   Syriana
SyrianaIs it a good movie, or is it overly pretentious?I might see a movie this weekend, and I don't know if it should be this or Aeon Flux.   
  All I know is that if you have to choose between Aeon Flux and, well, anything, you shouldn't chose Aeon Flux.Also, I heard George Clooney broke his skull during filming.  Noah Whiley jumped in and fixed him up, though, so its all good.CM   ;  I think Aeon Flux looks more interesting to me, but trailers don't mean much.And while searching for that, I just discovered yet another feature of Google. Google seems to prefer Syriana.   ;  It looks good to me. I watched a promo for it on A&E the other day. Roger Ebert gave it4 stars. He calls it a "hyperlink movie" in that "...the motives of one character may have to be reinterpreted after we meet another one." He also says, "I think "Syriana" is a great film.";  lessbread, ebert & roeper will give any movie 4 stars. that's a fact.   ;Quote:Original post by skyfirelessbread, ebert & roeper will give any movie 4 stars. that's a fact.No, they just base the merit of a movie on it's entertainment value, not some higher artistic calling intellectuals thing filmmakers should strive for. For that reason I read Ebert's reviews and few others. I'd rather have someone tell me whether I'll be entertained for 2 hours that read some garbage about film's "making their meaning" from a bunch of wannabes.   ;Quote:Original post by skyfirelessbread, ebert & roeper will give any movie 4 stars. that's a fact.No it is not a fact. Look at the front page of his website. Christmas in the Clouds  - 3 First Descent - 1.5The Kid and I - 3The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 339 Pounds of Love - 1.5Syriana - 4Three Days of Rain 2.5Clearly, he won't give just any movie 4 stars. And if you look at all of the various reviews on that page you'll only find a handfull of movies that he gave 4 starsThe Polar Express (IMAX)Bee SeasonMurderballSin City;Quote:Original post by BitBltNo, they just base the merit of a movie on it's entertainment value, not some higher artistic calling intellectuals thing filmmakers should strive for. For that reason I read Ebert's reviews and few others. I'd rather have someone tell me whether I'll be entertained for 2 hours that read some garbage about film's "making their meaning" from a bunch of wannabes.That's a good observation. Ebert knows how to review a film for it's intellectual and artistic value too, but he always bottom lines it to whether or not the film is entertaining. He knows that too much analysis can kill the experience of enjoying a film.  ;  I saw the trailer, it looked good. Gonna see it in ~10 days after finals.   ;  I saw the movie today, and here are my thoughts:The trailer gives a fairly good idea of what to expect in terms of subject matter, but the pacing is not the same. Think of Traffic, but more drawn out. It was boring, and at some points I felt like I paid to sit around doing nothing. I don't have anything against slow movies, but I didn't feel any connection to the characters, so I wasn't interested. I could never remember which of the old guys was which, and some of their dealings I didn't understand at all.The movie was done the same way as Traffic, so there are different stories part of a larger whole. A couple of them I actually did like. The movie had a good ending, and some of the issues brought up were nice. But as a whole, it was too long and boring.And if the trailers are the same for everyone, they suck ass. Don't see this at a theater. Renting it or watching it on TV would be good enough.   