Syriana REVIEW

actually the movie was funded my jeff skoll, one of the founders of ebay (billionary money type guy) who started funding "socially responsible films" he bankrolled north country and good night and good luck. It may only be distributed by WB, i only mention it because it was on primetime a few nights ago. haven't seen the film yet but i think i will.

I fail to see why people seem to think this movie is muddled. In all honesty, it's NOT that complicated. Perhaps you're just stupid?

I took my highly intelligent, educated Chinese wife who has a hard time staying awake at the most compelling movies to this film. She didn't make it.

I will have to agree with JoJo. Unless you are lethally diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, then this movie isn't at all hard to follow. I will agree and say it is to oil like what Traffic is to drugs. But you've got to be one big bo-bo to not get the movie and how it all connects.

Pretty arrogant review, judging the "common schmoe" lack of interest in the root of the policies that infect every aspect of our lives. Thank god we have "Jim" to ponder the hard questions like who is the "target audience". Perhaps the filmmaker/writer didn't start in marketing, but with an idea of a story that they wanted to tell?
I applaud a film that may challenge the streak of red that has blotted out thought in this country. Remember--we are still defining science, still executing human beings, and still shopping to help the war effort.
Why not get behind a film that wants to open eyes instead of talking around it? Marketing, impact, relevance have replaced little known film criticism areas like cinematography, performance, and risk.
Jim, I hope you enjoy the audience pleasing, committee written "Family Stone" that trailered before "Syriana"--fodder more appropriate apparently for the big studios to be peddling.

I think Gaghan did an excellent job, weaving a complex story while still staying "on message." Matt Damon's character sums it up pretty well for the "average schmoe" when he says something to the affect of "The world's running out of Oil! It's a fight to the death!" Granted the audience is not beaten over the head with every detail and explanation (though at times I would have appreciated more), but perhaps Gaghan was giving his audience more credit than most mainstream filmmakers do these days. He's created a tapestry of human interaction. Humanizing the suicide bombers story lets us see more than one side of the story and gives us something to think about. More than I can often say for the mainstream media and the current administration. The film was compelling, moving, well crafted and well acted. Recommended.

I'm with JoJo. It isn't at all difficult to follow this movie; perhaps the problem is that audiences have become so anethesitized by simplistic plots that anything mildly interesting is considered difficult. Gaghan recently said that he intended the first hour of the movie to feel complex because the world is complex; the issues are complex. But then in the second hour he tried to pull the apparently disparate stories together and allow the viewer to draw some conclusions.

Having said that, I have a real problem with Jim Tudor's trite review. Because: (1) As someone else mentioned, WB didn't fund the movie; they simply are distributing it. But suppose WB did make the investment. In that case I'd congratulate them for taking the risk. Had Tudor bothered to check his facts, he probably would have complained that Hollywood studios are too timid to fund politically charged films. (2) This isn't a left-wing film as Tudor claims. Nowhere does the film use the words "Republican", "Bush", "Right Wing". In fact, as Gaghan recently said, many of the problems we are experiencing in the middle-east today resulted from actions taken in the Clinton administration. The film actually slams Washington in general (both the left and the right). It highlights our addition to carbon and the lethal results. So even though Tudor feels only radical left-wingers will like the film, as a conservative, let me say that I enjoyed it and was moved by it.

I think Jim Tudor's review was far more confusing to me than the movie "Syriana". I'm still not sure what his point is. But this was the first movie I have seen in a long while that I was not bored by. It makes you think and pay attention. I recommend it for any intelligent adult.

Please , please forward this piece of my review to Jim: From Albert Einstein" "Great minds have always encounter violent opposition from mediocdre minds" . It says it all. Really, Jim Tudor and the rest of the critics who criticize "complex" movie story lines such as Syriana are to me part of the group of people who ARE the problem and they sadly DONT even know it! Should they get out of their club of intellectual elites or international travelers then they might SEE, when interatting with normal people, that the average person overwhelming seem to be living in a big dark "whole" and fed with so much "simple" stories that most do not even know the name of a country until there is a war or a famine ! Most people outside of this country travel to other countries and have a far better ides about international affairs wihout a political agenda because they are exposed to various perspectives for the average critical thinking, even through the arts of movies! The best way to expose and educate people is through $8 or $10 when people have no time to take classs and travel or filter the propaganda through the media. At least, for better or worse they get exposed to something different...This is the only movie i truly felt that i should have paid more than $10 ...

