[MonteQuest]

I saw it, and was dismayed with the film. I found it almost impossible to follow the story line if there was one. In my opinion, most people in the audience thought it a waste of money to see.

And I was there to review it for a blog for the movies production company!

Let's just say it was not what I expected and I was disappointed.

[UIUCstudent01]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Let's just say it was not what I expected and I was disappointed.

[threadbear]

Just got home from seeing it. SUPERB!! I found it fairly easy to follow, but was forewarned so was prepared and was really paying attention.

[lotrfan55345]

I felt like seeing it, it would seem to be intellectually satisfying.
I don't have $$$ to spend on intellectual movies, where no one would actually want to see it with me, so I might just..erm... obtain it.

I will try to see it this week.

[seldom_seen]

I saw it last night. I was a bit underwhelmed.

The trailer had me pretty excited for it, but I think they stuck all the best shots in the trailer. They tried to cram too much information in to two hours of movie. It translated in to a poorly developed story with some annoying documentary style editing.

Not that I was expecting a screenplay by Kunstler, but being a peakfreak, I wanted to see them drive home the issues (or some issue, or some plot or something) a little harder as well. The movie seemed to dance around all the issues just dipping its toes in the water without having to get wet. As if the movie makers really wanted to say something of importance or to make the viewer think, but they held back because of political correctness or something.

The guy in front me was snoring, and the lady behind me walked out of the theatre like 5 times.

I did like some of the acting and the cinematography. I will probably see it again to see how a feel about it after another viewing.

[GrizzAdams]

I never really expected too much from Hollywood anyway, especially Warner Bros.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Saving up my nickles and dimes to see King Kong, instead. Why would I want to see a movie trying to tell me that the energy biz and the gov'mint are corrupt? Like, duh.

[KiddieKorral]

It was tough to follow, but overall I liked it. It trended to jump from one perspective to another fairly frequently.

[donshan]

I just watched a replay of the PBS program "Charlie Rose" which featured a full hour interview with writer/director Stephen Gaghen of Syriana. I note further replays are scheduled on PBSU DirecTV channel 377 Dec. 11, 12 & 13 and possibly later too , and may be on other cable/Sat systems.

Anyone interested in Syriania should see this interview! Gaghen describes his several year research into the background for this movie. It includes a real life tale of getting an unexpected cell phone call 15 minutes after arrival in the Beruit airport that a car would pick him up and take him he knew not where in the middle of the night. He found himself in the back seat of a speeding car, with guys with guns on both sides, then had a black hood over his head while pushed inside a room, with NO explanations- but questioning his judgment in getting in that car! It turned out to be a one-on-one interview with the spiritual leader of Hezbolah, who had found out he was writing this screen play and wanted him to know how Mid-East politics "really" worked. Gaghen goes on to describe how he blended real-life conversations by CIA agents, lawyers, oil-traders, Saudis and others into these characters into the movie. He had been "mind boggled" at the real world of people with money and power. Real conversations he heard are echoed in the dialogue of Syriana

Perhaps the most telling was his description of having to "turn down" the level of covert operations described in the movie vs. "real life", because the "truth" would be too unbelievable to the average audience.

He said, "I learned I will never fly in a small plane again; it is too easy to bring one down to kill someone and make it look like an accident.

One big problem he had in the movie was competition between time for character development vs. the multiple plot lines. Just not enough time for both.

[Revi]

Very interesting review in the New Yorker Magazine last week. He says that this movie lacked a hero, and that the driver was the oil itself. It certainly drove the four main characters. He says that this is one of several movies that had the same tone. The tone is that of events driving people. He claimed that it could be undertones of the Iraq war creeping into our culture. It is similar to the way Vietnam crept into everything by the end. Here we are in the US, engaged in another war that is not explained well, but that we all know is about control of the resource that keeps our economy afloat. We all know in our guts that something isn't right, and yet we all keep playing our parts, like the actors in this movie.

Overall I liked it. Parts of it keep rolling around in my head. I liked Traffic too. This one doesn't have quite the punch of Traffic, but the topic is even bigger. The oil wins in the end...Or does it?

[bartholland]

How does this movie compare with "The Deal"?

