comment #1

scooterzz says ...

i was actually bothered by a couple of glaring missteps.....it doesn't surprise that you're having trouble writing this film up.....

comment #2

actionman says ...

Denby is one of the only critics to get this film. It wasn't a masterpiece but it was highly entertaining, extremely well made, and quite clever. I loved it.

Scotterz...now that I have seen the film...I truly don't understand how you could say there are glaring missteps.

comment #3

actionman says ...

It reminded me a lot like Tony Scott's underrated Spy Game. Except darker, more violent, and more complex. I am a big fan of Spy Game, and Body of Lies seems like a companion piece in a lot of ways.

comment #4

Nick Rogers says ...

I'd call a dearth of entertainment a pretty glaring misstep.

comment #5

Nick Rogers says ...

No spoiler here, but only the climactic sequence had any smattering of true tension, and even that was ruined in favor of predictability. Mark Strong is the only thing worth seeing in this movie. Crowe's "comic" relief was embarrassing.

comment #6

scooterzz says ...

ok, action ----
SPOILER -- SPOILER --- SPOILER -- SPOILER

first of all, dicaprio's ferris is supposed to be the 'wunderkind', genius field op..... and then he tries to start a romance!?!....this makes him either the dumbest 'wunderkind' or the nastiest and most selfish in history....
and, no one.....absolutely no one getting a five inch needle shoved directly into their abdomen is flirting with the nurse doing the shoving.....it just doesn't happen in the real world.......
and, speaking of the real world...when asked about the veracity of the tech in the film, the screenwriter said, 'well, no one really knows what the cia has...but the cia wishes it had the technology of 'body of lies''.......
and, then....there's russell crowe....'nuff said.......
look, i said before...if i were 13 and at a saturday matinee, i'd probably love the movie...but, i'm not and i wasn't so, i don't.........
imo, mark strong is the best thing in a not very good movie......

comment #7

Nick Rogers says ...

In agreement with everything scooterzz says ... the only non-Mark Strong scene that jumped out is the one Denby mentions in his review. Sparing the ultra-spoiler context Denby uses, it has to do with a way terrorists at one point foil technology.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

So, just as I predicted, Rocknrolla had a higher PTA than Body of Lies.

comment #9

LexG says ...

THIS MOVIE FUCKING OWNS.

MAN UP.

comment #10

sweet_billy says ...

well...it wasn't all terrible.

what was terrible? the wigs and the fake beards and russell crowe's stupid fat act.

seriously. why did he have to gain 70 pounds for that role? and the stupid wig.

dude, cut your fucking hair and dye it like a man. it grows back. that shit was so distracting.

comment #11

fumero says ...

I don't get why Hollywood keeps on making these lame movies about the Iraq war. They're boring, they're depressing, and they don't make any money. People won't even like to go to see movies about the Gulf War yet, and that was almost 20 years ago. And honestly, I don't find anything "thrilling" about war, during the war, concerning the war, at least in the way the story in "Body of Lies" is intended to be a thriller. Drama and realistic characters YES, with realistic situations, and realistic conflicts -- those are worth making, like most of the movies made about Vietnam back in the 70's and 80's. But Stop-Loss, The Kingdom, Jarhead, Body of Lies...hollow films with shallow characters, and zero lasting impact. The biggest problem I have with BOL is that it was directed by Ridley Scott, who seems to be on auto-pilot lately. This film is just not on par with his talent, nor is it ambitious enough, especially when we're talking about the guy who directed "Alien" and "Blade Runner." And not only are his films starting to look like his brother Tony's films, (stylistically), but they've become just as vapid and frenetically paced story-wise as well. First he subjects us to the millenium's glossiest, most generic gangster movie with an even more genric title, (especially the "American" part, which wore out it's welcome with "American Gigolo"), unoriginal in just about every possible way, and NOW this DiCaprio/Crowe garbage! Perhaps Scott and Crowe have this strange and uncanny way of drawing the mediocrity from within each other's souls. Whatever it is, they have no chemistry. Maybe someday soon again Ridley will end up with the type of original script his career has been in short of supply of over the past 10 years, (WITHOUT Russell Crowe), 'cause as it is now, "Body of Lies" ain't it. And yes, I think "Gladiator" sucked too.

comment #12

p.Vice says ...

