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

RE: Lions For Lambs

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Lions For Lambs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lions For Lambs - 7/11/2007 1:54:20 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19039
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: doncopey1

I'm looking forward to this one, big fan of the Cruiser when he's acting instead of being blown up.


You were one word away from commiting libel...

As to the film, the bit where Cruise says "Do you want to win the war on terror. Yes or No?" Really annoyed me for some reason - still I am intrigued by it, esp as it comes from Fox.. The last trailer I saw for it (with techno music) made it look like a thriller which makes me think they are not sure what to make of it.

Also - I'm a huge West Wing fan, but if the guy above didn't think it had its moments of being patronising and one sided then he was watching a different show than me.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to doncopey1)
Post #: 31
RE: Lions For Lambs - 7/11/2007 2:21:13 PM   
JagLover

 

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

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Also - I'm a huge West Wing fan, but if the guy above didn't think it had its moments of being patronising and one sided then he was watching a different show than me.


I should say that I missed it when it was on TV so I am working my way through it on DVD at present and I have only seen series 1 & 2 at present.

It is my understanding that the original writer left around series 4, so it may have changed from then onwards.

I think my comments stand in relation to the first two series, aside from the occassional moment of one sideness. Thus far it has only been the Christian right who could claim to be the victims of bias and since that movement is not really relevant to the UK political scene it doesn't really reduce my enjoyment.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 32
RE: lions for lambs - 10/11/2007 8:56:58 AM   
Marvel_79


Posts: 1110
Joined: 15/12/2005
I haven't seen this film yet, I will.  But can I take issue with those people having a dig at Empire for picking it as there film of the week, why shouldn't they, as Helen points out in Empire's opinion this is the best film with the largest access to it's readers.  So what if some smaller film is better - People would be moaning if Empire recommended a film they couldn't get access to as the film of the week, I can imagine the comments now "What's the point of recommending a film as film of the week that no one can see, isn't this empire being elitist blah blah blah..."  Some people just love to moan.  Empire has been around for many years if you don't think they have carried out extensive market research during that time to work out who their target market are etc... then you clearly very naive, they wouldn't have lasted as well as they have if they didn't know what people want to read.  And yes, to some extent the infamous Phanton Menace review was Empire telling people what they wanted to hear, I know I did!  Don't beat them up for trying to run a successful business

< Message edited by Marvel_79 -- 10/11/2007 8:57:14 AM >
Post #: 33
RE: lions for lambs - 11/11/2007 11:23:42 AM   
fierce-hairdo

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 14/11/2005
I completely disagree with you Marvel 79.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marvel_79

I haven't seen this film yet, I will. But can I take issue with those people having a dig at Empire for picking it as there film of the week, why shouldn't they, as Helen points out in Empire's opinion this is the best film with the largest access to it's readers. So what if some smaller film is better - People would be moaning if Empire recommended a film they couldn't get access to as the film of the week, I can imagine the comments now "What's the point of recommending a film as film of the week that no one can see, isn't this empire being elitist blah blah blah..." Some people just love to moan. Empire has been around for many years if you don't think they have carried out extensive market research during that time to work out who their target market are etc... then you clearly very naive, they wouldn't have lasted as well as they have if they didn't know what people want to read. And yes, to some extent the infamous Phanton Menace review was Empire telling people what they wanted to hear, I know I did! Don't beat them up for trying to run a successful business


But what if "running a successful business" fundamentally undermines their film criticsm and objectivity, leading to dumbed down film culture permanently in thrall to the mainstream?? Do you not understand the point of film critics?? Ideally they are there to provide objective analysis, insight, judgment and honesty about the artistic merits of film. It is NOT about conforming to the results of expensive market research!!!! It is NOT about telling you what you want to hear!!!
Sure people may complain if they can't see a certain film but they shouldn't complain to Empire but rather to the cinema chains, distributors etc responsible for the paucity of choice in our film culture.
As I said before, if Empire stood up for what it believed in instead of compromising to fit the results of "expensive market research" then that would be a significant contribution to improving our film culture as a whole including film distribution. More coverage would lead to more distribution for more atistically daring fare and our film culture would be richer.

