Lions For Lambs (Full Screen Edition) Reviews

• It takes time for the punch to be felt...

  
  By A328S9RN3U5M68 on 2008-04-09
  LIONS FOR LAMBS as a movie has the courage to do just what the message of the film attempts to do: encourage the American public to stop being so apathetic about our position in the global community. The dramatization of three points of view about the Middle East conflicts (it not only takes on the Iraq debacle, but adds the Afghanistan and Iran problems as well) could, in lesser hands than Robert Redford's direction of Matthew Michael Carnahan's script, be a preachy bore. But while the 'action' of the film may not grab the viewer, the afterburn of the message will haunt the thinking person.
  
  Three scenarios interweave (at times a bit bumpy in the editing, and at times a bit distracting): adamantly pro-war Republican Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) is interviewed by veteran 'thinking' journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) and each defends/attacks the current strategy of the war in Iraq (Irving is taking calls about the latest 'expansion' into Afghanistan); Professor Malley (Robert Redford) tries to resurrect a sense of involvement in a student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) once bright but now sinking into the apathy of living the good life; ex-students of Professor Malley - Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernesto Rodriguez (Michael Peña) - have committed to the idea of acting for change and have ended up being dropped in Afghanistan in the very 'new' war Senator Irving is addressing. By stirring these three approaches to the manner in which the public is currently addressing the war in Iraq in a concurrent conversation, the film involves the viewer in the crossfire of apathy and misinformation that come from failed education, faulty governmental intervention and the media sellout to get ratings. It is not a pretty picture, but then our current state of affairs is not one of which we can be proud.
  
  There are no answers here, just harsh realities and questions as to why we can remain so passive as a nation involved in the lowest state of global respect ever known. The film has flaws, but if the viewer can digest the information illustrated by some very fine acting, perhaps there may be a chance for a wake-up call. Watch it for the message, not expecting a thriller or an action movie. The mind is what is engaged here. Grady Harp, April 08
  
  

• Well acted and directed

  
  By A3AVJCB1ZD6ZY5 on 2007-11-09
  The title "Lions for Lambs" refers to a quote from a German General during WWI regarding the British army. The Germans were most impressed with the Brit soldiers' fighting ability, but they didn't particularly respect the men who commanded them. Essentially, unblooded, starched collar men were setting objectives for a war they knew nothing about.
  
  "Lions for Lambs" takes place over a very short period of time--less than a day in three separate scenarios. It opens with Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), a veteran reporter of 40 years, being granted an exclusive one on one hour with Senator Jasper Irving. In the interview, the Senator extols that Ms. Roth help him sell a new initiative for the US war with Afghanistan. This initiative had begun 10 minutes before their interview commenced. Essentially, the US Forces in Afghanistan are going to use small point insertion of troops to break the enemy's back--very similar to the plan General Abrams used in Viet Nam. Can the Senator get Ms. Roth's support for this new plan and sell it to the US people?
  
  Next, we see Prof Steven Malley (Robert Redford) talking with Todd (Andrew Garfield, a student from his political science class. He offers Todd a deal--either accept a blue collar B for A work and non-attendance or entertain a proposition. Why did he offer it? Because Todd was one of the few students who showed true potential and encouraging those people to do something with their lives was why Malley still taught college. Can he convince Todd to enter the program he's suggesting?
  
  The final set of people we see are two students Prof Malley mentioned in his talk with Todd. Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are two of the US Special Forces unit who are parachuting into Afghanastan to "show the enemy the full measure of American mean." Their helocopter is fired on due to poor intelligence and Rodriguez is knocked out of the craft. Arian follows him in the jump--to stay with his 'brother' in both arms and spirit. The damaged helo has to leave due to the continued fire. Can Command get a chopper back in time to rescue the two brave soldiers?
  
  These are the basic questions involving the three groups of people, but of course there's more discourse than that. Essentially, the Senator's and Professor's portions of the film are all talk and the two soldiers' are mostly action. Redford manages to entwine the three storylines almost flawlessly. There are only a couple of flashbacks in Redford's own scenes and they forward the story along. Performances by all the major cast were excellent. Meryl Streep was the best I have ever seen.
  
  My one star deduction is for the simplicity and heavy-handedness of the message. "Lions" came a hair close to being preachy.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Lions for Lambs Movie Review

  
  By A2MYUI8IT6UBUU on 2007-11-08
  Perceptively enlightened, Robert Redford's political propaganda film "Lions for Lambs" loosely translates into smart entertainment. Exceptionally strong acting and fully fleshed characters are unfortunately unable to disguise Redford's opinionated brand of current events, and he often teeters dangerously close to the edge of being an army recruiter. Despite the occasional overbearingly preachy tone, the three steadily converging storylines showcase top-notch direction and allow clever dialogue fodder for the always enjoyable cast to consume with pomp, irony and satire.
  
  Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) calls upon reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to receive an exclusive one-hour interview with himself to discuss his new plan to win the war on terror. As he engages in a verbal struggle to make the veteran reporter see his reasoning, his plan of action is already taking effect as a top-secret mission in the Middle East finds two best friends Arian and Ernest (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) abandoned in the cold confines of an icy plateau, waiting for rescue and surrounded by the enemy. Meanwhile, Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), the professor who negotiated with the two soldiers not to go to war, holds a meeting with another hopeful student who shows promise and potential.
  
  Lions for Lambs demonstrates Redford's seasoned talents as a director through the use of three initially separate storylines progressing simultaneously. As the film draws to a close, it becomes more apparent how closely those three groups of people are related, the fact that all three events take place at the same time, and the extreme differences in world affair opinions that each group holds. Despite the occasional flashback, the film is entirely sequential and in chronological order - something few films still do, especially when multiple plot lines are concerned.
  
  Lions for Lambs works as both a public service announcement and Redford's own propaganda. While Janine condemns Irving's elusively intelligent words and intimidating propaganda, Redford also spoon feeds the audience with his perceptions of the war on terror. What saves the film from collapsing on its own hypocrisy is the outstanding performances by all of the main characters. In a moment of climactic cinematic irony, Cruise discusses the effectiveness of the trained professional soldiers stationed in the Middle East, as the covert operation over Iran tragically unravels and casualties are quickly incurred.
  
  Cruise is inspired as the fast talking, patriotic, red-blooded American Senator who weaves a tale for the press with powerful words and piercing determination. Streep is equally outstanding as the reporter who, despite years of accepting her role as merely a go-between for ruthless politicians to rally their public image, suddenly gains a conscience that forces her to question her position. Redford stars as the professor who is convinced that his talents lie in discovering students with the potential to make a difference, as he did with Arian and Ernest who he was unable to prevent from going off to fight for their beliefs.
  
  While heavily opinionated propaganda films rarely equal grand entertainment, Redford is careful to insert a grandiose finale that paints a glowing picture for targets of his mindset on the war. Whether you agree with his outlook and his representation of the "whatever it takes" attitude of the government, Lions for Lambs is arguably well-made and brilliantly constructed. And Cruise Photoshoped into photographs with President Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are hilariously priceless.
  
