Lions For Lambs Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8792.95 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x536 | 4392.52 MiB | 720p | |
|
704x286 | 701.75 MiB | divx | |
|
320x144 | 352.28 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
If you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything
What do you: live...die...fight...stand for?
Lions for Lambs begins after two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian and Ernest, follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley, and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged but disaffected student who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. the charismatic Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving, is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist that may affect Arian and Ernest's fates.
| Robert Redford | Professor Stephen Malley |
| Meryl Streep | Janine Roth |
| Tom Cruise | Senator Jasper Irving |
| Michael Peña | Ernest Rodriguez |
| Andrew Garfield | Todd Hayes |
| Peter Berg | Lt. Col. Falco |
| Kevin Dunn | Howard - ANX Editor |
| Derek Luke | Lt. Arian Finch |
| Larry Bates | Soldier #1 |
| Christopher May | Soldier #2 |
| David Pease | Soldier #3 |
| Heidi Janson | Soldier #4 |
| Christopher Carley | Sniper |
| George Back | Student #1 |
| Kristy Wu | Student #2 |
| Robert Redford |
6.10 out of 10 (4631 votes)
Visitor Reviews
As a foreigner I found this movie to be incredibly biased
posted on 30 Aug 2009Before you go any further let me tell you that I'm not American, so I'm not writing this to support any particular view or political party. I'm Polish, studying in US I appreciate good cinema and by this I mean intelligent movies that do more than just trick you/cheat you into having a particular crafted/staged emotion. My comment was reported as abuse for reasons I don't understand. I have seen this movie, I didn't like it and I didn't write this as a political rant. Quite honestly, as culture gets more and more "dumbed down" and bubble gum like so do the so-called thought provoking movies. Compare this with any of the communism-period Wajda work, and you will see real multilayer movie-making . This week I was able to get into the sneak preview of Tom Cruise's latest movie "Lions for lambs". Now, I can enjoy a good anti-war movie even if I don't agree with its' message. But this wasn't "Platoon" or the "Deer hunter", It didn't even have one tenth of the complexity of "Munich". This movie felt like pure propaganda, not provoking you to think but telling the viewer what to think. It didn't really bother with much of a plot and in my opinion was really insulting viewer's intelligence with how much it felt to spell out "war is bad" and "Republicans lie". Running approx. 1:20 minutes it even conformed to the format of shock value propaganda movie. If anything it felt like those Donald Duck anti-Nazi cartoons Disney put out in the 1940's. It's not that I think a movie can't criticize this government I support the war in Iraq but I see and understand that someone might have a different view. This movie's only point is that no rationally thinking person would ever support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and people do so only because they're duped by silver tongued Republicans. Tom Cruise plays the GOP spin doctor, trying to sell the new Afghan strategy to a CNN caliber reporter, Meryl Streep. This is the movie's weakest point. The characters mostly talk- we have a reporter and a republican, engaged professor and a lazy student trying to get him to care about things surrounding him, and we have a story about young, promising students who decide to enroll, go to war and die. People with opposing views talk about patriotism and conservative characters are either exposed as liars or naive and dismissed. There is nothing wrong with talking but this picture I found to be very preachy. This movie can't seem to comprehend that there is no right and wrong in politics. We already know what people's opinions are anyway so there's nothing new to discover. The movie's only point is that: Republicans lie and they know they are lying, the Democrtats are on the side and good and light but are too lazy and preoccupied with making news about over the top celebrities(as movie hints with ending with shots of the entertainment headlines on a news network and a question: what will you do? to call opponents' bluff and talk about how we're losing in Iraq. The producers believe that no reasonable person can think otherwise.There is not a single notion that this may come from fundamentally different views on the world and that people may have conflicting opinions and that's not unpatriotic or unjustified.The film claims to offer a fair view. It brings up some facts and views but quickly dismisses them if it doesn't fit the major premise. Republicans bad, Democrats good. The movie also tries to manipulate by showing Streep driving down DC and seeing graves and the Memorial Monument from the car at the end. There is something really odd about her performance and very theatrical face expressions that felt like she's saying "I'm Meryl Streep and I'm acting", while the jelly Tom Cruise character looked as if he was about to jump on his sofa prosing his love for Katie Holmes. This is a very political movie, but not in a way that's smart and witty. It's blunt and emotionally void,but
Boring, unentertaining tripe!!
