comment #1

actionman says ...

I am not surprised. The script was great. The cast is great. It's got a great director. Can't wait to see this next week.

I doubt it's gonna be the film to get audiences to check out a topical, sand-set political thriller in the theaters but oh well, you can't have everything.

comment #2

pm123 says ...

The trailer looked like a gargantuan pile of cliches, and the director has been making 2-hour Nike commercials for his whole career ("Gladiator"!?), but I'll hope for the best...

comment #3

Mark says ...

"I doubt it's gonna be the film to get audiences to check out a topical, sand-set political thriller in the theaters but oh well, you can't have everything."

Why doubt? Grown-up audiences are so absolutely starved that Righteous Kill actually opened. More reviews like this, and I'd expect American Gangster numbers.

comment #4

Jay T. says ...

Gladiator shouldn't have beat Traffic for best picture, but c'mon, it was still a pretty decent film. It's actually grown on me more with repeated viewings. Anyway, expecting Body of Lies to be pretty good - after another summer of crap, it'll be nice to watch a thriller for grownups.

comment #5

actionman says ...

Mark: I could only hope that audiences would start paying attention to at least one of the many solid, sometimes great, recent political films that have been released. I just don't think that anyone wants to see this sort of stuff right now. Granted, The Kingdom didn't have star wattage like Body of Lies, but that was a tight, exciting, crowd-pleasing actioner that did about half the domestic business as it should have done.

I haven't seen Body of Lies so I don't know how good or bad or great it has turned out. I think the trailer is extremely well done and it promises lots of action and smarts. Maybe it will be the film that gets people interested in our current political climate.

American Gangster appealed to a wide variety of people for any number of reasons; Body of Lies seems much more specific.

comment #6

Bob Roberts says ...

Of all of the big budget directors out there, is anyone else held to a higher standard that Ridley Scott? (I would venture that people would put Scorsese in that realm, Spielberg was on that list at one point). I am not saying that he has the highest drawing power, but when you hear "A Film by Ridley Scott", you have high expectations.

He is one of Those directors, that, even when he has a very good movie like American Gangster, Gladiator, or even Black Rain, I still feel a small twinge of disappointment because he can still hit Home Runs. Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven (yes the long version) or even the criminally underrated Matchstick Men.

A Good Year/Hannibal (2 out of 18) aside, he just doesn't make duds.

comment #7

actionman says ...

Bob Roberts is a smart fellow

comment #8

hcat says ...

I like Ridley as well if not better than the next guy but he has made plenty of duds, good looking to be sure, but 1492, Someone to Watch Over Me, White Squall and the ridiculous G.I. Jane (I would rather watch Tony's Domino again before that pile of shit) simply don't deliver outside of some pretty pictures.

Though I did enjoy A Good Year would not put it in the failure category.

I was amazed they gave him Gladiator and thought it would be a huge bomb, Ridley's biggest hit was 20 years previous, Crowe had never opened a movie and DW's only previous action film had been The Peacemaker. It was an amazing comeback and overall he has kept up the quality. Like Mann, Speilberg, Scorsese and a few others I consider each new film required viewing.

comment #9

Mark says ...

actionman: a lot has changed since a year ago, when everyone was playing ostrich in regards to what was blowing up in the desert. 12 months later, sand-based explosions are a welcome escape from the wall-street crisis.

Kingdom also had a more direct adult competition; 3:10 to Yuma, Eastern Promises, Valley of Elah. The opening gap between Burn After Reading is BOL is enormaous.

comment #10

actionman says ...

Mark: here's hoping that the film is great and that people show up.

comment #11

p.Vice says ...

Once again a realistic perspective is lost in translation. "Smart studio movie for grownups" = dumbed down for adult idiots instead of teenage idiots. If this asshole has more to say about DiCaprio's facial hair than anything else in the movie, it means there ain't a whole lot to chew on. Par for the course with ol' Ridley.

comment #12

LexG says ...

THIS MOVIE IS GOING TO OWN YOUR ASS.

GUARAN-FUCKING-TEED.

comment #13

Majorian99 says ...

Agree with you Bob Roberts...