  - Mike Massie
  
  
  

• a star-studded poli sci lesson

  
  By A19ZXK9HHVRV1X on 2007-11-10
  **1/2
  
  "Lions For Lambs," director Robert Redford's all-star dissertation on life in a post-9/11, "War on Terror"-dominated world (and easily the most sermonizing movie since "Crash"), takes place in three entirely separate locales: a United States senator's office in Washington D.C., an unnamed university campus in California, and a remote, snow-covered hillside in rural Afghanistan.
  
  In the first setting, Tom Cruise plays a smarmy Republican lawmaker who has decided to grant an exclusive briefing to a seasoned political reporter (Meryl Streep) regarding a new military strategy the Americans are implementing in Afghanistan. In the second sphere, Redford is a veteran political science professor who is trying to convince a bright but deeply cynical student to overcome his apathy and to become actively engaged in the political process. Finally, Michael Pena and Derek Luke are two of the professor's former students who a few years earlier decided to put their lives on the line by joining some special op forces and who are currently trapped behind enemy lines after the helicopter on which they are riding comes under intense artillery fire while on a mission.
  
  Thoughtful and timely political discourse is such a rare commodity on American screens these days that one feels downright ungrateful for not responding more positively to Redford's film. Matthew Michael Carnahan's screenplay comes with an obviously liberal slant, but it does try more than most to be reasonably fair-minded in the points it is making and to see things from a multiplicity of angles. The problem is that, for all its good intentions, the film comes across more like a TV or radio debate than a full-fledged fictional drama. Redford's talking-heads directorial style results in a series of static mini lectures, virtually devoid of passion, cohesion or drama. How can Redford expect the audience to get all worked up and agitated about the issues he's presenting when he himself seems to be having so much trouble doing so?
  
  The didactic tone leaves very little room for any actual character development, with the people in the film functioning as little more than convenient mouthpieces for the writer and director. This is a shame because the movie has some cogent points to make about patriotism, political apathy, materialism, celebrity culture, the government's use of fear and paranoia in manipulating the masses, and the responsibility a free press has in exposing corruption and deceit, particularly in a time of national crisis. Yet, the movie itself is so academic, inert, and talky that whatever issues it is raising get submerged in the tedium. Oddly, the movie has a clunky disjointedness that one generally encounters in films adapted from stage plays, even though the screenplay in this case is apparently an original creation.
  
  In the role of actor, Redford comes across as smug and condescending as the professor, while Todd Hayes exhibits zero charisma as the supposedly brilliant boy whose soul Redford seems intent on saving (or, at least, kick-starting into the future). Cruise and Streep play off each other well in the scenes they have together, and it's especially interesting watching Streep portraying a character who is the antithesis of the one she plays in the similarly-themed (but much better) "Rendition." Pena and Luke are given far too little screen time to make much of an impression as the two lads who demonstrate their patriotism through actions rather than mere words.
  
  One could live with the movie's preachiness if the film itself were at least well done, but "Lions For Lambs" fails because it commits the one unpardonable sin of dramaturgy - it places its story at the service of the message rather than the other way around. Thus, instead of a work of art, what we get is a piece of well-intentioned agitprop - a high class poli sci lesson in place of a compelling movie.
  
  

• Pretty awful...no matter what your politics are

  
  By A2F3M93RRLFQNJ on 2008-04-27
  At first glance, you'd think that Lions for Lambs would be a good movie: after all, it stars Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep, all reasonably decent actors, and is directed by Redford, who's received acclaim for some of his past directorial efforts. Unfortunately, it is a tedious, preachy film that seems more designed to deliver a message than to entertain; it winds up doing neither well.
  
  There are three distinct storylines going on, all taking place over a period of an hour in different regions of the world. In California, Robert Redford is a political science professor debating an apathetic student about political activism during the former's office hours. There is no plot, just a bunch of back-and-forth arguing. Meanwhile, two of Redford's former students - who actually followed his call to participate, though not in the way he intended - are now Special Forces soldiers trapped on a mountaintop in Afghanistan after a mission went wrong. This is the only storyline that is minimally interesting, probably because it is the only one with any real action in it.
  
  The third storyline involves a Republican senator played by Tom Cruise giving an interview to reporter Meryl Streep. The purpose of their meeting is to unveil the purpose of the Afghanistan mission, which Cruise does not yet know has gone wrong. The interview, however, turns into a debate about the United States's efforts in the Middle East, and it is grating to watch. The attempt to provide a semblance of balance fails: Cruise's pro-war stance is so filled with cliched lines - and he comes off too glib - that he is utterly unbelievable. Streep isn't much better on her side.
  
  From a political standpoint, I actually agree with a lot of what this movie says, but it does it so poorly that it undermines its own cause. I often say I can enjoy a good book or movie even if I disagree with its politics, as long as it's done well; similarly, I can hate a book or movie that I agree with if it's done bad, as this one is. Whether you are for or against the Iraq war, this movie should be avoided.
  
  
  
• A hour and a half left-wing lecture on post 9/11 politics
  By A3IG4S2JH6SPZZ on 2008-04-07
  I should have known better given that the film was directed by Redford, but I decided to give it a shot. I suppose at the end of the day, Redford did not "disappoint" as he gave what should expect from him: good acting and left-wing lectures. It would have been nice if the film makers actually put in a little more plot and action to help the non-Daily Kos-reading audience members wash down the rhetoric (kind of how a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down), but I suppose the choir will be happy.
  
  Here's what the movie's messages boil down to: Bush and the GOP are "iredeemable," dumb, uncaring about the soldiers because they never faught in the infantry (although serving in infantry combat was a prerequisite to compassion for the soldiers, one wonders where the movie maker's supposed compassion comes from), and liars. You can't believe anything the government says about the War on Terror, so instead, you should take a cynical attitude that everything is a lie, or you should spin your own conspiracy theories about the true intentions of the government, even in the absence of any evidence (as the Meryl Streep reporter character wants to do). The soldiers who fight are laudable, but they're really dieing for a bunch of lies. Iraq and Afganistan are just two more Vietnams that we should pull out from (because the War on Terror again, is just a powergrab by the GOP). Finally, it's the public's apathy that is really at fault for the damage to our country because we should have known that Bush et al were just a bunch of evil, opportunistic, warmongerers.
  
  The acting is really the only positive of this movie. Redford, Streep, Cruise, and the guys who play the trapped soldiers all do good jobs. I have to think that Cruise's performance is especially noteworthy, as he must have wanted to throw up in his mouth while playing a hawkish Republican Senator.
  
  
• A silly and mal-informative piece of antiwar propaganda
  By AQW4S2CTTTQVQ on 2007-11-17
  This movie is Robert Redford's very uninformed and pedantic view of the war crammed into nearly two hours of shallow dialog.
  
