Syriana
Stephen Gaghan 2005 US (1st time; big screen)
Oil moguls in America fight for money and power in the Middle East.
This struggles throughout to escape that sense of fictionalised truth, as if the writer has overcomplicated things by cramming in political jargon so as to be taken seriously (even Clooney's weight gain has no apparent purpose, other than to possibly allow him to star in a political film without being a pin-up). The vaguely connected stories would perhaps benefit from a longer duration, whereby we may even care for the death of a principle character; but as it is, it's connect-the-dots on a massive sheet of paper, with no pen to do so. Frivolous.

Capo,

I heard this movie was very very complicated, yet very good. I saw the real person that Clooney was portraying last week on tv. I have to put myself in a certain frame of mind before I see most political movies....you know, like putting on your thinking cap? :p

Anyway, I am interested in seeing it, but most likely will rent it other than going to the movies to see it.

TIS

Ah, another one I've been awaiting desperately to see. I hear nothing but goodies. Can't wait to see it (which, hopefully, will be soon).

Great sig LLC.

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai - (Jim Jarmusch;1999;USA)
An African American mafia hitman who follows the samurai code finds himself targeted by the mafia.
A different film from Jarmusch. It's obviously inspired by Le Samourai and some other films, but it works in it's own creativity to become a great film. Forest Whitaker has a wonderful presence as Ghost Dog, and the rest of the cast supports the film well. Jarmusch's humor also adds to the film. The music is also a highlight, especially the excellent opening score by the Wu Tang Clan. The action scenes are very good, containing the type of charm Michael Mann offers.

I am beginning to doubt the merit of your rating system. Zero stars? Come on.... You can find faults with ANY movie and reduce it to zero stars. If you really intend to. Perhaps you did not like the hype sorrounding the movie, but...
Nevermind, who am i to question your opinion or taste. Zero stars it is then.

Sorry I want to add a small glitch in that statistic. It is over-rated IMO.

The low-down of my star system:

Four stars: A life-changing film actively influencing me. I love it.
Three stars: An excellent film, for whatever reason.
Two stars: A good film, for whatever reason.
One star: Worth watching, for whatever reason.
Zero stars: Routine production or worse.

Basically, it's the opposite to Ebert's system, which allows for all films, where half marks means an average. My system, taken from Halliwell's Film Guide, concentrates more on good films.

Sorry, I remembered reading that your zero stars was for "no redeeming quality" or something like that. I was wrong, my apologies. But even according to this rating system, I wouldn't categorize it as routine, leave alone worse. The screenplay involves looking at the middle east oil situation from the perspective of both american and world interest. I would also say that a lot of research was done for the script to make it look authentic. It is not easy for a person sitting in hollywood and make believable story about pakistan, lebanon, iraq and other countries. So far from routine. Nothing special in terms of acting, though nothing to complain either. Clooney's extra weight could have been redundant, but that didn't spoil it either. That is like Coppola chilling the champagne to 50 degrees in the french plantation scene of Apocalypse now, or like De Niro wearing silk underwear like capone used to. They don't matter, but it just goes on to make things as authentic as possible. So effort wise, not routine.

The problem with Syriana was that it tries to present a picture of our current times without going into any detail; characters are expendable, and we don't know anything about any of them, even after its two hours running length. I think it would have been better had we spent an extra hour in the film, to actually get something out of these characters. We'll hear some music at one point, and the film builds momentum to something which doesn't happen, and it withers away into more surface detail.

A week after seeing Spielberg's (much worse) Munich, I said you know something's wrong when the only part you remember of a film in any detail is something as little as a knife going into somebody's head. With Syriana, there's a scene where Clooney gets his nails ripped out in a torture scene. It serves little purpose other than to give its audience some digestable sensationalism after an onslaught of complicated political rhetoric. It's a point proven, I think, by the resulting conversation I had with the two men I saw it with (one being my dad, the other his friend), how that scene in particular was awful. Without that scene, the film would have still worked and delivered its message, but we wouldn't have had anything to talk about. So it didn't need to be there.

It gives a sense of its characters being caught up in this harsh, political world, and being as expendable as the money they dish out to get power. Fair point; it succeeds in creating that kind of environment, but would have worked far better had there been some kind of emotional attachment to such expendable characters. Like the characters themselves, each storyline in the film is expendable. To the point where the death of a child is used as a plot device, just to make for some more political banter.

