Lions for Lambs

This movie, if you can call it that, simply insults the intelligence of people of every political persuasion. I'm a far left-wing American who hates Bush as much as anyone. This crap is the best my side has to offer? The bold new military strategy that a single Senator seeks to publicize as big news: we'll take the mountaintops in the winter so that we can shoot for 360 degrees when the snow thaws. You've got to be kidding! And, gee, I thought we were fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. I didn't realize they were fighting alongside a whole army of Al Queda fighters too! Somehow the news media hasn't picked up on that yet. And Meryl Streep's Judith Miller character thinks she'll be aiding the bad guys in Washington by publicizing this major non-news story? The mountain sequences were so cheesy it looked like the film-makers had to shoot this on an especially low budget. If that shallow twit of a student really represents the best and brightest of our nation's current college students, we're really in trouble. Or was that a high school? And then there's the matter of that huge Starbucks cup being front and center during every Robert Redford scene. I was so bored I just spent my time trying to decipher the writing on the side of that cup.

This film is an insightful assessment predominately of the two failed Republican wars: Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq from various perspectives. These perspectives include a slippery GOP Senator engaging in Orwellian double speak, half-truths and propaganda; a journalist with honest intentions that recognizes her organization's complicity in selling the war leading to the death of 1000's of Americans founded on lies; two brave ideological students who become Army rangers in the hope of making a difference; a wise college professor that recognizes that in America today, lion warriors fight for lamb leadership which have no skin in the game; and a cynical "every man" college student struggling between apathy and activism. If you are not open to honest dialog and introspection, do not seek the truth, are a political or religious ideologue, are one of the 58 percent of Americans that can not identify the three branches of government but can name the three stooges, are part of the apathy crowd, are one that actively engages in cognitive dissonance, are an authoritarian follower, or if your idea of entertainment is just watching things blow up, then this film is not for you. Therefore, this film will have a more limited audience that appreciates the intelligent dialog.

Not true! Robert Redford didn't take to the pulpit to give us a pet talk. He's far too subtle, honest and compassionate to pull a stunt like that. The film is about questions not about answers and we're all grateful for that. I left the theater with a weight on my chest because I believe in the validity of the questions and the individual responsibility of finding the fair way to the answers. Important to remember, at least it was for me, that this is a film delivered to us by three icons. Robert Redford, a symbol of consistency and independence, Meryl Streep, an actress who defined the last two decades of film acting with characters that went straight to the center of something and Tom Cruise, the box office champion who's become a controversial figure despite of his undeniable humanity. I will take a stand here and advise you to go and see this film. You will come up with new questions and a potential road map for the answers.

Lions for Lambs_720p(480P)

source: Lions for Lambs

Hate to burst your guys bubble, I just saw this movie (I'm a reporter and get media-kits for these things) and it's really uneventful. I'm in college right now and this movie basically plays like Hollywood's interpretation of an academic debate. The movie plays in three sets, that all occur simultaneously: Reporter and Senator, Student and Professor, Soldier and 'Charlie'. There all supposed to form this profound statement, "People act in their own interest." The problem for me is that I am in college right now and all the statements made in this movie play like a freshman debate in Political Science 101. There isn't any substantial incite that most of us don't already know and if I didn't see it for free I would have been even more disappointed.

As you see, I'm not an American, though I liked this movie very much. I don't think it's against Bush or against the war in Iraq in particular. It's against unfairness, lies and indifference, so the message is really complex. I don't even see it as an average political drama -- it does touch the problems of politics, but the range of problems is much wider. I believe that the movie wouldn't be a good one without good actors. I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, although he did his job quite well - the problem is that marvelous Meryl Streep outshone him. I found the performance of Robert Redford quite good, although I still think that he's a better director than an actor. As you see, this movie does have some weak sides, but the message it carries makes an outstanding piece.

I must confess that I could only stomach about 30 minutes of this film. Robert Redford's college professor / student confrontation does nothing for the film. You could have left it out and no one would have known the difference. In fact, just the senator/journalist scenes sent up against the Afganistan action would suffice. One part of the war scene was dubious. How did they know exactly where the two soldiers were in order to provide the "satellite" view of the enemy moving in? I thought that fake science at its best/worst. We can't even find a downed civilian aircraft in broad daylight in the mountains and the military has found their two men in record time. Not to mention that the satellite can "see" a flash from one of the guns ("sir, they're alive!"). The Cruise/Streep back-and-forth seemed like your regular talking head debate on Fox/CNBC/CNN but without all the ranting. I consider myself a liberal, but their banter made me reach for a barf bag. A dull film.

Redford directs three interlinked stories. Reporter Streep interviews senator Cruise about his new military initiative in Afghanistan, which is launched and places 2 soldiers in severe danger. Meanwhile Professor Redford tries to persuade promising but apathetic student Garfield why he should pull himself together. This is more of an earnest political polemic encouraging everyone from 'the generals', the media and the average Joe to not just sit back and let it all happen. Streep and Cruise are very good, Redford is well Redford and the overall effect is a actually a rather lifeless movie spelling out Redford's perfectly reasonable philosophy. So plenty of issues to think about and discuss afterwards, but a largely uninspiring movie experience.

This Robert Redford movie was an interesting piece of work. There is no reason for people to speak so badly about it! What most people do not realize is that this movie is supposed to inform you and not so much entertain you. It speaks of the problem going on with this country and how ignorant people are and how much they don't care. Meanwhile, there is a very Republican outlook on the war and how they plan to fix it. It is well directed and well acted and definitely one of the better movies that I have seen this year. People in America are just used to being entertained instead of being informed. So to all of you who chose to give this movie a low grade...congratulations..your staying ignorant and incredibly narrow minded.