  Shallow dialog is really about all I can say to describe the movie. It's about as interesting as dryer lint. The imagery from the military scenes was surprisingly realistic and accurate (I am an Iraq War vet and nothing makes me angrier than when a movie portrays the military and doesn't take the time to get basic things like uniforms and equipment right) but that is where my praises for this movie end. The story line was not interesting, compelling, nor did it bring anything new to the table. It was just a slew of half-truths about why we should just disengage from the wars embedded in a forced story line where all anti-war advocates are smart and witty, and all of the hawks are just bumbling morons.
  
  If you have anti-war views (notice I am avoiding using "liberal" as a derogatory) you will probably swoon at this movie, as it is candy for your crowd.
  
  If you are hawkish, you will want to scream in the theater as Redford portrays you as a smugly naive chicken hawk. Unless of course you're in the military, in which case we are portrayed as just a naive pawn in this dreadful war of hubris. At all costs, Mr. Redford, don't ever present the idea that there may be mentally competent people who both believe in the war on terror, AND sign up to fight. My gosh, that might railroad your precious idea that we're all a bunch of witless thugs with good intentions.
  
  The entire thing was highly telling of a very disengaged view of the world from the ivory tower Redford lives in.
  
  
• Give me a break!
  By A1EHKYSA2BDT9F on 2008-03-13
  When I go to see a movie I want to be entertained. The last thing I want is to be indoctrinated for 1 1/2 hours with left wing calumny from Hollywood elitists. Redford & company wouldn't know the truth if it whacked them up side the head.
  
  
• "Lions for Lambs" Movie Review by Michael Elliano
  By A1FGOU69XQIU9V on 2008-04-09
  Make no mistake about it this movie displays America as the bad guy run by a bunch of idiots. There is not one actor in this movie I dislike, but the movie should have listed Bin Laden in the credits. They used his name enough. The movie was distorted (a radical use of history to finely pull events and twist them out of context and then try to make "point", victim rich (everyone is a victim the press has been used, the politicians have been sabatoged, the young are aimless and out solders are dumb for joining because this military service over or after college is a waste of your life). The movie tries to dramatize real life events and confuse the movie patron into thinking that there is wisdom in the plot. They failed. The only benefit of this movie is the alway "wise" hollywood writers who take cash by portraying us as losers and then trying to justify their own reasoning. But I'll quote the movie when it comes to the war, "Do you want to win?" ask's Tom Cruise of the Press who can't answer. We have had a thousand movies about the failings of the Vietnam War period and expect to see a thousand just like this in your lifetime. It's enough to make me sick. Yeah...., I hated the movie because by dramatizing a solders death in combat they succeed in weakening our will to even figure out what we want as a country and a member of this planet. They also fail to show the millions of people on this planet that are wrecked by violence in many countries that we and any other country will not step in to stop because "It's not worth it!" If a nuclear devise went off in Hollywood I would agree.
  
  
• Excellent portrayal of the issues of the Iraq war - the failures and challenges
  By ANDHJQ6UM5SH9 on 2007-11-09
  This movie was moving. The characters addressed a broad perspective of the issues of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on terror. The actors -Cruise, Streep, and Redford, gave superior performances.
  
  
• Getting Involved
  By A2D8CUJPOSRPNA on 2007-12-28
  A lot has been said about actor/director Robert Redford's film LIONS FOR LAMBS, that it is nothing more than a 100 minute-long political science class wrapped up on celluloid. Indeed, this is a film that relies on acting, dialogue, and story more than a lot of films that have come out in the last few years, not counting documentaries. But maybe something like this is needed in Hollywood now: a film driven by acting, dialogue, and story more than mere action sequences, bloodshed, and smart-ass quips. And since we are dealing with the central issue confronting America today--the War On Terror (or what it has either evolved or devolved into), that makes LIONS FOR LAMBS an impressive piece of American theater.
  
  The film traces three different paths. One involves a very cynical national TV news reporter (Meryl Streep) being given the job of selling a new plan to somehow finally help "win" the War On Terror by a very persuasive up-and-coming neoconservative Senator (Tom Cruise). The second one involves a university professor (Redford) trying to encourage a bright but slacking student of his (Andrew Garfield) to get involved in the political process before his apathy eats him alive by relating how two previous students in his debate class put their money where their mouths were. The third path involves those two students (Michael Pena; Derek Luke) who, as Army rangers, find themselves in Afghanistan pinned down by machine gun fire emanating from Taliban fighters on a snow-covered mountain after their chopper goes down in a storm.
  
  As laid out by Redford and screenwriter/co-producer Matthew Michael Carnahan, LIONS FOR LAMBS makes it a point, through sharp dialogue, to remind us once again, as John Lennon once said, that "apathy isn't it; we can do something." For both Pena and Luke, it means putting their lives on the line for the larger causes of freedom and democracy, even when it has long since become clear that the motivating factor is really kind of pointless. For Streep, it means getting straight answers, even if her subject is someone who won't give anything but roundabout ones. For Redford's university professor, it means motivating students into doing positive things to change the world and challenge authority. And for Cruise, it means staying true to his ideology, however far removed from reality that ideology may be.
  
  It's not too terribly surprising that Redford, because of his liberal political beliefs, would be accused of taking a liberal position in this film; it wouldn't be the first time (as ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or THE CANDIDATE would seem to indicate). Nor is it too hard to believe that those who would accuse him of such a bias either have not seen LIONS FOR LAMBS or have no intention of doing so but just want to attack the film for the sake of attacking it. I felt that he did a very even-handed job of showing us both the liberal and the conservative side of the issues surrounding our War On Terror--that it isn't a simple matter of black and white, right and wrong; that taking a stand is not a mere slogan; and that having any kind of extremist ideology can blind us to the mistakes we have made in fighting this war, and the mistakes yet to be made.
  
  Cruise does an extremely cutting job of portraying a neoconservative senator in the film; indeed, I would compare this performance to other fine actors of liberal political slants who do good jobs playing characters who are their polar opposites--Burt Lancaster in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, and Sterling Hayden in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE. Streep is at her usual best as the cynical TV reporter who sees our conduct in the War On Terror as a hopeless situation; and Redford never ceases to be persuasive in his own way.
  
  LIONS FOR LAMBS definitely isn't a film for those more interested in bloodshed and testosterone. But for those looking for what used to make Hollywood films great, namely acting, dialogue, and story, this gets a film and unequivocal recommendation from me.
  
  
• Finally an intelligent discourse about this war
  By A6QRIZ773MLPC on 2008-01-01
  This is a thinking movie. It pushes your brain to hear and see three rationals and images of this conflict. Of course, there are some long sentences and big words thus there is a large segment of the politcal right who will not get it, hear it, and/or understand the concept of telling the story from 3 angles ( way too complicated). How Mr. Redford did this so smoothly I will never understand but I do appreciate and praise (often). It is a powerful movie, message and is compelling. At the movie's end you want to cry, salute, protest, write a few letters ect. It maybe the most powerful introspective analysis on the meaning of this war to many not just one side or another. You find yourself thinking about this film and its many messages long after the credits. All actors Redford, Cruise, and Streep do such a fine job that when they each own the screen you find yourself saying " I can understand that point of view" . A movie that makes you feel, think, remember, and evaluate your role & contribution in this world is POWERFUL. The theater had only a few patrons but those there all stayed to see the credits and ponder what they just experienced.
  