posted on 28 Aug 2009Put simply this movie is a boring lecture poorly constructed by a group of individuals with an extreme FAR LEFT BIAS. Tom Cruise plays a single dimensional, one-note character. Ms Streep looks VERY tired and almost uninterested. Pretty much a movie made ONLY to push an agenda. Its like the producers got together to discuss the best way to push their politics vs make a good movie. The obvious "agenda pushing" is COMPLETELY transparent. I'm OK with preachy, message movies(from either side) BUT you've got to be entertaining!! I have seen almost EVERY movie that has been in the IMDb top 5 each week this year...I'm NOT all that hard to please. This is quite possibly the worst film I've seen this year...found myself nodding off and finally resorted to checking my email during the "climax". MUCH better places to spend your entertainment dollar. (IMHO) - John
5 minutes
posted on 26 Aug 2009Despite my interest in the subject matter and political persuasion, I walked out of this film after five minutes or so. I felt I was being subjected to such pure manipulation and heavy-handedness that it was almost abusive to my senses. There was nothing real about the film, starting with Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise playing a Republican Harvard/West Point educated senator (yeah, sure) to some lame plot about Afghanistan. If they really wanted to make a serious film, it should have been about Iraq, about something actual, and portraying a real representative of the administration (say Cheney). Having college grads go to Afghanistan seems so unlikely as to be preposterous, especially for reasons that seemed far-fetched. Redford as a college prof. talking to some student was also inane. Only Streep seemed a bit real. Maybe the film got better but I doubt it.
Self Indulgent Silliness
posted on 22 Aug 2009I had the opportunity to watch this on a recent international flight. As a Soldier who has been to both Iraq and Afganistan I take great issue with the basic premise that neither of these ventures have been worth the sacrifice involved and it is Vietnam all over again. Having said that it is obvious to any Soldier or Marine that no one associated with this movie had enough time in the military to get a cup of coffee, let alone trying to pass this stuff off as remotely accurate. There are numerous problems from unit patches on uniforms (Rangers?) to tactics, to trained elite Soldiers wasting ammunition to a full colonel giving an operations speech (it certainly wasn't an operations or mission order) to a squad. The other issue I have is the premise that if you are in the military you have failed at life which is why Redford is so upset with his talented students for joining the Army. Someone should tell him the military doesn't send out "Induction" notices to enlistees. My wife reminded me that everyone is entitled to a point of view so Robert Redford certainly can have his. I gave it a two because these are very talented actors.
A good film with a good message
posted on 22 Aug 2009I found this to be very good and engaging film. The first good thing that I liked is that it's very clear about what it wants to say. That is a very important point. Many political films get lost in trying to appease everyone and therefore appear unsure and shaky. Most people have a problem with how the other two threads, that is apart from the Meryl Streep/Tom Cruise story, play out. I found them rather real and good. I think, through them, Robert Redford has managed quite well to highlight the role of the four most important sides playing their part, unwittingly or otherwise, in America's latest wars: the politicians, the media, the soldiers and of course the general (in many cases apathetic) population.The editing of the stories is just about perfect. Whenever one begins to get too tense or dull, too pointed or boring, we are taken to the other thread. Therefore, I actually think that is quite a fast paced film by Robert Redford's standards.The acting is very good with Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise being brilliant. Tom Cruise holds his own against Meryl and not for a moment does one feel that she is overshadowing him. Michael Pena, Andew Garfield and Derek Luke are all wonderful. The film says a lot of things, but it seems that people have a general aversion to message oriented films. However, still, the overall rating is 6.2 which shows that many many people enjoyed this film, otherwise it wouldn't be so high given the fact that those who hated it are probably giving it a 1 or 2.
