Customer Reviews

Body of Lies

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

You really have to admire Ridley Scott's moxie.

Even though the 70-year-old director has long established himself as one of Hollywood's best and most durable directors; having helmed some of the most entertaining films of all time, in virtually every genre (including sci-fi classics like Alien and Blade Runner); and having been nominated no less than three times for the Best Director Oscar (Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down), to decide to take on theme that has produced exactly zero blockbusters thus far - the Middle East and terrorism - takes an incredible amount of chutzpah.

But it does help if you have the help of two of the biggest actors in Hollywood at the moment, those being Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe (who has worked with Scott on two previous films, Gladiator and A Good Year). It's ironic to think that the last time these two actors shared the screen was back in 1995, with the clichéd-but-entertaining oater The Quick and the Dead. Of course, at the time, Crowe was a complete unknown and DiCaprio was a 21-year-old newcomer with only a couple of notable titles under his belt. But oh, how that's all changed now.

It's not easy to describe the plot of Body of Lies without giving too much away. DiCaprio plays CIA operative Roger Ferris, who is trying to flush out a terrorist leader named Al-Saleem in Jordan. He gets his orders from Ed Hoffman (Crowe), a man for whom results are the only satisfactory outcome, delivered with a fair amount of arrogance and a cocky Southern drawl. Ed plays the situation like a kid playing a video game, and has the resources to change the rules anytime he feels like it, dispensing his orders from his office, from his backyard, from his daughter's soccer game, for Pete's sake! This, of course, infuriates Ferris to no end, because he is the one who is in the trenches, chasing the bad guys, dodging bullets, ducking explosions, and procuring the badly-needed intelligence that Hoffman needs. Ferris is also trying to build a productive working relationship with the head of Jordanian Intelligence, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong), a relationship that is made even more tenuous by Hoffman's double-dealings and hidden agendas.

There are so many ways that Scott could have screwed this up. A lesser director might have chosen to ramp up the action, sacrificing intelligence for entertainment. A lesser director could have taken this story of espionage and twisted it into a convoluted and indecipherable Gordian knot. A lesser director would have gotten less convincing performances from his lead actors.

But Ridley Scott is not a lesser director. Though the plot is indeed complex, with many layers and sub-layers, deceit and treachery, Scott never lets you lose sight of the overall picture. He tells a solid, wonderfully entertaining story, without the need to drive home its message with sledgehammer subtlety (after all, very few things are black and white). And most of all, he gets electric performances from Crowe and DiCaprio, whose symbiotic relationship with a thinly-veiled veneer of mutual contempt is a pleasure to watch.

I don't know if Body of Lies will end up breaking through the barrier that every movie in this genre couldn't; but for what it's worth, I hope it does. One thing's for sure... if anybody can, Ridley Scott can.

"Body of Lies" is a taut, riveting thriller that weaves a tale of terrorism, espionage, and betrayal amid the current landscape of violence and retribution in the Middle East. The film is based on the novel by David Ignatius.

Leonardo DiCaprio continues to prove that he's got the acting chops and is believable in action films. Here he plays Roger Ferris, a CIA operative working to track down a bin Ladenesque terrorist named Al-Saleem. Al-Saleem's trail leads Ferris to Jordan, where he must balance working with and between his CIA handler (played with relish by an overweight, aged Russell Crowe) and the head of Jordanian intelligence (brilliantly played by Mark Strong), who are working at crosspurposes with each other. Ferris further complicates his mission by falling for an Iranian nurse (played by Golshifteh Farahani).

The movie uses wild technology, lies and counterlies, torture, and Ferris' growing disdain with the intelligence community. Some of the movie seems quite fanciful, and maybe it is, but except for a couple of places, it holds up as a brutually honest thriller.

"Body of Lies" isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be. It's fiction. Some may find it unbelievable, but it's a movie, and that means it doesn't have to get everything right. It just has to entertain, and it certainly does.