We live in a culture saturated by bogus advertising determined to control your choices in the market. Film criticsm at its best is a way to circumvent advertising's distorted, misleading representations enabling a more accurate choice to be made. At its worst it is simply an additional form of advertising further empowering Hollywood's PR machine. Empire has been guilty of this too many times. It leads to an impoverished film culture for all of us.

You say "So what if some smaller film is better". Well I guess we get the film culture we deserve if that is your attitude. Why read the reviews in the first place if your response is a big "so what" to their conclusions??

So many great films were originally released to a less wide distribution and made on a low budget but went on to be classics. They would never have made it had certain critics not backed them.
Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Reservoir Dogs, Fargo, Three Colours Trilogy, etc would all have got second or third billing next to the big dumb blockbuster of the day.

But on your logic you would be OK if a 'Taxi Driver' or a 'Raging Bull' of today were given less coverage and pushed to the back pages to make way for a 'Phantom Menace'????

Thats very depressing.

< Message edited by fierce-hairdo -- 11/11/2007 11:54:42 AM >

(in reply to Marvel_79)
Post #: 34
RE: Lions For Lambs - 11/11/2007 6:39:00 PM   
sphincter


Posts: 258
Joined: 4/11/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: axeman

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! 


I don't make it to the cinema much, so when I see a great review for something I make a mental note and wait for it to come out on DVD, then I recheck reviews from different sources when it's released, sometimes I buy. I'm interested in hearing about all films, big budget or not.

_____________________________

what burns never returns

(in reply to axeman)
Post #: 35
RE: Lions For Lambs - 11/11/2007 8:03:21 PM   
ThismonkeyhasRAGE

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 5/11/2007
Having now actually seen the film, I think I can help to get this topic back on track- the reviews....



I dont disagree with Helen O'Hara's review enough to cause a fuss- or to insinuate that it was motivated by financial means...


(Some may consider the following to have a few absolutely minor spoilers)

Having seen Rendition beforehand, it was pleasant to see a rounded argument. Lions for Lambs manages to keep the topic issue discussed through multiple viewpoints in a balanced way. Contrary to Renditon also, no-one is portrayed as a villain, no one side is criticised more than another.

I do not believe Tom Cruise deserves an Oscar - though he might get one - despite giving an above-par performance for him; Meryl Streep on the otherhand is excellent. Absolutely exellent. Her scene in the news-room; a crisis of confidence affecting her career, shows the extent of her talent- she outshines everyone in the film. Another actor who I liked, oddly, was Andrew Garfield, who I think gave a good performance out of what could have been embarassing (though his story does stray into dull-to-watch angst and naivity too often). Ultimately, the message of the film is that the people at the top are messing things up, and that everyone who can do something should do something, whatever they feel is right. It's also, as has been said, an attempt to create discussion for discussion's sake.

The problem with the film for me is that there is very little plausible drama. There are essentially two (albeit very animated) conversations and a sentimental military subplot, and very little else. Characters just arent given enough space to develop into rounded people- they are merely alternative sides to a sprawling argument. It's all speculation and up in the air- and anything that tries to give the film grit, fact, reality- is overly sentimental and cringe-worthily contrived.

The Streep-Cruise face off does have dynamism, and is enjoyable to watch- but again, it's implausible. It's much more like a school drama/role-play debate in that the credibility of the characters/setting is meant to be ignored. Because of this there is no emotional impact and the argument becomes less powerful (or less leading, however you want to think of it).

Nevertheless, the issue is important, and the argument engrossing enough to forgive its worth as a film. It's also so of-the-times that it cant last any more than a year.

Oh and the ending is frankly dire.

(in reply to sphincter)
Post #: 36
RE: Lions For Lambs - 11/11/2007 11:55:16 PM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20116
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
Anyone mind if I interject this fascinating discussion for a review of the actual film at all? No? Good...


Lions for Lambs


I have admired Streep for a long time, even if her turn in The Devil Wears Prada was somnambulistic. In Lions for Lambs she's the best thing in it, and she's not even on form. The film jolts between three disparate stories.

