EXACTLY!!!
― FiFi (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 17:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 17:32 (eighteen years ago) link
It seemed that most everyone had thought of it & half of what he said (ie what the business world thinks of the country) was kind of the elephant in the room, but anyone expressing it in such blunt terms esp. to the prince was not so typical. There was a brief special on the making of this film on HBO last night & Gaghan said that after Damon's character loses his son he just adopts this go-for-broke attitude in his dealings with people, which he'd never have had otherwise.
― dar1a g (daria g), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 17:41 (eighteen years ago) link
I understood that you meant it that way, s1ocki. It's not like I have this checklist of things I demand from every movie, but when it failed to engage me on the level of story I turned to the characters for some kind of interest.
― FiFi (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 17:44 (eighteen years ago) link
buh? [drools]
but anyone expressing it in such blunt terms esp. to the prince was not so typical
ooooh.
― Lukas (lukas), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link
It is, I think, and the payoff to Damon's speech comes much later, when the prince explains it back to him.
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Saturday, 17 December 2005 05:52 (eighteen years ago) link
I was very impressed with the way the script understood how simple it is to hurt or even kill a lot of people, and how when it happens, your understanding of what has happened falls easily and naturally between total understanding and total incomprehension. Everything is so cut-and-dry from one person to another, and everything is so frighteningly foggy once you put it into a larger context. If anything, that's the theme of the movie, and the sometimes baffling structure of the movie supports it.
I'm still not sure what purpose Jeffrey Wright's father served, but I'm still thinking about it. I'll get back to you.
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Wiggy (Wiggy), Sunday, 18 December 2005 04:49 (eighteen years ago) link
My understanding is that it kinda is. Isn't it a fictionalized (to protect the innocent, assumedly) retelling of a nonfiction book?
I liked the reveal on that in the movie, actually. At the very end, when you're nearly emotionally devastated anyway, they tell you that this is based on a non-fiction book, which lets you know at the last moment that these events aren't as fantastical as you would probably like to leave the theater thinking.
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 18 December 2005 05:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 09:25 (eighteen years ago) link
I dunno about that, but I do think that how confusing it is has definitely been overstated.
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 18 December 2005 10:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 18 December 2005 17:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Sunday, 18 December 2005 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link
I agree fully with Raymond on this. I wonder about people who would lay into Syriana too much, though. I mean, how many mainstream films treats the audience with as much respect. Not the best movie I've seen, and I do wonder how much of it was cut. But you've got to appreciate the effort, no?
(A friend left the theatre stating that she felt like she had to do some research.)
Also, this was from Ebert's syndicated column from a couple of weeks ago regarding the "corruption speech":
Corruption and greed in America
December 11, 2005
Q. I have read more than one review mentioning Tim Blake Nelson's "brilliant" speech about corruption in "Syriana." The speech has been compared to Michael Douglas' speech in "Wall Street" (1987) that defends greed. I haven't seen the movie yet but I'd love to just be able to read the speech.
Greg Nelson, Chicago
A. The speech is the work of Stephen Gaghan, the Oscar-winning writer and director of the film. Nelson plays Danny Dalton, a Texas oilman, who is speaking to Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), a lawyer investigating a merger of two oil companies. Gaghan supplies this transcript:
Danny: Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Brown, thinks he's gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, no-name congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. (mimics prosecutor) "But, Danny, these are sovereign nations." Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? "But, Danny, they're codified by the U.N. charter!" Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods! (Beat) ... Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain't nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead of fighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (Beat) Corruption ... is how we win.
― peepee (peepee), Monday, 19 December 2005 18:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 19 December 2005 18:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― M. White (Miguelito), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 16:55 (eighteen years ago) link
Or when Christopher Plummer meets Clooney in the cafe, it's the middle of the night, he's a bit disheveled but has put on cufflinks. Like that's his reassurance to himself that he's the powerful one, the one in charge, despite his house having just been broken into.
I thought Damon's character was terrific, the way his desperation following the loss of his son was channeled into devotion to the Prince. People rarely just spiral downwards I think; they grab onto something and let it carry them down.
― Semjase (synkro), Thursday, 22 December 2005 00:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― howell huser (chaki), Thursday, 22 December 2005 00:17 (eighteen years ago) link
haha yes the one with NO IRANIANS.