BLACK HAWK DAWN is the richest, most intense, realistic combat experience ever captured on film IMHO. It transcended it's clichéd structure with one of the most flamboyant visualizations of it's kind I've ever seen... Love the stylized bleached out cityscape getting blown to smithereens almost from start to finish... Great depiction of the team-work between the soldiers too... Unsentimental but ever so gripping...

And I don't care what anybody says -- of course it was a botched mission -- but only 18 lost to 3000 for the enemy -- sounds like a great victory to me...

If only Wall Street had that batting average in a crisis...

But they fought for the guy next them -- unlike the robbers on Wall Street...

comment #14

ketut says ...

LexG,
It's getting old. Get a new bit.

comment #15

MilkMan says ...

Bullshit. This movie is Deep Politics for people who still feel the hairs on the back of their neck stand up whenever they listen to Jovi's Wanted Dead or Alive.

I've been with two different audiences that have laughed at the trailer, particularly Crowe's strained attempts at recapturing the acting chops that evacuated his body sometime around that Wine Tasting Movie he and Scott made a few years ago. DiCaprio has been horribly cast, as usual, and Scott hasn't had an original idea since he decided to use the Bradbury Building.

Last year everyone was saying how great American Gangster was, and it was middlebrow horseshit, a notch above Body of Lies, which falls into the lowbrow horseshit category based on the fact that it's just another exploitation/action flick posing as a "This Is How The World Is" drama in order to trick The Cashmere and J.P. Todd crowd of it's significance.

And if the script for this movie is your idea of great writing, then do us all a favor and scoop out your eyes with a rusty spoon, because the only writing you deserve is the kind you can listen to in your car on the way to dinner.

comment #16

LexG says ...

Looks like MilkMan has an aversion to getting OWNED.

Maybe he should change his name to BitchMan.

comment #17

MilkMan says ...

Don't listen to Ketut, LexG. Stick with your old bit. Caps suit you.

comment #18

actionman says ...

Clearly, MilkMan, you didn't read the script. Your comments are fucking inane. Get over yourself. I've seen the trailer multiple times in the theater and nobody is laughing.

comment #19

scooterzz says ...

this film is anything but a 'bullseye'.....my attitude was pretty lukewarm towards it at first but the more i thought about it and the ridiculous actions made by the characters (especially dicaprio) i've come to really dislike it...
action -- a few days ago, you said that dicaprio 'elevates every project he's in'.....it's just not true here.......
i will say that mark strong turns in an amazing performance (too bad it's wasted in this)...

comment #20

actionman says ...

I guess I will see next weekend, scooterzz...

comment #21

MilkMan says ...

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, actionman. I'll try an get over myself, even though I have no idea what that means. But thanks for the comment.

comment #22

actionman says ...

No feelings have been hurt, milk. I just didn't see any point to your comment. It made no sense. Hence, the get over yourself comment.

You work best when you delivery funny, annecdotal stories that sort of speak to whatever Wells has brought up for discussion. Stick to those and leave the actual discussion of movies to people who care and have some knowledge. You and p.Vice should start a joint blog together.

Also, I asked you but you didn't answer -- have you read Monahan's script? If you did, I don't think you would have said the following:

"This movie is Deep Politics for people who still feel the hairs on the back of their neck stand up whenever they listen to Jovi's Wanted Dead or Alive."

comment #23

houmas says ...

Mark; I can't see BOL doing American Gangster numbers. AG was like the perfect storm of adult demographics--Urban crowds (ie blacks and latinos) thanks in part to the hip-hop cross promotion with Jay-Z''s album and TI , Rza and Common in the film, Denzel fans (and he's usually good for at least a 20 million opening by himself), discerning crowds (people who pay attention to reviews and Oscar buzz) and a killer title and trailer.

BOL may be a good film and get good reviews, but I don't think it hits nearly as many demographics as AG. I think it'll do similar numbers to similar films in the political thriller genre. Spy Game and The Kingdom topped off at 62 million and 47 million respectively. Another political thriller, The Manchurian Canidate remake got great reviews and some oscar buzz (particularly for Meryl Streep) but topped out at 65 million.