The first is between Cruise and Streep as Republican ('my party', Republican is never name-checked) Senator and reporter, respectively. (The network for which Streep's character works is never name-checked either.) Cruise is every bit the arrogant, slimy, seemingly earnest senator - but isn't he always to some degree an arrogant character? (My brother met him once and while Cruise might have been having a bad day, he was arrogant then too.) This is 'Cruise-as-earnest-senator', no more, no less. Streep does the world-weary reporter well, but she can do better, much better. It's like she's ticking boxes. When the two characters began this meeting - a rare lengthy meeting for the reporter - I felt this might be an interesting first act, not almost the whole film as it turned out to be. At one point the camera focuses on the clock so we can gauge how much time has passed. I felt every minute of it.

The second story is between Redford as "A Californian University" professor. (That's how it is is subtitled, again not name-checked) and a disillusioned student. This is by far the weakest plot strand. Another two-handed meeting, and far less interesting. At one point the student accuses politicians of talking for a long time without saying anything - the same happens here. Regardless of the points that Redford and his student are trying to get across, the message is lost in the sea of trite and muddled orating. There are some interesting flashbacks of Redford's character and two previous students who make up the third plot strand.

Two students who felt that the only way to make a point about the state of the country was to sign up to the army are part of a team making strikes in Afghanistan as part of the strategy being told to Streep's character by Cruise. They're the best bit of the film as they try to outwit the incoming Taliban. Even so, for the majority of the film they're static, wounded on a hillside.

That is possibly the greatest problem I had with this film - it's far too static. I'm not saying I need balls-to-the-wall action (although you'd expect it with scenes in war, except maybe in Jarhead, obviously) but for all the talking, the film doesn't go anywhere. It's not just physically static, it's also emotionally, politically, and dramatically static. That last one is the killer. I'm not going to touch the politics with a barge pole as I don't know enough to have a valid, informed opinion. But dramatically, as a piece of cinema, it fails.

(NB: In case of any accusations of jumping on bandwagons, the only critical appraisal of this film I had read was Empire's, so had nothing but fairly positive expectations of it.)

The Acting - 4/10 - Seriously, Redford barely does anything, Cruise is his usual untaxing preening arrogant caricature, and the rest of the actors get hardly any sort of character to work with. Streep as I mentioned, is the best thing here, and still she's maybe half as good as she could be.
The Look - 3/10 - Talking heads are all very well if what they're saying is interesting. It isn't. At all. The scenes that might have been gritty - the Afghanistan-set scenes - are clearly a studio. Coming from me, that's saying something, because usually I'm not looking for that sort of thing on a first viewing. Even if I look, I rarely see the 'joins' as it were - the constructs that belie set over location. Maybe they were poorly created, maybe I was bored and consequently looking, I don't know.
The Sound - 3/10 - The music was generic at best, forgettable at worst.
The Story - 2/10 - Meandering, nothingness, and dull. I nearly walked out, but on the strength of the Empire review I stayed in the hopes something might happen. It didn't.
Success of Intent - 2/10 - Patronising to the viewer, both on a political front, but more damningly, on a dramatic front. Aside from the mildly interesting back story of the two students who signed up, there's not much else to recommend this film.
Overall - 14/50, or
28%


< Message edited by homersimpson_esq -- 11/11/2007 11:56:42 PM >


_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to ThismonkeyhasRAGE)
Post #: 37
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 10:37:18 AM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3527
Joined: 15/9/2005
Marvel, thanks for the vote of support but our reviews are NOT based on market research, nor is the amount of space we give films. It's entirely the reviews editor's decision, working in conjunction with the editor and based entirely on how interested we are in a film (something not based on its budget and not necessarily on its cast) and therefore how interested we think our readers will be, how good we think it is and how much we think there is to say about it. Fierce, for the same reasons I've already laid out I think you're being horrendously unfair. We do stand up for what we believe in - good films, of whatever size. This one got a big review because it's a film that all of us who saw it liked very much and because there's a lot to say about it. Those were much more important factors than the size of its release, although that plays a minor role.

Back on topic, I still like it a lot.

_____________________________

"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 #: 38
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 11:10:45 AM   
DanCurley


Posts: 1371
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: London
Does Tom have his trademark "little rant" like he does in all his films? The angry little toad - needs a good slap. He even had one in war of the worlds - throwing his peanut butter butty at the window like that.