  
• Thought provoking
  By A3N4JZKY7KGYFP on 2007-11-11
  No matter what your political bent, this movie was dramatic and extremely thought-provoking. The acting by Redford, Streep and Cruise was excellent as usual and did not disappoint. As a movie-goer who goes to movies to be entertained and/or to have my thoughts invigorated, I found both to be true in this case. I came away angry all over again at the politicians who have placed our men and women in harm's way with no viable exit strategy. Both parties carry equal blame and I have yet to find a realistic answer to the problem but this film has renewed my resolve to be part of the solution.
  
  
• "Give a Damn"/ Q & A with The Devil's Advocate
  By A3EE0H0NWQ9QVL on 2007-11-12
  "Give a Damn!" That was Yippie* leader Jerry Ruben's axiom during the sixties. He also said, "Do It!" Another famous slogan was, "If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem." Although not axiomatic, Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) reaches out to one of his brightest students, Todd (Andrew Garfield), and barters with him to come back and attend his class. The banter between Dr. and student is filled with wit and insight. Still, Dr. Malley makes those sayings new [from his perspective] as a Vietnam War veteran whose only injuries were sustained on the picket line when he returned home and protested the war. Yet, that is the statement of 'Lions for Lambs' theme: Take a stand and do something. (*That's not a typo; it stood for Y.outh I.nternational P.arty.)
  
  In the meantime, a Peggy Noonan-esque reporter, Janine Bach (Meryl Streep), is interviewing G.O.P. Senator Jeremy Irving (Tom Cruise) in his private chamber. As they speak, new troops are filtering into the mountains of Afghanistan, one meant to bring a victory to the War on Terror and build momentum for toppling Iran's nuclear capability. He offers her an exclusive pipeline to his office and the developments of this new "surge" in troops. She comes cordially--like she's a friend--but isn't afraid to ask tough questions during the interview--but they are the kind a conservative columnist would certainly ask. Will she take his offer? In later scenes, she and her editor spar over just that.
  
  The third front brings the only real action of the picture. Colonel Falco briefs and commands his troops sent via chopper to the mountains of Afghanistan. His Q and A session with his men, particularly with Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) tells us a good deal.
  
  Much of the movie is a one on one debate between two speakers, each playing Devil's Advocate for one another. In similar fashion, I will now engage in a debate on the merits of the movie with my own Devil's Advocate.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Devil's Advocate: This film is like the title of an old Psychedelic Furs album, 'Talk, Talk, Talk'. Why should anyone want to see it?
  
  JP: One has to take the film by its quality--not by its format--'My Dinner with Andre' is considered one of Louis' Malle's masterpieces--and all it has is talk.
  
  D.A.: You've never seen `My Dinner with Andre'. How would you know?
  
  JP: Well, it's one of the most revered movies. It's like on those "Greatest Movies" lists by Roger Ebert, et al. Even to rent it you have to practically inherit a copy from a deceased relative for cry eye! In principle it still proves a good movie can have just talk.
  
  D.A.: Why not see a documentary--like 'No End in Sight'?
  
  JP: The wit and banter of this movie are formidable. I mean--I think they grapple at the truth, skipping the idea that everything's all black and white. They ask the right questions and at least offer some compelling answers--not final answers, mind you, but good ones. By all means, see both.
  
  D.A.: Why not save your money and stay at home and watch CNN and Fox News each for half an hour?
  
  JP: The caliber is richer and more condensed in this movie. It's more worthwhile.
  
  DA: Is this cinematic ping pong match really better than sitting on your couch and watching Jon Stewart?
  
  JP: I don't know if it's better...It's just different. It challenges you from all sides. The movie asks difficult questions and makes some great, pointed observations.
  
  D.A. Is anyone going to win an Oscar for this movie?
  
  JP: No, but the performances are natural and believable throughout.
  
  DA: Why should we believe a reviewer who gave one star to 'Conversations with Other Women' and two stars to 'The Death of Mr. Lazarescu,' but also gave 'The Guardian' four stars and 'Flyboys' five?!
  
  JP: When I sat down to give points to movies at the end of the year, I discovered that while 'The Death...' was too "real time," and I still hated 'Conversations...'; objectively, they were well crafted and original. I still felt better about those two favorites, but they fell in value. You have a point, though. Now that I have a point system I use, I can be more objective than just how I feel about a movie.
  
  DA: You're on the defensive, I see, but I have to admit that you have improved. But, this conversation is going nowhere, which is about what I'd say about the movie.
  
  JP: It's just like you to try and have the last word.
  
  DA: Yep. But, remember, you're the one controlling the dialogue for both of us. It's contrived, just like the exchange in the movie...See yah!!!
  
  
• Do Not Feed The Lions
  By A3C6X0DAM87GN4 on 2007-11-24
  Last year I tried to make the case that the best films of the year were the ones that scared the love of Jesus in us. They were movies which told us the world is in trouble, evil lurks everywhere, we aren't safe. It didn't matter what the films was, "The Departed", "The Curse of the Golden Flower", "Babel", "United 93" or "Pan's Labyrinth". This year it is a little different. The films this year seem to take us back to the 1960s. There has been a steady trend since 2004 of very political films. First they started out as documentaries; "Fahrenheit 9/11", "The War Tapes", "No End in Sight", "Uncovered", "Hunting of a President", "Bush's Brain"...ect Then featured films started to tackle the issues, "Good Night & Good Luck", "Syriana" and now Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs".
  
  
  "Lions for Lambs" surprisingly has not been getting a lot of traction. It hasn't pulled in impressive box-office, critics did not welcome it and neither did the public. It's hard to say why, but I'm glad I saw the film anyway. It's one of the better films released this year.
  
  Naturally, with any political film, there will be those of an opposing view who will damn the movie because it does not represent their political side. But, I think this was Redford's point. If you don't like the film, ask yourself why? Because of its politics? What about its politics don't you like? See what's happening here, a discussion, a debate. Just what we need.
  
  "Lions of Lambs",if I listened correctly, is a film which argues President Bush is incompetent, mistakes were made during the Iraq war, the media didn't question this war and Iraq is now a quagmire. We are no longer fighting in Iraq for our original intention, and the situation has escalated beyond our control and the war is not winnable.
  
