Reply #2: I've heard it's an intelligent, quality film--but almost incomprehensible

[dback]

The writer is the same one as on "Traffic," which also juggled many characters and at least three storylines. However, Steven Soderbergh directed that (and won an Oscar for it), and he did a terrific job at keeping all the storylines clear and clean and keeping track of all the speaking parts. (People laugh, but even something as simple as using three different color schemes/film styles for the three different stories helped in this respect.)

"Syriana," from the numerous reviews and articles I've read, makes no attempt to keep track of its characters or plotlines--it just throws them at the audience, and you're expected to keep up. So out of some 30+ speaking parts, it's apparently impossible to keep track of everyone, how they're interconnected, who works with/for whom, who's double-crossing whom and why, and--the most important thing, and one some people will sneer at, but--who the good guys and who the bad guys are. (Yes, you can make films with moral ambiguity and no good people, but you still need to have a reason to get your audience to invest their time, money and loyalty in the story--even in the "Godfather" trilogy, which at least played out as tragedy.)

From what I can tell, "Syriana" provokes very few reactions from an audience except confusion, and that's not good. It seems like a very intelligent movie that nonetheless is somewhat dim about what it expects from an audience. (In contrast, "The Constant Gardener" was also a serious downer, political thriller about global corruption--but it was fascinating and gripping and involved the audience in its spiralling tragedy.)