Directed by Robert Redford
posted on 22 Aug 2009Numerous written reviews of the film were bad, and with full knowledge of the body of work by Robert Redford, i knew they would be wrong.The formula ask for by the writers of a good guys versus bad guys, and the good guys win out in the end, does not occur in this film. In fact the film's base in the story is the inner searching of the right and wrong in the politician, journalist, professor, and three students. The highlights of the film pass you by instant flashes of one-liners :"Says the man in the air-conditioned room." "I am not running for President" "I was drafted"The film is a snapshot in time, what was the world thinking in 2007 ? and how did it function ?Why, How and Who were making the decisions ?Right and Wrong, Good and Bad will not be decided by the Box office outcome of this film or who wins the Oscar next year, but by the people watching this film in 2027. "Awe that is what was happening and that is how it worked back then."
Boring to the limit
posted on 18 Aug 2009What I can say? I haven't seen other Robert Redford directed pictures, but judging from this, it's better to leave the task to others. Negative points: - boring and extremely lengthy discussions throughout the films, where a single simple concept could be explained in a few minutes, it takes 15 minutes of vacuous wording - low budget film as is evident in outside shooting - biased (pro-USA) political analysis - outside shooting and plot totally absurd. Positive points: (see my vote)A final note: why Robert Redford doesn't stop the trips to the plastic surgeon? His eyes are so wide open that one wonders if he is under influence. And yes, this matters since he is one of the main characters.*** SPOILER *** The final scene with the two heroes standing up against "evil Talebans" is one of the most ridiculous ever seen on the screen. It seems a very poor copy of Jim Caviezel in The Thin Red Line (I beg your pardon for the outrageous comparison). Not to mention the leg "stuck" in the snow. Again, this is important for me, I cannot really appreciate a film filled with absurdities (unless it is The Incredibles ;-)).
Do you want to win the war on terror?
posted on 16 Aug 2009A head-strong movie dealing with ideas, values and putting commitment into motion. Sometimes you have to recruit or even sell the motivation to put forward and sustain bold decisions. Charismatic Senator Jasper Irving(Tom Cruise),a possible Presidential hopeful,is practically force feeding a bombshell story to veteran TV journalist Janine Roth(Meryl Streep)about strategic American military missions in Afghanistan that could change the structure of war in the Middle East. Idealistic West Coast University professor Stephen Mailey(Robert Redford)is trying to inspire a student to do more with his education; while two of his former prized students are trapped behind enemy lines in the operation Senator Irving is trying to sell to American voters via the trusted Ms. Roth. Also in the cast: Peter Berg, Michael Pena, Andrew Garfield and Derek Luke. Bring your gray matter and don't plan to daydream.
So Much Less Than We Deserve
posted on 16 Aug 2009Awful is too harsh a word for this unappetizing mess, but it is certainly a train wreck of a movie. Other adjectives come to mind-- "didactic" will be used in about half of professional reviews. "Unfortunate" is another, which is a kind way of saying "bad". The film would have us believe that everything we're seeing, in three different locations, is taking place at the same time, and pretty much in real time. That would be clever if plausible, but in this cause the conceit seems simply contrived. The claustrophobic nature of the movie-- maybe half the film has two people on camera at once-- makes it seem as though it were a play, and a badly written one at that. There is a certain something to the fx, and it's not a good thing-- it seems as though several parts were shot in video and then spliced on to the rest. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it were intended, but I don't think it is, and it's jarring. There are some other implausible parts of the film which I can't mention here, but in a film that tries to be tight, having the audience go "Whoa, how did *that* happen!" is not a good thing. Redford is great on camera-- we like to look at him, he has a great voice, and his eyes still have that remarkable, defining quality that makes this guy The Robert Redford-- not just another actor. But Cruise is on autopilot, which seems to be all he has left anyway. For him, it's all smoke and mirrors and there is no there there any more, if there ever was. Streep is fine, though I don't think she wears this role very well. For those expecting another Devil Wears Prada sort of performance, you'll have to wait. This is not that. It's too bad. I don't think this movie will persuade anyone, and make no mistake, this movie was intended to Sway Public Opinion. But if that's the case, the people who imagined this film got it wrong from the outset, because the people who would be drawn to seeing this movie are much smarter than the authors think they are, and you can't talk down to people more clever than you.
