|
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:  -
All about slamming the war and our president and keeping a liberal view in going into the military! Save your money and time!
Rating:  -
Since Redford directed this film, I probably set my expectations too high for him to meet. With all the excellent independent films he has viewed through his Sundance film festival, I thought "Lions for Lambs" would do a better job of dissecting the sorts of narratives we receive from the establishment. So, it was disappointing to see the Afghani fighters portrayed as amorphous blobs on the screen, set in a scenario where the audience is to cheer for their destruction (that is, kill the "other" before the two likeable American boys are killed). U.S. soldiers are portrayed as pure and heroic, Afghani soldiers are evil blobs. This is the sort of narrative that entrenches a superiority complex in the American mind. Even if U.S. soldiers are as wonderful as the characters in this movie are, they are carrying out policies designed by Machiavellian warlords of the U.S. empire who are much worse than the Republican politician played by Tom Cruise. Superpowers don't invade countries to bring democracy, they invade to procure resources Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan and open markets The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.
To the extent the Taliban are pathological, they exhibit pathologies that we and the Russians created Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence (Open Media).
This film would've been much more interesting if the Afghani soldiers received some character development, instead of just caricature. After all, they were considered "freedom fighters" at one point, being aided and funded by the U.S. and being received by the White House Terrorism: Theirs and Ours Afghan Guerrilla Warfare: In the Words of the Mujahideen Fighters.
As citizens of the world's hyperpower, maybe we should consider the losses on the other side, instead of just the losses our imperial aggression causes us How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity.
Aside from that criticism, the movie does have some thoughtful dialogue. The college student character is typical of many young people who have been politically neutralized. College is financially out of reach for many (an economic pressure that induces many into our "volunteer" army), those who do enter higher ed are often saddled with enormous debt In Debt We Trust, while others are part of the upper class and aren't particularly concerned about foreign policy Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.
For another perspective on U.S. militarism, I'd recommend Why We Fight.
"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear. While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war." - General Douglas MacArthur, speech of 1951, quoted in Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence by Carol Brightman
Rating:  -
Isn't it amazing that when views such as those in this movie are made public, those who prefer to be led by the nosering get defensive. What makes a person so fearful of opposing ideas? Could it be that it shows ones beliefs to be false?
If you are someone who dislikes change, you prefer some external entity to make up your mind for you, and really have no intent to take responsibility for your actions - then leave this movie alone! It is a fairytale killer.
For those of you who intentionally seek out new information for your intellectual and spiritual growth and are not intimidated by ideas that run counter to your beliefs - consider this movie an opportunity.
It is presenting a different view about the war on terror, or is that "war of terror"? To be sure, this movie wasn't forced upon anybody. I didn't view it as being liberal or conservative, just trying to make a point about where our country is right now and how it got there.
Rating: -
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.
Rating: -
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.
|