  Many have argued the film is not saying anything new. Maybe. But what I admire about the film is the way it says what it says. People aren't going to see this movie,a shame, but, this is the kind of film that twenty years from now if my children were to watch it and ask me, is this what people thought of Bush and the Iraq war? I could look them straight in the eyes and say yes, this is exactly what people thought. "Lions for Lambs" then becomes a time capsule. It is a film which I think could add to our national dialogue. It takes ideas and stances on issues which many people feel and reflects them in an articulate manner.
  
  The film revolves around three storylines all happening at once. Redford plays a professor trying to talk a student (Andrew Garfield) into sticking to his class and recognizing his potential. Tom Cruise plays Sen. Jasper Irving a chest pounding, war hungry Republican giving an interview to reporter Janine Roth (Merly Streep) on a new military strategy, which is basically, prolong the war. And finally a military mission going on in Afghanistan, which involves two of Redford's former students, both who enlisted in the war against their professor's advice, who had been drafted in Vietnam.
  
  These three stories come together by the time the film ends and Redford's intentions are quite clear with the film. It is anti-Bush and anti-war. But so what? At least the film is about something. Why does the public think that is such a bad idea. Going back to the 1960s at least filmmakers then had the guts to make films about something. They were usually made by directors with last names like Godard, Bergman and Tarkovsky. I'm not saying Redford is as good as these directors but he has made a film which reminds me of the spirit of those films. Like a Godard films such as "Tout va bien" or "Weekend", "Lions for Lambs" is a movie which in time I think will be seen as a time capsule, a reflection of the public's conscience.
  
  As you might be able to tell from my description the film is not really about anything else besides its ideas. The cinematography is not memorable,nor is the music or the editing. It is shot conventionally. The performances are good and get their point across, but I doubt Cruise or Streep will get nominated for their work here. Though both do a fine job. But despite everything,I still think people should see this film.
  
  Bottom-line: A perfect time capsule of the times we will. A film which deals with contemporary ideas and issues. I think one of the year's best films.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Brain and muscle !
  By A16CZRQL23NOIW on 2008-02-11
  This work of Robert Redford is by far, his most ambitious, thoughtful and incisive project, if we take a look about all his previous achievements.
  
  This smart script presents us the different perspectives around a sensible issue about the brutal and devastating conflict that surrounds us a good part of reflections.
  
  Four scenarios, four positions, four defined points of view; the brain, represented by the Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) firmly convinced about this new strategy must prevail and sustained whatever it takes , he represents the rational wing, the wide sector of the pragmatism and decision makings sit on a desk in a comfortable office.
  
  On the other side of the trench, we have to a sensitive, clever and worried journalist (Meryl Streep) who is required by him to make an interview, that works out as an ethical confrontation between the plans and the practical results along all these years; smart strategies of war and hard to die convictions that are loomed in order to preserve the dignity and the proud of the Western hemisphere against the inquisitive responses and arguments exposed by the journalist.
  
  The nerve is symbolized by an idealistic professor (Robert Redford) against his counterpart , his mirror image, the opinion of a brilliant but still immature teenager (Andrew Gardfield) who refuses and criticizes even the meaning of his role in the world. In retrospective style we will witness two students assuming a public posture in a clever exposition of ideas and ideals, though they have chosen to enlist in the Army.
  
  The muscle is represented by the Army, where ironically these young citizens collide, to experience in live flesh the horror of a strategic default, a non foreseen incident or an undesirable collateral damage, when they fall on enemy territory in the heights of a snowy mountain in Afghanistan.
  
  You should see this movie with first rate attention, because its narrative time overcomes by far, its physical time; there's abundant food for thought all the way through, despite of the fact the narrative structure is based on "Babel".
  
  A tour de force film that will make you to think days and even weeks after you have seen it.
  
  
  
• Inconvenient Conversations
  By AVAHA06K08ZKK on 2008-03-29
  This is not a Tom Cruise movie, nor is it a Meryl Streep movie and it's barely a Robert Redford movie. Frankly, Lions for Lambs is barely a "movie" at all and if you wish to enjoy it you mustn't think of it as such, let alone a blockbuster movie. L4L is best savoured as a pseudo-documentary, not quite like Inconvenient Truth, though not that far away either.
  
  In fact, the film could really be named Inconvenient Talk or Inconvenient Topics, as it's really about, well, talking about tough topics with no clear consensus view - in politics, in education, in media about the role of America and Americans in the war on terror, in the classroom, in public knowledge, in government, as minorities, as the privileged and so on.
  
  You've got Robert Redford, a professor trying to convince possibly his brightest student that there's more to life than just earning degrees and growing rich. His take on crises like the Iraqi war, possibly echoing Redford's personal view, is that the younger generation can't sit back and blame the hopeless politicians. The people of America have got to do something, although two other students of his take the view to (what he views as) an extreme position by actualling signing up to fight.
  
  These two students - a Puerto Rican and Negro - also form the other key segment of the show, a snow-battle in the mountains of Afghanistan resulting from a very poorly planned US military op. This fiasco was in turn the brainchild of Senator Jasper Irving, played with boyish gusto by Tom Cruise, the poster child of American Republican politics who says all the right things and ducks most of the tough questions, and does both with a huge grin. Irving invites Meryl Streep's character, a journalist, to do an exclusive on the new military strategy and in the process engages in a tense debate on the failures and futures of American foreign policy in the context of the war on terror.
  
  L4L is all about the arguments. Back forth back forth - it's one big plurivocal textbook played out in motion picturesque.
  
  Should Americans be indifferent, should they apologise, should they curse the politicians (those who never say anything but never stop talking, and who keep repeating that, "I am NOT running for President") and ignore them, or should they take an active role which may involve sacrificing 'the good life' (of good colleges, high salaries and big walls)?
  
  Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and risk "a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan and a nuclear Iran"? Or should America continue to put their boys in the firing line, up the tempo and seek to annihilate the rebel forces and the 'Tali' (ban - get it?) once and for all? Are good and brave Americans who enlist for military action being stupid and throwing their futures away, like lions led by lambs? Or would it be better to seek alternative routes of engagement, until one is drafted into the army?
  
  Can one disagree with another's patriotic actions whilst revering the other's reasons for them? (Can, in fact, motives and actions be so neatly separated?)
  
  So you have professors, wise monkeys, counselling young lions not to be led to the slaughter by lambs like the Senators, themselves challenged by elephant-journalists with large memories - whilst the entire jungle is in crisis. Welcome to the circus of life. There are animals everywhere and no one's really sure what's happening, but everyone's hoping there'll be a happy ending. Before we all tear each other apart, limb from bloody limb.
  
  A unique movie on political conversations, if ever one was made. Too bad Redford didn't get Cruise to get out of his office. That may have saved it from becoming a 'Ticking Tom Bomb'? As it stands, some scenes should serve well as an intro to a course or seminar of Political Science. Because too bad, no, I don't think your average movie-goer is going to want to spend a few good weekend hours or a tired post-work evening seeing movie-stars (albeit very famous ones) sit and talk.
  
