Syriana

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. (03/02/2012)

Mature in its opinions, Syriana is an intelligent political thriller involving the business machinations carried out among oil tycoons. However, most of the connections escape ordinary viewers (i.e. those who are not familiar with the given issue) and only the decent atmosphere, the cast and the impressive ending are memorable. (02/19/2006)

A disturbing look at the subject of the oil trade, which is not afraid of an incorrect view from all possible angles. In a convoluted system of names, corporations, and relationships, Gaghan demands the viewer's utmost concentration, for which the more perceptive will be royally rewarded. Whoever wants to, go ahead and bitch about the emotional coldness and overall lack of compactness. But this is a tough business that is difficult to understand, so only the toughest people will win. From now on, every time I fill up my tank, I remember how much "dirt" is actually floating in it. (01/13/2009)

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. (07/17/2007)

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. (01/12/2008)