Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Lions For Lambs

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Lions For Lambs Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Lions For Lambs - 28/10/2007 3:51:15 PM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 29501
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
Good or bad this film maybe... - 28/10/2007 3:51:15 PM   
mpcdaly

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 30/9/2005
Cruise will never win an academy award.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
Too much bleating not enough of a roar - 29/10/2007 5:55:28 PM   
Axel Foley


Posts: 731
Joined: 15/10/2005
Que?

Anyway I'm adding my two pence worth...

Lions for Lambs is a film of ideas and ideals. The title derives from a WWI German general's quote relating the British generals with lambs issuing orders that sent their men (read lions) into battle and to their death. These ideas and ideals are presented via three different stories, which no matter how hard director Robert Redford attempts, do not knit together.

Story one involves Tom Cruise's over-ambitious Republican senator, Jasper Irving, who has called a meeting with Meryl Streep's journalist, Janine Roth, to inform her of his “big idea” to solve the Afghanistan debacle. His concept involves sending out platoons of Special Forces to secure key points around the Afghan border and is to be initiated by men such as Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke) whose platoon we then follow into enemy territory. Finally, there's Redford himself as Stephen Malley, a politics professor trying to get one of his students (Andrew Garfield) to realise his potential.

This last thread offers the opportunity to drop in names like Socrates and Plato, as Redford tries to drive home a point about how politics and democracy have fallen since the Classical age. Garfield can't be bothered anymore because he doesn't trust the likes of Irving (who in truth is pretty darned shifty), but Malley wants him to accept that kids like him represent hope and that, if they put their minds to it, they could make a difference. And indeed they can, because Ernest and Arian were two such kids, but in order to make their point they are now at the sharp end of Irving's crusade.

Where the film gets messy is in trying to connect Irving and Roth to the piece. He's a crafty bugger and, besides throwing in a few digitally tweaked pictures of him fraternizing with Bush and his cronies, there doesn't seem to be too much scope for his character. Roth, meanwhile, acts as his conscience during their chat: she incisive in her inquisition and he coming across as more Tony Blair than any Stateside honcho in his righteous defence, which seems to read in line with our former PM's humanitarian intervention manifesto.

However, none of this tells us anything we don't know already from the other pieces (with our own eyes we have seen the soldiers sacrificed). Moreover, too much of their conversation seems to amount to easy liberal point scoring. To wit Roth delivers some cutting comments about the similarity to 'Nam and a dig about invading Iraq, while the real enemy was allowed to recover and ultimately Irving shows himself to be exactly the sort of slime ball that bothers Garfield so much.

As such the film overall is very slight and there is far too much rambling discussion. Moreover, it's superficial and stagy and many recent documentaries have covered much the same ground, but with greater depth and cohesion. The strongest scenes (and in fairness some of these are indeed powerful) involve Pena and Luke, who symbolize all soldiers, out there on the front line making a stand. A stronger film would have fleshed out their story more and got the point, about lions and lambs, across without any recourse to spelling it out for those taking notes. As it is the film feels like an assignment that one of Malley's students has put together: undoubtedly high-minded and well intentioned but far too verbose.


_____________________________

https://twitter.com/Obiwan_desouza

(in reply to mpcdaly)
Post #: 3
Empire gets it wrong again - 5/11/2007 9:14:13 AM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005
A few choice quotes from Time Out's review of this film:

"The politics of this film are basic beyond belief, which would be acceptable is they weren’t also so muddled and unconvincingly expressed."

"‘Lions for Lambs’ – or, more accurately, ‘Politics for Dummies’"

"The filmmakers must have imagined sparky, engaging conversation between these duos similar to a high-speed tennis bout between skillful pros; what emerges is more comparable to a lazy afternoon table-tennis knockabout in an old people’s home."

Looks like Empire has got it wrong AGAIN...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 4
Why film of the week??? Empire cowards - 5/11/2007 9:34:26 AM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005
And another thing, why is this 'film of the week' when "The Band's Visit" gets 5 stars and Lions for Lambs only 4 stars???

C'mon Empire, have the courage of your convictions for once instead of just following where the money and stars are!!

Here you give "The Bands Visit" a tiny review whilst writing reams about this Tom Cruise tosh, a much lesser movie.

Cowards.We all remember your 'Phantom Menace" review (for shame!).