  
• Surprise
  By A1XPGISZNEHDD6 on 2008-05-11
  At first glance, I thought this movie was going to be some high-handed shot from the liberal entertainment community. It was not; which more than explains the very cool reception it has received from film critics and the press. The story is wonderful, the acting is "real life" rather than an exaggeration of real humanity; strike two as far as the critics and press are concerned. The film has been dubbed as "dialogish" which means one of two things; you either don't want to listen to the message OR you're too dimwitted to enjoy a movie with "words" in it. Strike three! The movie is powerful enough to raise your feelings of patriotism and participation in community service. The arguments in political science are thought provoking. Redford and Streep are outstanding, as is Redford's direction. Buy this movie, it will be a time capsule for generations.
  
  
• Preaches to the choir
  By A1OBPHRXHZF8P6 on 2007-11-14
  This movie is obiviously commentary on the current sittuation in Iraq.
  
  Playing the proverbial college professor, Robert Redford is concerned that some of the students who profess to be 'inspired by him' ultumately decide to enroll in the millitary. For he had not actually encouraged them to enlist, just to do something with their lives to make a difference in the world. He is convinced that this intervention is not the best way to make a difference in the world.
  
  Meanwhile, Tom Cruise is the villan. He plays Senator Jasper Irving, the Republican, who not incidentally is the quintisental hawk. Cruise can really play evil good. Honestly, I forgot that this was the same man who I and several other women swooned over growing up. I was also certain that this portion of the screenplay is a thinly veiled commentary on ever shrinking Congressional identification with the GOP/retirements.
  
  It's a good movie. The only reason why I am convinced it's not getting heavy attendance in theaters is because people don't neccessarily want a 'serious' movie during the holiday season. This might be something which would attract large crowds during the summer. The people who do go in will not be disappointed.
  
  
• Suprisingly engrossing and effective
  By A1RNMPOY4XIAA8 on 2008-02-06
  Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep have taken every controversial topic of the current war and condensed them into an engrossing, moving, provocative, hour-and-twenty-minute debate movie.
  
  
  The film takes place over an hour of time, of three separate, yet loosely related, storylines. They are as follows: The first is an ambitious senator (played by Tom Cruise), who has his eye on presidential candidacy, and has called in a famous news reporter (Meryl Streep) to giver her a story for the press about a new strategy he has come up with to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. He hopes that its success will boost this career and he spends his hour of the movie attempting to explain the facts in a very safe, favorable context to the reporter.
  
  
  The second story is two marines who are part of the "new" strategy being put into operation as the Senator discusses it. The third story is a Californian college professor (played by Robert Redford) who is meeting with one of his students who has missed one-too-many classes. He is the same professor who taught the two marines.
  
  
  All three storylines are blended together with a seamless, effective simplicity. By having all three happening in the same hour made it effective and almost unsettling as you see the marines fighting in the snowing night, and then come back to the bright, spotless, office of the senator sitting discussing the very strategy being fought. It made me realize how much is constantly happening in simultaneous motion. I cannot even imagine how much has happened as I write this review.
  
  
  As I said, a myriad of controversial topics are brought up but no real answer offered, but that is how it is effective. It brings up the topics and leaves you thinking about it long afterward without the feeling like you were force-fed one opinion. Two strong points that make the film so good are sharp, to-the-point script and the trio of big-name stars who all do wonderful jobs, especially Meryl Streep. The best scenes in this movie were watching her debate with Tom Cruise, both armed with powerful, compelling lines in a verbal war.
  
  
  
• THIS LION IS ALL ROAR AND NO BITE
  By A2DAHERP7HYJGO on 2008-04-06
  I started out watching this movie expecting to hate it. I'd heard all about how it was a one sided, liberal view of the ongoing war in the Middle East. Knowing Robert Redford's politics I expected nothing less. But then it pulled me in. That is until it summed up towards the end.
  
  The movie has three converging stories that all meld into one. The first involves charismatic politician Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) who is giving a one on one interview with journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). The interview is an attempt to get the press to work with Irving who is behind a new push in Afghanistan. While slick, Irving has to be the bad guy because we see news headlines about how the GOP is losing popularity (though our current congress is at an all time low in popularity and not run by the GOP) and pictures of him with everyone from President Bush to Condeleza Rice.
  
  The second story revolves around a college student (Andrew Garfield) and his political science teacher (Redford). Redford sees great potential in this student who has a come what may attitude towards life. To convince him of his potential, Redford tells him the story of two other students, our third story.
  
  The other two students are Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), a Mexican American and black American, who got where they were in school via scholarships. They have chosen to join the armed forces to take a stand and try and change things from the inside. Both are involved in this new push and have been stranded behind enemy lines in Afghanistan.
  
  Each of these stories revolves around one simple idea. That the war in the Middle East is wrong and has been wrong and always will be wrong. Granted it never says this statement out loud, but that IS what the central story is about.
  
  It's also about the choices we make and how they affect more than ourselves. Choices to stand for what we believe, to sit back and watch the world go by, to enhance an already volatile situation or to offer up a truth spun to us rather than seek the reality behind the story. Unfortunately for this film, it tries to represent each side of the story using only one.
  
  An intellectual discussion on the topic would find merit in both sides because in truth it exists. But this movie espouses to do so while propagandizing only one. Each point of view made is done so with nothing more than the same rhetoric used over and over again to make a case. An example: the current war we find ourselves in is NOT Vietnam and never will be no matter how hard people want to draw comparisons. No two wars are alike no matter how many people want them to be. But this movie falls back on that comparison on more than one occasion.
  
  The film is well made, don't get me wrong. It looks tremendous. The acting is top notch (with the exception of Streep who never convinced me of her character). It feels like a great Hollywood movie. I began by enjoying it but ended feeling like I had heard this same story over and over again and always from someone unwilling to look at both sides of an issue. And that being what was trying to be told here made it a failure in so many ways.
  
  If you buy into the rhetoric, you'll love this movie. If you don't, it will make you angry. And if you can at least, honestly, go into with an open mind, you'll walk away thinking perhaps they need more open minded people to make both sides heard. This movie died at the box office. It's easy to see why.
  
  
  
• Open Your Eyes America
  By A3H7RMK1GNWU3K on 2008-04-08
  Let's sum this movie up because that is what a review is for correct?
  
  Very well done.
  
  This movie was made with several intentions in mind, unfortunately the general public is all too quick to pick a side and they miss the point of the film entirely.
  
  You have all aspects of politicians in this movie you have the senator (Tom Cruise) GOP baby moving up in the ranks, trying to make his mark. You have the Liberal Professor (Redford) and you have the voice to the sheep of the country the media (Streep.)
  
  For those of you that stated it is one sided I don't know how many more sides you need because that is what the War is about. Everyone is fed exactly what they need to eat, nothing more, nothing less it is up to the individual to determine if they like the taste.
  
  This was an excellent movie about how America is losing its place in the world concerning itself with the Middle East. The people in that region will never change. They have been that way for thousands of years and America is not special. We will lose the war because they will not quit and we are so arrogant we can't pick up a History book and realize that this is the way it is and that is it.
  