I love the Scott apologists who keep trying to insist he's some kind of master when every movie he makes is dull, generic and underwhelming. The man simply does not have an imagination when it comes to writing a script and telling a story. He's made formula bores like American Gangster and Someone To Watch Over Me and Black Rain (sounds like where Body of Lies falls too)... tone-deaf "comedies" like A Good Year and Thelma & Louise... hack-for-hires like Hannibal and GI Jane... throwaways like Matchstick Men and White Squall... epic bombs like 1492 and Legend and Kingdom of Heaven... and then there's Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, which are pissed on with insipid dialogue, completely uninspired storytelling devices, and ugly CGI effects. Where's the fucking beef?

Sorry folks, but Alien and Blade Runner do not justify this career. Call him another victim of the Eastwood Syndrome -- the tendency to egregiously overrate filmmakers who make one or two definitive and popular works and waste years trying to prove they have versitility they clearly don't have. The irony that the one film of his that sounds promising - Brave New World - is on the back burner to.... Nottingham!!! Just a reminder that if you're a Ridley Scott fan, the joke's on you, suckah!

comment #13

JapAdapters says ...

Jesus, seeing his movies listed shows that.Vice has a point. I liked AMERICAN GANGSTER quite a bit when I first saw it, but felt lukewarm (at best) about it the second time, and think GLADIATOR was an all-time disappointment. Loved BHD, though. It's the only Bruckenheimer movie other than THIEF that I think is good.

comment #14

actionman says ...

Alien, Bladerunner, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, and Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut are all perfect films. Masterpieces, really.

The Duellists is one of the best first-features ever made.

Gladiator is a kick-ass action film that revived a dead genre. It's a supreme piece of entertainment with one of Crowe's manliest performances, a ravishing musical score, epic scope, and great editing.

Body of Lies was stylish and engrossing and extremely entertaining. It's a shame nobody went to see it. But hey, at the end of the day, I could care less about box office. Awesome movies flop every year. Add this one to that list.

Thelma and Louise is one of the most influential films of the 90's, and ahead of its time when you think about it.

American Gangster is an entertaining, richly produced movie that's already underrated -- why people piss on this film around here is beyond me.

Hannibal is a hysterically funny black comedy with sumptuous cinematography and some great individual scenes, especially the climax with Liotta's head peeled open. God I love that bit. Just re-watched it this weekend; makes me laugh every single time.

1492, White Squall, G.I. Jane, and Black Rain, while all flawed, still have many things to recommend about them.

Someone to Watch Over Me is a flub. His only, honest-to-goodness flub.

A Good Year is not as bad as people made it out to be. It was a nice change of pace for Ridley. It wasn't great, or even very good, but it's light and gorgeous looking; it's decent.

The cult-classicness of Legend cannot be denied.

Calling Ridley Scott a hack or worse simply demonstrates, at least to me, that you have your head firmly entrenched up your buttocks. Go have a drink with Armond White you pansies.

comment #15

Nick Rogers says ...

I wouldn't call Ridley Scott a hack, but I would say since this "a movie every year" kick he's been on lately, the quality has diminished.

comment #16

actionman says ...

I don't know. I give the guy serious props for making almost a film a year. He's over 70 years old at this point and doesn't want to slow down. I'll defend the guy till the cows come home; he and his brother are two of my favorites.

comment #17

Nick Rogers says ...

actionman: I don't fault the guy for wanting to stay active, but I wish it would yield more movies like "Black Hawk Down," less like "G.I. Jane."

comment #18

scooterzz says ...

action -- i truly love a handful of films that i'm willing to bet you wouldn't give the time of day to but i wouldn't say you have your head up your ass and call you a pansy for it.....
your absolute devotion to ridley scott is a little weird but to each his own.......
and, a romance in body of lies?...really?...i mean, really?

comment #19

JohnCope says ...