Munich, then Syriana, and now Body of Lies. All smart, smart, smart spy thrillers, and all current. David Ignatius is a columnist for the Washington Post on international affairs. On the side, he is one of the best writers of spy fiction writing currently: he is, on a par with Robert Littell and Charles McCarry and, at most, a half step behind John Le Carre. Lies unfolds in the modern Middle East, Iraq and then Jordan, with sidesteps to Turkey and Dubai. (In the first scene in Dubai, one of our favorite buildings in Dubai was in the background, the Hotel Dusit.) Di Caprio plays a young CIA field agent. Crowe is his aging fat-around-the-middle handler and superior back in Washington, a man who cannot stop double-dealing, even with his own agents. Their objective is to entrap the head of an effective and up till then subterranean terrorist agency. If they cut off the head of the movement, they hope, the body will die. The movie plays out in a cascade of episodes, many of them grisly and all effective. Shot alternately in closeup (handheld cameras) and long shot (the view from overhead spy planes), they show the viewer how difficult it is to operate in an alien terrain where the enemies don't play by the rules. (The terrorists don't use cell phones or email so there's nothing to track.) In desperation, Di Caprio sets up a sting operation: he creates a false backtrail that insinuates that there is a second jihadist group out there drawing attention away from the master terrorist that Di Caprio and Crowe seek to capture. Di Caprio's sting leads to the death of an innocent and to Di Caprio's capture and torture - it's rough stuff, all of it, but it has the smell of truth to it. The movie is effectively filmed and efficiently plotted; the acting is always adequate and often much more than that. Russell Crowe is excellent (what a good actor he is!), Di Caprio is adequate to good, and Mark Strong as Hami, the head of Jordanian counter-intelligence, is absolutely superb. Body is really good.

Following the previous 2008 entry (which was Don Cheadle's average at best thriller, "Traitor") into the ever-expanding sub-genre of movies focused either directly or indirectly upon the ongoing War on Terror is Ridley Scott's latest Russell Crowe collaboration, "Body of Lies". As so many of these types of films have proven over the last couple of years, audiences don't really want to pay to watch a fictionalized account of a conflict, or something related to it, that they can watch for free on their televisions. But, does "Body of Lies" manage to side-step this major obstacle that many of its predecessors have fallen prey to, making this one of the rare exceptions, such as "The Kingdom" that actually manages to entertain, rather than simply remind us all (unnecessarily, by the way) of what's going on over there?

"Body of Lies" is a widespread tale of political intrigue and espionage that follows CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), as he and his boss, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), follow the trail of a deadly terrorist leader throughout the Middle East.

Written by screenwriter William Monahan ("The Departed"), the story for "Body of Lies" works very well during the first half of the film. Monahan keeps the plot moving along at a very comfortable pace that doesn't rush the story or allow it to become confusing. He gives the audience time to process the information being presented to them, for a moment, before moving on to the next piece of the puzzle (something that other films like this should maybe take note of.) When the story is focused on the espionage and politics of conducting the war from the perspective of those actually doing the legwork the film works extremely well, and is very entertaining; however, approximately halfway through the movie the story hits a massive snag that it never seems to fully recover from.

The snag is a romantic plot development that feels tacked on to appease the female members of the audience who may not be as into the spy stuff that has dominated the majority of the film thus far. I'm not against there being any kind of romance in these films, but this one in particular felt unnecessary and frankly, hard to believe. I mean, Ferris (DiCaprio) is an undercover agent working essentially behind enemy lines, and yet he never really stops to think that perhaps starting a relationship while taking on such high risk assignments might be a bad idea? Give me a break. I will give William Monahan some credit though, because he did still manage to give me some surprises in the latter half of the movie, even though the story's focus and overall tone seemed to have shifted due to the romance. While the twists were somewhat surprising, the plot points leading up to them in the second hour were far too predictable, and at times frustrating when you stop to think that the first hour was very well crafted and top of the line by comparison. What I wish could be done is have William Monahan go back and re-write the last half of the script, completely removing the uninteresting romantic angle, and just focus on the tension-filled action and intrigue that comprised the far superior first half of the film. Had the film worked out that way, then it would have become the best of its sub-genre; instead of being just barely above average.

To director Ridley Scott's ("American Gangster") credit, even though the film's story stumbles along in the final half, he does manage to keep things interesting thanks in no small part to his fast-paced, kinetically charged style of directing. The use of the handheld camera was a smart choice, allowing the audience a sense that they are right in the middle of all the action; therefore keeping them interested and involved to an extent. It was a very wise move on the director's part, and one that most likely kept the movie from being completely derailed by a much weaker secondary storyline that become the primary near the end of the film.

Even when this film began to stumble around, stars Leonardo DiCaprio ("The Departed") and Russell Crowe ("Gladiator") continued to lend their best efforts to keep the quality of the film elevated as much as possible. DiCaprio continues to impress me as an actor of great range, depth, and talent with his recent crop of dramatic work. Back when he first became a huge star thanks to the extremely overrated mega blockbuster "Titanic", I thought he was only alright, but not the kind of star that would really have any kind of staying power. However, after his remarkable performance in "The Aviator", followed by "The Departed", I am being forced to change my opinion regarding his talents. With Russell Crowe I didn't really know much of his work prior to the smash hit "Gladiator", but since then he has consistently remained one of the best actors of his generation, a testament which he has proven true time and again with many classic roles in films, such as: "Cinderella Man", "A Beautiful Mind", and "American Gangster".