  I am a soldier and I can tell you this because my friends have died there, are serving there and I support the War Effort as well in Europe taking care of the Men and Women that get sent to the slaughter by our Politicians and Government that don't give a damn about their people. When this is over do you really think that the families of the 4,000 soldiers will get this overwhelming sigh "well my child's life was sacrificed for something and I am glad they laid down their life...." C'mon!?
  
  The movie made a great statement at the end with the complete apathy of the college student because that sums it up, people would rather watch a meaningless melodrama then care about what is happening in the world because everyone has become so desensitized to everything. It is like walking around in a coma.
  
  
  
• OMG - I have to think ???
  By AYC0J1N5MB8Q on 2008-04-12
  I recently finished my second degree. I am in the military. I watch the "news" and even care about politics a bit. A lot of people will not 'get' this movie (clearly, when reading some of the other reviews).
  
  It wasn't supposed to be another Hollywood entertainment piece without substance. And it is not preaching anything. What Robert Redford does do here, is point out the apathy and ignorance of many Americans who chose to takes the path of least resistance in life, while others fight around the world for what they believe in. While they continue to die, we are microwaving our TV dinners at home. (THINK about it).
  
  In addition, the film highlights current political agendas, corporate cultures and consumerism in the news rooms, where political propagandas are transferred from politicians to TV without commentary or (valuable) discussion. (Fox news is not valuable discussion, in case you didn't know. Neither is the daily show by the way!).
  
  The "news" as it stands today, is really a part of the entertainment industry, rather than researched perspective and political engagement. Dead soldiers in Iraq are talked about in the same segment as Anna Nicole Smith's baby and Paris Hilton's dog. Americans in particular (ok, not ALL of them for you nitpickers out there), have a 2 minute attention span when it comes to serious news, so the news agencies have to package it into an entertainment format. If you're offended now, you're probably one of them...
  
  The film touches on other aspects of current happenings, like America's standing in the world and our place within America. This is an excellent film that many people will chose to overlook or undersell, because it is hard to admit that the criticism of the film is directed to the viewer, you.
  
  WATCH THIS FILM people, and allow yourself to THINK, not just to be mindlessly entertained while accepting the status quo that America has become.
  
  
• A single message in 3 inter-mixed stories?
  By A25QJBK33C4O0R on 2008-04-13
  Another reviewer at Amazon notes 'it's about getting off your butt', while another here notes 'this isn't for short attention span viewers', and yet... I'm not sure either of those points are quite right about this film.
  
  This film is a complex tale with writing that seems to be from the same school as say The West Wing, or Sports Night, or the later Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. No, this wasn't an Aaron Sorkin tale, but it seems that way, and if you watch the extras and listen to the writer's own words, and those of the actors and actresses that brought those words to life, you see that style very clearly (if you didn't already pick up on it). Given what the writer seemed to be going for, and what the actors and actresses (and director Robert Redford), they all seem to have delivered, but then the question becomes what have they really delivered?
  
  This isn't an anti-war picture, but at the same time it is most certainly not a film that glorifies war or places the military on a pedestal. Far from it, the military and political leadership rightfully catches blame for the mishandling of the war in Afghanistan. We're 'treated to' seeing the results of the poor leadership, poor intelligence, and poor planning as it plays out over roughly one third of this film in the form of two special forces soldiers on a mission gone bad.
  
  While those events are unfolding 'in real time', we're also looking in at an interview (also occuring in real time) between an aging reporter (played by Meryl Streep) and a young 'hot shot' politician (played by Tom Cruise). The dialog and banter between Streep and Cruise is crisp and quick, though there isn't the talking over other players that happens quite frequently in the Aaron Sorkin products noted above. As the interview unfolds, and then is looked at later when Streep goes back to the offices of her big media/entertainment company employer, we learn that Streep wasn't happy with the answers she got from Cruise. She is placed in a bit of a dilemma as her bosses presses her to take the story she was given and run with it while she feels much less inclined to actually run the story.
  
  Finally, while those events have been unfolding in real time, we get the last of events that are also unfolding in a real time as the political science professor played by Robert Redford is having an early morning meeting with an apparent slacker student who holds a lot of promise but just can't seem to engage himself in Redford's classes any more.
  
  The film moves back and forth between events in Afghanistan, to the Congressman's office in D.C., to the University in California and as we see flashbacks of past events in the professor's class we find that we are seeing a pair of individuals there who are now heavily involved in events in Afghanistan.
  
  What is the message of the film? Is there even one particular message? Certainly that 'get off your butt and get involved' message is there, but that isn't the only message and if it was just that message trying to come through in this film there are other films that would seem to do a much better job of passing along that message (see Pay It Forward as an example).
  
  Perhaps the message is that politicians are idiots? Maybe, but again other films would seem to do a better job at telling and showing us that to be the case.
  
  Maybe the message is that the news media that have been there and done that are smarter than everyone else and know what will and won't work as they see through the semantics and re-invention of older military strategies that are being brought up by the hot-shot politicians and the military brass.
  
  After the fact, the lack of the single message and the complexity of the film may be what hurts the film the most, or at least hurts the film with most potential viewers. While I rated the film at 4 stars in my review, it is more in the 3-1/2 star range for me (curse you for not allowing 1/2 star ratings Amazon.com!), and I can certainly see where it would be a 2 star (or worse) snooze fest for many or even a 5 star masterpiece for others. I wish it was a bit easier to consume, but then again do people really want to be beat over the head with the messages and morals from the writers/directors/actors? If they did, I suspect movies like the MTV film Stop Loss would do better than they have.
  
  
• If I Could Give This Movie No Stars, I Would!
  By A1OE7DBNJOBYYQ on 2008-04-14
  If I could give this movie no stars, I would! The screenwriter is obviously distorting facts to send out his political agenda to the masses. He is wrong about who is dying in our wars, and the majority of people who fight the US's wars! That false fact is very annoying, to say the least; and the fact that no one remarks upon it is even more irritating! Entertainment writers even skip over the fact that 75% - 80% of whites die in the Middle East compared to 8% - 10% of minorities. What exactly is the screen writer's agenda by out right lying about these facts? I truly wonder. And the fact that Redford didn't research this man's material in unbelieveable. What exactly do they gain by lying about this? In the movie it is stated that minorities go into the service because they are so mistreated and ignored by our government. Why do some many whites, the vast majority of the armed services, go into the service? Since there are no freebies for white, perhaps to pay for college. Perhaps because there are no good paying jobs in the US any longer. Perhaps they feel patriotic or are from military families. Whatever the reason, the screenwriter did not address that fact AT ALL! Instead he outright lied about the statistics for some political agenda of his own. I won't watch another movie he writes. I check out the facts to see if they are accurate, and this man is full of BS. I always enjoy Redford movies. What a sad disappointment.
  