(in reply to fierce-hairdo)
Post #: 5
RE: Why film of the week??? Empire cowards - 5/11/2007 9:43:15 AM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
The "Film of the Week" calculation is partly based on assessing which film most people have a chance to see. It's not just about star ratings. But it is NOT based on stars or money or cowardice, and in our considered opinion Lions for Lambs is not tosh, so please moderate your language.

And how clever of you to bring up The Phantom Menace. I bet no one's thought to beat us with that stick in at least, oh, five minutes. Well done you on never making a mistake in the heat of the moment.

_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to fierce-hairdo)
Post #: 6
- 5/11/2007 10:08:54 AM   
jimibadboi7

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/12/2006
In your considered opinion Lions for Lambs is tosh??? that's confusing. Surely Into The Wild should be film of the week then...i mean a road trip across america with Emile Hersch sounds more accessible to me than a lecture on Afghanistan from crinkly Redford!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
RE: - 5/11/2007 10:30:22 AM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

The "Film of the Week" calculation is partly based on assessing which film most people have a chance to see. It's not just about star ratings. But it is NOT based on stars or money or cowardice, and in our considered opinion Lions for Lambs is not tosh, so please moderate your language.

And how clever of you to bring up The Phantom Menace. I bet no one's thought to beat us with that stick in at least, oh, five minutes. Well done you on never making a mistake in the heat of the moment.





OK, forgive me for being a little blunt earlier.

But seriously, I've noticed a trend in Empire magazine for a long time - smaller good quality movies are given a positive review but a tiny amount of column inches and an inconspicuous place in the magazine. Whereas the next hollywood blockbuster is given huge coverage even if its a total turkey.

This is what I regard as cowardice; a failure to have the courage of your convictions. If you think the small movie is a 5 star triumph well put it up front and really sing its praises in a larger review. Don't write a one paragraph review saying its great and then write a lengthy double page spread review for the underachieving big bucks hollywood turkey!!

The low budget triumph needs the publicity. The hollywood blockbuster already has a huge publicity machine behind it, why blindly offer it more support whilst not giving due attention to the film you regard as a 5 star movie.

Its like you're saying "yeah this indie film is a great movie, but enough of that, this turkey's got Tom Cruise in it. So lets just focus on that!".

(in reply to jimibadboi7)
Post #: 8
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 12:34:27 PM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
Well, (and this has been discussed in depth elsewhere) quite often when a small film blows us away we do focus on it - see, for example, Once recently. But we don't think we're doing a service to readers to focus most of our attentions on films that lots of people can't see, because they don't show at cinemas near them. Not to mention the fact that Lions for Lambs (to get back on topic for a minute) isn't a turkey, and that all it got in the mag was that one page review.

_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to fierce-hairdo)
Post #: 9
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 5:05:03 PM   
Axel Foley


Posts: 731
Joined: 15/10/2005
That would mean Empire operate differently to the broadsheets then, which are read by far more people and therefore should have more reason to highlight films on wider releases. Their critics, however, often choose high-quality, smaller films to lead with, irrespective of how many people can see the film. I remember reading the Guardian take on Lives of Others (if Empire had it as their film of the week I’d retract this part of the point) and making the decision there and then to travel out of my way to see. If something is that good, then it’s worth tracking down and readers would be grateful for such a tip.

As for Lions, I can see it bombing massively. The rating on IMDB is already low and the “politics for dummies” nature of the piece is going to prove a massive turn off for most. I’d be surprised not to see it slated by most of the quality press.

_____________________________

https://twitter.com/Obiwan_desouza

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 10
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 6:10:44 PM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
Well aren't you just a ray of trolly sunshine today Axel? Lives of Others was our film of the week on release (I just checked), so we don't necessarily go with "bigger" films. This week, we went with Lions because all of us here who saw it loved it. We don't just go on box office - it may well tank, other critics may well hate it, but we liked it a lot so why not cheer the courage of our convictions for a change?

As for the broadsheets' approach, they are of course welcome to focus on whatever films they like. I'd argue that they get the balance wrong as often as they get it right and that, given that some readers in the Empire magazine thread are worried about London-centricism, that the broadsheets are far more guilty of that because they focus on films shown at only a handful of cinemas nationwide - sometimes only one. We use more of a balance between how much we love a film and how many people might see it. Now please take this discussion out of the review thread and back into one of the Empire threads where it belongs.