Even with stellar reviews, I'll be surprised if BOL can top 70 million domestic.

comment #24

LexG says ...

IF A FILM COULD BE GOD, IT WOULD BE AMERICAN GANGSTER.

comment #25

ketut says ...

I was talking about the owned bit.

The 12 yr old texters want their phrase back.

comment #26

LexG says ...

Ketut, keep running that Loren Dean-level-of-charisma personality and you might get OWNED.

comment #27

ketut says ...

touche, I've been torched.

comment #28

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Well, I, for one, laughed throughout the trailer. But, I'm not sure if it was due to the trailer itself or the fucking horrific kid rock national guard commercial beforehand. I'd like to meet the man and switch out his cocaine with some clorox. Talk about doing a disservice to your country.

But, back to the point, I imagine the film will be an uninspired retread, just like everything else Scott has done. And until Russell Crowe stops speaking in a subdued form of the accent he picked up in The insider, I'm not going anywhere near his films.

comment #29

lawnorder says ...

As someone who has actually seen the film, I can tell you it's a first class Ridley Scott political thriller and I had a blast. The script is strong, Leo is in Blood Diamond mode without the suspect accent and Russell Crowe steals the film with his J.T. Walsh imitation. It's definitely Ridley in a less intense Blackhawk Down mode. But the material is intelligent and gripping and I was with it all the way through. The subject matter of the film is pure Tony Scott, but directed in Ridley's more controlled style. It's essentially SYRIANA meets SPY GAME with a topping of BOURNE. I was expecting the film to be mediocre from the shitty trailers, but I was won over. Definitely check it out.

comment #30

scooterzz says ...

the funny/weird thing about the accent is that crowe went to david ignatius and asked him for backstory info on his 'ed hoffman' character....
ignatius told him that hoffman was probably from virginia and crowe said, "nah...he's from arkansas" and proceeded to turn in the hambone nonsense we see on screen......
and it goes downhill from there......

comment #31

Ryansi51 says ...

Chapman thanks so much for bringing up that atrocious kid rock national guard commercial. oh my god who watches that and says, yeah that's probably how it is. I almost shed a tear when that guardsman assuaged the little arab boys fears and kicked back his soccer ball.

comment #32

actionman says ...

scooterzz...how do you know all of that about Crowe/Ignatius?

comment #33

scooterzz says ...

because i interviewed them....

comment #34

actionman says ...

For what? Who do you write for? I'd love to read your interview.

comment #35

scooterzz says ...

yeah, well that isn't going to happen (it might put a crimp in the anonymity thing)....but i interviewed ignatius a while back and did the press conference for 'body of lies' about a week ago....
and after you've seen the movie, i'll be more than willing to discuss the issues i've got with it..... the bottom line is: if i were a 13-year-old boy and saw 'body of lies' at a sturday matinee, i'd probably walk out of the theater saying, "bitchin'...that movie OWNED"....but, i'm not...i'm a grown-up able to see plot holes big enough to drive a truck through and, in this case, they were bothersome...

comment #36

Yuval says ...

Bob Roberts, you have to look at Scott's career with both eyes closed in order to say that he is held to the highest critical standard. Look at his Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic ratings, he is consistently mediocre. Not just to be blunt, but Scott always seemed to me like a director who is always too dumb to truly handle the material in his movies. Matchstick Men was actually very well done, probably because it was relatively light weight. Black Hawk Down is a perfect example of a movie that has everything visually except a brain to go with it. Hey, while we're watching all these anonymous black guys get slaughtered do you care to comment on it? “Well, you fight for the guy next to you” Wow, that's profound, but why did we just kill thousands of people?

comment #37

MilkMan says ...