Please , please forward this piece of my review to Jim: From Albert Einstein" "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" . It says it all. Really, Jim Tudor and the rest of the critics who criticize "complex" movie story lines such as Syriana are to me part of the group of people who ARE the problem and they sadly DONT even know it! Should they get out of their club of intellectual elites or international travelers then they might SEE, when interacting with normal people, that the average person overwhelming seem to be living in a big dark "whole" and fed with so much "simple" stories that most do not even know the name of a country until there is a war or a famine ! Most people outside of this country travel to other countries and have a far better idea about international affairs wihout a political agenda because they are exposed to various perspectives for their average critical thinking, even through the arts of movies! The best way to expose and educate people is through $8 or $10 when people have no time to take classes and travel or filter the propaganda through the media. At least, for better or worse they get exposed to something different...This is the only movie i truly felt that i should have paid more than $10 ...

So, coco, let me get this straight - I'm obviously supposed to be the medicore mind in the Einstein analogy, but who is the great mind again...? Stephen Gaghan? You? If so, please note my ability to not double post.

I agree with the majority of people's comments here; Jim Tudor I think you have underestimated the viewers interest with issues portraying something other than the "all-conquering United States of America". I found the content of this film re-freshing, as it did not attempt to provide a glorified version of the relationship the US has with many oil producing countries. In my opinion the message of the film was very clear, for those who are able to accept that perhaps infiltrating a country to leech it of its life-blood is not just. If you are more interested in maintaining that the US government has always made crediable decisions, no this movie is not for you. It was quite clever to intertwine the various stories of people involved at all levels, from the CIA to the family-man. Instead of picking at useless points, such as Clooney's weight gain (or Co-Co's double post), perhaps the very fundamentals of the film should be appreciated for what they are; a compelling, eye-opening account of the problems created in countries reliant on a single resource, by coruption and greed inflicted by 'super power' countries. An excellent film, which has much to teach us... This film does demand full attention, but is that not what we go to the theater for, something a little more thought provoking than the regular cookie-cutter movie?

Syriana is "applied common sense" explained via celluloid for people who cannot believe that a coin has 2 sides.

I saw Syriana last night after hearing a lot of people complain about it having a confusing plot. I enjoyed it immensely and was eager to see what reviews the movie received. This page was an entertaining read. I think an issue that hasn't been brought up is that there is not a clearly defined genre for this type of movie. It gets lumped in with Action/Thriller movies, and is often reviewed as such. Part of the enjoyment for me when watching films like Syriana is working the plot out on my own, reading between the lines, and digesting the story from the sea of grey the director gives you. Syriana was very effective in giving me that kind of experience.

And...I really enjoy these types of movies, but some people don't. It does not necessarily have anything to do with intelligence (or political affiliation). Some very intelligent people think all day and like to turn their mind off when they go to the movies. But, people who enjoyed movies like Crash and Traffic should not be turned away by reports of a muddled plot. IMO, there are plenty of signposts in Syriana to keep you on track.

I would describe Syriana in one word: haunting. It is a movie filled with subleties, disturbing imagery and thought-provoking subplots. On one level I liked the movie -- it has superb acting, and contains a lot of geo-political nuances that force you to think. On another level, I didn't like the movie, because I see no hope in it -- in the end, the hero (if there is one) does not walk off into the sunset with all loose ends tied up.

If the plot of the movie is true, it is chilling. If it is not true, then the movie is breathtakinly plausible. I suspect the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle.

The dialogue was awful, the storylines were awful the message was awful. There was really no thinking involved and no real room for anyone to form their own opinion. it was ridiculous to try and make us empathize with the suicide bombers and justify their actions. the movie is really over rated as it is not developed enough and the message and symbolism are so clear that its boring as it requires very little to think about. the movie is more designed to satisfy the tastes of simple minded people like those on this forum defending the movie.

Just another leftist hollywood effort to make big government and big oil look evil, and to portray terrorists sympathetically.

TV and movies convey two things to the rest of the world: one, we are evil, and two, we are violent. Over the next 50-100 years, Islam will win out, because Christianity is in decay.