_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to Axel Foley)
Post #: 11
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 6:11:10 PM   
ThismonkeyhasRAGE

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 5/11/2007
Though I havent actually seen the film I have to disagree with O'Hara's principles here.

I know the mag has to make money and all, and that means printing stuff about the most popular/accessible films, but surely by giving smaller films big attention they are going to be shown in more places, because there'll be more demand. All us readers are going to want to see a film that EMPIRE raves about, no matter how hard it is to see it. I'm not saying the reviews are dishonest or cowardly (and I can forgive Phantom Menace), I would just like to add my voice to those who would like to see the really good quality small films pushed to the fore.

I think you'd be doing the best service to the readers to tell us about the best films out there, rather than the ones easiest to find- after all its a specialist film mag- and any old person can get info on the blockbusters, the money-spinners etc.


I'm going to see Lions For Lambs, because its in the spotlight and might play a role in the oscars- I also love Meryl Streep and want to give Cruise a chance to redeem himself for a significant portion of his career.
I went to see Once (great film) because EMPIRE drew my attention to it- it's not something I'm likely to have noticed otherwise- and its in this example, not the previous, in which you have done me a greater service. (And whilst i'm here, thanks for the heads up)


So yeah, big up the small films massive!

(in reply to Axel Foley)
Post #: 12
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 6:33:43 PM   
Axel Foley


Posts: 731
Joined: 15/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Lives of Others was our film of the week on release (I just checked), so we don't necessarily go with "bigger" films.


Fair enough (although I'm not sure whether to feel flattered or patronised to be a "ray of trolly sunshine" ).
quote:


Now please take this discussion out of the review thread and back into one of the Empire threads where it belongs.

Thread digression is all part and parcel of a forum, but I'll leave it there.

< Message edited by Axel Foley -- 5/11/2007 6:37:16 PM >


_____________________________

https://twitter.com/Obiwan_desouza

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 13
RE: RE: - 5/11/2007 7:55:19 PM   
iamjacksass

 

Posts: 606
Joined: 4/7/2006
From: Hull
There's a simple truth as to why Empire devote so much attention to the Hollywood Blockbusters and that is money. The money that these studios have to throw at advertising, look at Empire it's just a brochure of advertisements. What is the ratio of adverts to written content?

Perhaps Helen could enlighten me here, but who really pays her wages? Do the readers or the companies advertising in the Magazine? What percentage of income is made from magazine sales as opposed to advertising revenue?

At the end of the day a publication relying on income from the very studios they critique represents the greatest conflict of interests there is.

Before you suggesting I'm questioning your journalistic integrity, I'm not. Lions for Lambs may very well be a four star movie and that is your honest opinion, however don't tell us the exposure you give these movies over the lesser budgeted movies (yes lesser budget equals lesser advertisement expenditure) has anything other than to do with advertising revenue. At the end of the day studios wouldn't pay to promote a Fantastic 4 kind of movie in a magazine devoted to giving more column inches to the smaller movies. It's simple economics.

ps Hi Helen, long time...

(in reply to Axel Foley)
Post #: 14
26% on Rotten Tomatoes... says it all... - 5/11/2007 9:52:53 PM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005
This gets 26% on Rotten Tomatoes which says it all really... and it was mauled by nearly every critic who saw it at the London Film Festival.

As for Helens defence
quote:

"But we don't think we're doing a service to readers to focus most of our attentions on films that lots of people can't see, because they don't show at cinemas near them."


I think the service to us your readers is simply to provide informed criticism of ALL film releases regardless of their distribution. By focusing on films with wide distribution you play into Hollywood's hands that already have a strangle hold on popular cinema anyway. If you like a small movie and promote this fact loudly then there will be more demand for these films and cinemas will show them. If you don't, no one will know about them, therefore no one will show them and Hollywood's dumbed-down world domination will run amok, unchallenged. If you love cinema - as I assume we all here do- then I think you have a responsibility to promote QUALITY over POPULARITY and to help change the tide of block-buster, multi-plex, dumbed-down dross in favour of smart, intelligent, entertaining, groundbreaking cinema. Most of all you have a responsibility to us, your readers, to give us a clear indication of what's good and bad regardless of budget, celebrity, distribution and all the concerns of commerce. Otherwise you become just another form of Hollywood advertising - not film journalism/criticsm.