Dialogues of the Lambs
posted on 16 Aug 2009Thumbs are of no use in talking about Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs." Sticking them up or down makes little sense. It's not that kind of movie. What kind is it? Pretty much without a category.The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.) While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.
Pretentious movie "makes a point"
posted on 14 Aug 2009Anyone of even moderate intelligence is likely to feel somewhat patronised by this movie. It's not that I disagree with the questions it poses, it just delivers its message in a frustratingly condescending manner.The politician with an agenda character, complete with predictable propaganda patter, was an unnecessary cliché. I get it already! The reflective college professor and the brilliantly irritating self-obsessed student also excessively laboured their respective points.Although I may empathise with some of the sentiments in this movie, I did not enjoy being spoon-fed its trite message. As I said, anyone of even moderate intelligence is likely to already understand the message anyway. The audience this film may be trying to "reach" probably won't have the stamina to chew through this dry and stolid sermon.
Political Debate on Film
posted on 14 Aug 2009The very impressive poster attracted me several months back. What a cast this movie has. Redford. Streep. Cruise. Wow. I did not really know what movie was all about. But I just had to watch it.This movie is really a filmed debate on the current situation of the United States and its war on terror. I am very sure a lot of Americans would either love it or hate it depending on their political leanings. It is quite frank, even extreme, in both its left-wing and right-wing pronouncements. The script, with all its conflicting views and witty repartee, is amazing to hear, coming alive through the mouths of the impressive cast.I liked this debate. In fact, I almost wanted to watch it again right there. I liked the intense interaction between jaded left-wing journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) and hotshot US Sen. Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). The senator is convincing Roth to publicize a story of a new military strategy in attacking Afghanistan using smaller attack points. Meryl Streep, what more can I say. She is so natural. You actually forget there is a script. Her ad-libs sound like actual ad-libs. Tom Cruise is also very good. His personal charisma was needed to make his "more negative" character three-dimensional and real, and counter-balance a perceived right-leaning bias. I believe Cruise pulls off this difficult task very well indeed. Political content aside, the deceptively static conversation scenes involving these two characters is very vivid and alive, an undeniable acting master class.The other debate involves Prof. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and his smart but delinquent student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). The professor is convincing his student to take his studies seriously, and to take his talk one step further. The acting is also very natural. Robert Redford was so cool, and you believe that he is your favorite idealistic political science professor in college. Garfield, I have never seen before, I needed some time to get used to his fast talking style. But he holds his own. The conversation between them was very convincing in its arguments from both sides.As these debates were going on in Washington and California, respectively, two former students of Prof. Malley, Arian Finch and Ernie Rodriguez, are involved in the military operation launched by Sen. Irving. They have fallen from their aircraft when it was attacked by the enemy while flying over a mountain pass in Afghanistan. Both injured, the pair had to rely on their idealistic spirits, as the Taliban closes in on them.I just realized after I watched that the critical feedback about this film had been negative. For me, I disagree with this consensus. Maybe being a non-American, I can be more detached from the sensitive subject matter. It is a good film. It makes the audience think. True, there are many questions presented by this movie, and no answers. The audience is challenged to contemplate on these matters and create their own stand. As American's policies invariably affect the world, even non-Americans should know the issues that surround the political situation in Washington DC. This film summarizes these conflicting issues very well.