Gaghan deliberately wove a tangled web repleat with undeveloped charecters & vague multilayered subplots because that's how it is in the constant flux of poliitics & international business, where everyone eventually beds the other. While simplifying these elements might make it more palatable to the masses, much would be lost. I would have liked to had more development and better introduction of certain charecters and less "shop talk" dialogue. My only other criticism of the film is that it is only a depiction of a string of events (or a process of cause and effect) that lacks any real cohesive elements or any payoff, neither real nor implied. While I appreciate art that leaves parts open ended or subject to interpretation I feel that the half cocked climax needed to be more powerful than what it was in order to be moved. Though I did appreciate the hubris. I agree that it is a ballsy film to be distributed by WB, but one must be blind not to notice the not so subtle jabs at big oil & the US government. Considering Clooney's involvement I think that is to be expected. This film sacrifices entertainment value for thought provoking commentary, and is both a success and a failure, depending on how it is interpreted. Oh yeah: CoCo if you have such a great mind as you implied, why is your grammar and spelling so atrocious?

P.S. CoCo. If you want to pay more than $10 for the film, you'd be better served by purchasing a cushion for the pedestal on which you've perched your great mind or a a dictionary in which you can reference the word "homonym".

I think this bunch of filmmakers enjoy simple realism with as little exposition as can be stood without the story falling apart. It's a very carful aproach and reminds me of Tarkofsky. I saw a reference to Solaris in a shot of George driving through a tunnel near the end.

The film is as much in the Russian style as anythig out there.

When did reviewing movies become a way to put others down? Reviews are opinions. One person's love maybe another's hate. I appreciate all the opinions shared above, but I feel sorry for those of you who are so rigid as to think that if others disagree with you, that they are obviously stupid. Perhaps it's time for you all to open your minds to the possibility that the world is made up of different people with a myriad of interests and education levels.

i couldn't have said it any better myself Tracy.

I did well at college and several universities, I watch the news, I hold down a respectable job that involves a lot of creativeness and problem solving, I tried to pay attention to the movie (though I found it quite boring), I thought I understood everything that was going on, yet I don't get it. Why was George driving into the desert to intercept the convoy? What important information was he trying to reveal? Did I miss something while I was distracted by all of the people leaving the theatre? Perhaps I missed something during the booing. Could someone please explain this? I have been searching the net for an explanation but people just keep saying that you are stupid if you don't understand. I don't think there was a story. Am I wrong?

I do know this was the first movie that I have seen that people were booing and I kinda felt like joining in.

I did well at college and several universities, I watch the news, I hold down a respectable job that involves a lot of creativeness and problem solving, I tried to pay attention to the movie (though I found it quite boring), I thought I understood everything that was going on, yet I don't get it. Why was George driving into the desert to intercept the convoy? What important information was he trying to reveal? Did I miss something while I was distracted by all of the people leaving the theatre? Perhaps I missed something during the booing. Could someone please explain this? I have been searching the net for an explanation but people just keep saying that you are stupid if you don't understand. I don't think there was a story. Am I wrong?

I do know this was the first movie that I have seen that people were booing and I kinda felt like joining in.

By the way, I enjoy double posting and fail to see how doing so can alter the fact that a movie is good or bad.

Worst Movie Ever.

to niel,

we live in a violent society and alot of our foriegn policy is evil, that doesn't even take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just some thinking and putting ourselves in the people we opress's shoes. Our policy is based on extracting others resources for our own gain and profit. (people hate illegal immigrants but without them they wouldn't have cheap produce, we want to close the borders to people, but we will extract their resources, thus leaving them with no land to exist on. Capitalism treats people like objects. In the US and abroad. Same reason we hated communists, socialists, anarchists, wobblies, farmers, workers,people anyone who proported social reform and put people over profits. (Though the US loved facsist regimes because it maintains a good atmosphere for business. They were opposed to communism because it could combat capitalism, and the US didn't want to lose the resources, the only way our society can exist is through continual exploitation. (cheap gas, cheap food, cheap clothes) thats why the US has about the worst social and civil services in any developed country. We care more about production and products than people. Thats why we have PR to manipulate people to the product.

So when the US backs fascist coups and terrorists (we gave Osama and the mujadeen funding to fight the russians in the 80's, not to mention every totalitarian group in latin america, Suharto in Indonesia, we give Turkey weapons that we know they use to kill kurds, to maintain production) thus are evil. There is very legitimate and focused anti americanism, and if people just look into why, it is more often than not justified. After WWII a lot of the nazi architects went to the US and joined our beloved pentagon. The Corporations at the time were making jets and weapons and selling them to the nazi's.

I could keep going, but since most ride off anything that challenges the US's hegemony over everything, I doubt you've read this far without riding me off as a terrorist.

Also, its important to know why terrorists do what they do, because they are founded in very real problems. Thus they are totally hopeless and act out hopelessly.

This was a great movie, and movies should challenge established thought.

Oh, lastly, don't call me a liberal because they support the same machine, and processes that the neoconservatives do. Look into it yourself, the resources are out there, its just pulling the wool out from over your eyes.