One more thing, I noticed a poster for Lions for Lambs today. It had only one critic quote; from Empire. Looks like you guys are on your own on this one.

< Message edited by fierce-hairdo -- 9/11/2007 7:43:51 PM >

(in reply to iamjacksass)
Post #: 15
RE: Lions For Lambs - 5/11/2007 10:53:10 PM   
axeman


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2005
Give it a rest, please!

I really cant see why some people are even registered on these forums, as all they seem to do is come on here, moaning about the content, the quality of the reviews, alleged bias,blah, blah,blah...  If Empire really p*sses them off that much, why the hell do you read it, and spend so much time on the site.  Yes, forums are for considered debate, but when you see people repeatedly coming on for their daily moan about the latest review, it becomes tiresome.

And the tone of some of the responses is just way out of line - Why so confrontational?  Why do you have to put people down, including Helen, just to make your own point?  Show some respect for others, including the Empire writers.  I think we all need to remember that reviews are subjective - I am sure Empre would be the first to admit that theirs is just one opinion, and you can ignore it if you choose.  So why does somebody think that because Rottentomatoes rate a film at 38% it makes Empre wrong, or to arbitrarily quote Time Outs review to ridicule Empires - Why is theirs any more valid??  And dont even get me started on the sad Phantom Menace jibe - Get over it, for gods sake!!

Lets have some quality debate on here, and save the critique until you have seen the film folks - I haven't seen it yet, so will reserve judgement. The review here looks good, but as I was interested before reading it anyway, it will not affect my decision to see it or not, nor would a bad review stop me from forming my own judgement.  We all have our personal film "likes", which defy the commonly held opinion - Is that so wrong?

I will await the flames.....

_____________________________

"It's like how much more black could it be, and the answer is none....none more black."

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 16
RE: Lions For Lambs - 5/11/2007 11:09:55 PM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: axeman
And the tone of some of the responses is just way out of line - Why so confrontational? Why do you have to put people down, including Helen, just to make your own point? Show some respect for others, including the Empire writers.


Just for the record, I like Helen very much and have read some great stuff by her. I just think in this instance her arguments didn't hold up very well. just an opinion. No offence intended.

(in reply to axeman)
Post #: 17
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 12:05:22 AM   
axeman


Posts: 45
Joined: 5/10/2005
quote:



Just for the record, I like Helen very much and have read some great stuff by her. I just think in this instance her arguments didn't hold up very well. just an opinion. No offence intended.



Point taken, but my observations on tone still stand in general.  For the record, I do heartily agree with Empires non-London/Home Counties centric focus on Films.  I would far rather they feature most heavily the films available to all, not just to those (un)lucky enough to live within easy access to London - What interest is that to the vast majority of people who cant make a special journey great distances into the capital just to see a film...?   I would reckon that I am in the extreme majority in this view, as clearly there are far more Empire readers outside of the capital, than within commuting distance.  I read all Empires reviews, and even though I may personally miss out on a lot of great films through lack of screenings in my area (and I live within easy distance of the second biggest city in England), they do whet my appetite for their DVD release.

Lets just all get along on here, and try not to be so....aggressive.  Peace and Love guys! 

_____________________________

"It's like how much more black could it be, and the answer is none....none more black."

(in reply to fierce-hairdo)
Post #: 18
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 10:35:16 AM   
JagLover

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 11/5/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: axeman

Give it a rest, please!

I really cant see why some people are even registered on these forums, as all they seem to do is come on here, moaning about the content, the quality of the reviews, alleged bias,blah, blah,blah...  If Empire really p*sses them off that much, why the hell do you read it, and spend so much time on the site.  Yes, forums are for considered debate, but when you see people repeatedly coming on for their daily moan about the latest review, it becomes tiresome.


Empire is my most trusted reviewer for most type of movies. However they do seem to be overgenerous when reviewing films that are Hollywood liberals' communal wankfest.

This has worthy but dull written all over it.


(in reply to axeman)
Post #: 19
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:01:34 AM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
Waow, jacksass, you never stop do you? Here we go again.

The ratio of ads to content is that there are fewer ads pages than editorial pages and always have been. Most of Empire's revenues comes from sales, I believe, and even if ads did make up the majority of our income, the film distributors know that they CANNOT EVER interfere in our reviews, which are entirely sacrosanct and NOT influenced in any way by advertising. I, as reviews editor, don't know who is advertising in the mag and the reason I don't is that it's entirely irrelevant to my job.