Ultimately a lot of talk and a lot of melodrama
posted on 10 Aug 2009One of the things that I found impressive was the weight of the cast of "Lions for Lambs." I'm no fan of Tom Cruise, but him, along with Robert Redford and Meryl Streep are enough to sell a film of this magnitude.It is a bit of a disappointment when you go into the theater and find this politically weighted film that seems to entertain itself in debates that have already taken place.The story unfolds on three different fronts. First, there is the Senator (Cruise) trying to sell the new strategy for Afghanistan to a high profile reporter (Streep). They spar verbally over the failures of the current administration, and whether the past actually has value, or if it should be abandoned altogether in the hope of a brighter future.On the second front, a University Professor (Redford) finds himself embroiled in trying to wean a gifted student off of the apathy that leads him to skip classes and regard the political process as a lost cause. Their sparring is more to assert dominance over the other's perceived flawed logic, and frankly I found it the most distasteful. Redford makes some good points, but the spoiled frat boy (ironically he is the head of his fraternity- surely even he should understand the hypocrisy of his heading a group of people) carries himself with a smug superiority that belittles experience, and will no doubt remind many viewers of stubborn and disrespectful young people more commonly seen today.On the third front, Redford's last promising students who have enrolled in the military are part of the new strategy. The two are so close that when one falls out of the chopper, the other jumps out to be with him. You have to admire that level of friendship, although their subplot offers very little to the overall film.In the course of events, Redford convinces his student that things might be worth caring about; Streep finds herself at odds with her editor because she doesn't believe the line that Cruise has fed her but she's told she must toe the Senator's line; and the two soldiers are killed.If you're interested in what "Lions for Lambs" is selling, you ought to consider reading the editorial page, or watching Fox News- ultimately the dissatisfaction with this political debate is that you, the viewer, are ultimately only a spectator, and you don't have the option to ask the questions that would interest you.
Superficial, offering only verbal sparring that skims the surface
posted on 08 Aug 2009While corporate owned television stations are preoccupied with ratings and celebrity scandals, movies may be the only vehicle left that can take an honest look at U.S. foreign policy issues and their impact on society. Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs attempts what radio, television, and news media have not provided – a focused debate on the war on terror, particularly on U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does so by setting up three situations in which ideas are presented and discussed by plausible and intelligent spokespersons. One is an interview of a conservative U.S. Senator by a liberal reporter, the other between a professor and a student, and the third, a dramatization of idealistic soldiers sacrificed for a failed policy.Meryl Streep is Jeanine Roth, a somewhat jaded journalist who is given a one hour interview by an up and coming Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). He provides her with a briefing about a new policy in Afghanistan that involves sending small groups to secure advance mountainous positions ahead of the spring thaw and prevent the uniting of Shia and Sunni forces. Focusing on Iraq, Iran, 9/11, the war on terror, and battle strategy, Cruise is charming and convincing as the mouthpiece for the government's policy while Streep is disdainful and tough minded. Although their conversation is realistic and often poignant, it ultimately leads nowhere.In the second episode, Redford is a professor at an unnamed California University who tries to convince Todd Haynes (Andrew Garfield) a bright but apathetic student to adopt a position of more involvement and responsibility. While the Redford-Garfield interchange is quite affecting and Redford charming as ever, it is not clear if the professor is attempting to make his student a political activist or just a more committed student. To make a point about commitment, he tells Todd about two of his former students who volunteered for active duty in Afghanistan against his advice and their odyssey in Afghanistan is shown in flashback.The Chinook helicopter they are traveling in is fired upon while attempting a landing in a mountainous part of Afghanistan. Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena), jump from the helicopter without chutes and land in the snow. While another helicopter attempts a rescue, the two are fired on by hooded and shadowy insurgents. While the segment is powerful in showing how some soldiers enlist to make a difference, what remains unstated is that the vast majority of enlistees come from the poorest areas of the country and join the military for practical reasons - finding a career and making enough money to live on.While Lions for Lambs should be given credit for attempting to open the discussion to a wider audience, considering the fact that only one quarter of the people still support the administration's policy, the debate is improperly framed and feels like an anachronism. Key questions are ignored: the justification for our being in Iraq in the first place, whether or not the occupation constitutes imperialism, whether the war is about freedom or oil, and how best to extricate ourselves from a tragic mistake. Even further, the central issue of America's proper role in a world in which it is no longer respected or even the only great power is ignored.Compared to My Dinner with Andre, a film that featured a two-hour conversation about different philosophical points of view, resulting in the growth of the characters and a transforming experience for the viewer, Lions for Lambs is superficial, offering only verbal sparring that skims the surface and tells us mostly what we already know. While the film does hit some targets including the complicity of the media in forwarding the aims of the government, Redford is so cautious about being called one sided that he becomes enmeshed in a balancing act in which he simultaneously waves the flag and carries a protest sign and the film often feels more like a circus juggling act than an exercise in political relevance.
