pix and panz!

Pick: the 2005 Pride & Prejudice, with Keira Knightley, Donald Sutherland, Brenda Blethyn, Matthew Macfadyen and Judi Dench.
I was in the mood for this kind of romantic thing, and it paid off, though not exactly in the way I expected. The piece was shot very artfully, capturing somewhat the capital R Romantic sense of sublimity. Macfayden as Mr. Darcy was ugly-handsome and utterly convincing as a man whose shyness makes him appear rude. Knightley I thought was actually quite good and committed to her character, which was made more impressive my the DVD-add-on interview that showed her to be quite unlike her character, particularly in the sense of being clearly painted with her own contemporaneity. And this was one of the strongest points of the film - that it was relatively short on anachronistic speech and manners (though there were a couple of moments). Other than the fact that we have all had it up to here with Dench and her fright-wig queen/member of nobility/M, nothing turned me off about this film. It made me happy and wistful.

Pan: the 2005 Syriana, with George Clooney, Christopher Plummer, Chris Cooper, Matt Damon, Amanda Peet, others.
Truly gawdawful. Embarrassing. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I've seen Booty Call. I don't know why we didn't hear more about the fact that this is not just an apologia for terrorism, but a pretty clear if juvenile support of terrorism. There seem to be no limits to oversimplification for this intended-to-be-smart movie. The thing is so heavy with conspiracy theories that the filmmakers decided a plot would be an extravagance. Rather than any real attempt at the characterization of people, we have unashamed puppet theatrics, with everyone playing symbolic roles a-la Pilgrim's Progress.
Some absolutely shameful attempts at developing character:
*Clooney's CIA character eats with his son, who says he lies for a living (we never see or hear about the son again, so we are left to wonder why he put half a thing of Thai hot sauce on his noodles and then walked out without even trying them or asking for a box)
*Token black man's father shows up drunk on his son's doorstep. He eyes his son meaningfully. He shows up on the doorstep again. He throws his son the finger. His son picks him up off the floor of the bar. More meaningful eye contact. (And that's it. Apparently drunk dad is the moral voice of an oppressed race, offended by son's unprincipled behavior.)
*Damon's son is electrocuted by faulty lights in a Saudi Prince's pool. This is apparently a plot device that explains his being radicalized into the good kind of radical, who dreams impossible dreams. At the end of the movie, he returns home to wife and other child, apparently unperturbed. (There is "more" to this, but one is largely left wondering what the fuck any of Damon's backstory has to do with him or the plot, though the wiser ones among (viz. my wife) stop hoping that any of this will make dramatic sense pretty early in the film.)
And that is the most sophisticated character development in the film. Imagine the less sophisticated stuff.
Talk about giving the Hollywood liberal a bad name. I have not seen Good Night and Good Luck, but if Clooney could make this one and critics could praise it, I can't imagine GNGL is anything but gagworthy.
Now you must understand, I am liberal. Really, really liberal. I'm quite sure oil companies and other richies exert tremendous power over our administration and therefore over the intelligence agencies and the military. I'm not saying there aren't any conspiracies. I'm saying that if you're not going to utterly demean the possibility that there are conspiracies, you simply must try harder than this.
And about the terrorism thing... yes, the movie does show the terrorists being brainwashed by a guy playing soccer with them and telling them they're all brothers, but the overall logic of the film, in so far as there is any, appears to prove that the suicide bomber's final act is rather noble. They destroy a new oil facility, run by the totally evil (I'm not making this name up) Connex-Killen (italics mine, although probably an unnecessary Mad Magazinish gesture). C-K is evil, the lawyers employed by C-K are corrupted by evil, the intelligence folks who help out C-K are evil, the military that is in cahoots with the intelligence folks is evil. Damon and Clooney try to do good but are thwarted by the greater powers that be. Only our precious terrorists really manage to do a positive good.
One other amusing thing: according to these versions of the conspiracy theories, the heads of the Arab oil countries are the dupes of the U.S.-centered multinationals and the U.S. government. And when I say dupes, I mean they are DUMB. Damon suggests to the Saudi prince that instead of shipping oil around the Arabian peninsula he pipe it across Iran (again, not kidding). The Saudi prince reacts not only by apparently thinking this is a fantastic idea but, more significantly, acting like he's never thought of this before. Note to movie makers: if your plot turns at all on someone coming up with a brilliant idea, realize that it's not okay for that idea to be incredibly obvious/stupid.