Lions For Lambs (Widescreen Edition)
|
List Price: Our Price: $17.49 You Save: $12.50 (42%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $1.73 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Lions For Lambs (Widescreen Edition)
Movie Review: My Review
Summary: 3 Stars
When I first saw the trailers and previews for the movie I thought it looked very intriguing, especially with the actors on board. Then I heard pretty quickly that it was nose-diving at the box office, mainly because of its strong political bent to the left. Now, considering most of the country had already given up on the president and reasons for going to Iraq, and this movie was STILL getting reviews of being too far to the left I thought "Holy cow it must really be slanted". So I skipped the theatre experience for that reason. I just now finished watching the movie on dvd and I have to say, while there is a leftward bent to it, the bent is not as pronounced as I thought it would be. I thought they juxtaposed the reasons for and against waging war in the middle east with fairly equal consideration. Certainly, the character of GOP Senator played by Tom Cruise is painted as a manipulator of the press in the movie. But I actually thought that the dialogue was fairly factually based, and the debate his character engages in with the moderately left leaning reporter played by Meryl Streep was fairly written in the script. I think the Senator brought up many important moral points to consider in the "good vs evil and where does America fit into this" debate. And for that I give director Robert Redford credit, as I know he is very liberal. I have to say I didn't feel like I was watching a movie about a story, but rather something more akin to a Meet the Press debate. Which is fine, as I am interested in international politics. But that could be why it didn't do so well at the theatres and maybe why there were always stacks of dvds available at Blockbuster, as the movie can come across fairly politically preachy. I have to assume this is what turns most viewers off and killed word of mouth. Clearly Redford wanted to use this medium to tell us all what he thinks of the country and the GOP, which ain't much. Moving on... As I'm sure the other reviews mention, there are three dialogues or stories taking place - the Senator speaking with a reportor, the political science professor (Redford) motivating a gifted yet already cynical student to go into public office to make a difference in the world, and the story of two of the professor's earlier political science students deciding to serve their country by entering the military and going to battle in Afghanistan, which is really the only "story" part of the movie. I thought the script was well written, highly intelligent, fast paced and engaging. For this reason I think anyone with intelligence or the desire to gain knowledge in these areas will enjoy this movie, even if you disagree politically with what it is saying. It never hurts to consider different viewpoints. For the script-dialogue I give the movie 5 stars. For the plot of the film I give it 2 stars. There really is no plot, just a lot of discussion and points of ethics and morality to ponder as we Americans try to define our future role in this crazy world. Movie Review: Ham-Handed Silliness
Summary: 2 Stars
I rented the DVD because it starred (among others) Derek Luke. The guy is good. The movie is not. Redford directs this overtly ideological film like a carpenter with a pocket full of thumbtacks and a sledgehammer. The silliness cuts across party lines, with both Streep and Cruise vying for the "most befuddled character" award. No one wins.Movie Review: An underrated and underappreciated war movie
Summary: 4 Stars
This movie flopped at the box office, but it certainly didn't deserve to. It's an intelligent, incisive, and surprisingly balanced film that addresses ongoing concerns about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without pretension. It's talkative and politically charged, so it's not a movie for those looking for escapist fare (as the final scene suggests most Americans are). The most common criticism of Lions for Lambs is that its points have been echoed repeatedly by political pundits, and while that's true to some extent, there are a number of perspectives presented here that, as a whole, form an intriguing and thought-provoking work.
Director Robert Redford takes three different points of view on the overarching subject of the War on Terror: one from a hotshot Republican senator (Tom Cruise), another from a weary but still vocal history professor (Redford), and the last from two soldiers stranded on a mountaintop in Afghanistan (Derek Luke and Michael Pe?a) waiting for rescue but facing an imminent strike by Taliban inhabitants. Cruise is providing an interview to a TV reporter (Meryl Streep) and Redford is making a desperate attempt to one of his students to extract him from the political apathy that has started to consume him.
The acting is uniformly good, but Cruise and Redford especially stand out. Cruise is outstanding as the senator who is so charismatic he even convinces himself of his own lies. Cruise doesn't just play an unctuous pen pusher though; he imbues his character with more complexity than that. This is a man who genuinely wants to win the wars he helped get his country into and is willing to acknowledge some of his mistakes. He doesn't want to lose any more lives than he has to, but he is also undaunted in his mission. Redford presents a notable foil, even if the two never meet: his professor has the experience and the pain to back up his arguments, even if he is getting tired of spouting them. There's an elegance to his performance but also an urgency to it.
The beauty of Redford's approach is that it shows the political rhetoric (as exemplified by Cruise's character), public response (seen most clearly through Redford's character interacting with his dismayed student), and the consequences (portrayed in the Afghanistan scenes) of the wars that the US government has ignited. Most of the movie shifts between these three scenes, with some flashbacks that illuminate how a few key characters got to the states they ended up in. It's a smart move, because it juxtaposes several different sides of the arguments for and against the wars and doesn't overwhelm the viewer with one section for too long.
