If not, I'd advise you to stay away. I kind of knew what I was getting when I went to see it, but not quite. It's a giant lecture, about everything. It goes after EVERYONE. An apathetic citizenry whose fault it is for not changing the system (this assault from a liberal college professor, in California no less), a press that doesn't ask questions but instead acts as a mouthpiece for the government in addition to no longer really being about news but about ratings instead, a stereotypical Republican Senator that is in favor of the war and maybe all war in general but doesn't much seem to understand ANY sense of the complexity of the situation.
It's a 90 minute lecture on the current state of affairs, who is to blame (EVERYONE) and not much in the way of how to solve it. Oh, I forgot, they give a GLOWING picture of the military. They are either led by total idiots, or they are there really against their will, only as a means to an end of becoming successful later in life in politics. Lions for Lambs is the title in reference to Alexander and I think a German officer who said something to the effect of "never have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs" (or in Alexander's case 'I'm more afraid of the army of Lambs led by a Lion than the army of Lions led by a Lamb'). It's ironic that the movie is basically assaulting what is PC but in the same vein decided that they had to be PC themselves by taking a hands off approach to the military.
So in other words, skip it. If you agree with the war, it'll be a big turn off, and if you don't agree with the war, you probably already feel the way the movie wants you to feel. If you really want to see it, don't pay, just pop into an hour of a college PolySci class and you'll get the basic gist.
As an aside, Tom Cruise was HORRIBLE. I mean, seriously, horrible. I'm not usually this critical of actors in movies unless they suck pretty bad, but the movie was 90% talking talking talking, and he just came across as so BLAH. He could have phoned it in. Robert Redford was doing most of the preaching, which made sense I guess, but I wasn't super impressed with him either. Meryl Streep was alright, but again, nothing special. I think she was an ambiguous mix of nervous/timid and strong/brave. She looked afraid when she first got to the senator's office, but then we find she's been doing news for like 30 years?
They should have put this on YouTube, it would have gotten more hits and saved us all money.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd heard mixed reviews on this movie. It's gotten pretty badly criticized, and I can see why. That said, I just finished it and I enjoyed it. I like dialogue-heavy movies, and I thought the characters were represented realistically and received even-handed treatment by Redford. I don't think all conservatives who support the war will be turned off, because I already know a few who highly recommended it.
Lyr's main complaint is that Redford's message is super-obvious and not worth the money (especially if you think paying for college poly-sci is free...). But that doesn't make it any less true, does it? The public IS apathetic and THAT'S the problem. It IS ironic that the lower-class C students are fighting for a country that isn't doing their demograph any favors. The media has bombarded us with Deal or No Deal and Britney gossip in the same breath as important political decisions that affect ALL of our lives. Redford's message is that we simply need to start caring about what's going on--and I completely disagree that it was "preaching". I think the movie is an accurate slice of American life right now, and it resonated with me.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said pop into a polysci class, not pay for it. I doubt anyone would have much trouble sitting in on a class if they wanted to. I've done it (well, in history classes) for fun before, you just don't get credit.
It's been almost six months since I saw the movie, so I don't remember all the details super well. But other than what I felt was some really poor acting, it WAS preaching. You appear to agree with the speech, but that doesn't mean it isn't preaching.
I didn't have a problem with most of what he was saying, I never said I did. The media, public apathy, stupid government officials; those are all problems, the main problems even. I do think the hands off approach to the military was a sign of the times though. The military are not idle bystanders in this conflict. Instead they get the kid gloves while everyone else gets the steel tongue, and it's funny because I think if he HAD attacked the military, the movie would've been shouted down a bit more, which sort of feeds into itself.
I think most people who went to see the movie already had hardline opinions that Redford wasn't going to change, be they for good or for bad, and his totally unnuanced approach on the Republican Senator was ridiculous too. He was a cookie cutter strawman Republican. How about a REAL look into the opposing views rather than the same old party rhetoric and the same old "yeah right" or "hell yeah!" response that either side gives?
I just don't think that movie accomplished much, or if it did, I don't think it was worth paying eight bucks to hear its message.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Cruise's character--he cared and believed in everything he was saying, and he had a strong answer for every one of Meryl Streep's fallacious attacks. I DO believe that if we'd had the media on our side, this war would be over by now. What nuance was the Republican Cruise missing? The movie didn't have a lot of time to go in-depth into every subject for you. It was clearly aimed a broader audience, and I think it succeeded in that arena. Everything I heard him say, I'd read in Card's articles beforehand, and I know that LOTS of people agree with it, so your claim that he's a hyerbolic strawman confuses me a bit.