It's very hard to take many of the above comments seriously. Are you really willing to invest so thoroughly in such a generalization, p. Vice? Hannibal and GI Jane are both far more daring in terms of their thematic ambitions then you want to allow. And though seeing Hannibal as a black comedy certainly is a legitimate approach, I would pay closer attention to Scott's commentary on this one as it reveals the film as one of his many works to focus on the plight of the sole virtuous person in a world of absolute darkness and corruption. I've always seen the film as an appropriately hysterical and overwrought melodrama in the best sense of the word--a morality play couched within the rhetoric of a fairytale sensibility; one which presents in stark terms the absurdity of the condition it depicts.

Meanwhile, the extended edition of Legend is a grand, majestic work which puts most other contemporary fantasies to shame. And Someone to Watch Over Me is,in my mind, his greatest film and one of the finest of the 80's; a film which sought a radical reinvigaration of standard genre tropes through a profound and careful consideration of the nature of heroism as well as the boundaries of gender roleplaying. To call it a "formula bore" simply indicates your own disinterest in what Scott is doing here; either that or an inability/unwillingness to recognize its merit.

Listen, I am hardly the biggest Scott fan anymore (Good Year was one of the worst, most uninspired pictures I've ever had the misfortune to see), but I will still happily acknowledge his accomplishments when they present themselves and in whatever meager fashion they do.

comment #20

BurmaShave says ...

THE DUELISTS, ALIEN & BLADE RUNNER back to back to back is one of the strongest runs since VERTIGO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST & PSYCHO, all the more-so for being his first three films. I will accept that since then he's been hit and miss and often average at best, but I would not hesitate to call him a great director.

comment #21

actionman says ...

I guess I need to see Someone to Watch Over Me again, it's been a long time.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Scooterz...typically, I am against the idea of sticking romance unnecessarily into action pictures. But in Body of Lies, it made some contextual sense to me. Leo's character is getting a divorce and obviously needs some action. He meets a cute woman, and instead of a torrid affair, he courts he in the way that is appropriate to her culture. I liked the scene with the over-protective sister. Leo and the nurse never end up actually sleeping together, and the subplot explored the complexities that would be involved if two people such as them were to get involved. And, if you actually notice, there is no kidnapping of her by the bad guys, since it was all a set up. I think the levels of deception that Body of Lies is operating on are pretty staggering, really. Everyone is playing everyone. The only fault I had with the movie is that Leo should've bought it at the end. Again, because Mark Strong's character knew about where Leo was, it makes some sense that him and his troops would come to the rescue. But Leo should've died, because that's what happens to CIA field agents.

And my "head up the ass" comment was not necessarily directed at you, Scooterz. It was aimed more at the people who blindly dismiss Scott's body of work, like he was a third rate filmmaker, like he was Uwe fucking Boll or some douche bag like that.

And there is nothing weird about loving a filmmaker and his body of work. If Ridley Scott were one of your idols, and you met him, and he was as cool as you could only hope him to be, don't you think you might be a fan for life? I know I am. I jive with his aesthetic and his filmmaking sensibility. And don't get me started on Tony, who I am an even bigger fan of.

And I'd love for you to throw some titles out at me that you don't think I'd give the time of day. I'd probably surprise you.

comment #22

lipranzer says ...

Fumero, I wouldn't call STOP-LOSS a "hollow" movie. I did have some problems, most notably the end, but I thought it worked better than all of the films you listed.