The impact of the three sections is fuller and more comprehensive in this way. At the movie's climax, all of the issues come together, and by the time the movie is over, the impact is that much more powerful. Between the political and academic debates and the action on the ground that is the result of political decision-making, Redford successfully shows how all of us are affected by these wars in different ways. Whether being motivated to surmount bureaucratic incompetence or deceived by its machinations, and between choosing to question and engage our political leaders and reporters or turning away from them in jadedness or indifference, we are all affected in some way and determine how complicit we become. Americans may not be ready to engage a movie that portrays such a tragic current event, or want to for that matter, as box office receipts have repeatedly shown, but perhaps that's part of the problem. Although long-winded at times, Lions for Lambs nevertheless understands and illuminates these messages effectively.
Movie Review: An honest attempt to portray our reality, as it is.
Summary: 5 Stars
The film Lions for Lambs is an honest attempt to portray the spicy geopolitical climate in its raw, unedited and costly truth. The film takes place in three films, one between two brother's in arms, another between a student and his teacher and another between a journalist and a pathocratic senator. Each vignette offers an illuminating look at the reality of our situation, and I mean our because each one of us can somehow fit into the film itself.
The brother's in arms are interestingly, two previous students of the professor we're introduced to. We're shown their military adventure in Afghanistan as they attempt to fulfill a new strategy issued by the senator. Their characters are bold, courageous, and strong-willed. They have an incredible power of conscience, and a desire to do what is right. Their failing? They lack accurate psychological knowledge of the men who lead them. They are Lions for Lambs.
The pathocratic senator is played exceedingly well by Tom Cruise. I'd never thought I'd enjoy his performance as much as I did in this film. He shows a psychopathic ability to mix words, to tug on a normal man's emotions, to lie with the cunning conviction he is right, more then that - that he is righteous - because he possesses a pathological nature that prevents him from seeing, thinking or believing otherwise. The journalist who shares his entire vignette is played by Meryl Streep, and her desire to honestly do her job and do it right comes through strong. She is invited by the senator for an hour to discuss the 'new strategy' in Afghanistan, and to help relay it to the public. She does an excellent job of asking the questions anyone of conscience would ask, and we can see Cruises' character's pathology if we pay attention.
The last vignette is between Robert Redford, who plays a professor at an unnamed California University and a student of his that shows much promise. The student has potential, but feels as if he'd be happier with a 'normal life', keeping his head down, getting a good job, and making the best out of his life without trying to play a big role in world events. He makes a good argument, but is countered by experience, wisdom and an understanding which he cannot quite grasp due to his youth. For the greater part of the interaction we're not even sure if an impact is made, if his armor is dented, but there is hope reflected in the very last scene that makes the entire bit worth it.
The core of the film is a display of the reality of our situation here in America. Our politicians are self-serving, lying, pathological monsters who are irredeemable and incapable of change. The establishment that is Mainstream Media is saturated with people who are solely 'doing their job' or so they think, by reporting what they are told - propaganda or not. Some of them are damn good people, who have a strong conscience, but due to circumstance (mostly age and financial obligations) cannot change. Their potential to be something different has dried up.
Then we are shown the best and the brightest. Two out of three of which ended up believing their abilities would best be used serving this country in it's war effort. They had the conscience, the dedication and the will to do something new, bold and dramatic - but they didn't have the knowledge that would have allowed their effort to really make an impact, and the results are given to us dramatically.
The third student is a wild card, we're really not sure what he does by the end of the film, but we're given hope that he may attempt something great - to succeed or fail matters not, but that he may attempt it gives us hope. In my mind I saw all of us as that third student. Young, smart, definitely lazy and more interested in social life and girls then knowledge and wisdom which would allow him to fight to change the world. He is the future, the potential future, it exists only as a potential because it is possible, but extremely difficult to manifest. It can only happen with dedication, conscience, and knowledge - which are much more difficult to acquire then a video game, television show, sports event or event a really hot lay.
That is the core of the film, if we want to make an impact, to make positive changes to our world, to become our potential as individuals and as a society we have to want it, we have to try for it, and we have to make it a daily effort.
Movie Review: A realistic seeming movie
Summary: 4 Stars
I was going to say it was realistic, but then I realised that I have no idea what the inside of a senator's office is actually like...
I watched this film for a political science class. I thoroughly enjoyed it. There was soem really great dialogue here and the views were well balanced. Nothing, aside from the two friends "last stand" at the film's end seemed hacknyed.
A lot of people complained that the movie was boring because it lacked action. I for one, disagree. I thought that the ideas being flushed out in the film, as well as the tension between the senator (Cruise) and the reporter (Streep), the proffesor and the bright student, and the Rodriguez and Finch's arguments with their classroom really drove this film. And that's the problem that other's might have with it; the film is character driven, not action.
There's a lot of great ideas here. Are we repeating the same mistakes as we did in Vietnam? Is the news media more concerned with revenue and entertainment than it is actual news? Does public relations drive the political process? Also, I really liked Finch and Rodriguez's argument that the United States practises "engagement" all over the world, but we do not engage many of our own neighbourhoods.
I think its a great movie for those of you who are interested in politics or media. However, if you want a Rambo or something then... well, Stalone just finished another one, didn't he?