I do agree with the message, but "preaching" in the way you're using it is clearly holding a negative connotation, and I disagree with that usage.
*small spoiler* If the soldier's story had ended differently, would you still think it was preaching?
There was nothing spectacular about the film. But all of it WAS good, and for me, engaging the entire time. I liked how the three story lines were interspersed to keep the movie flowing well. I liked the characters and thought all 6 were given a real face in the short 88 minutes the film had. Why do you resent the Cruise character so much?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think the acting was poor, but beside that point? I don't remember the dialogue specifically, but he's an image of the puffed up detail-less rhetoric we've heard for 8 years. Streep asked a lot of good skeptical questions of the Senator, and then let herself get browbeat into submission during the interview, knowing that it was basically a PR stunt and then later refusing to go along with it.
quote:he had a strong answer for every one of Meryl Streep's fallacious attacks
I think we're approaching it from two different points of view then. I saw him giving cookie cutter bad answers that act a lot like concept cars. They look awesome, but when you try to turn one on, they don't actually run the way they're advertised yet.
His answers were PR stunt answers. There were no specifics, nothing on how this new plan was any better than previous plans or details, just that past failures don't matter, let's focus on the next crappy strategy. I think he came off looking like a buffoon. There are plenty of Republicans who are skeptical and questioning of policy, but Cruise's character was a mouthpiece for policy devoid of depth or understanding. I think Redford did everything he could to make the pro-war side look inept and clueless, and and to make everyone on the other side not UNDERSTAND the conflict, but just feel guilty for not opposing it.
Removed from the context was it entertaining? Hard to say since removing it from the context is near impossible, but if the same thing had been set during a different era or dealing with a fictional enemy then it's possible I guess that I might have found it interesting, but I think it's rather an overplayed concept. In context? He's not telling me anything I don't already know, and that movie isn't going to spur anyone to action.
I think what Redford needed to do was make a documentary. Use history, use facts, use figures, use what we know and what we don't know, instead of using stereotypical characters (The jaded reporter, the liberal CA professor, the minority soldiers, the pro-war Republican mouthpiece) to launch your 88 minute commercial on present day politics. I don't think a half hearted guilt trip is going to change people's minds and shock them out of their apathy.
And whatever might have been good about the movie was drowned out by the preaching. I missed half of it because I was so busy rolling my eyes. It lacks subtlety.
Honestly though, I'm hyperpolitical and I'm stubborn. My opinion on the subject matter is uber aware and very well fixed in place. So I saw nothing in this movie except the preaching, and I was turned off by it because I felt like he was telling me things I already knew, and was a bit pissed that I had to spend eight dollars to hear it regurgitated at me. If I wanted to hear all that, I'd go to a poly sci class or a peace rally. I'd be curious to hear other opinions, either those from apathetic people with no opinion on the war or people who are pro-war.
Congrats on the 1000th post. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen this movie... but I would think that any movie that can both entertain a broad audience and serve to inform people as well as a college-level political science class does deserves a lot of credit. If more people took at least some political science and understood the basics of our political system a bit better, I'd think there'd be less apathy.
Having said that, based solely on previews and reviews, I seriously doubt this movie has the intellectual depth that an actual polysci class would - it seems by appearances a bit more on par with watching a lot of Fox News, except perhaps coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
posted
I've taken a freshman polysci course in government that didn't come near what you're describing. Maybe I should have said high school government class, but the point was that it was an 88 minute speech with some plot on the fringe to make it look like a movie. I didn't find it entertaining, and the "informing" part of it wasn't worth the fee, not when you can get all that info just by reading CNN.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally enjoyed the refreshing, guess "humility" is the word I'm looking for, in this movie. It didn't pretend to know everything or be keeping everything hidden from sight.
That said, it was rather low-rent, and I found the acting outside of the three known stars to be subpar. The military scenes were hallmark-quality, with a poor illusion of realism- (like the fact that no landscape or exterior shots of Afghanistan are ever used..) the film looks like it was all shot on one sound stage, which is probably what happened- and I was annoyed that the few sets used were so familiar. The restaurant, the professor's office, even the frat house are all veteran Hollywood sets (the frat house is one in Hollywood used in the movies, "Catch Me If You Can," "Why do fools fall in love" and "American Gangster," "Galaxy Quest," among many others). I find it hard to believe that a frat would occupy a 6 million dollar mansion.
It's only the more obvious in low-rent pictures like this one that all you ever seem to get to see in movies is Los Angeles. UCLA has been used now to represent pretty much every major university in America.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