Oh my! I go to the cinema to relax and be entertained or thrilled. This movie will do none of those! It is true it is not for stupid people but I can’t see who it is for! Yawn.
If it wasn’t for the big black lady who later turned out to be a FBI agent man it would have been appalling. Oh wait that was when I slipped into the theatre next door to big mommas house2 after 40 mins whilst leaving my friends to endure syriana. Unfortunately BMH2 finished 30 mins before the end of syriana so I had to endure yet another half an hour of it. In which the hour I was gone it did not seem to have progressed and was still as dry as Ghandi's flip-flop. The acting was dry and without much emotion( or lets say none at all)
Questioning my friends later I asked if I had missed anything and the answer was erm NO. So even though BMH2 was not so great at least it wasn’t like a dose of night nurse. And yes I did sit in the other screen by myself in which I have never done before and I am so glad I did.
Don't do it to yourself.

I don't think I enjoyed watching the film, and I have a feeling that this was intended so. It was unsettling and the ending might leave you feeling sold short. But then an honest portrayal of world politics shouldn't makes easy viewing and it isn't neccessarily transparent.

So, any idea what Clooney was doing following the coup-convoy then?

A very good film. I commend the director for not trying to make too many judgements, and I ask any person who watched the film to name an issue that is currently more important in the world than this. All developed and developing countries require oil to function, and that is the reason for their involvement in the Middle East. Recent attacks on property and persons in the West have in the most part been fuelled by this involvement. The plot is fairly obviously about the battle for the right to extract oil and control the phases that ultimately make it possible to drive your car. Why is Clooney chasing the convoy? He wants to warn the prince that he is in danger of assassination (his character is obviously aware of how real this threat is). The ending deliberately reminds us of the precariousness of our situation. Come on guys, how long ago was it the a oil facility was almost destroyed in the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia? A fresh film that depicts an old, yet still vital trade. You don't have to "take sides" to enjoy this film. Just sit back and be entertained.

A very good film and the fact that i paid a dollar for it makes it even better!! I did walk out with a head ache though, but i guess i can live with this one. I thought that the review posted here was harsh but nevertheless relevant. Yes the movie is complicated and you might have to watch it twice to get it all (i need to at least) but thats the point. The scenarios depicted, which are quite real, and the added dramatization have all made movie a little bit complex. If you want to watch a movie which does not require thinking please watch armageddon or something similar.

I have not read the book, and I do think I have half a brain. Problem with the ending is it was just not clear, and some of us need clarity! Am sure based on the responses that others do to. I can come up with 3 reasons for the ending. I have no idea if it is one of the 3 or a fourth.

Background: George threatens the Politician, that unless his name is kept intact, and his passports returned, George will get him as per Beirut rules,

Possible scenarios:

1) George uses his contacts and hacking ability to discover what is happening (or the politician allows him access) - he then tries to rescue the prince, but unfortunately because of a route mix-up he is too late.
Analysis: George is on the outer - he can't figure out what is happening to him, how can know or care about the prince? Why does he give an x about Prince A-v-B. For someone with a little bit of experience, why doesn't he use his contacts to warn the prince - send him an email, a messenger, why fly all the way there? In fact if he did give an x he would support the pro-US younger brother?

2) George is set up to try and rescue the prince, but is disposed of to make it look like an assassination attempt.
Analysis: Conspiracy theory. The people with their hands on the trigger did not seem to know about the car. Unless the guy who gives the order to fire knows what is going on ... hmmm. Then again, if they wanted to, they could have pulled it when the convoy was stopped by the goats.

3) George wants to die - he knows he can't beat the system. But with his DNA on the prince, it will implicate the CIA. Mission accomplished.
Analysis: Machiavelli. Very close call. Wrong timing and reactions could jeopardize the mission. What if George was shot dead by the prince's men. What if he was too late?

Maybe I am thinking too much, but years of having to present to audience has taught me, never to assume anything … the fact that the ending was so ambiguous indicates to me that it has failed as a film …

To imply that "Syriana" can only seem confusing to stupid people is obviously a false and unnecessary proposition. If I had had no prior knowledge of the plot whatsoever, there could easily have been numerous sticking points. The suicide-bomber plot was easy enough to follow, mainly because of his isolation from the rest of the plot. However, the fact that he was initially linked to the oil company merger made the viewer think that this connection was going to turn out to be something more than just a simple tie-in.