There simply isn't a conflict of interests. The studios and independents know that, long term, their interest lies in working with a film magazine that is crazy about the art form and that readers trust to give them a fair opinion. That means that to interfere in reviews would be, ultimately, counter productive.

Our honest opinion is ALWAYS our reviews opinion. But look again at the "exposure" we gave Lions for Lambs. One page. We didn't run a feature on it or a big news story, so we decided that the only coverage we would give it would be that page - the same size of review we gave Into the Wild, incidentally, and less than we gave the hardly mainstream Jesse James in the same issue (and since when is Lions for Lambs a "big" release anyway? It's a small budget, small scale drama that happens to star Tom Cruise).

We do try to give room to all films we feel worthy of it. The Band's Visit would have gotten more room had we seen it early enough; as it was, we could only give it the glowing five-star recommendation which really should go some way to bringing it to readers' attention. It may have been a huge 25-page reviews section last month, but there still wasn't enough room to give everything the space I wanted.

And I say again, we give more space to films that people (our readers, ourselves, not studios) are excited about. That doesn't necessarily mean big studio films - quite often it's indies and small budgeted films or cult films or whatever else. But it is NOT affected by advertising and NOT bought, and how you, jackass (sic), have the nerve to say all that and to claim that you're NOT questioning our integrity is beyond me.

As for a "Hollywood liberals' communal wankfest", someone's been watching too much Fox news.

Now take ANY further criticisms of Empire into the Empire Magazine thread where they belong and out of this reviews thread, or I'm going to start deleting posts.

_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to JagLover)
Post #: 20
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:22:41 AM   
JagLover

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 11/5/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

As for a "Hollywood liberals' communal wankfest", someone's been watching too much Fox news.


I have no objections to Films or TV shows having a liberal agenda(using the American definition of liberal). It should however be done with intelligence and subtlety. Not patronise the audience and lecture them.

One of my favourite, if not the favourite, tv shows is the West Wing. Many of the characters in West Wing may have political beliefs I disagree with, but the point of the show is not to lecture you that some, simplistic, world view is the only correct one.

Moreover despite exploring some quite complex political issues West Wing is never boring due to sparkling dialogue, wit and great dynamism.

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 21
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:28:17 AM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
Then I'm surprised that you're so dismissive of this. Don't believe the right-wing hype about it - give this film a chance and you'll see that it's not as slanted as some of the reviews would have you believe.

_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to JagLover)
Post #: 22
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:44:08 AM   
dh_19


Posts: 607
Joined: 12/1/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Don't believe the right-wing hype about it - give this film a chance and you'll see that it's not as slanted as some of the reviews would have you believe.


I wonder who has paid her off to say that?

_____________________________

"I took a risk" - Larry David

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 23
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:45:31 AM   
rikkie


Posts: 4660
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Ego Tripping At The Gates Of Hell
quote:

ORIGINAL: dh_19

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Don't believe the right-wing hype about it - give this film a chance and you'll see that it's not as slanted as some of the reviews would have you believe.


I wonder who has paid her off to say that?


Do you have an inkling how slanderous that comment is?  Not to mention offensive.


_____________________________

Oh no, not the bees! Not the bees! Ahhhhhh! All over my eyes! Eyes! Blaaaarghhh!

(in reply to dh_19)
Post #: 24
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:48:45 AM   
dh_19


Posts: 607
Joined: 12/1/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: rikkie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh_19

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Don't believe the right-wing hype about it - give this film a chance and you'll see that it's not as slanted as some of the reviews would have you believe.


I wonder who has paid her off to say that?


Do you have an inkling how slanderous that comment is?  Not to mention offensive.



I meant it as a joke as to how ridiculous and off topic this thread has become. If it is truly offensive then feel free to delete it!

_____________________________

"I took a risk" - Larry David

(in reply to rikkie)
Post #: 25
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 11:54:32 AM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
That one, dh, I took as a joke, you're OK.

Some of the rest above, however,

Anyhoo, back on topic. I think it's compelling, with electric, Oscar-worthy performances.

< Message edited by Helen OHara -- 6/11/2007 11:56:04 AM >


_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to dh_19)
Post #: 26
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 1:23:37 PM   
Woger


Posts: 3814
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Waow, jacksass, you never stop do you? Here we go again.