Amazing reviews herein
posted on 06 Aug 2009Wow. Do people let their political views hang out or what? If you're a Conservative, you're offended by the "ultra-liberal" message and if you're a Liberal you find the story "timely, engaging" and other positive adjectives. However, a few of the reviewers even dared to look at this little film as cinema and appreciate the performances of three of our finest, Streep, Cruise and Redford. Yes, the dialogue is wordy; the story-line is political and left-leaning; the action is limited, and you're supposed to be affected. That's why this film was likely made. If you want action, go see Spiderman or, if it's blood and gore, there's some slice'n dice horror film awaiting your presence. But, what did these dissatisfied reviewers expect? A love story about dying in Afghanistan? More patriotic jingoism about a war on "terror?" C'mon. This is American cinema, the movies. If you don't want to accept the premise of the script, read a Tom Clancy book or rent John Wayne in the Green Berets on DVD. This is a finely wrought and tightly organized story about the anguish of human idealism on several fronts. Cruise shows he's not just a pretty boy who can clench his jaw and soak up the scenes. Streep is always at the top of her game as is Redford. The new kids, Michael Pena, Derek Luke and Andrew Garfield, are great in their roles and contribute to a poignant story. Pointless? Hardly. Boring? Only if you're blind to what's going on around you.
Though heavy handed, remarkably fair
posted on 06 Aug 2009Lions for Lambs is a current issue film that deals with several relevant topics. The central plot revolves around essentially three settings that don't directly affect each other through action. They do however affect each other through course of action presented in debate. Cruise plays Jasper Irving, a GOP senator with a new plan of action for the war on terror. Streep is a veteran reporter who is interviewing him. Simultaneously, Redford is a college professor who has called a student into his office. A conflict in Afghanistan is taking place which is linked to the aforementioned plot lines.Lions for Lambs surprised me with it's balance. I'm an open Republican, and felt that this movie was not a cliché attack against the power that be. The Cruise character could have been given irrefutable hatred material. He could have been caught in a scandal. He could have alienated others with religious furor. Instead he is real and forms educated arguments. He seems rational, and passionate; he can also make a turn to present himself to the public. I don't see this as an attack, but one of the many skills politicians need to succeed. With all they go through and the decisions they have, they don't want the mocking that crying before the camera would carry. The left is represented by Redford's professor and Streep's reporter. Both are treated with rationale conviction. Neither has a clear anti-GOP agenda. Both of these characters even go as far as to acknowledge the error in the ways of their side. If there is a message to the film, it is that we are being sheltered from reality. It was clear to this viewer that Redford is stating that we are placing focus on the minuscule while matters of true importance are treated as second rate. Surely this is something we all can agree on in Lions for Lambs and this comes into fruition as the film evolves.Aside from the political commentary, which it makes no dance around, this a dialog heavy film. Characters are pinned against their situations which cause them to restrain from a course of action both physically and metaphorically. The conversations are engaging, but it would be arguably more favorable to allow the characters interaction. A few additional technical merits could have gone a long way. For example, the CGI of the Chinook helicopter was not up to par; a memorable score and unique cinematography are also absent. The screenplay is inherently foiled by remarkable coincidence; but there was no way around that. At a scant 88 minutes, Lions for Lambs is quick to get to the point but it is over too fast. These miscues keep it from perfection. Served as they are, Lions for Lambs is thinking person's film that comes highly recommended.