DiCaprio's character of Roger Ferris is a man who is very complicated, and apparently extremely contradictory in his motivations and sense of duty. On one hand he appears unwavering, cold, and calculated towards his duty to protect his country and its interests, which at times calls for rather extreme measures to be taken; however, on the other hand, he conveys a sense of regret for some of his actions and questions whether he is doing the right thing. It is this duality that makes his character appear interesting and more human, yet also makes one wonder about how consistently he has been written. For example, there is an event that occurs in the film which was set in motion by Ferris, yet when completed and some repercussions are dealt, he quickly flounders on whether on not what he did was right and/or necessary (even though at the time he felt it was), and even attempts to pass the buck onto his boss. This type of floundering began to feel distracting, and coincidentally began occurring in the latter half of the film, when Monahan's screenplay was falling apart for other reasons.

As for Russell Crowe's performance as the conniving, opportunistic, and morally questionable Ed Hoffman, it is a very different kind of character than many of his more memorable ones from films past. Just as he had done for "The Insider" and "A Beautiful Mind", Crowe portrays a man noticeably older and grayer than he, and even appeared to add a few extra pounds to "fill out" the character. Even with Crowe's charismatic performance and dedication to the role, I just don't believe that this will be one of his most revered performances of his acclaimed career. In my opinion I believe Crowe's performance did partially suffer from the fact that most of his time onscreen was spent talking on the phone. While plenty of phone conversations have made for some truly exciting and scintillating moments in movie history, I don't believe a character should be on the phone almost the entire time, it just feels distant and impersonal to the audience.

What started out as a really solid espionage thriller set around the ongoing War on Terror, began to collapse onto itself when an unnecessary romantic plot development caused the film to stumble throughout the latter half of the story.

"Body of Lies" is rated R for violence and language.

Director and Producer Ridley Scott and Screenwriter William Monahan have created a memorable tale of our conflicting times, with lots of grey (metaphorically as well as literally) and very few whites and blacks.

Overtly put, the movie is simply the story of CIA covert operations agent in the Middle East, Roger Ferris, and his handler back at Langley, Ed Hoffman and one particular operation that they get into. Throw in a Jordanian Chief of Intelligence, Hani, who is sauve, sophisticated and patient with his own game plan quite different from the harried ploys the CIA is prone to use, and a master terrorist, Al-Saleem who is currently registering hits around the world and you get a pot-boiler, with remnants of Munich, Syriana, The Traitor...

Even though realistic depictions are gaining momentum in Hollywood of late, it must have taken a very brave Ridley Scott to take the dive so soon after the strain has appeared on the wall. But, trust Scott to do a good job - as he has always done.

The movie is a taut, psychological thriller, with double dealing & triple dealings galore, and terror is everywhere you look. Trust no one, Deceive everyone. That's the tagline on the movie posters, and the movie does complete justice to that theme.

Crowe is a middle-aged CIA handler, warming the benches back in Langley, (supposedly) doing all the planning and winning all the wars by himself. He takes this war on terror as a regular part of life, so much so that he is shown talking to DeCaprio while dropping his kids to school, while eating his cereal breakfast, while cheering his daughter during her soccer game! Sure, he has a right to a life, but I get the feeling Scott wanted to show the relative importance that making these decisions has for Hoffman, while DiCaprio's putting his life on the line. Talking of DiCaprio, he's a CIA field agent in the volatile Middle East - Iran, Jordan, Dubai - who sees human casualties with much more seriousness than his boss back in Langley. As a result of his thinly veiled dislike for his superior's ways-of-working, he developes a close rapport with the Jordanian Chief of Intelligence, played with an uncanny dexterity by Mark Strong, whose style is to let the small fish live, so that it can lead him back to the real big fish out in the ocean, and then he can move in for the kill. Patience is his virtue, something that CIA has not really appreciated so far, and so his natural disbelief of DiCaprio makes it that much more difficult for the latter to gain his trust.

The story moves through the streets of Iran, and Amman, and Dubai with deals going through and going wrong simultaneously, the stakes are real and bomb blasts are not just on TV.

The direction is terrific, and the acting is superb. The southern drawl of Crowe's character is like the icing on the cake - shows his (repeated) contempt for all other intelligence agencies. No wonder he equates himself with America, when Ferris has to make a choice... but - I'm not going to reveal anything more.

Overall rating; 4 out of 5

Films involving 'current events'--particularly those relating to anything happening in the Middle East and Terrorism--tend to be soaked in the writers', producers' and director's politics, which usually end up very much in-your-face and spoil the film, because you suddenly lose the story and drown in the preaching and proselytizing.