Clooney's part was the most interesting; tellingly, the film opens and closes with his storyline. That it is under-explored pays testament to the kind of width Gaghan tries to cover. Alas, the result is that we hover over a map, and never land to explore the jungles on it. Traffic handled this balance between a wider world while also working on an individual level brilliantly; as a further example, the final segment of The Lord of the Rings works even better.

Despite my usual disagreement with Capo's ratings, I do have to agree that Syriana and Munich were formulaic and mediocre at best.

Il Conformista The Conformist - (Bernardo Bertolucci;1970;Italy/France/West Germany)
A Fascist conformist is assigned to kill his old professor while he strives for a normal life.
A film driven both by performances and the interesting direction. Great angles are experimented with, and combined with the cinematography, especially the misty forest scene, gives this film an interesting tone. It balances it's politics and character study perfectly, especially with it's narrative. Jean-Louis Trintignant's performance oddly reminded me of Alain Delon's Jef Costello, not in the powerful emotionless, but a more depressed state, until the explosive final scene. The score also amplifies the mood.

I hate you for being able to see that.

Funnily enough, I had the chance to catch it on the big screen today; I passed, for Syriana.

What motivated that decision?

A film considered to be one of the top 100 of all time by many

vs.

A George Clooney political drama which got mixed reviews

I downloaded The Conformist, like most of my proviews in the past week or two. Mystery Train, This Gun For Hire, and Le Doulos are coming up.

I actually forgot about it. And it was cheaper to see Syriana. Oh, and George Clooney political drama wouldn't put me off. Good Night, and Good Luck. was one of last year's top five.

Good Night and Good Luck was pretty good. I was just very dissappointed with Syriana. I had hopes it would be as good as Traffic.

So what if it's George Clooney, and what should he care if it got mixed reviews? When you see movies do you think about what the critics say before you watch it?

Yes

Atleast I do. Not everything at the face value, but I always read what the critics had problem with. Especially when I am paying 8 dollars! If everyone feels it is bad, I will avoid watching it. If there are mixed opinions, I will watch and decide. But past experience also matters. Bad directors are likely to make more bad movies, statistically speaking

To hell with critics. Maltin hated Taxi Driver, Ebert hated Dead Man. Critics piss me off a lot.

I personally would say it would be kind of ridiculous to try to argue that critic's and other's opinions on films do not at all play a factor in determining one's choice of films to watch. It's not like you go to the movie theater or go to the video rental store and just choose something at random. And yes, although subject matter may play a part, it cannot be the only deciding factor.

I admit, I've seen certain crime-related films despite their bad reviews, just because I knew I would enjoy it for its subject matter. Once and a while, I disagree with the critics, and find something I like in a film that was generally panned. But I still look at and consider the critics opinions before I choose to see these movies.

Yes [/quote]I feel sorry for you that you have to look at what other people think to watch a film.

Did you even read what I just wrote? Because thats exactly the type of bullshit reply I was expecting.

Nope I didn't. I was still posting when you replied.

Ah. Does it alter your opinion at all?

Ah, another one I've been awaiting desperately to see. I hear nothing but goodies. Can't wait to see it (which, hopefully, will be soon). [/b][/quote]Hopefully you'll enjoy it too. I remember you enjoyed The Weather Man so I think you should dig this too. I'll be buying this DVD on the 14th. Remember to keep an eye out for Stephen McHattie.

I disagree Mista. The movies I see I don't hear about from critics.

How do you hear about them? Sometimes, I'll see a film based on director/actor connections, and I'll usually find these through imdb, but even them, when I come upon a film I have interest in, the rating is right there. If I were to see the film had a shitty rating, I probably wouldn't see it.

Sometimes, even a film is directed by one of my favorite directors, and stars some really good actors, it still turns out like crap. Ex. Gangs of New York, for this reason, I rely on critics feelings, just a 2nd opinion. Like I said, I will definitely sometimes see and enjoy films that were critically panned, and sometimes really hate films that were widely praised.

I'm not arguing that critics are right, I'm just saying I feel like its inevitable for their opinions to be taken into consideration, at least to a certain degree.

I read about film, genres, directors, etc.

Otherwise I either get recomended from other members at the Film board, or I use this site, which is much more reliable then the stupid AFI list. In fact they have a Top 100 and 1000 list.

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/

The only time I ever read a review is usually Ebert's site, just to see if he pisses me off or adds something interesting to his Great Movies list. He usually pisses me off.