Walked past a poster of Lions for Lambs in the underground - someone wrote "twat" on cruise's forehead. That's proper art. I'd actually go and watch this film where he not in it...

_____________________________

I'd give you my signature, but what would happen if you stole my cheque book? It would be a disaster.

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 39
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 12:58:18 PM   
Marvel_79


Posts: 1110
Joined: 15/12/2005
Helen, I'm not saying that the reviews are based on market research, but the magazine as a whole will be, surely, otherwise you've been extremely lucky to have survived as successfully as you have done for so long. I just get fed up with these people that constantly think they're better than everyone else because they've seen some romania arthouse movie fixed on a wooden chair in an empty room for 45 minutes. I believe the movies with the mass appeal should receive the greater coverage from Empire, Total Fillm etc... Because the people interested in the other stuff will find information other ways... if they're that interested.

Anyway back on topic, I saw Lions for Lambs last night myself, and my verdict, very disappointing, I didn't think it had anything to say, yet all there was was talk. None of the stories got sufficient time to go anywhere. The subject would have been better tackled as a documentary.

4/10

(in reply to DanCurley)
Post #: 40
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 1:18:09 PM   
Citizen Dildo

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 3/5/2007
I'm in the minority here because I thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought it worthy of the Empire review.

Firstly, I cant believe some of the guff at the top of this thread with quotes like "Empire gets it wrong again" etc.  FFS, how can a review be wrong????  If you care to disagree with the review that's fine, but questioning the motives of the star rating/film of the week etc - just absolute nonsense.

Back to the film.  Part of the criticism Ive read of this film is that it offers no real answers.  Well so frickin what?  Clearly it exists to ask questions and encourage debate.  In the current climate with so much dross at our cinemas and on TV surely that is commendable?  As for people claiming it has nothing to say, I can only assume you missed the point.  It may be over simplified and perhaps better suited as a play, but at least this tackles a real issue and provokes thought.



_____________________________

Why would anyone ever wanna leave Baltimore?

(in reply to Marvel_79)
Post #: 41
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 1:33:38 PM   
Manny


Posts: 176
Joined: 2/10/2005
Unlike rendition this film is shown completely from an American POV (or POVs). The Taliban being literally shadowy figures. Instead we get to see two different "high level" discussions about the war on terror between a senator and embittered journalist and a politics professor and his disillusioned student, all the while experiencing the front line from the POV of two stranded soldiers.

I felt it was well balanced leaving the viewer, like the characters to make their own choice.

_____________________________

"Babylon fives a big pile of ..."

The winky faced smily is the mark of a moron ;)

(in reply to Citizen Dildo)
Post #: 42
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 4:50:41 PM   
Axel Foley


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

ORIGINAL: Citizen Dildo

Back to the film.  Part of the criticism Ive read of this film is that it offers no real answers.  Well so frickin what?  Clearly it exists to ask questions and encourage debate.  In the current climate with so much dross at our cinemas and on TV surely that is commendable?  As for people claiming it has nothing to say, I can only assume you missed the point.  It may be over simplified and perhaps better suited as a play, but at least this tackles a real issue and provokes thought.


That may be so, but all the questions and points are old news, have been floating around for the last few years and have been better presented in any number of documentaries during that period.

There has been a sense during this recent surge of “politically aware, thought provoking films”, that filmmakers are patronising their audience, but this is the first film I thought was truly guilty. Hell, The Kingdom which was mostly an action film masquerading as something thoughtful, provided more mental stimulation with its final revelation (and was riveting viewing in the main). Rather than make me think, Lions for Lambs just plain annoyed me: especially Meryl Streep and her “conflicted” reporter shtick.

Off topic – I actually agree with Helen’s points on the “film of the week” now. It does also amaze me that so many people have passed judgment on Lions without actually seeing it.

_____________________________

https://twitter.com/Obiwan_desouza

(in reply to Citizen Dildo)
Post #: 43
RE: lions for lambs - 12/11/2007 5:13:17 PM   
DanCurley


Posts: 1371
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: London
I've just seen the Peeping Toms feature / quiz. Any chance someone on Empire's picture desk could bung the pictures through photoshop and write "twat" on each and every forehead?