My opinion, and p. Vice's, are just as valid as yours, actionman. You have just as much cred and just as little cred as everyone else her save Wells. That's why you are a commenter, and not the proprietor of this site. Like I said, I don't need to see this movie, nor do I need to read the script to know that it's tripe, as the names Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe tell me that in advance. It's called taste. As for "getting over myself," I suggest you might want to do the same, or at least elevate your knowledge of films until you are at a level where it isn't so obvious you've been spoonfed a steady diet of Hollywood mush. It's okay to carboload every once in a while, just don't make it a habit. It makes the voice sound heavy and unwieldy.

comment #38

actionman says ...

wow, you really are an idiot. of course you didn't read the script. of course you make blind assumptions. of course you won't see the film in queston. of course YOU have no taste. what am I doing even responding to you?

comment #39

actionman says ...

scooterzz....interesting...i figured you wouldn't mind pointing me in the direction of your work, but I guess I was wrong. looking forward to hearing what real critics have to say about this film.

comment #40

Chapman Carruthers says ...

less talk. more action. it should involve you walking away from the computer.

comment #41

Yuval says ...

actionman, doing a little Google detective work you may come across this interview. http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_15684.html
You're right, don't make blind assumptions.
Sorry if this is blowing your annonymity scooterz, but you really made it too easy.

comment #42

MilkMan says ...

Actionman:
Yes, I am.
No, I didn't.
Yes, I do.
No, I won't.
Likewise.
Who knows?

P.S. - If you're going to call people names, really go for it. 'Idiot' seems kind of pedestrian for a wit such as yours.

comment #43

scooterzz says ...

gosh...timing is everything...this just in:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938573.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

comment #44

actionman says ...

just one persons review. at the end of the day I don't give a shit what critics have to say. if I am interested in a movie I will go and see it.

comment #45

scooterzz says ...

five posts ago you said: 'looking forward to what real critics have to say about this film'.....

you seem to float around a bit.....

comment #46

TheJeff says ...

scooterzz gives a bad review and actionman says, "looking forward to hearing what real critics have to say about this film."

scooterzz points to an equally bad review from Variety's "real critic," and actionman says, "at the end of the day I don't give a shit what critics have to say."

Hilarious. Maybe he was only looking forward to reviews before because it wasn't "the end of the day" yet.

comment #47

scooterzz says ...

sorry, youval...bad call.....not me or my site.....

comment #48

actionman says ...

yes, I did say that. and mccarthy is indeed a real critic. he's just one person, however. and again, at the end of the day, i don't give a fuck what other people think. if I am interested in the film I will go see it.

what? should I listen to people when they tell me that The New World is flawed? that's the best movie of the decade in my estimation, so if I listened to what critics had to say about that film, where would that have left me?

body of lies appeals to me. I love Ridley. I love Russell. DiCaprio I enjoy. I like the setting. I like the topical nature of it. I like to see movies about spies. I like shit blowing up. I expect to enjoy the film.

comment #49

austin111 says ...

Scooterz is apparently at odds with McCarthy on DiCaprio, however, which has a lot to do with Scooterz own evident and generally dopey prejudice towards this actor. Thanks Scooterz for bringing us a review with a far less idiotic view in that respect.

comment #50

scooterzz says ...

*sigh*....i don't dislike dicaprio....in fact, i'm a fan....i just don't think that everything he does is gold and he seems out of place in this role.....to call someone idiotic and prejudicial because he doesn't like a performance that you do (although i'm not sure that you've seen the film) seems a tad unbalanced and kinda diminishes your post....

comment #51

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Leonardo DiCaprio's best performances:

1. Luke Brower in Growing Pains.
2. Arnie Grape in What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
3. Toby Wolff in This Boy's Life

Then Leo reached the age of majority and insisted he play grown up roles that don't fit him. Since then, it's been one piece of dreck after another. He's this decades Ian Ziering. Go find a show like 90210 that allows thirty year olds to play high schoolers.

comment #52

Majorian99 says ...

Think you are way off with your views about BLACK HAWK DOWN, Youval...

Every war-movie doesn't need to be APOCALYPSE NOW in thematic density... I think BLACK HAWK DOWN is splendid as is -- focusing on a few trying to backtrack out of an asshole-situation...

Focusing on the problems concerning the reasons behind the fightning is another movie which is not, sadly, the job of the soldiers tell...

comment #53

desert rose says ...

Well, I'm with actionman. Being a big Scott & Crowe fan, and increasingly enjoying Leo's work, I'm really looking forward to this movie.