And yeah, BODY OF LIES didn't work for me at all. Yes, Mark Strong was as good as advertised, but the film did seem like it was on autopilot most of the time. If you want to call this Ridley's SPY GAME, I actually preferred SPY GAME; at least that had some energy behind it, and wasn't trying to be an anti-technology film while showing off every bit of technology it could get its hands on. I don't think Ridley Scott's a hack, but he hasn't made a really good film, IMHO, since GLADIATOR (HANNIBAL was fucking awful, BLACK HAWK DOWN was technically brilliant but was more a Bruckheimer movie than anything else, meaning cliched moments and ignorance of any political complexities, MATCHSTICK MEN was a light comedy made by someone who clearly didn't know how to make one, and AMERICAN GANGSTER was on autopilot as well. I never saw A GOOD YEAR, and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was at least an interesting failure, Orlando Bloom's wooden acting notwithstanding).

comment #23

LexG says ...

I am wholeheartedly with my man actionman on this. And I, too, like Tony as much or more. Their aesthetic really may be (for better or worse) the most influential of the last quarter century... you see elements of Ridley and Tony in everyone from straight action guys like Fuqua on up to masters like Fincher.

And BLACK RAIN = MEGAOWNAGE.

NICK CONKLIN 4 LIFE. And SATO was one of the baddest villains of the '80s.

comment #24

Norwegian guy says ...

I agree 100 percent with actionman as well. Even if all of Ridley movies are not masterpieces he is always very interesting. I love most of his movies and that goes for Tony Scott as well. Tony has made Man On Fire, Spy Game, The Last Boy Scout, Crimson Tide and True Romance among other really good movies.

Those who say Tony and Ridley are crap storytellers and only visual directors have no clue, and are only trying to be cool.

These guys are great with the visuals, but pretty damm good with music, editing, acting and compelling storytelling as well.

And I know it is cool to hate G.I Jane, but that is the best damm military training movie Hollywood ever made. It is also exiting as hell and Demi and Viggo are great in it. It has a stupid title but is a good movie.

Thank God we have Ridley and Tony Scott. There are so many lazy crap movies out therel, but these guys seem to love what they do, and are very passionatae about making good stories told in interesting ways.

(I am from Norway so my spelling is not the best).

comment #25

Norwegian guy says ...

I also like A Good Year a lot. I did not buy the romance but I tiink it is a good "man learning what's important in life" movie. Not great but again much better than most movies with this similar theme.

And the directors cut of Kingdom Of Heaven is amazing.

comment #26

Yuval says ...

This discussion is getting really depressing. Scott has made some movies worth mentioning, but trying to discuss his career and deal with arguments like “The cult-classicness of Legend cannot be denied”, “It's a supreme piece of entertainment with one of Crowe's manliest performances” or “the extended edition of Legend is a grand, majestic work which puts most other contemporary fantasies to shame” is starting feel as funny as the black comedy Hannibal.
BTW – actionman, how manly were Crowe or DiCaprio? My panties are still wet from the time Crowe killed that big guy and his muscles were all bulging and shining with sweat.

comment #27

actionman says ...

Sorry for enjoying big-screen machismo. My mistake.

comment #28

Yuval says ...

I enjoyed Natalie Portman's ass in Hotel Chevalier, I wouldn't list it as one of the reasons why Wes Anderson is a wonderful director.

comment #29

actionman says ...

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

In the case of asexual Wes Anderson, a filmmaker whose sense of cinematic sexuality has so far been extremely lacking, I'd say that his inclusion of Portman's naked ass would be a major step up for him.

comment #30

Yuval says ...

That's almost a comment about Anderson's films (or at least a pseudo-psychological observation about his asexuality), but let's not digress from the subject at hand. So you're saying Men should be Men and kill things, Women should be naked and seductive and you applaud the directors that give you these images as geniuses.

comment #31

iddaa says ...

I read this blog pretty often, based just on the titles that I find at hollywood-elsewhere, and I am consistently pleased with the writing quality that I find here.
justin tv izle
justin tv
lig tv izle
d smart izle
basketbol izle