie, but it has a lot of the same problems that Traffic had, namely underdeveloped characters and trite, unbelievable storylines. Rich pretty white girl tries drugs once and becomes a crack whore the next day... poor good looking Pakistani kid has a hard time finding work and becomes a suicide bomber the next day. I just think the format of the movie necessitates making these leaps… but at the same time Stephen Gaghan chooses to use this style, knowing that at times he mistreats the story.
 
*****Major SPOILERS in response to some questions above******




I just caught a matinee of this and left very, VERY satisfied. I think *everything* tied together, and basically made sense in the end.

1. In the theatre, Clooney wanted to know who was "investigating" him. Ultimately we find out it is Whiting.

2. The "corruption" speech from Donny, talking to Bennett, was amazing.

3. How do you guys figure Bennett became "corrupted"? He ultimately brought down a partner in his own firm because the DOJ "needed another body."

4. Bennett's father was thrown in there, in my opinion, to add another father/son relationship. (teenage pakistani working with his father, Matt Damon and his sons, Clooney and his son, and of course, the two saudi arabian princes with the King)

5. There could also be father/son symbolic relationships found, or more broadly, authority references. Remember the pool scene with the kid, and the "autonomy" brought up by Amanda Peet. Important symbolic reference...I believe relating to thrid world countries/world powers.

6. The Chris Plummer speech at the beginning to Bennett, where he references "sheep and lions" is also pretty important and foreshadowing, but I haven't quite wrapped my head around it.

I think there was certainly a not-so-subtle jab at Bush and the Texan Oil industry, but overall, I think everyone took it pretty hard by the end. I do think Clooney wanted to stop the assassination, but who knows. It could very well be that he wanted to give them a clear target.

I also thought it was a good tie in that the pakistani suicide bomber died at the end via the "missing" missile the Clooney delivered at the beginning. Shows how far the CIA's/Washington's priorities were askew.

I think there was a LOT of ground to be covered in this movie, and Gaghan/Soderbergh did quite well with the time alotted.

I'd give it an 8.5 out of 10, and I look fwd. to watching it again and reading the novel ("See No Evil").
 
Soundtrack said:
The "corruption" speech from Donny, talking to Bennett, was amazing.
he was such a slimy worm. the speech reminded my of Michael Douglas' "greed" speech in Wall Street.

3. How do you guys figure Bennett became "corrupted"? He ultimately brought down a partner in his own firm because the DOJ "needed another body."
Again, I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I though Bennett could have gone after a number of other people in the oil comapny instead of his own boss. "Corruption" may not be the right word to describe his actions, but I think there was an impure motive behind it, like revenge. At any rate, I think he was the most interesting character.
 
First impression is very very high. I thoroughly enjoyed the production quality.

Gotta see it again to get my head around the whole thing.
 
Top