McCarthy didn't like it much, but Kirk Honeycutt appears to like it quite well.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=11753

comment #54

perceptions says ...

ACTIONMAN

I totally agree with your comment "just one man's opinion".

As the saying goes "We all look , but we don't all see the same thing.

I like a person who thinks for himself :)

I know I do, and that is why I shall go see "BOL" and form my own opinion

At the end of the day , our own 'perceptions' are the real basis of whether we recommend a movie to our friends or not.

I

comment #55

Yuval says ...

Majorian99, let's leave Apocalypse Now and its thematic density for now. Black Hawk Down might have been a tightly thematic movie on a few soldiers trying to backtrack out of an asshole-situation if it wasn't so in love with images of anonymous bodies falling down dead. When you see thousands of people dying on the screen and the movie ignores it to focus on the hardship of those who had to kill them, it isn't a focused theme, but a dumb one.
It definitely wanted to be that movie, but Scott is totally unaware of what he is actually putting on film. To call that movie fascist might be true, but it will also be giving Scott too much credit. If ever there was a director totally enamored with the images of force but totally clueless for what they stand for, it is Scott. The same is true for Gladiator, Hannibal, G. I. Jane, 1492, White Squall and Thelma & Louise.
If you would ask Scott what those movies are about he will say Gladiator - freedom of man, Hannibal - conquering evil, G. I. Jane - woman's liberation, 1492 - the freedom of exploration, White Squall - man against nature, Thelma & Louise - woman's liberation. But all those movies are primarily about one thing - it sure is great to have the power to kill, or in other words - power=justice.
A prime example of Scott's amazing power to ignore what his own movies stand for is these lines from Gladiator: "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them, and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom, and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome... is not the marble of the senate. It's the sand of the Coliseum. He'll bring them death... and they will love him for it." When I saw the movie a second time and noticed this scene I thought I might have misjudged it, it may actually be aware of its own double standard, but take that 10 seconds of dialogue and compare to the rest of the movie, filled with images of death to make us roar and enjoy deat, I reverted back to my previous judgment, clueless.

actionman, you are so true, you shouldn't listen to other people if you feel they are wrong. Not even if they are critics, and from Variety. Now go back in time and remind that to yourself a few hours ago when you wrote the opposite and was looking forward to what real critics had to say since obviously Scott is held to the highest critical standard of all big budget directors.

comment #56

actionman says ...

Yuval: I am merely interesting in reading what critics have to say. I don't care, though, in the end. I enjoy reading film criticism, but it never ultimately matters to me what ANY of them say. I like to read for the differing writing styles, and what people pull from a particular film. If I am interested in a film, for any number of reasons (great trailer, solid actors, a favorite director or writer) then I am going to see that film.

Take Eagle Eye, for example. A film that got mostly killed by the critics. A 27% at RT. I went to see it because I wanted to watch a silly action film. The trailer was tight. I wanted some entertainment. And I was plenty entertained. It wasn't a particularly good film, but it was enjoyable.

Critical opinoin is just that -- opinoin. It means nothing in the long run. All that matters is whether or not you, as an individual, enjoyed yourself.

comment #57

MilkMan says ...

Of course actionman is a Ridley Scott fan. Much like Scott, he spends and inordinate amount of time and energy to make what amounts to a very simple point. In actionman's case, the point of what he's been sayingi s this: I don't care what anyone thinks and I like to watch shit blow up. Point taken. Now I see why you take such offense to the naysayers. You're a real meat and potatoes guy, a real American. I salute you, actionman, in you boldness and courage to shout down the voices of dissent and fight for your right to veg out. You are a true American hero.

comment #58

actionman says ...

thanks milk man. you're a fucking douche. you have your head up your ass. it's quite obvious.

comment #59

Yuval says ...