Matt Damon's story was also fairly cut and dry in retrospect: he becomes the chief advisor to an idealist emir lying in wait, and is subsequently forced to cope with that position in light of family troubles. However, certain key conversations (namely, the one in which Matt Damon is given his job as a sort of compensation for his son's death) are unduly difficult to understand. It wasn't precisely clear what Matt Damon was doing in the first place: how many "energy analysts" on television seek personal meetings with the heads of influential foreign nations? This plot, however, was ultimately the most simple.

The plot surrounding the African American lawyer's investigation (pardon my informal tendency to neglect looking up the actor names that I don't know off the top of my head) was in a broad sense easy to understand and at times stereotypical, but the details were hopelessly unclear and, in the end, mostly irrelevant. A viewer expecting all of the plot threads to come together in the end was disappointed, as the lawyer showed that the oil company deal was merely the writer's way of panning the issue from all sides. The lawyer's discovery of foul play had no material effect on the outcome. The mogul who headed up his firm, whose odd diner encounter with George Clooney was the only way the plot threads came together physically, was clearly corrupt. But if he (or anyone on the legal side of the story, for that matter) had anything to do with the death of the emir or the unfortunate plight of George Clooney, it was not demonstrated clearly.

The emir's plot, which directly tied into Matt Damon's, was generally lucid. However, the details of the China-Kazakhstan-Oil Companies saga (which was at the heart of the entire movie) was presented in such a clandestine and cryptic way that it was easy to misinterpret. Misunderstanding this single detail would have made it nearly impossible to comprehend many important scenes, let alone tie the plot threads together in the end. If one didn't realize that the emir (in his capacity as foreign minister) had offended the US and its oil interests by granting a contract to China (a fact which was only mentioned in passing and was only demonstrated on-screen by a brief shot of a few Chinese men milling around an office), it would be impossible to know why the emir was looked upon with such enmity.

Even if one understood the Emir's situation with complete cognizance of the subtleties of the plot, it would still be hard to interpret the movie's end. This was due to the hopelessly muddled and scarcely-explained plot centered on George Clooney. Despite his (at times) fabulous acting, it was never precisely clear who he was, what his job was (or had been), and how he managed to become engulfed in the CIA-led assassination of the emir. The opening scene felt like it was intended to leave an indelible mark on viewers' minds, but instead it just left us wondering who the hell those guys were, and why the hell was George Clooney selling them missiles? Why did he care where the missiles went? And what did it matter that the man with the gun didn't speak Farsi? Opening scenes often have little explanation and leave behind them an aura of curiosity, but this one was never properly explained or vindicated. In numerous instances later on in the movie (such as during his cringe-worthy job interview or his discussions with his son about moving abroad), his dialogue went in several different directions. It wasn't exactly manifest that Clooney was a CIA agent trying to make some sort of comeback, and it was even less clear how his trip to Lebanon, his brutal torture experience, and his various other meetings culminated in his desire to save the emir from assassination. George Clooney's plotline exemplifies what was wrong with the movie. Political qualms aside, it tried to establish many loose ends and tie them together in the end, with viewers all the while expecting some universal tie-in. When all was said and done, however, only some plot strings came together, while others seemed only peripherally related. The movie forged an unusual concoction of chance encounters, deliberately unexplained links and weak (but deceptively emphasized) connections. I personally found "Syriana" all the more entertaining because of the mental diligence it required, but I think we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss complaints about its complicated nature.

I shall not enter into an argument over my IQ. But I shall say that my problem with Syriana isn't about complexity. Reading Derrida and Blanchot for a living allows me to stay awake in the midst of tangled webs. BUT, I found Syriana quite hard to sit through. If I write three pages and call it a novel, I will be deceiving n number of people. I am not saying that a movie HAS to entertain, nor that it should make sense to everyone, but I do want to take something back from the movie, something that I didn't know or hadn't thought about deeply. There was nothing new that the film had to offer, for me. It wasn't even old wine in a new bottle. Just a gallon of water when I wasn't even thirsty...

"Syriana" lacked clarity and left me feeling unsatisfied.
Having completed almost 6 years of tertiary medical training I feel justified in labelling this movie "confusing" and do not expect to be labelled "stupid" in reply.

Perhaps the best thing about Syriana was the fact that it revealed my lack of knowledge regarding oil politics. But where do I go to get my information? American news? *snigger*
The internet? Magazines?
Perhaps I need to learn farsi and travel to the middle east to ask them.