Ridley Scott, who has already addressed the West-East/Christianity-Islam issue in a previous film, 'Kingdom of Heaven', this time bit the bullet (instead of the sword) and continued KoH's story about 1000 years later. 'Body of Lies' is very much a Ridley Scott movie and this translates into the film's politics as well. Thing is, you can't leave politics out of a political movie; and so what do you do?

Well, here's a newsflash for the poli-preachers on all sides: it's possible to have it all, and just watch Ridley Scott do it. Just like KoH, it's all about even-handedness and realizing that (1) every side in a conflict has a point of view, which, to itself, is perfectly valid; and (2) every side has people you'd probably like and some you really wouldn't, (3) the way to peace lies with understanding (1) and (2); and not with having just one point of view, no matter how righteous it may appear. Both, Islamophobes and Islamophiles--or those on the extremes of any aspect of the political spectrum--will probably find ample elements to dislike about this film. Others of a more moderate and even-handed disposition will find much to like and appreciate.

All of this, rather profound, stuff is wrapped up in a gritty Ridley Scott production and direction, that keeps your full attention for its full 2+ hours. Leonardo DiCaprio has really grown up and cast off his annoying persona, which was so prominent in just about all his movies; until 'Blood Diamond' came along. Russell Crowe is basically a secondary character, eclipsed almost completely by DiCaprio and Mark Strong. The latter has come a long way since I first saw him in the BBC production of Jane Austen's 'Emma'. The gentle and understated romance element provided by Golshifteh Farahani as 'Aisha' provided a nice contrast to the testosterone-soaked male world in which this drama plays out.

The movie confirms what I've known for a long time: Ridley Scott apparently can do no wrong.

This review is not for the movie. The movie is fine and I am a fan of DiCaprio.

One of the reason I ordered this...I would like to get the second disc, so I can watch some extra and behind the scenes. But what I get is a single disc version.

I understand that with this price, I should be satisfied...however...if you are selling the one-disc version...do not say that you are selling the two-disc version.

I have to give 1 star, as I am not getting what I am buying

Please describe the audio/video quality of any Blu-Ray you review.

The quality of this Blu-Ray is excellent, both with the audio and the video. The video was 10/10; great. All Blu-Rays should be this good.

After loading, the movie began - in Dolby Digital 5.1. I had to go through the menus to change it to Dolby TrueHD 5.1. There's probably not much difference - I just think it should have played originally in TrueHD, since I have the player connected to my receiver with HDMI.

I played this on a Sony BDP-S360, and didn't have any problems. Then I took it to the bedroom to see if it would play on my older player, a Sony BDP-S350, and it played without any problems. I don't know what problem the other reviewer had with his BDP-S350. I have never updated the firmware on either player.

The movie is 128 minutes long, and was pretty good, just a little hard to follow (but maybe I was just tired).

These movies are the scariest horror movies of all time. Watching this, the Kingdom, Green Zone, etc the one thing that always jumps out at me is how much poverty and despair there are in this world that Americans are largely shielded from - it blows my mind. Here I'm thinking about getting more hours at work - they are wondering when they are going to be blown to pieces.. sure the movies may heighten that aspect, but for all intents and purposes I think they are closer to the truth than a lie.

Body of Lies itself is a real winner. I'm starting to think Leo Di cannot be a focal character in a movie I won't love - his track record for me is so damn stellar. The movie feels like two movies in one - the first half focus's on the known safe house of Al-Saleem to which I thought was the stronger aspect; everything felt very organic and had a somewhat 'you are there on location' feel. The second half (once they lose the safe house) - the 'orchestrating' of a terrorist group to draw out Al-Saleem felt highly improbable, something more akin to a Bond film - but still with Leo Di at the helm I somehow felt I too could create my own terrorist network out of spamming a Yahoo account, lol...

The romance. Loved it. Superb performances with real chemistry by Leo and "Aisha". Russell Crowe was about the only thing that felt a bit "off" in Body of Lies.. It's obvious he tried to fatten up for the role, different hair color, etc - but under all that I still see a Gladiator, lol.. it's not that he wasn't at least partially convincing, it's that as a viewer I don't really want to have to struggle too hard to distance myself from an actor and a role they aren't typically in - so this could be my bias - but if you threw Philip Seymour Hoffman into this role he would have melded right in as opposed to being forced into it. It should be noted - Mark Strong gave a strong performance;)

All in the all the transfer too was superb..

I myself was skeptical about a middle eastern topic movie and I waited for the video to be released. When I saw it I really enjoyed it. Some say leo is not a good actor but he wouldn't be paid the big bucks if most people believed that, Leo D. is a very capable actor and plays this part very well and Russell Crowe adds to the film as well. They work well together and the movie was thrilling to the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone, especially those who might not give a movie in this genre a try.
It has the drama, technology, action and thrilling story to keep you guessing the whole time. 5 stars!