MovieChat Forums > Body of Lies (2008) Discussion > why the movie fails...

why the movie fails...

posted 15 years ago by timothy_fairchild
13 replies | jump to latest

The characters seemed two-dimensional and never make you care about them or their motivations. This movie fails to reel in the audience and make them care about a definite objective -- unlike other movies like "Witness" or "No Country for Old Men," which suck you in. The romance with the nurse seemed contrived and phony, nothing below the surface to sustain the dialogue. The movie just relied on on its surface dialogue to keep it afloat, otherwise it would have crumbled into dust as nothing solid propped it up. Crowe was unconvincing and miscast for his role too. A screenplay has to go deeper than the paper its written on to work on a real life audience.

[–] Monkey_Orbs 15 years ago

Wrong.

But thanks for playing.

I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself.

[–] CharlieTheMan 15 years ago

I have only one word to you OP, and that word is actually two words "Mark Strong".

INCEPTION

[–] d_e_s 15 years ago

Everything about this film seemed like a recipe for a perfect movie, but the reality is that it left me unsatisfied and emotionally uninvolved. So I have to agree with you on some of your points. It just didn't work for me, which was really disappointing, because I wanted to love it.

[–] demon_llama93 15 years ago

it would have been WAY better if it wasn't a love story and was the movie the trailer made it out to be.

[–] lylesanford 15 years ago

it would have been WAY better if it wasn't a love story and was the movie the trailer made it out to be.

Sorry, but this movie was exactly how the trailer made it out to be.

[–] lylesanford 15 years ago

The characters seemed two-dimensional and never make you care about them or their motivations. This movie fails to reel in the audience and make them care about a definite objective -- unlike other movies like "Witness" or "No Country for Old Men," which suck you in. The romance with the nurse seemed contrived and phony, nothing below the surface to sustain the dialogue. The movie just relied on on its surface dialogue to keep it afloat, otherwise it would have crumbled into dust as nothing solid propped it up. Crowe was unconvincing and miscast for his role too. A screenplay has to go deeper than the paper its written on to work on a real life audience.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

What a load of self-pretentious BS.

Quit trying to sound so important, intelligent and insightful.

[–] timothy_fairchild 14 years ago

Hey Sanford, you brought nothing to the discussion but a bad attitude. No substantive rebuttal. And you didn't even have the sense to put a comma after "intelligent." So your ignorance has left you with a chip on your shoulder, it seems.

[–] chadbob829 14 years ago

There doesn't have to be a comma after intelligent. Way to go, ass.

[–] Robbmonster 14 years ago

To the OP,

I actually agree with most of what you said, especially about the romance. It's as though the romance was only there to a) Give DiCaprio a bit of depth, b) provide a convenient kidnapping target for later.

I thought Crowe was fine in his role, but unfortunately his character lacked dimension.

The dialog was fine as well, crisp and efficient.

But in all, I didn't like the movie. I too think it lacked the depth that it should have had.

Never defend crap with: "It's just a movie"
My work:
watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0
watch?v=z74-vDDDmTU

[–] jagooch 14 years ago

It's just a movie

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] toy2boy 14 years ago

The OP stated a rather concise summary in a very short amount of words.

This movie couldn't have been more flat, and yeah, the characters were meaningless.

- Just adding my .02 :)