Syriana

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. (2007-07-17)

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. (2006-08-30)

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. (2008-01-12)

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%] (2022-02-07)

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 (2013-03-02)