_____________________________

I'd give you my signature, but what would happen if you stole my cheque book? It would be a disaster.

(in reply to Axel Foley)
Post #: 44
It's not patronising - 12/11/2007 7:31:10 PM   
omarx

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 7/10/2005
From: Somewhere that's neither here nor there
          We have to remember the difference between European audience and American audience.. While here we have marginal press freedom and marginal awareness of the world, the americans have nothing of the sort... So what we might find patronising here, might be news there...  FACT

         I do agree with most posters here that this film is nothing more than a sermonising excersise on how to engage and try and make a difference, only this is told through A List actors, Who all look wise and grim and thoughtful...

         The problem I had with this is the film failed miserably is evoking any sympathy to any of the charachters, except Streep's, and that is not because her part is better written, but because she is a REAL actress.. or to really outrage us, or ingage us, or even attract our attention in the way it should......

         This film will go down as a muddled liberal left wing misguided attempt to (illuminate) the masses and object on the current world we live in... Which is very unfortunate as we really do need films that provoke us out of our stupour...

< Message edited by omarx -- 12/11/2007 7:32:10 PM >


_____________________________

I reject.. Therefore I exist........
I cut my own hair......
Fear does not stop you dying, but it sure does stop you living......

(in reply to mpcdaly)
Post #: 45
RE: It's not patronising - 13/11/2007 3:27:06 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2770
Joined: 12/7/2006
I think we are being harsh on Helen here. The Film of the Week label is surely aimed at the film that will get people talking that week, the one to see for want of a better phrase, rather than necessarily rhe best film out that week.
If you are like me, you don't to see a label on a film before deciding if it's worth your attention or going to see.
Don't blame Empire because they don't share your everything is shit world view.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to omarx)
Post #: 46
! - 13/11/2007 5:48:15 PM   
redeyes


Posts: 95
Joined: 30/10/2005
From: Wrexham NR-Wales
To the person who is working through the box sets of the West Wing, wait until you see the third season opener, Isaac and Ishmael.

I enjoyed Lions For Lambs and I think part of the reason so many critics are complaining about it is because it goes after the media in a big way. Critics working for broadsheets and respected magazines in America have complained of the film playing dumb and providing no solutions for the criticisms it makes of the current situation in Iraq, yet the magazines and broadsheets these reviews are printed in are guilty of doing the same thing!

_____________________________

Check out a new blog http://tvdinnerforme.blogspot.com/

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 47
Just a different opinion... - 13/11/2007 6:41:17 PM   
fierce-hairdo

 

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

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

I think we are being harsh on Helen here. The Film of the Week label is surely aimed at the film that will get people talking that week, the one to see for want of a better phrase, rather than necessarily rhe best film out that week.
If you are like me, you don't to see a label on a film before deciding if it's worth your attention or going to see.
Don't blame Empire because they don't share your everything is shit world view.


Surely "the one to see", as you put it, is the five star movie, not the four star one.

The reason everyone is talking about it is because it has had lots of money spent on ADVERTISING and HYPE. Why let advertising and hype set the agenda?? Why not set an independent agenda based purely on the quality of the film. The only reason everyone isn't talking about "The Bands Visit" (the 5 star reviewed film released the same week) is because they can't afford the stars or hype. But by Empire's estimation it IS the better film (5 stars).

And I don't think everything is sh*t. On the contrary, there are some amazing films being made right now. I saw some incredible stuff at the London Film Festival - ("No Country For Old Men" is gonna blow your socks off!). Truly life enhancing cinema that we all should celebrate. But "Lions for Lambs" ain't it. Sorry.

And I'm not picking on Helen. I have enjoyed a lot of her work and I really appreciate her taking the time to come on line and reply to a lot of these points. I think we simply have a difference of opinion, thats all. Thats what forums are for after all.



