Syriana

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This movie was pretty fucking great, by the same guy who wrote Traffic. Clooney kicked a considerable amount of ass in it. Anyone else see it?

[Vyce 0]

I have concerns about this movie. Concerns that are not assuaged by the fact that both Clooney and Matt Damon are so heavily involved in it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I have concerns about this movie. Concerns that are not assuaged by the fact that both Clooney and Matt Damon are so heavily involved in it.

 

True. But there were "good" and "bad" guys on both sides in the movie, I thought.

[buffybeast 0]

Saw Syriana today. I became confused in the beginning because the story bounced around and had no cohesion. But it all came together and made sense. I enjoyed it.

[Guest JMA]

I probably won't see this while it's in the theaters, but it does look good. I'll probably check it out when it comes out on DVD.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Definitely looks like my kind of movie, I'll be sure to check it out. Although probably on DVD so I can watch it more than once.

[The Mandarin 0]

I'm very interested in seeing this movie. I wonder if they kept the scene in where Clooney falls backwards, hits his head and legitimately begins several months of pain and suffering that ultimately ends in spinal fluid coming out his nose?

[Vyce 0]

Hmm, the idea of Clooney suffering a real injury on screen does tempt me to go see this movie.

[cbacon 0]

Great movie, one of the best of the year. I might check it out again before the DVD release.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

As good as, better, or worse than Traffic? General consensus:

[MDH257 0]

Both are great. In Traffic there were more people you could identfiy as "good guys" while in Syriana everyone is pretty much corrupt.

Right Now, I'd say Traffic is better. But, that's cause I think Syriana needs some more time to put it in perspective.

 

BTW, does anyone have any ideas on why Clooney's character

tries to warn that guy at the end? It seems that he threatens Chrirstopher Plummer so he can get his good standing back with the CIA, so why does he risk (and I guess loses) his life to try and save that guy.

[Red Baron 0]

Is this a whole Anti-Iraq movie, cause thats the vibe I'm getting from the previews.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BTW, does anyone have any ideas on why Clooney's character

tries to warn that guy at the end? It seems that he threatens Chrirstopher Plummer so he can get his good standing back with the CIA, so why does he risk (and I guess loses) his life to try and save that guy.

 

I think it was because he was tired of being a patsy and he sort of developed a conscience. He realized that the only reason the prince had been pegged for assassination was because he was going to sell Lebanon's oil to China

 

As good as, better, or worse than Traffic? General consensus:

I still think Traffic is better.

 

Is this a whole Anti-Iraq movie, cause thats the vibe I'm getting from the previews.

Sort of, I guess. Global oil politics, I would say.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Great movie, one of the best of the year.

 

Well, that seals it for me. No way I'm watching this.

 

And every time I see Damon in the previews I can't help but think of his puppet in the Team America movie.

 

"Matt Damon..."

[Vyce 0]

See, now that's what I'm afraid of. Disparage me if you want to, but I really have no time for a movie if it's going to be two hours of "The Middle East would be fine and dandy and happy with teddy bears and sunshine and gum drops if not for EEEEEVIL~! America and it's addiction to oil!" That doesn't mean I only need or want to see films which only portray my country in a glowing light, but at the same time I don't want or need to see a film that will browbeat me with some sort of quasi-anti-American (or just anti-American-foreign-policy) message. I watch films as a form of escapist entertainment, if I want an in depth critique of American interests in the Middle East I can just read the editorial page of any major newspaper on any given day. That's why I say that the fact that Clooney & Damon promoting this so heavily concerns me. It makes me think the film isn't so much balanced (which would be fine with me) as it is partisan (which again, I got no time for).

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It makes me think the film isn't so much balanced (which would be fine with me) as it is partisan (which again, I got no time for).

 

I don't know how you make a "balanced" film on this topic.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

See, now that's what I'm afraid of. Disparage me if you want to, but I really have no time for a movie if it's going to be two hours of "The Middle East would be fine and dandy and happy with teddy bears and sunshine and gum drops if not for EEEEEVIL~! America and it's addiction to oil!" That doesn't mean I only need or want to see films which only portray my country in a glowing light, but at the same time I don't want or need to see a film that will browbeat me with some sort of quasi-anti-American (or just anti-American-foreign-policy) message. I watch films as a form of escapist entertainment, if I want an in depth critique of American interests in the Middle East I can just read the editorial page of any major newspaper on any given day. That's why I say that the fact that Clooney & Damon promoting this so heavily concerns me. It makes me think the film isn't so much balanced (which would be fine with me) as it is partisan (which again, I got no time for).

 

 

Well if you have no time for views that might be different from yours how can you ever consider yourself informed? This movie may not represent every leftist persons thinking, but it certainly seems to echo alot of what they are saying. Which deserves time to be spoken openly.

