Syriana

Everything is connected. The problem with Syriana lies not in the topic, nor in the actors, nor in it the fact that it is so uninteresting. And definitely not in the fact that Stephen Gaghan demands from his viewers a certain amount of knowledge and desire to get right inside this movie. The only, unfortunately fundamental, problem with Syriana is that it doesn’t seem like a movie. Gaghan couldn’t define his priorities and tries to put everything into this. Which is very damaging for the movie, because despite how outstanding some of the storylines are, others are simply boring. On the other hand, these rather mixed feelings about the movie are made up for by the perfect ending. As a screenwriter, Stephen Gaghan has a lot to say, but as a director he doesn’t (yet) know how to present things like a regular movie experience with all the trimmings. (17/07/2007)

Exactly the kind of film that pontificates on a very pertinent and topical subject but in a completely uninteresting way. Too many plot lines that somehow fit together in the end, but at the same time cause almost certain viewer death. As a political study of international relations focusing on the oil industry, this could work quite well. It's too convoluted a subject for a feature film which is also portrayed in an extremely unimaginative way. [50%] (07/02/2022)

The Middle East and the East further beyond the Persian Gulf continue to be very pressing issues that afflict the population and, of course, politicians. How to respond to the terrorist threat, what tools to use? And what about the people, our own people, who have done quite dirty work for the government but are becoming at least inconvenient for further progress? Some government practices are simply unjustifiable, but all the more reason to know about them. The film "Syriana" shows what can happen to people if they pursue goals they believe are in the nation's best interest. But is it up to a select few to recognize and decide this? The question is quite unnecessary, because that's just how things work. We don't know what the government does with individuals, we only know what it does for the entire nation. Agents don't have it easy, not only because their enemies can do as they please with them, but sometimes they can't even rely on their closest allies. George Clooney finally got a role in this film that earned him an Oscar. It's a beautiful example of how a TV actor can become a respected actor, but also a creator, because he is also a director and screenwriter, and he has nominations for an Oscar in both categories. The role suited him perfectly, but he doesn't have that much space here. His performance in the film also depends on the fact that he has gained some weight and learned foreign languages. I have to say that he didn't impress me otherwise, but I don't think it's because of his performance. "Syriana" in general did not sit well with me, mainly because I haven't been enjoying political films lately. Perhaps I should save them for a more suitable mood. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/11/sahara-stormbreaker-syriana-andelsky.html (02/03/2013)

Just a little statistic by way of introduction: As of 02 March 2012, the reviews of Syriana contain the word "boring" 13 times, the adjective "derivative" 22 times, the label "complex" 14 times, 10 users call this film "incomprehensible", and 6 users call it "confusing", thus enabling me in my elitist sensibilities. Not in the sense that I would just eat it all up and fully understand it, but in the fact that the film made me read the extensive breakdown and simplified explanation of the plot on IMDb, not to mention the six cigarettes smoked over Wikipedia, which was probably the point. Syriana is challenging. It doesn't introduce the issues, it doesn't explain the terms and connections, and the characters don't have a backstory but only paint one behind them as the film progresses. The audience-identifying element, George Clooney's anachronistic agent, gets his ass handed to him (figuratively and literally) in every other scene throughout the film, and though he was once an ace in clearly divided Middle Eastern politics, he painfully discovers that the tightrope of the Middle East as he knows it has been shredded into hundreds of tiny threads. In the 80s, the parties to the conflict were divided into A, B, and C, only to nowadays use the entire alphabet, even with accents. _____Syriana tends to be depressingly cyclical, but this is disrupted by the storyline of the Pakistani boys and their great Arab buddy with the bomb and the ball, who is the only one clearly oriented to his goal, but also the most understandable in his portrayal, and thus the motivations of the suicide bombers are the clearest thing about the film. They have a clear start and goal, which turns them toward the viewer. The purpose of the film, then, IS to be at first glance an incomprehensible mix of subterfuge, corruption, insiders, and interventions so as to grasp the sad reality of the Arabian peninsula and the unpredictable power of an exploited and terror-prone Arab nation (albeit in this case, Pakistan). ____ In terms of form, Syriana is practically perfect, which is mainly due to Elswit's cinematography (one of the best cinematographers at present), excellent performances, and perfect casting. Mark Strong gives you goosebumps, even when he's not ripping anyone's fingernails out, and in general I consider the whole torture scene to be the highlight of the film. Matt Damon, on the other hand, is a classic suburban careerist with a family, shedding his illusions, which suited him perfectly typologically (the dialogue with his wife at the fountain is simply brilliant). Syriana is perfect, and will be particularly appreciated by people who watch movies and don't nibble at their ears, do the ironing, and wait for George Clooney to shoot the cunt to shit in the finale. (02/03/2012)

Thematically, it’s a very interesting and relatively fresh thriller, but it can confuse to death the average viewer ignorant of the local oil battle, and therefore the main. The plot structure is complicated, the intertwining of several stories is veiled, and navigating through them is an extremely difficult nut to crack. I see that as the most fundamental flaw of the film. The screenwriter should be aware that the majority of people are not involved in the oil industry, so they simply do not know, do not understand and cannot keep up, and the total mess the names is just an additional bonus. A bit more clarity and explanations, a bit less gas and some additional emotions, and it could have been a top-notch political thriller. Like this, it is a smart and unnecessarily complex film with a much simpler core, which is as dry as a hundred-year-old whiskey. Minimalist music and a few raw scenes do not make a good film either. (12/01/2008)