Collegiate Times

When you think about the action movies of the past 10 years regarding war, you could say you've seen it all: exploding bombs, federal agents roaming the streets undercover and Humvees driving along the desert and rough terrain. Throw in Leonardo DiCaprio as a CIA agent fluent in Arabic and Russell Crowe as a veteran CIA operative doing anything to protect the country, and you have "Body of Lies."

Director Ridley Scott delivered a movie that worked so hard to be politically correct that you would think it needed a vacation before it hit theaters. The fact of it is, the movie did not scream "politically correct" -- it merely tried to throw in as many details as possible to make the film seem more interesting. Did it deliver? Not really.

Granted, the plot is very detailed and intricate, but overall the movie was too long and -- to put it flatly -- dull.

Ed Hoffman (Crowe) is a middle-aged CIA veteran who has his earpiece on 24/7 to receive information and deal out orders, while doing the everyday stuff such as making sure his son gets to soccer practice on time. All the while, Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) is out in the Middle East, living the dangerous top-secret-spy lifestyle.

The interesting twist here is that where many American spies see the people of the Middle East as soulless beings, Ferris sees them as people, whether or not terrorism has consumed them. This is to his advantage because Hoffman has never -- and probably will never -- see the people of the Middle East in such a light. This idea of humanity in the Middle East with terrorism roaming about has William Monahan -- the screenwriter -- and Scott arguing constantly.

All through the film, we see Hoffman on his headset, thinking of no one but the Americans, while Ferris is putting out the effort to actually talk with the commoners to figure out motives. Hoffman doesn't care much at all who gets hurt in this process. He only cares that his country is safe for him and his family.

The movie delivers a message that humanity is not in the nature of those in charge of the war on terror. It seemed to have a hint of skepticism toward current attitudes on the war. Of course, that may have been hard to catch on to for all those in the theater. Don't get me wrong, people were very tuned in, but looking around some others looked as if they felt it would be possible to catch a quick nap and not miss much.  

DiCaprio gives the movie 100 percent, but it almost looks as if he is straining too hard. Crowe plays the heartless character well, but there could have been steps to make the audience dislike him even more. The film was an OK portrayal of a newlymade war movie, but the intricacy of the details to every part in it made it dull and hard to follow.

If you are up for seeing a very long movie and you have an attention span suitable for the dialogue, then you'll enjoy it. Personally, it needed a bit more edge to jolt the audience and keep them intrigued.