< Message edited by fierce-hairdo -- 13/11/2007 7:19:26 PM >

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 48
RE: Just a different opinion... - 14/11/2007 1:30:09 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2770
Joined: 12/7/2006
Advertising and hype have not set the agenda on this one.
Cruise, Redford and Streep's track record are what has drawn attention to this film. It's their pedigree that, for me, have made it a must see, that and the subject matter.
If anything the advertising campaign on this one has been relatively low key. Plus the difference between stars on a review is an opinion. It's possible that everyone in the Empire office really thinks that Lions for Lambs is a four star film but that say everyone except one person thinks The Bands of Visit is utter rubbish.
I am not saying that is the case, but that the one person who doesn't is the one who gave it five stars. As happened with the Fountain DVD review if my memory serves me correct.
You can't really set a mathematical formula for what is the better film based on opinions.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to fierce-hairdo)
Post #: 49
RE: Lions For Lambs - 18/11/2007 2:21:44 PM   
moviemaniac2


Posts: 525
Joined: 17/9/2006
This film f izzles out so early, for all its righteous indignation and star-heavy cast. It draws attention to the issue- 'why is the American government so quick to engage with terrorists abroad with the huge problems it faces at home?' Those wooed to the cinema by its central trio, though, will be rather dissapointed by a theatrical affair , as the main story revolves around two conversations , and not much more.

_____________________________

''Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 50
RE: Lions For Lambs - 18/11/2007 9:23:36 PM   
Neil270967

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 18/11/2007
Probably a bit late in the debate to contribute as to whether this is a good film or not however, in my humble opinion, it is by far one of the worst films I have ever seen; at least 10 out of the 20 people in the cinema were asleep (I feined in and out of what felt like a diabetic coma on a number of occasions) and it became a war of attrition as to whether me and my fellow comrades in arms would stay the distance.  Alarm bells were ringing just at the point where Robert Redford offers the smug, preppy All-American rich kid a "B" for the rest of the year cos he knows he has more to offer, and don't even go there with the ridiculous power point presentation scene with the two so called "Heroes" of the film. Crap, Crap, Crap!

As for the three stars of the movie, nice to see Redford has had another procedure, Streep should be ashamed of herself (as should Empire for the decent review) and Cruise, well at least the Valkyrie Trailer looked good.

quote:

Which Lie Did I Tell ?   

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 51
RE: Lions For Lambs - 19/11/2007 12:38:26 AM   
Hartigan


Posts: 439
Joined: 2/10/2005
Loved it. Held my interest all the way through...in fact I was gripped! I will admit nothing really happens and it seems like a stage play but the film never outstays its welcome (quite short) and the conversations/debates were very entertaining. All actors on top form, Tom Cruise back on top and I hope this brings back his credibility to the public eye before Valkyrie enforces it upon us.

_____________________________

An old man dies, a little girl lives. Fair trade

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

(in reply to Neil270967)
Post #: 52
RE: Lions For Lambs - 19/11/2007 11:49:45 AM   
Cruisecontroller


Posts: 4426
Joined: 28/4/2006
SPOILERS!

Lions for Lambs to me was a well written, thought provoking political drama that debates and assesses the US War on Terror in Afganistan and the various ways its viewed and being dealt with in America. Like with Rendition it is not an action thriller but more of a cerlberal affair and yes is probably a script that would have worked better and be more appreciated on the stage by theatre goers. I enjoy stimulating debates on subjects like these so was gripped by the acting and debate that occuried but I can see it boring others who are more into action and suspense than political debate and long speches. You either love or hate this kind of film. Although Tom Cruise is good in this I don`t think he will get an oscor for it but do agree with Helen O`Haras view of the film.

I think its a good assessment of the situation at the moment where you have politicians (who have never fought in wars) making high profile badly though out statements and plans on the war against terror probably to further their careers more than anything else. There are also well meaning journalists who are sometimes too easily lead and taken in by these charasmatic politicians to realise until its too late like Streeps character that they have been used for propoganda when they wanted to just report the news and don`t know if they can be a part of that anymore. Finally there is the problem political lecturers, students and the public in general have of trying to make something politically meaningful with their lives for the better rather than just being cynical and doing nothing positive at all (like one student Robert Redford tries to moblize in the right way) in a corrupt political world where it can be abushed or mishandled. Two of Robert Redfords students try to do this by going to war with ragic results due to a poorly thoughtout war plan by Tom Cruises Senator instead. Worth seeing 4/5 to me.

_____________________________

MyDVDCollection.http://www.empireonline.com/myempire/mydvdcollection.asp?UID=49319b

Last five movies seen & rated by me.

