Body of Lies

Well, that's the way it is. While most people were watching our hockey players advance to the World Championship finals, I was watching Body of Lies. And I really don't believe that the hockey was more exciting! A delicious performance by Mark Strong, the chubby office rat Crowe, a (traditionally) great DiCaprio... They all star in what I think is a perfect film that brought Ridley Scott and his crew of filmmakers to the Middle East for the fourth time. It was fascinating to watch Scott's work with the story - he sticks to one main storyline, then gradually packs in more and more, letting them weave in and out of each other with such ease that the viewer can follow everything without any issues, and it all culminates in a heart attack scene with the hammer in the lead role. Wow. (22/05/2010)

Syriana in a more commercial guise. In comparison, Body of Lies is easier to understand, more accessible to the general public, but at the same time no less relevant, it’s pertinent not dumb at all and the acting is no worse. Ridley again proves anew that he’s getting a third wind in his retirement and hasn’t lost any of his talent. (15/12/2008)

Three or four stars? I can’t decide. Body of Lies is unable to make up its mind whether it wants to be an entertaining film or one with a message. Unfortunately, it fails at both. The entertainment factor shows up only in a few shootout scenes between constant telephone calls and changes in location, while the “edifying” aspect appears here and there delivered by Russel Crowe (as satirical black humour) and Mark Strong. Plotwise it’s nothing remarkable, either, and I can’t avoid the feeling that the film could have easily continued for another half hour after the unforgettable scene of Leonard’s torture (instead of ending quite abruptly), while the first hour could be left out almost completely. Regardless of that, Body of Lies is not bad at all – it’s directed and acted with panache – it simply fails to impress. (06/12/2008)

All the ingredients are here but this time it's no gourmet delicacy. It’s as though Ridley Scott was resting and not giving it his full concentration like he did recently with the American Gangster. In any case, the actors were excellent, the bearded DiCaprio gets cooler with every movie, Russell Crowe perfectly pulls off a dad/agent who teaches his son to go to the bathroom, the imaginary crown was stolen by Mark Strong whose Hani could easily carry a movie all of his own. The rest is an almost textbook hi-tech spy scenario. Smart enough to impress you, not good enough to drool over with bliss for two hours. 75% (07/02/2009)

When I start writing reviews of Ridley Scott's movies, I usually start by saying that I generally don't like his movies. Why should I change my habits? I don't like his movies, but since I'm generally interested in movies, I watch them. I tell myself that maybe he can surprise me, like he did with "Alien" or "Blade Runner". Usually, he doesn't succeed. In the case of the movie "Body of Lies", I thought it would be different. Interesting setting, quite a fast pace, actors that I can - yes, I have already accepted that prejudices about Russell Crowe are senseless, because that guy is simply a great actor. He doesn't have much space in this movie because the main character is Leonardo DiCaprio, who we almost can't get rid of throughout the film. He is in the Middle East, carrying out actions for the American government. Russell Crowe is his coordinator, the brain behind it, a person who can do several things at once. At one moment, he plans what Ferris (DiCaprio) should do, and at the same time, he takes a child to school. Quite an interesting contrast that gets overplayed after a while and it's not quite the same. However, the actions in the Middle East are worth it and I think Scott learned a lot while filming "Black Hawk Down". The actions look good, they are shot from interesting angles, and there are no lack of fast cuts. Well, I think he also learned a lot from his brother, at least in terms of action. The movie "Body of Lies" is initially loaded with some action, but in the end, you realize that nothing really significant happened. What were those actions for? For people to live in fear? They will still? For someone to die? People die all the time. What did the movie actually want to say? Ideologically, it seems quite empty to me, it tries to tell us that America is behind very dangerous actions, planning grand actions that can significantly shake up the world. But don't we already know all this? The world is full of lies and we actually don't know who is pulling the strings. We won't find out even after this. Well made, but I stand by the fact that the movie is quite empty in its message. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/12/wtc-yes-man-mary-max-zambezia-cerna.html (02/03/2013)