Body of Lies: Review review
Satyaki Roy reviews Ridley Scott's Body of Lies
Maybe its too late to review this film. Never mind, It's still in the theaters. And that's all that matters. It's about a CIA agent, L. De Caprio, after a terrorist somewhere in the Middle East. Russel Crowe is the agent's boss far away in the US of A, who comes down for a visit during his holidays. Leo takes the help of Jordanian intelligence, plays with them, falls in love, gets played with, etc. etc. A web of deceit that constitutes covert operations; well established. This will do for synopsis.
Sound levelling is fantastic. One expects nothing less from a Ridley Scott picture. The in-points and out-points for sound clips, fades etc. are efficient. Nothing original. The real problem is with the background music track. It is incredibly hackneyed in parts. Just because you show the Middle East does not mean you play music that sounds like it comes from those parts. Every idiot does that and one doesn't usually expect Mr. Scott to do so too. A director in hollywood doesn't usually have great control over the finer aspects of sound and BGM. But he can throw away a trite score. It makes a world of difference. With Dolby, dts and the failed 7.1 doing wonders to sound experince, background music and sound design have become integral to filmcraft. Body of Lies is maybe half of what it could have been with a good background score.
The photography is great in parts. Those are the realistic parts. Nice warm tones in many places. Even the deep blue of his room and apartment are striking. The opening shots of locations are worth watching many times. But some parts of the desert are boring and artificial. Overstated in places, I'd say the problem lay with the color grading. Some real high telephoto shots, framed well. People aften think it's easier to frame while using telephoto lenses. Cause there is less to distract you. Rubbish. Its essential to get it spot on, since a slight difference can make a big impact.
Scott's mise-en-scene is functional. He could have undoubtedly made it more interesting. Surveillance stories have tremendous scope for captivating mise-en-scenes. Someone secretly watching someone else, in a crowded place. As I said, tremendous scope; wasted.
The biggest problem with the film is its ending. Whatever it may be adapted from, the ending is always in the director's hands. Downright preposterous, the film doesn't have what you'd call a 'climax'. Scott builds up truly exciting pace, and then delivers a flat end to it. When you are delivering a purely commercial film, with very little 'style', your most important story point is your climax. You don't disappoint. Learn from Steven Spielberg. The screenplay had too many dialogues. Not required. Individual dialogues had too many words. Not required.
Leo's acting was way lesser than what he is capable of. Not his fault I'd say. The character was not developed well. Russel Crowe was Russel Crowe. Bugger's the same everywhere. But his language training shows. Good for him. Now he can speak like an American. Mark Strong, good, and pretty trite.
What saved the film? Great pace, and stunning action sequences. Now thats how you do action. Stunning is an understatement. Very realistic, yet great impact. Indian action filmmakers should study the film and the technologies for the next ten years. Then maybe...
