Regie:
Stephen GaghanScenario:
Stephen GaghanCamera:
Robert ElswitMuziek:
Alexandre DesplatActeurs:
George Clooney, Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright, Chris Cooper, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Amanda Peet, Christopher Plummer, Alexander Siddig (meer)Streaming (2)
Samenvattingen(1)
Terwijl CIA agent Robert Barnes (George Clooney) de verontrustende waarheid achter het werk ontdekt waaraan hij zijn leven gewijd heeft, krijgt een jonge oliehandelaar (Matt Damon) te maken met een familietragedie en zoekt zijn heil in een vennootschap met een idealistische Arabische prins. Een zakelijke advocaat komt voor een moreel dilemma te staan tijdens de fusie van twee machtige Amerikaanse oliemaatschappijen, terwijl aan de andere kant van de wereld een Pakistaanse tiener ten prooi valt aan de rekruteringsmethodes van een charismatische geestelijke. Allemaal spelen ze een kleine rol in het immense en complexe systeem achter de olie-industrie, onwetend welke explosieve impact hun levens op de wereld zullen hebben. (Warner Bros. Pictures)
(meer)Recensie (10)
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%]
()
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.
()
In the gravity of its message and in its structure (directly or indirectly intertwining storylines) Syriana is very reminiscent of Traffic, except that director Stephen Gaghan (the screenwriter of both films) has swapped drugs for the strategic commodity around which the whole world revolves, oil. I don't deny that when I first saw it I got lost in the story of the merger of Connex and Killen, in the jumble of names and facts, but the fates of Clooney's CIA agent, Prince Nasser and the two Arab boys were very interesting and captivating nonetheless. Gaghan doesn't mince words, he doesn't spare the CIA, his country's foreign policy ("When a country has five percent of the world's population but does fifty percent of its military spending, then the persuasive powers of that country are on the decline."), he points out corruption, he touches on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism, but the problem is that his narrative comes across as somewhat cold and distant, which may put some viewers off. But I am able to forgive a film that has an idea, an ambition to convey something important and, moreover, you can feel honest filmmaking (cinematography and design with suggestive Arabic realities). PS: Clooney is no longer the one who, in the words of Steven Spielberg, twitches his head like a pigeon, he is pleasantly surprising with his artificially mature expression, he is becoming a great actor.
()
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.
()
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.
()
I could start with the question of why screenwriters and directors insert so many film clichés into films - it is simply because they are proven and effective. Syriana is a case of a film that systematically avoids clichés, and so many film fans have a problem with it despite its undeniable film qualities and message. You can argue a hundred times that a film like Gomorrah depicts the real world of the mafia and, on the other hand, famous mafia films like The Godfather and others are actually fairy tales for adults, but for most film viewers, Gomorrah will be indigestible due to its down-to-earth nature and disillusionment. While most films are deliberately focused on creating an impact to achieve maximum commercial success, Syriana deliberately avoids being flashy, and it doesn't make it any easier for film viewers because it juxtaposes several storylines that intersect only in the very end and includes a canvas with numerous characters in which anyone can get lost. Even scenes of torture or action conflicts are not filmed to shock or squeeze out emotions, they simply observe the development of events from a distance. It is definitely not a boring film - for example, the scene of the car convoy assassination, where the viewer eagerly awaits the inevitable second by second, can rivet their eyes to the movie screen or the monitor. It's truly not a film for everyone, and fans of popcorn flicks probably won't appreciate Syriana, but it more than satisfied me with its analytical perspective on the cynical world of the oil trade. Overall impression: 80%.
()
This is just too true and realistic for it to be able to swallow the viewer whole. A clever screenplay, the end is excellent and really intense, but overall the pace is simply too slow. Clooney is excellent (who can speak Farsi, or Farce? :-D).
()
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.
()
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.
()
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
()
Reclame