[Vyce 0]

Reading comprehension, Cheela?

 

I read, listen to, and experience views and opinions that differ from mine every single day, I don't live in an echo chamber or choose to isolate myself from differing opinions. Apparently you completely missed the part of my post where I said that in the forms of *escapist entertainment* I engage in, in particular movies I view, I prefer to watch films that are at least balanced, or have no political message at all, rather than spending my time watching films that are little more than partisan shilling of particular viewpoint that I disagree with or dispute. Either you missed that or are just being disingenous, which wouldn't surprise me.

 

I doubt you're really that different, Cheela. If you're in the mood to read a book, for example, I doubt you're going to snuggle up with the latest offering by Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

No, I read your post just fine. Try and front all you want but being one of those "pit pigs" its obvious where you are coming from. So no need to pretend otherwise. You feel it's just those "hollywood liberals" trying to take cheap shots at Bush and company. Yup, it's all the liberal medias fault. No wonder you need to "escape" the reality has just gotta being killing your type.

 

There are many "kinds" of movies. The politcal thriller type is just another. Maybe it's time for parnoid conservatives to fianlly accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a movie is just a movie. No matter what it has to "say".

[Justice 0]

There are many "kinds" of movies. The politcal thriller type is just another. Maybe it's time for parnoid conservatives to fianlly accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a movie is just a movie. No matter what it has to "say".

 

You're also failing to recognize that it is an inherently political film that is trying to get a single viewpoint across. I mean, Christ, the previews when they show the main title are enough to know that. No offense, but saying 'a movie is a movie' is like saying "Jude Suss" is "just a movie". Trying to deny the political motivations of the movie are, well, like trying to deny the movie itself. You just have to accept that when you enter it. Just... don't try denying it.

 

That said, I'll probably see it and enjoy it. I'm a sucker for political thrillers (I used to read a lot of Clancy as a kid, but then I found out how much of a pretentious douche he is) and I trust bigol on this one.

 

After I see Kong, of course.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Justice

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That said, I'll probably see it and enjoy it. I'm a sucker for political thrillers (I used to read a lot of Clancy as a kid, but then I found out how much of a pretentious douche he is) and I trust bigol on this one.

 

I dunno, maybe the political message is too heavy-handed--I could be wrong. If you see it, let us know what you think.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well if you have no time for views that might be different from yours how can you ever consider yourself informed?

 

Not reading other sources of info and instead listening to Rush 12 hours/day = not considering yourself informed? Agree.

 

Not wanting to watch some hippie movie because you don't want to hear BIG OIL IS BAD = not considering yourself informed? Disagree...

[cabbageboy 0]

I saw it yesterday, not sure exactly what I thought of it. It was kind of dry and tough to follow at times, but it sorta comes together enough by the end to piece it together. I too was baffled at Clooney's motivation near the end, but it's easy enough to infer what others said.

 

I might put this as being slightly better than Traffic. I didn't think Traffic really tied much together other than the drug theme (as in the Michael Douglas storyline had little to do with the Zeta Jones story or the Del Toro story). Here however things do finally crossover and it all ties in.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Quick factual correction here to dispell some of the myths circulating about this movie:

 

The movie is based on the book "See No Evil" by former CIA operative Robert Baer. All events in the movie are based on things that happened during Baer's time in the CIA, i.e. during the Clinton Administration. Bush is not mentioned once in the movie.

 

Robert Baer

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, well, um, are there any pictures of Clinton in the film? Damn liberal media...

[2GOLD 0]

I found Traffic to be incredibly overrated but I'll see this when it comes out on DVD. I'm not spending nine dollars on it though. Maybe 2.50 when it hits the cheapy theater but I doubt I even do it then.

 

I'll just NetFlix it later. And I am a little tired of agenda movies and all the 9/11 movies coming out next year are going to give me a massive headache.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

There are many "kinds" of movies. The politcal thriller type is just another. Maybe it's time for parnoid conservatives to fianlly accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a movie is just a movie. No matter what it has to "say".

 

You're also failing to recognize that it is an inherently political film that is trying to get a single viewpoint across. I mean, Christ, the previews when they show the main title are enough to know that. No offense, but saying 'a movie is a movie' is like saying "Jude Suss" is "just a movie". Trying to deny the political motivations of the movie are, well, like trying to deny the movie itself. You just have to accept that when you enter it. Just... don't try denying it.

 

That said, I'll probably see it and enjoy it. I'm a sucker for political thrillers (I used to read a lot of Clancy as a kid, but then I found out how much of a pretentious douche he is) and I trust bigol on this one.

 

After I see Kong, of course.

