|
Lions For Lambs (Widescreen Edition) Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
For the actual cinematic qualities, see Roland E. Zwick's excellent review. Short version: it doesn't work all that well, because it is dry and wooden.
OK, so the medium is lacking. What about the message?
Well, you get to review bad war leadership decisions from the Bush administration. Who knew?
In the Streep/Cruise thread, Cruise very much ends up being the straw man, but gets to put his case across very eloquently. Merryl Streep often challenges him, but without pressing her arguments (hint: she's doing it for the audience). When she does really object, it is not with him, but rather with her news manager. I guess a central point Cruise makes would be hard to answer: what would exactly happens if the US cuts and runs now?
And that's the whole weakness on the foreign policy side: it criticizes but doesn't manage to even try to articulate an answer. Or indeed even ask novel and important questions, as it doesn't rise much above canned, though valid, criticism.
Where it does come up with its own ideas, through Redford's character, it proposes a woolly, likely useless agenda about an in-USA-Peace-Corps that has absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan/Iraq. And it laments the supposed stupidity, ignorance and apathy of the voters. Original that. And with just a whiff of elitism.
In the end, the best thing about the movie is its title. It refers to WWI German soldiers admiring the doomed courage of British soldiers at the Battle of the Somme, while they were lead by an incompetent top leadership. That pretty much summarizes Iraq and Afghanistan 6 years on, though the failures are much less at the military than at the political level.
I applaud Robert Redford for trying to wake folks up, but this ain't 'Apocalypse Now', 'Deer Hunter' or even 'Three Kings' in terms of cinema quality or mass appeal. As a result, its audience and its effects will be limited.
Rating: -
This is a thoughtful film and well worth watching. "Lions for Lambs" offers various perspectives on the "War on Terror". It also addresses the problem of apathy and the lack of faith in government.
I was surprised to find how much I related to the diverse characters in the film who defended opposing views: The truth-seeking journalist; the young men from poor neighborhoods who want to make the world better; the intellectual slacker who sees through the bull of politics and asks "what's the point of caring or getting involved?"; the senator who promotes the need to smash obvious evil with military might in order to prevent it from spreading; and the university professor who believes we all still have a responsibility to care, no matter how bad and pointless it all may seem.
Despite their opposing positions, I found at least some things that were reasonable in all of the characters.
One of the most important points "Lions for Lambs" makes is that the US media has lost its way with terrible consequences. Television news in particular has become laughable. With so much time and effort given to covering pop stars and missing white women, there is little air time left for analytical coverage of government policies and actions--not to mention the 25,000 children who die each day in poverty around the world or the rapid loss of our planet's biodiversity.
No one should approach this movie with the expectation of seeing an action-packed war movie. This is mostly a talking-heads film. If you are a thoughtful person who knows and cares about current events, you will probably enjoy this movie.
However, if you await the latest reports on the Britney Spears' saga with breathless anticipation, then this movie is likely to disappoint you. Then again, you may be the very person who needs to see it most.
--Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God
Rating: -
I enjoyed my High School Goverment class with eyes that made it fun,so,here me out...
"Lions for Lambs" does have very strong potential-that very strong potential standing on top of the importance that it covers. It is a film dealing with all of the issues of our current Goverment. Take a look at how "Lions for Lambs" deals with the Iraq war...and the flak that both senators and journalists deal with...and you can find it all here. A good education,right?
The answer to that question is right:halfway right. With "Lions for Lambs",Robert Redford(the first person to knock the Oscar out of Martin Scorsese's hands,I might add)does a very good job at taking three seperate lives(a Senator,a TV journalist,and a professor)and blending them all into one(Redford's character is just a connection to the characters of Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep-you'll see the connection and what I mean). What these three characters deal with and how they get entangled in what is blamed on the Government and the Bush administration-does show the world we live in today(more,though,if you are against the war in Iraq-this is not a film for Iraq war supporters). Robert Redford does open viewers' eyes more a little bit to the career of a senator and a journalist in this current world. That,right there,is very positive and gives "Lions for Lambs" a strong,metal ground to stand on.
The main problem,though,is that "Lions for Lambs"(aside from what I already mentioned)is nothing about the Gov. we don't know already. The stuff that doesn't open our eyes and make us understand is what has been running in the headlines. It's the basis of the majority of "Lions for Lambs". And,unfortunately,"Lions for Lambs" does become slow and boring in getting its required expression out not too long after the film has settled in(and that's most of the film). Had LFL been kept at its required pace(Robert Redford and Meryl Streep themselves claimed that they had several problems on the set with Tom Cruise that caused this damage)and been kept at a good and even balance,the news of today might have a little more life summarized better. Remember that ten to twenty years from now,when "Lions for Lambs" will be the past headlines of a very important and controverisal time in history(with a lot of resemblance to Vietnam,as we already know).
Worth a look,and don't ignore it because of Tom Cruise-but be prepared of the dominating detours that are too be found here.
Rating:  -
The cast tries to do a good job, but the script is not meeting them half way, which makes it difficult for them to achieve their goal. Except for the little bit of action when the soldiers in Iraq are faced with a huge crisis, the rest is pretty much talk, talk and talk all the way to the end.
The movie is seperated in 3 different scenarios, which in reality, are all part of the same situation... a few specific soldiers dealing with war in Iraq.
There are better movies out there concerning this issue with a more intelligent and entertaining script. You can easily skip this one.
Rating:  -
Based on the reviews thus far, the following is clear:
If you are still a Republican after all that has happened, then this movie won't change your mind... it'll just make you mad. Check out numbersusa, and do something constructive with your time (honestly, that's a more appropriate place to vent your frustration). Save us your brash negative review.
If you are looking for SAS entertainment, and want to avoid a mental challenge, then that's sad, but this movie is not your cup-of-tea.
If you are anti-intellectual (or the new buzz-phrase: anti-"elitist") and/or cynical to the point where you abhor any type of strong opinion on controversial matters, then your mind will filter out the meaning, and you will only hear garbled chatter. That's really a shame, because this movie is largely about--and directed at--YOU. The movie's modality is not in tune with your way of thinking, so chances are very high that you will not like it.
If you are under about 15 years old (less for girls), then this movie is probably too weighty for you. If you still think it's cool to be smart, and you pride your intellect, then you might give it a try.
All other personality types should see this movie, and try hard to stick with it, because it's important that you "get it." The Socratic Method is at work here, so it may take a while to digest. The movie will challenge your intellect, and there is no doubt that it is politically polarizing. The movie is largely a dialog from multiple points of view, so you won't agree with everything... the important thing is that you understand the movie in its totality.
It's a shame that many people seek to exclude themselves--and others--from civil discourse about the issues presented by writing such brash reviews. I'm sure thousands of potential viewers are being scared away by this insidious tactic. Robert Redford has been a champion of the little guy ever since The Milagro Beanfield War. He is at his most poignant here in L4L. Unless you are a complete ditto-head, this movie deserves your support ["ambivalence only helps the oppressor"]. It is part of a monumentally important civil discourse that is sorely needed at this time and place in history.
|
