I saw this today and I’m still trying to process a lot of it. Man, I thought I was cynical. I have to admit, I was lost quite a bit of the time, and had some trouble keeping track of all the characters and the storylines and how they connected. In a way, though, that confusion kind of works in the movie’s favor. The labrynthine nature of the plot gives the film a certain verisimillitude- a sense of reality in how complex these power relationships are. It reminded me a lot of Traffic, but it’s more convoluted and even more pessimistic.
I won’t bother trying to dissect the plot and just talk about the characters instead. First, George Clooney gives maybe his best performance ever. There really aren’t any “good guys” in this movie, but Clooney comes off as maybe the most sympathetically corrupt. Matt Damon is also really good with a couple of great speeches. I also liked the character of the Arab prince who wants to reform his country but is screwed by his own family.
Of course, the real subject of the film is OIL, how everybody needs it, how it’s at the very center of everything the US does in the middle east and how utterly corrupt that industry really is from top to bottom.
I think I need to watch the movie again before I can really understand everything that happens but after one viweing, I think that, along with Good Night, and Good Luck (and what a duo of films for Clooney), this might be the smartest and most provocative film I’ve seen this year. It’s Best Picture material, in my opinion and I can only hope it’s all fiction.
(That scene with the plyers is going to haunt my dreams tonight)
I didn’t really get the idea that there was a “plot” so much as several seperate stories that happened to be providing background information for the others.
I saw it a little while ago and liked it very much. I, as per usual, needed to go to the washroom 15 minutes into the movie due to my habit of finishing a large drink before the movie even starts. I couldn’t leave this movie though, one minute of taking my head away from the screen and I’d have been totally confused.
There were a few spots I got a touch lost but I found that everything pretty much cleared itself up in the last 15 or 20 minutes. It has a really top notch last 15 minutes.
Regarding the characters and things, I pretty much agree with Dio. I did think, however, the Arab prince who wanted to reform his country was a good guy (it IS possible I missed a plot point though). Without turning this into a political thread, I thought the view from the terrorists perspective was quite interesting.
Isaw it the other day and liked it. There were a few things that I didn’t like though:
The black attorney’s alcoholic father. What was the point of that? Are we supposed to feel sympathy? Are we supposed to feel that the guy is human? What? Why was the father always in a suit?
Matt Damon. I thought he brought nothing to the table. At best, he was a sounding board, or served a narration function. His only purpose was to let us know that the elder prince wanted to reform.
Clooney’s son and wife. Why have lunch with the kid? Why show that the American (?) girls thought he was cute? Why discuss the wife’s security clearance (are we making a sideways reference to Valerie Plame?)? Why mention them at all? We know that Clooney’s character is a tortured soul questioning his relevance. These other characters were unnecessary.
William Hurt’s character.
At one point when Clooney’s boss is telling him to shut up about the missiles, he says something about having modified the missing missile so it wasn’t accurate (I think). I thought that was going to be interesting, but then the terrorists just rammed the missile into the side of the tanker anyway (Question: what’s the likelihood that the weapon would detonate in that situation anyway? Don’t most of them actually need to be fired to activate?). I thought it might have been interesting to make a little more of Clooney’s attempted sabotage of the missile. Maybe let him think that its inaccuracy would save the day, but then he sees the size of the intended target and realizes it doesn’t matter how accurate the missile is - it’s going to hit anyway.
Despite the appearance of the above, I liked the movie. I especially liked the scenes showing the recruitment of the young terrorists, from them loosing their jobs, right up to the boat driver apparently having last minute cold feet, but going through with it anyway.
Good movie, depressing message: No mater what the US does in the Middle East, it is destined to fail at best, and backfire at worst.
I saw this yesterday. I thought the review by Roger Ebert was pretty insightful regarding the complexity of the plot.
I saw that review after I saw the film, having gone into the film not having a clue about it. I’m very impressed with George Clooney after seeing both his potrayal of this somewhat awkward character and his polished potrayal of the laywer in Intolerable Cruelty.