could have been so much better
posted on 06 Aug 2009i didn't particularly think much of this movie.there isn't really a lot of substance to it.at times it feels like a recruitment ad more than movie.and i also found it a bit too preachy,yet i don't quite know what kind of message it was trying to send.really it was sending mixed messages.basically,i found it confusing.plus,there are some things that don't make sense,which i won't get into here.Tom Cruise barely has any screen time,nor Does Meryl Streep,for that matter.Robert Redford,who also directed the movie,has the most screen time,but even his time is limited.anyway,i wouldn't really recommend this movie to anyone,but that's just my opinion.for me,Lions for Lambs is a disappointing 4/10
Entertainment, it is not; thought-provoking and very much needed, it is.
posted on 04 Aug 2009I am disappointed with the reviewers who critique "Lions for Lambs" using the usual criteria of 1)is the message clear?; 2) should the viewer learn something new?; 3) could there have been a better medium for presenting the material?; 4) will the viewer leave feeling entertained, hopeful, etc. It seems to me that many reviewers have missed the point of this masterpiece, which was to capture the attention of as much of an audience as possible by creating as much discomfort as possible in order to get US--all of us--to pay attention to what is happening in and to our very fragile world and--just as importantly--to challenge us to involve ourselves not only with words but actions. And all of this offered to us by an excellent script, superb direction and outstanding acting (I can't imagining despising the Cruise character and what he stands for more or feeling more empathy for Streep's weariness.) We are all caught up in a scenario that presents one of the major moral dilemmas of our time, whether we choose to acknowledge it or bury our collective heads in the economic and cultural cushions to which we have not only grown accustomed, but have come to believe are our entitlement. By definition, there is no quick and easy answer--not even a satisfactory answer--to a moral dilemma. To tackle a moral dilemma one must be willing to wrestle with his/her values and beliefs, and examine what it will take to act upon them.If you leave this movie unable to shake your uneasiness, if you find yourself not really looking forward to light conversation over a glass of your favorite wine afterward, but would prefer to go home to a quiet house and try to make sense of what is going on in the world--even as you recognize it isn't making sense--then, experiencing "Lions for Lambs" was a successful experience.
A refreshingly biased look at our present state of affairs
posted on 04 Aug 2009This is not a subtle anti-war movie. Redford is preaching, but for those of us in the choir the movie rings true. Iraq is not WWII. Our lambs have led our kids into another quagmire, and Redford is reluctant to be objective. The Cruise character is a caricature of a political hawk, portraying a popular view -- "Never mind the history or the right or wrong of how we got there, we are there and now we have to find a way to get from where we are to victory. We Americans don't back off - even when we are wrong." Meryl Streep is not hiding her feelings behind her character, and neither is Redford. Film isn't journalism and, as the film illustrates, journalism isn't journalism anymore either.Lions for Lambs is a frustrated scream, and this is a time for frustrated screaming.
Totally Disappointed!!!
posted on 30 Aug 2009Totally Disappointed!!! It's a good thing I received a free screening to view this sad excuse for a movie. Anyone wanting to throw away ten dollars a ticket should stay home and watch CNN, because this was exactly that, nothing more than a POLITICAL STATEMENT. A Documentary disguised as a movie. To think they are advertising this as a movie is a falsehood! Don't waste your time or money! Once again, Tom Cruise disappoints, first for airing his beliefs instead of plugging his movie, now for airing his and Streep and Redford and the rest of the Hollywood Left's beliefs in a full length motion picture. Shame on you! No wonder movie ratings are going into the toilet?