actionman, this is kind of tedious, are you really unaware of what you were writing earlier? A recap - scotterzz wrote that that he/she didn't like the movie and quoted Crowe and Ignatius for a possible reason why the movie doesn't work. You replied that you doubt the quote is real (though it is) and said you were waiting for what "real" ciritics had to say. This remark was intended to put down scotterzz opinion as something not worthy of your consideration since it didn't come from a real critic, it was just an opinion. Then when a real critic was presented to you, you said critics' opinions are really just regular opinions, and what you really meant is that you were waiting for critics' differing writing styles and what they "pull" from movies. Scotterzz also has a writing style and he/she also "pulled" something from the movie, but I guess it was still somehow less of an opinion than a real critic.
Please don’t write again on how important it is to have your own opinion. I’m not discussing that point with you, nor have I wrote anything contrary to that belief. It is you who put-down others’ opinions as less valid for your consideration than a critics’ opinion, thus making a critic much more than one opinion.

comment #60

judgeroybean says ...

Good God....I just read this quote from Yuval to a couple of friends...just so I could see their jaws drop:

"A prime example of Scott's amazing power to ignore what his own movies stand for is these lines from Gladiator: "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them, and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom, and still they'll roar. The beating heart of Rome... is not the marble of the senate. It's the sand of the Coliseum. He'll bring them death... and they will love him for it." When I saw the movie a second time and noticed this scene I thought I might have misjudged it, it may actually be aware of its own double standard, but take that 10 seconds of dialogue and compare to the rest of the movie, filled with images of death to make us roar and enjoy deat, I reverted back to my previous judgment, clueless."

The supreme irony of this statement is that, inadvertently, it has hit on the very point Scott was making.
Let's see: Much as we'd like to tell ourselves otherwise, human nature hasn't changed in 2000 years... so Scott's movie sits us down on the bleachers of the colluseum and gets us to experience the same thrills.....the cinema audience part of the mob, roaring at death. (And beleive me, the audience I was with roared for blood along with the movie.) Except, it also puts you in the sandals of the guys fightling it out in the sand. It can make for uncomfortable emotions. That is the real genius of the movie.....sadly overlooked by those who need deep meaning spelling out to them in wordy dialogue.. Scott is all about showing people the point rather than telling them. So the audience feels the whole sickly carnival of death....and of course we feel rather ashamed to be roused by it. Not very cultured or cerebral as entertainments go after all is it? But only the foolish would think that Scott was merely trying to duplicate the arena violence, and the responses to it, as an end in itself. Or perhaps, in order to shake that uncomfortable feeling, its tempting to accuse the film of glorying in spectacle and mob behaviour....when in fact its the audience (both on screen and in the cinema) that is manipulated into doing that.
Gladiator is a great film. The irony being it is often thought to be lacking subtlety....when in fact, for many, it is perhaps TOO sublte.

comment #61

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review

comment #62

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of db2 high availability

comment #63

Kodak Sport zx3 says ...

very nice post! I was amazed they gave him Gladiator and thought it would be a huge bomb, Ridley's biggest hit was 20 years previous, Crowe had never opened a movie and DW's only previous action film had been The Peacemaker. It was an amazing comeback and overall he has kept up the quality. Like Mann, Speilberg, Scorsese and a few others I consider each new film required viewing.

460 sli benchmark | 580 benchmark | 570 benchmark | 560 Ti benchmark | 6990 benchmark | 590 benchmark | 480 benchmark | 6970 benchmark | 5670 benchmark | 4670 benchmark | 6850 benchmark | 6870 benchmark | 6950 benchmark | Black Ops benchmark | 5870 benchmark | 5850 benchmark | 5830 benchmark | The Witcher 2 benchmark | gt 240 benchmark | 295 benchmark | 5450 benchmark | 5570 benchmark

comment #64

Insomnia Quotes says ...

what a great post! He is one of Those directors, that, even when he has a very good movie like American Gangster, Gladiator, or even Black Rain, I still feel a small twinge of disappointment because he can still hit Home Runs. Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven (yes the long version) or even the criminally underrated Matchstick Men.

comment #65

kaos futsal says ...

great post! nice! Spy Game and The Kingdom topped off at 62 million and 47 million respectively. Another political thriller, The Manchurian Canidate remake got great reviews and some oscar buzz (particularly for Meryl Streep) but topped out at 65 million.

baju futsal | jersey futsal | kaos bola