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 22 December 2005 03:10 (eighteen years ago) link
i thought these moments were a bit "writerly" and didn't work for me
but much of the stuff about the suicide bomber was pretty searing, if only because i've never seen it before
thought this film was very smart, visually as well as uh narratively
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 22 December 2005 03:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 22 December 2005 03:13 (eighteen years ago) link
His immediate bosses sent him there to assassinate Nasir because they were told he's funding terrorists. They don't know this to be false. Right?
Someone above them gave them the info in hopes of disposing with the problematic Nasir. Dean Whiting (Christopher Plummer) maybe has something to do with this?
Or was he clooney there to be killed by that guy who ripped his fingernails out? William hurt said the nail ripper had flipped and now worked for iran - while clooney was under the impression that he was still a us asset. It seemed like the nail ripper was an old contact of clooney's, rather than someone the cia had set him up with specifically for the nasir job. In which case it's unlikely he was double crossed.
Also - who exactly is Dean Whiting? An oil man with deep government connections?
Please help.
― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Friday, 6 January 2006 00:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― That I Could Clamber to the Frozen Moon and Draw the Ladder (Freud Junior), Sunday, 15 January 2006 07:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― Latham Green (mike), Sunday, 15 January 2006 11:03 (eighteen years ago) link
So the plot wasn't really very complicated, it was just that it was flimsily communicated enough for it to seem so.
I'm sure I'd enjoy it more on a second viewing, not having to miss the forest for concentrating on the trees, but yeah, it annoyed me.
I am rubbish with faces and names though.
― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 23:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Monday, 13 March 2006 23:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 00:29 (eighteen years ago) link
Actually, earlier on I finally saw Good Night, And Good Luck and was excited to recognise the evil bumming one from Prison Break as an evil McCarthyite. I made an especial effort to remember his character's name so that I could check I was right when I got home. It was Donald, so I thought of a duck. Johnny Mnemonic, me. I'm going to check it now, in fact.
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 00:34 (eighteen years ago) link
Woah! That was Robert Downey Jr.
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 00:39 (eighteen years ago) link
Anyway, hang on - doesn't this only work if other characters adopt this same protocol when referring to them?
I didn't hear any lines like: "I'm sorry, but that's not going to cut it with the Department of Justice – we need bigger fish than that dude from all the Coen Bros movies."
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 00:43 (eighteen years ago) link
*SPOILER ALERT*
when clooney halts the convoy with the white flag, is what subsequently happens part of his plan?
is damon's switching of cars a suggestion he suspects what is ahead, or totally innocent?
― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 11:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:19 (eighteen years ago) link
i am more confused now.
― i am not a nugget (stevie), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― geoff (gcannon), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Lovelace (Lovelace), Thursday, 4 May 2006 09:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Thursday, 4 May 2006 11:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Thursday, 4 May 2006 11:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 7 August 2006 10:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Monday, 7 August 2006 11:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Monday, 7 August 2006 11:14 (seventeen years ago) link
this was rubbish.
maybe it would have been an okay mini-series, but it tried to do way too much.
anyway 'the kingdom' isn't great but it is at least a film. don't think 'syriana' is really more intelligent either. it's just that clooney talks a good game and has earned liberal credentials for saying that mccarthy was a bad dude.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 7 October 2007 13:36 (sixteen years ago) link
the kingdom was one of the worst movies i ever seen
― jhøshea, Sunday, 7 October 2007 13:45 (sixteen years ago) link
reading upthread 1) make it a miniseries is a meme already 2) the corruption speech is good.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 7 October 2007 13:48 (sixteen years ago) link
I thought it was good. It was almost exactly the same film as Any Given Sunday in many ways. Matt Damon was the best thing in it. Weirdly.
― I know, right?, Sunday, 7 October 2007 14:09 (sixteen years ago) link
better than traffic
― omar little, Sunday, 7 October 2007 17:01 (sixteen years ago) link
syriana was great. traffic and the kingdom sucked balls bigtime.
― jhøshea, Sunday, 7 October 2007 17:21 (sixteen years ago) link
traffic is bad but at least made an effort at characterization. it had a complex plot but ideas-wise it wasn't that complicated.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 7 October 2007 17:33 (sixteen years ago) link