I found "the deal" somewhat dissapointing . Anyone seen both?

[entropyfails]

As a response for the storyline trying to "cram too much information" into the picture or criticisms of the "jumbled flow" of the film, I would like to point out that the director achieved EXACTLY what he wanted to.

If you check out some interviews with him, he says he wanted to portray how large, complex, and byzantine the international oil business is. You have the oil execs, the royal princes, the CIA, the DOJ, Lawyers, Bankers, fall guys and shady deals all of whom have NO idea of the big picture.

The movie points out that this situation is so complex, no single human can understand all of the aspects of the situation. We are all flying blind, clinging to our corrupt system, hoping to get another day or two out of it. I feel a bit surprised that Monte didn't enjoy that world view as it seems fairly close to his beliefs.

As for the presentation of depletion, the movie did hit a home run. One of the main characters stated clearly, "Oil is running out." One of the energy analysis's, Matt Damon's character, does claim that "alternatives" will become more important economically but it is stated as more of a vague hope of one of the characters. Everyone in the movie is worried about next weeks profit or next year's report. None of them ever stop to take in the big picture.

Now if the film were supposed to be an educational documentary, I could see some of the criticism leveled at it being valid. But he meant this as a "snapshot" of how the world works. Instead of thinking of this as an oil education film, think of it as a bleak portrayal of the dystopian energy world that our short sighted, selfish attitude has created.

And as for any confusion of the plot, I feel certain that if you watch it a second time you'll get all of the information that he put in there. And perhaps you'll come to understand that some of the minor characters have totally hidden motives (Ie not portrayed in any way on the film) and figuring out what THOSE are causes the real brain work.

In short, give this movie another shot with a different outlook if you didn't like it the first time around. And recommend it to your friends. Because if this movie doesn't do well, then we'll probably never see another film by a Peak Oil aware writer.

[Leanan]

Syriana opened at #2, knocking last week's #1, Harry Potter, to 3rd place. First place when to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4520380.stm

[Revi]

I liked the movie. I think it'll wake people up. The four plots kept the movie going and there was a whiff of evil in the Texas oil magnates. This was a movie that lifts the veil from what is going on in the industry. The peak oil community may not think it delivers the message, but the average person will get a whiff of what we're talking about.

[quiltea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GrizzAdams', 'I') am skeptical to see how the movie will turn out. After all, we all seen what Hollywood did with global warming.

[NeoPeasant]

Syriana wasted a tremendous opportunity to tell the public what they really needed to know about Oil. That it will soon be in short and ever decreasing supply and far more expensive.

Instead it reinforces preconceptions that all the supply problems are due to the corruption of Oil companies, the US government, and producing countries.

Every line in the movie about depletion was in the trailer. Which is good in a way, it will get a lot more exposure than the actual movie. But it gives the deceptive impression that the movie is about the problems of oil depletion.

[frankthetank]

Good movie. One part that stuck out was Matt Damon...

"What are they thinking?" "There thinking its running out, its running out and 90% of whats left is in the Middle East"...

A lot of Iran talk in this movie...

[Revi]

People aren't going to go to the movie to hear about peak oil. They want to see a fat George Clooney and be pulled along by a gripping story. I think this movie could have been better, but it doesn't have a boring minute, and it should at least start them thinking. The truth about the situation may be too hard for most people to take. They may turn off if it's another end of the world movie.

[Princess]

I just got home from seeing Syriana with a non-PO friend of mine. His response: What a mess! He felt it was an acting exercise. The actors were wonderful, but you couldn't follow the story. I'm afraid I have to agree with him. The film itself is well executed and well acted, but the script doesn't make it easy to follow. Granted PO is not an easy subject to follow, but if you want to introduce people to a subject you don't make the film introducing it as complex as possible.

I'm disappointed in the movie and would not recommend it to other friends. I'll have to find a way to introduce PO to my friends and loved ones some other way.

[foreverfree]

I have seen syriana twice in two days, and i agree the first time it isnt easy to follow but you must understand the corruption and government scandals are not either. The second time around i got a full understanding and was very impressed with not only the political reality but also with the pakistani terrrorist cell, it portrayed how they think and progress. All in all a good movie but to fully understand all of it: necessary to see twice.