The ratio of ads to content is that there are fewer ads pages than editorial pages and always have been. Most of Empire's revenues comes from sales, I believe, and even if ads did make up the majority of our income, the film distributors know that they CANNOT EVER interfere in our reviews, which are entirely sacrosanct and NOT influenced in any way by advertising. I, as reviews editor, don't know who is advertising in the mag and the reason I don't is that it's entirely irrelevant to my job.

There simply isn't a conflict of interests. The studios and independents know that, long term, their interest lies in working with a film magazine that is crazy about the art form and that readers trust to give them a fair opinion. That means that to interfere in reviews would be, ultimately, counter productive.

Our honest opinion is ALWAYS our reviews opinion. But look again at the "exposure" we gave Lions for Lambs. One page. We didn't run a feature on it or a big news story, so we decided that the only coverage we would give it would be that page - the same size of review we gave Into the Wild, incidentally, and less than we gave the hardly mainstream Jesse James in the same issue (and since when is Lions for Lambs a "big" release anyway? It's a small budget, small scale drama that happens to star Tom Cruise).

We do try to give room to all films we feel worthy of it. The Band's Visit would have gotten more room had we seen it early enough; as it was, we could only give it the glowing five-star recommendation which really should go some way to bringing it to readers' attention. It may have been a huge 25-page reviews section last month, but there still wasn't enough room to give everything the space I wanted.

And I say again, we give more space to films that people (our readers, ourselves, not studios) are excited about. That doesn't necessarily mean big studio films - quite often it's indies and small budgeted films or cult films or whatever else. But it is NOT affected by advertising and NOT bought, and how you, jackass (sic), have the nerve to say all that and to claim that you're NOT questioning our integrity is beyond me.

As for a "Hollywood liberals' communal wankfest", someone's been watching too much Fox news.

Now take ANY further criticisms of Empire into the Empire Magazine thread where they belong and out of this reviews thread, or I'm going to start deleting posts.


Fox have a news channel??

_____________________________

Eddie: "Weve been burgaled"
Richie: You may have been, but I have never in my life. As a christian I am so tightly clenched, oh you mean burgaled
- - -
There were originally five horsemen of the apocalypse. Jack Bauer said he would travel by foot

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 27
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 2:10:09 PM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3529
Joined: 15/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Woger
Fox have a news channel??


Well, to a given value of "news".

Oh, a quote from Capone at AICN on the subject, which I think sums the film up rather well:

"Robert Redford's latest work LIONS FOR LAMBS is going to bother a lot of people who don't even bother to see it, because they think they know what it's about. As much as the film is about the current war in the Middle East, the object of scorn is not warmongers, big corporations, and politicians on either side of the aisle. No, Redford seem at least as ticked off (maybe more so) by liberals, the media, and young folks, especially college kids who seem totally unmoved to action by what many perceive as a string of blatant injustices carried out on this nation over the last few years. More specifically, he seems perplexed at the lack of outrage and action against a war that people are largely against. It's a bold move that will probably alienate as many of Redford's fans or potential fans as it will draw in; either way, I don't think he cares. His mission with LIONS FOR LAMBS is to get people talking, no matter what the outcome is."

< Message edited by Helen OHara -- 6/11/2007 4:06:01 PM >


_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to Woger)
Post #: 28
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 2:32:19 PM   
Mr Terrific


Posts: 1639
Joined: 15/7/2006
quote:


quote:HELEN OHARA

ORIGINAL: Woger
Fox have a news channel??



Well, to a given value of "news".



Yeah, they do. I watched it a couple of times. I did'nt know whether to laugh or cry.

Lions for Lambs...I have'nt though...should I wait for DVD?





_____________________________

..."lost like tears in the rain....."

"He claims he is a man. And one of the things about being a man is getting knocked on your ass and learning from it."

http://www.dccomics.com/heroes_and_villains/?hv=origin_stories/mr_terrific

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 29
RE: Lions For Lambs - 6/11/2007 2:51:30 PM   
doncopey1


Posts: 4993
Joined: 29/11/2005
From: Liverpool: Age 25
I'm looking forward to this one, big fan of the Cruiser when he's acting instead of being blown up.

_____________________________

"Fake is as old as the Eden tree." Orson Welles

(in reply to Mr Terrific)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Lions For Lambs Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078