1.12 Years A Slave. 4/5
2.Robocop. (1987) 3/5
3.Devils Due.3/5
4.American Hustle. 4/5
5.Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. 3/5

(in reply to Hartigan)
Post #: 53
RE: Lions For Lambs - 24/11/2007 6:50:23 PM   
elzupasmonkey


Posts: 277
Joined: 30/9/2005
Really enjoyed this. Thought provoking, giving all points of view showing that there is no easy way out of the situation that the world is in just now.

It was refreshing just to see a movie that talked about some fucking thing. I hadn't realised how utterly inane the dreck I see at the movies these days actually is.

But what did Redford look like? Now, I'm not saying he's had work done. But, he does look like he has had work done. Streep, however, gets more beautiful with age.

And good to see Bob wearing his denim shirt again. By my count that has been at least, ooh, twenty movies that he has worn denim in.

Well worth going to see.

_____________________________

http://tiny.cc/odytmw

(in reply to Cruisecontroller)
Post #: 54
Not as smart as it thinks it is - 9/4/2008 1:29:29 AM   
claudemg


Posts: 100
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Malta
The movie lays out its message in a babyish way. No matter how you look at it, there is nothing in this film that we couldn't have guessed for ourselves. Politicians try to spin stories in their favour? who knew? The media have a hard time NOT reporting what is fed to them? who knew? kids are generally apathetic but some have 'potential'? WHO KNEW? I mean come on, if you want a more profound look at the way things really work you would do better watching the soldiers' own accounts scattered around the net. I think streep's sobs in the car as she drives past the cemetery were such a cliche` they knocked a star off right there and then. So did the moment when the two soldiers 'stood up', Trying to seek balance in a film like this is a terrible decision. If you have something to say - come out and say it. While ur at it, try convince me that u are right. THEN you have something to show me (even if i don't agree with you). But just presenting to me what i can see with my own eyes on a daily basis just leaves me hollow and uninterrested.

< Message edited by claudemg -- 9/4/2008 1:31:32 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 55
Better Than I Expected - 28/4/2008 3:33:45 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun
I enjoyed this movie - it might seem like hard going to some with it's subject matter and talky nature but it's brisk running time (under 90 mins) and quality cast make it a thoroughly compelling watch.

That said the points it tries to make are surely aimed more at the brainwashed types in America because it's all fairly obvious to anyone with half a brain :

- leaders lie
- mistakes were made
- media failed in it's responsibilities
- soldiers are brave

along with Redford's :

- don't give up on the system

(in reply to claudemg)
Post #: 56
RE: Better Than I Expected - 28/4/2008 9:13:38 PM   
Anglachel


Posts: 232
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: Locked in the Ivory Tower
Basically, to be less complex, I can say I  find Fluke Skywalker and claudemg has said what I think about this movie.

I like it too, especially the way Robert made a movie to make people think, and telling the truth at the same time.

Interesting movie, and I am not a fan of politics.

_____________________________

I have made a promise: to get back on you someday...
Justice come, it will be done.
You will face the darkest future!! You will go to hell !!!
Time will tell, I wish you well.

Dionysus

(in reply to Fluke Skywalker)
Post #: 57
Lions for lambs--all talk no action - 22/7/2008 4:08:36 AM   
lynnshep


Posts: 428
Joined: 17/1/2007
From: USA
90 minutes of talk with no pay off. Boring, contrived, simplistic. Cruise is miscast and the cast is badly served by the film and its script.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 58
- 22/8/2008 10:27:07 PM   
soulfood

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 6/10/2005
ROBERT REDFOED AS DIRECTOR HAS DONE A GOODS JOB.
ON THIS MOVIE .NOT TO BE MISSED ALSO LOOK OUT FOR.
ANDREW GARFIELD HE IS VERY GOODS HE WAS A T.V. MOVIE CALL BAY A.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 59
Garfield steals the show - 25/11/2012 1:03:33 AM   
bill the butcher

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 21/1/2010
very smart dramatic film
cruise was seldom better
Redford is pure class as always
but Andrew Garfield is the standout he is amazing here

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Lions For Lambs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.141