Don’t know why he was in a suit, but I think the reason his father was there was to show that if he could be that cold to his father, locking him out of the house and just being down right rude to him, he could sure as hell sell out his boss. His boss after all was looking for a wolf in sheeps clothing, and guess what, He got it. The father was a vehicle to help us see that from our first introduction to him.
Siddig has two famous uncles. One (paternal) is the prime minister of Sudan and the other (maternal) is Malcolm McDowell.
I’m glad I’m not the only person who feels the need to see this movie again due to some confusion. Would somebody please explain:
1- What exactly did Dalton do regarding the French school and money? (This may have been explained while I was on my own bladder break.)
2- Did Bennett’s father sell information he found in his son’s house?
Christopher Plummer is such a good baddie- I really liked his performance in this. I was also surprised that in this very P.C. world Damon’s character (who makes the “one hundred years ago your people were running around the desert chopping each other’s heads off and one hundred years from now you will be again”) wasn’t a total villain (in fact, he’s sorta kinda the good guy).
Who exactly was the man who convinced the Pakistanis to become human sacrifices?
PS- I thought the scene of the immigrants in their trailers watching a movie in Arabic (a language they don’t speak) and trying to figure out what was going on was sad. Of course many people who speak ESL if at all have the same problem here. I also thought it was shocking when the man said he already had people who worked without being paid so as not to be deported.
I didn’t really see the necessity of Clooney’s character’s son. I liked the scene of the stripper in Tehran dressing and covering her head with the hijab before going back onto the street and the American rap music in the scene. I didn’t understand why Clooney’s character (Bob?) would be shocked to learn that one of the missiles was being reappropriated.
I was a bit confused about that too. My impression was that the money sent to the French School represented some kind illegal deal with the Emir. Bennet says something about an “illegal side deal” with the Emir but I was not clear whether the money paid tp the school was a bribe of some sort or whether it was just exposed that Dalton had been hiding money.
I don’t think so. I had to take a leak at one point too, so i might have missed it but I don’t think so.
He was a recruiter for a terrorist group. The identity of the group was kept shadowy as was the identity of the recruiter, but I think it would be safe to say that particular storyline was meant to illustrate techniques used by groups like al Qaeda (even if aQ wasn’t specifically named) where certain disenfranchised youths are groomed and persuaded that becoming “martyrs” will make them heros and bring them rewards in Heaven.
I wondered about this too, so I overanalyzed the hell out of it and this is what I came up with: the alcoholic dad is a metaphor for America and its dependence on oil. It’s killing him, degrading him, but he can’t stop. He can’t hear it when he’s told he has to stop, flips the reasonable son the bird, and goes out and does stupid things to get his drink on.
That’s all I could come up with, because otherwise, there was no point whatsoever in having that character in the movie. What do you think? Too far?
Y’know, the idea of Americans paying $20/gallon for gas kinda makes me chuckle, since you’d end up buying it from us and we’d really get rich at your expense.
At $20/gallon, that translates into what (does some quick calculations)… $250/barrel? At that price, we’ll be mining shale in Colorado and keeping our own dollars, thank you very much.
I watched the movie and was disappointed. The plot really, really needed to be tightened. As it was, it was vague, had a lot of loose ends and made the whole movie feel like it was painfully dragging on. It’s a pity too because this movie definitely had the potential to be the next Traffic (now THERE is a movie that keep you on your toes while “keepin’ it real”).
I liked it. Not great, but interesting in a fictional sort of way. I hope the writer wasn’t thinking he was portraying reality…
I didn’t think it was that hard to follow, although you did have to pay attention very closely. Some of the dialogue was hard to hear-- not sure if this was a poor sound system, or intentional on the part of the director.
The biggest question I left the theater with was why was it so necessary for Clooney to gain 30 lbs for this movie? Is it so that we see his character as more of schlub? I just found it distracting.
William Hurt must be hurting for parts these days…
