"This isn't about Left and Right but about Have and Have Not."
-Huh?

Oil, man. It boils down to oil. Even under a Democrat administration, the oil situation has always been complex and shady.

Deleted what I was about to write and am starting over.
The democrats in this country are not for the most part leftist.
Left and Right versus Have and Have Not is not, on an ideological level, a valid distinction to make.
Ebert sees TBNelson's corruption speech as a "brilliant defense of corruption," but I take it as a brilliant moment of script-writing that perfectly captures what I think is so bottomlessly sinister about the global oil game. You could take me to task there, but I do think this is a valid distinction to make.
The first thing Ebert rattles off is a list of things the movie is about, and Islam/the Middle East/politics of the Middle East is not one of those things. I can't not take note of this omission. I think this reflects exactly what I was trying to say is problematic in the discussion below your post of Gaghan's HP blog entry.

The very fact that Democrats in this country are not for the most part leftist is exactly why it's not about "Left and Right." And while you make a good point about the politics of the Middle East being omitted, that's really about "Have and Have Not," is it not?

Fair enough.
Obviously Gaghan isn't himself defending corruption on any level. And I think in a number of ways his portrayal of politics in the Middle East is quite strong. But it doesn't suffice I don't think to assume the role of Middle East politics is covered by the 'Have and Have Not' category. Because the struggle exists on many levels- and this is even one of the things I think the movie demonstrates very successfully, and I think Ebert is right in saying the point of the movie is to get lost in the story.
Again, stopping myself short, this time to ask if you think it's fair to draw a parallel in the story between Clooney's character and the characters of the suicide bombers, in terms of the roles they play in the abstract, and then see how their respective roles diverge?

Certainly it's fair to ask, and now that you mention it, I can see the parallels. But it didn't come to mind previously, nor while I was watching it.

i love how when i say a movie is good because it's intentionally confusing in a manner germane to the subject matter, you call me an egomaniacal buffoon. but when EBERT, your prince of princes, says it, you're falling all over yourself to justify his rather bland and meaningless review. you are as sycophantic as his constant thumbs up (the butts of movie execs).

no, i thought of your comments while i read his review. and if you had written down your thoughts, i might've linked to them :)

hey, eat my butt, smiley face.

;)

I just saw it. It was about oil, right?