This movie is pitched to the masses yet it does not respect our level of knowledge. I felt as though American audiences would have had an easier time understanding the plot.. am I mistaken? I watched the movie in a cinema in Suva, Fiji. I was disappointed as I watched people leaving the cinema and shaking their heads. This movie could have enlightened but the opportunity was missed.

I like a film to be logical and easily understandable. Leaving untied threads to flap around in peoples minds is unconstructive. Viewers should not be forced to make assumptions regarding the plot and the characters.

Convolution is not intelligent. I don't appreciate having to play "barrel of monkeys" in my head especially when the director has given me only half a monkey, 3 squid and a gerbil dipped in olive oil.

This movie gestated but was never born.

One of the beautiful aspects of this movies is that it allows the watcher to form her interpretation of the events that transpire, without feeling the need to bludgeon home every single plot development; The narrative gaps invite the watcher to exerise her powers of cognition to interpret the clues woven throughout the film. Obviously, the movie was not made for people who go to the theatre just for eye candy.

I think there's some truth in both sides of the argument here. On the one hand, the underlying issue was not so complex: the web of interests between western big business/political power and the corrupt and anti-democratic states of the Middle East. On the other, the ending was unclear - why did Bob chase after the prince?

The script was tight and challenging - many plot lines consisted of very short scenes (often ending in unanswered questions followed by an unresolved reaction shot) and the viewer was left to fill in the blanks. It's a pleasure to watch a film that requires you to do some work. The music worked well to highlight atmosphere without intruding, and the photography was excellent. So on the whole, despite the questions raised by Bob's demise, I'd give the film a high overall vote.

I already have an interest in the topics of oil, economy and empire,
and I'd like to think of myself as relatively intelligent, but I did find the movie hard to follow.
This is not to say I didn't enjoy it. I felt that the makers of this movie intended to confuse, or at least be unclear so as to raise awareness of the big issues portrayed or to engender discussions such as we're having now.
Movies aren't just about cheap thrills. One poster stated that this doesn't fit the mold of a typical action/thriller and I agree. But I ask, why should it have to? Yeah yeah. Marketing, viewer expectiations... I know. -
The movie seems to ask viewers to leave any preformed views or expectations at the door and just watch events objectively. And also, to pay attention and think.
I expected a moralistic, socialist tale but got something different.
More of a lesson in critical thinking.
It's hard to summarise.

And as for how Clooney got wise to the convoy hit, I think it's implied that he had enough inside connections to get there somehow.

But, I'll specualate that the end scene was more symbolic than literal. A knowlingly corrupt man (the scene with his son - 'my parents are professional liars') only sees what is right when he is ostracized by all around him, but, by that time it's too late to effect any change.

gotta go.

net times up.

Thanks for reading.

Chris.

Just my two pennies on the topic whether the movie is difficult to follow: it's not. It does require some concentration, which only makes it more interesting. And life-like. I think many people got used to stuff being chewed and spoon fed to them.

Brilliant visuals and compelling characters. The movie is not without its flaws, but still a solid piece.

Thank God I rented this drivel on DVD instead of paying to see it at the cinema. At least I could turn the damn thing off and put something interesting on.

Far too many characters, too many subplots, difficult to follow and possibly the most boring film I've ever seen.

I don't know about George Clooney getting his fingernails pulled out, I felt like pulling mine out for some entertainment.

I personally thought it was an excellent movie.

It was intricate enough to be interesting but without overdoing the spoon fed plot we are so used to from Hollywood.
The plot really isn't as complicated as you might imagine from initial viewing. That in itself was an illusion I feel. The issue it portrays is so murky and convoluted morally as well as politically (now those are two words I never thought I would use in a sentence), that to present it as a simple good versus bad popcorn flick would be a grand injustice.

Well if someone goes to cinema to hug and kiss his girlfriend and watch Syriana... bad news. You wont get anything. Syriana is a movie that explains to the brainwashed americans what is going on with the oil war.
And suddenly the official reviewer cant get the plot! Oh God! If you cant understand Syriana go write a review about Blades of Glory! Wake up mister Jim Tudor this is not a left winger propaganda, this is REALITY! And if the film ends like this is the way it ends in real life everyday in Middle East. I hate reading hypoctitical reviews like this one. Its like a baby review! "Oh i dont like this movie, i dont like Arabs"! They are terrorists because we're nuking them and they respond". Oh gimme a break.. will you mister Tudor?
* I liked Syriana because its a great movie. I watched it 2 times, i wanted to catch every minute. Dont want to talk about Clooney. Never liked his acting, but now i take it back. Very good actor, and not a chicken to play some radical roles.