  
  
• What a Huge Disappointment!
  By A3LZ5X20ET8UM4 on 2008-04-14
  I can't believe three huge stars performed in this movie, and Redford directed! I am a big Redford fan and Streep fan, but this was a bit too much. None of these stars researched the information in the script to see if any of it was fact??? Is everyone in Hollywood stupid and uneducated or just simply lazy? Perhaps the terrorists should bomb it instead! That would be poetic justice. The statistics about men in the armed services stated as fact by Redford's character was ridiculous and over dramatized. Men and women go into the service to pay for college, for a job because there are very few these days, to make a career, patriotism, etc., and the vast majority are white and have been throughout history. The political correctness Hollywood tries to portray is very annoying. You can't alter facts and expect us to eat it all up and not think or research for ourselves. The messages these film corporations try to send out all have their own political agenda for their own gain. The script writer is an idiot, and I certainly don't care to watch anymore of his movies. I am not a moron, and it angers me to see that his lies are being viewed by many people who probably won't check the facts out for themselves. The statistics are that 75% - 80% of whites have died in the Middle East while only 8% - 10% of minorities have died (blacks and hispanics). Talk about distorting the truth! Garbage like this is insulting! Don't even bother watching it! It makes me wonder just what Cruise, Redford and Streep are up to by acting in this movie which is packed with lies!
  
  
• NO STARS! Packed with Lies!
  By APS76HHCL7XY2 on 2008-04-14
  This movie is garbage. Redford, Streep and Cruise should be ashamed to act in such a lame movie. The script was awful and boring and packed with lies! Just typical PC Hollywood BS which is a waste of time to even watch. If you do watch it, do a little research on what these characters are spewing out as "truth." It's amazing that people watch movies and then readily believe the garbage and lies that the characters speak and easily accept them as truth without even reading up on the subject at hand. I guess that just shows how lazy and stupid the majority of this population is; and we all know who the majority of the population is, those dying in the wars throughout history in this country. Those who will give up everything and hand over everything because the media creates guilt and makes them feel pity for every other being on this planet except for themselves. Very pitiful.
  
  
  
• Convoluted Garbage!
  By A1F0IDPANJKZ1G on 2008-04-14
  If you want to listen to typical politically correct Hollywood garbage about how minorities are so ignored and how horribly they're treated by our government, so they enlist in the service and risk their lives, then watch this movie. If not, don't bother. The plot, if you can call it that, goes no where. It's boring. And it's loaded with outright lies! For instance, the majority of whites (75-80%)have died in the Middle East not blacks and hispanics (8-10%)! So why do ALL these whites go into the service? That's never answered by the PC scriptwriter, with the political agenda. It's also never addressed that minorities get many special grants, etc. to subsidize their college, especially in California, when white students have to pay or take out student loans if they don't get regular scholarships. Certainly no one in Hollywood would make a movie about that. Or how most victims of crimes are white. Certainly no PC Hollywood writer would write a screenplay about the recent bunch of white college girls by black men. Do some research instead of buying the scriptwriter's political agenda. I also wonder about Redford's, Streep's and Cruise's political agendas after watching this movie. What do they care about us average folks? They're filthy rich! They're out to promote their own selfish interests. They don't live in the same world we all do. This was a total disappointment and waste of my time. After this movie, I doubt I'll watch another Redford movie again. He's had a wonderful career. What happened to the wonderful movies of his past? I guess that's where they are, in his past. Don't bother with this piece of garbage. To quote the movie, "It's not worth it." You could be doing so much more with your time and attention; for instance, reading up on the real truth!
  
  
  
  
• Poor military realism
  By A2GFZT48YTZASN on 2008-04-14
  Barely a 2 and I won't be buying it. OK, where do I start? First and foremost, I believe that this movie gave very little technical realism to the military side of the equation. Once again, we're portrayed as macho idiots (or lambs) that are saluting smartly and doing the bidding of senseless Republican war-mongers who do "whatever it takes." The technical aspects of the military mission were laughable. Anyone that falls or jumps out of a helicopter 100 feet above mountainous terrain is going to DIE. Yet, one of our college heroes falls out and the other jumps out so that "no man is left behind" and they survive the fall into a snow bank on a flat part of the mountain pass. Next, Hollywood shows us that we can see our good guys with the bad guy "Talies" approaching via satellite imagery through a blinding snow storm at night...right. So, we watch our intrepid heroes fight off some of the advance of some 20-30 enemy while having little or no terrain as cover. Why are our heroes not killed outright?....We are told that the Taliban want to take them alive. OK, maybe plausible, but unlikely. Next, our A-10 support arrives and bombs the crap out of the FLOT (forward line of troops) at least two or three times. Initially our heroes hope that all have been vanquished, but then suffer further small arms fire from the dark only yards away. What do they decide? Do they decide to try to hold on for what everyone knows will be the rescue attempt? NOOOOOO. Damn it. They stand up and go out in a suicide blaze of fire because they believe all is lost. CRAP! Seconds later the remaining Taliban are exterminated in the final A-10 pass and the rescue helicopter only a couple of minutes away. I was so angry I could spit. The rest of the movie is what you would expect from Robert Redford, another lecture on his view of American politics and right wing wrongs. Where do these people get their military technical consultation, the Salvation Army?
  
  
• A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
  By AQZKKNNG6GWKV on 2008-05-04
  The point of this film is quite clear to me: Incompetant political figures (the lambs) risk the lives of brave individuals fighting for our country (the lions). For what reason are the lambs doing this? Only (ONLY!) for their own political image. By no means do these politicians actually care about the safety of their country...only about what will get them elected next time.
  
  So who are the heroes in this film? The soldiers and...the media. As director Robert Redford tells it; the media take the twisted lies and propaganda that the right-wing politicians are spewing and straighten it out to the stories that we read in the paper. Alright, great.
  
  Meryl Streep plays the reporter, who was one of the people who fell prey to the "terrible lies" that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks regarding who was responsible. She is interviewing Tom Cruise, a politician who the audience is obviously supposed to dislike.
  
  Here's the problem(s).
  
  This is a propoganda piece! Now, propoganda isn't neccasarily bad, but Streep's climatic rant toward the end of the film makes a valid point against the film itself. When questioned why she doesn't want to print the story given by Cruise's character, Streep says that "all he gave was propoganda." In other words, she argued that she wouldn't be printing NEWS, she would be printing a piece of biased propoganda. That is essentially what this movie is.
  
  This is not a debate for a certain view...it is mere propoganda masquerading as a provocotive look at the debate behind the Iraq War. When you can make your opponent say whatever you want so that you can come up with some clever retort, it isn't exatly valid debate.
  
  Bottom line; Do not be fooled...this is Redford's bitter views spun into an angering propoganda piece. The very politicians he condemns may be more like him than he thinks...
  
  

• Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen)
• There Will Be Blood
• Michael Clayton (Widescreen Edition)
• The Bucket List
• Atonement (Widescreen Edition)