 

 

Never heard of "Jude Suss". I'll have to look it up. I just don't see what the point is of being all threatened by films that don't share your point of view. Even if it is slanted towards one side or the other... who cares?. I mean Rush made such a big deal about "The American President" for nothing. The movie wasn't that huge. It didn't make a lick of difference in how people viewed conservatives. It didn't change any policy. Even more so fattty Mike Moore didn't win the election for democrats with F-9/11. So who gives a fuck? Who gives a fuck even if it makes conservatives look like assholes? It's not like it actually changes anything or takes anything away from them. Cry about it all you want but it's not like conservatives never get to have their say in this country. So chill the fuck out.

 

 

Plus, I don't see what Vyces problem with being partisan when his when his only counter for it is more partisanship. Hell, it's not like when conservatives complain about the "liberal media" that they are crying out for objectivity.

 

 

Anyway, I too am looking forward to Kong.

[Justice 0]

Never heard of "Jude Suss". I'll have to look it up. I just don't see what the point is of being all threatened by films that don't share your point of view. Even if it is slanted towards one side or the other... who cares?. I mean Rush made such a big deal about "The American President" for nothing. The movie wasn't that huge. It didn't make a lick of difference in how people viewed conservatives. It didn't change any policy. Even more so fattty Mike Moore didn't win the election for democrats with F-9/11. So who gives a fuck? Who gives a fuck even if it makes conservatives look like assholes? It's not like it actually changes anything or takes anything away from them. Cry about it all you want but it's not like conservatives never get to have their say in this country. So chill the fuck out.

 

Jude Suß was a heavy handed film that was based on 'Historical Fact' about a Jew who managed to manipulate the Archduke of Wurttemberg into giving him absolutely insane power over his Duchy. He hurt the people, tortured the people, and eventually the people rose up against him and executed him. I think you can understand when this film was made.

 

And I'm not comparing it in accuracy to Syriana, as I know that it likely has a lot of fact to it. But both have a similar political motivation: You can't watch Jude Suß and not notice how it is trying to influence you. You say "movies are movies", but I'm sure you wouldn't want to watch Jude Suß because its blatantly against your viewpoint on Jews. Do you really want to see a movie where Jews are portrayed as evil, manipulative, inhuman, and materialistic? Good God, no. I had to sit through it for a class, and I absolutely detested it. There's nothing gained in seeing that version of history, at least, from my perspective. I have no greater understanding of the subject.

 

One could say the same for Syriana. Not to say it'll be inaccurate as that, but BigOl says it's very heavy-handed: it doesn't seem like a movie that is going to present a fully accurate or, likely, fair view of anything. I'll have to see it for myself, but with a tag like "OIL CIA LIE SYRIANA DIE WIN OIL", it's hard to dispute that view. To say that Vyce is being 'closed-minded' is hypocritical when the movie doesn't seem to offer anything close to a balanced viewpoint. If someone feels they can't watch it, I wouldn't hold it against them, just like someone couldn't watch a Neoconservative Movie about how liberals are supposedly ruining the world.

 

I know when I want to look up politics, I don't go to movies (No, not even documentaries); I read. I guess that's just a lost art, though.

 

Plus, I don't see what Vyces problem with being partisan when his when his only counter for it is more partisanship. Hell, it's not like when conservatives complain about the "liberal media" that they are crying out for objectivity.

 

He wasn't being partisan. His counter wasn't going to watch it because he felt like it was going to brow-beat his viewpoint all day. That's not being partisan, that's not going to a bitch-out that he feels he doesn't deserve. Really, I'd say you started making it partisan. He didn't bring up sides, he simply didn't want to go to a movie that was going to insult him the entire time. That's simple logic.

 

Honestly, you started bringing up 'Conservatives', you should take responsibility with turning it into a battle of "Conservatives vs. Hollywood Liberals".Not Vyce. You simply made fun of him for saying "I prefer movies where I can escape things like that", because apparently "escapism" is something only Conservatives see movies for.

 

Anyway, I too am looking forward to Kong.

 

Everyone should look forwards to that. It looks like it'll be great.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BigOl says it's very heavy-handed:

 

I didn't say it was, I just said that maybe others might view it as heavy-handed.

[EricMM 0]

Justice, have you ever thought that maybe the STORY itself is heavy handed?

 

That maybe, just maybe, there is no happy ending in this mideast oil situation, because there is so much profit, so much conflict, et cetera.

 

I mean I heard that Baer said that in making this movie he had to tune the truth down because the stories were rediculous and negative that he didn't think that the heartland could take it.

 

Nevermind that, as previously stated, this all happened while a dem was in office, although I'm sure it happened under both Bush presidents and will later.