Lions for Lambs

Post Reply
99-1100896887

Post by 99-1100896887 »

Akash wrote:
Damien wrote:(Of course, Cruise could be well-cast as Senator Larry Craig.)


LMAO!

He's too short though. He wouldn't be able to sit on the can and tap his foot under the stall at the same time.
You guys are TOO funny! Cam
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

God...fucking Empire magazine...always, y'know?
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Enjoy this rating while it lasts (i.e. before the podunk critics inevitably rescue it).

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/lionsforlambs
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Damien wrote:(Of course, Cruise could be well-cast as Senator Larry Craig.)


LMAO!

He's too short though. He wouldn't be able to sit on the can and tap his foot under the stall at the same time.




Edited By Akash on 1194388006
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

A totally precedented *1/2/**** from Slantmagazine.com

NICK SCHAGER
With The Kingdom, screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan addressed the war on terror by reducing it to an all-explosions action spectacle. In an apparent attempt to show that he can tackle this hot-button topic from a totally divergent, and yet equally stultifying, direction, the screenwriter's follow-up, Lions for Lambs, now deals with national security issues via inert, didactic talkativeness. This second tack is the preferable one, given that it at least exhibits a passing interest in intelligent discourse. But that's not to say that this Robert Redford-helmed film is anything more than a three-pronged lecture that plays like a preachy off-off-off-Broadway production. Onscreen text identifies the locations of the three primary settings—a professor's office, a senator's private quarters, and a military base in the mountains of Afghanistan—as well as the current time, a device so thoroughly unnecessary (given that both pieces of information are readily apparent from the proceedings at hand) that one half-expects Redford to also provide us with a quick introductory synopsis of each segment's theme.

In Washington D.C., TV news reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) verbally spars with hotshot Republican senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) during a one-on-one interview, the two batting around Iraq-centric issues of diplomatic and military mistakes, the spread of democracy, and moral responsibility with only slightly more nuance (and far less humor) than a typical New York Post headline. Meanwhile, Irving's daring new military strategy in Afghanistan goes awry when Special Forces buddies Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña) find themselves stranded and injured behind enemy lines, a location covered in so much snow and shot with such tight close-ups that it might as well be the snowy ski trails of the director's beloved Park City. And in the final, torturously edifying segment, political science professor Malley (Redford) tries to motivate smart but cynical Todd (Andrew Garfield) to remain engaged with politics and the world around him during a teacher-student conference that Redford films with a limited collection of camera set-ups that are almost as stilted and dull as the transpiring conversation.

Lions for Lambs is, to put it mildly, beyond stagey. And it runs a brisk 88 minutes in large part because it doggedly, frustratingly refuses to truly delve into the issues it brings up, mistaking newspaper headline-based speeches full of tired talking points for thrilling, incisive debate. There's neither depth nor vigor (spoken or visually) to any of the contentious back-and-forths, and though its trio of stars serviceably embody their various characters (dangerously self-interested young Republican, conflicted and appalled journalist, noble professor), they remain, throughout, mere stereotypes. Moreover, despite Redford and Carnahan taking great pains to avoid outright mockery or condemnation of Cruise's senator (who likes to use terms like "righteousness" and "evil"), the film's air of balanced objectivity is shown—by Streep's climactic, sorrowful glances at D.C. monuments (oh, what has become of our democracy!)—to be a complete sham, a disingenuous token gesture aimed at concealing the fact that the entire affair is, in the end, simply a pedantic, one-sided lecture.
"How's the despair?"
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

From the trailer, Tom Cruise just seemed so ludicrously out of place trying to convey gravitas as a U.S. Senator that nothing else seemed to mater. (Of course, Cruise could be well-cast as Senator Larry Craig.)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Charlie Wilson's War I'm open to; this one I've seen as a no-hoper from the get-go.

Variety

Lions for Lambs
By DEREK ELLEY

Talky, back-bendingly liberal but also deeply patriotic, "Lions for Lambs" plays like all the serious footnotes scripter du jour Matthew Michael Carnahan left out of "The Kingdom." Robert Redford's first helming chore in seven years, and his most directly political pic yet, amounts to a giant cry of "Americans, get engaged!" wrapped in a star-heavy discourse that uses a lot of words to say nothing new. Apart from the curio value of Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise headlining the movie equivalent of an Off Broadway play, this first outing by newly resurgent UA doesn't look likely to roar its way to significant B.O. gains.
Schematic idea sounds bold on paper: three separate events, played out roughly in real screen time across three separate timezones, with each potentially cross-fertilizing the others. Problem is, as the cross-cutting proceeds, it becomes increasingly evident that each yarn exists in its own, very specific frame of reference, with no real human drama to buttress the moral-political conflict.

In Washington, D.C., veteran TV journo Janine Roth (Streep) arrives for a one-on-one interview with Republican young gun Sen. Jasper Irving (Cruise), who has an exclusive to feed her for his own purposes. Meanwhile, earlier that same morning at "a California university," Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), a student who's been skipping class, gets dressed down by his professor, Dr. Stephen Malley (Redford). Concurrently, a small force of U.S. soldiers is airlifted to a strategic mountainous location in the Afghan mountains to head off the Taliban.

In the early stages, the three strands are cleverly linked. Irving tells Roth the administration has a "new plan" to resolve the deadlock in Afghanistan: sending small groups to secure advance positions ahead of the spring thaw. When Roth asks when this will be implemented, Irving replies, "Ten minutes ago."

Two of the grunts in the first group, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), are former students of Malley's. To try to break through Hayes' lackadaisical attitude toward his studies and life in general, Malley tells Hayes the story of Rodriguez and Finch, both of whom enlisted in the military as a way to engage in their country's foreign problems rather than just sit back and take the high ground.

In addressing the issue of the U.S. role as both world policeman and a credible force for good, Carnahan's screenplay thus takes three clearly defined avenues of approach: the practical (Rodriguez-Finch), the political (Irving-Roth) and the philosophical (Malley-Hayes). All three avenues, however, lead nowhere in particular. The first moves from the gung-ho through military bungling to personal, useless sacrifice; the second through point-by-point confrontation to ultimate resignation; and the third ends vaguely, with only a glimmer of hope.

Most engrossing moments are generated by the political tennis match between the young senator and the cynical reporter. Both thesps are perfectly cast and at the top of their game, with Cruise believably incarnating a Young Turk who believes America's credibility (as "a force of righteousness") is now at stake, while Streep's veteran journo is more interested in digging up past mistakes and Middle Eastern history.

The to-and-fro of their political debate gives both actors a fine workout, and plays to the strengths of their screen personas. But as Carnahan's script dutifully checks off the issues, it becomes clear the discourse is leading nowhere, and is merely a rerun of arguments already extensively aired by media around the world. Roth has no new arguments to propose, and Irving's only solution is more positive action.

Meanwhile, back in California, the talk is turning even fuzzier. Faced with Hayes' continuing skepticism-cum-lack of interest in his country's politics, Malley finally rounds on him with, "Rome is burning." "So you're saying it's better to try and fail than do nothing?" asks Hayes. "At least you (can say you) did something," replies Malley. Well, yeah.

With almost no character backgrounding beyond repping various schools of thought, the actors largely get by on screen charisma. Cruise and Streep generate the most sparks; Redford brings a relaxed, slightly supercilious, elder-statesman aura to the role of the mature academic; and young Brit actor Garfield is convincing as an unengaged SoCal student, though his character remains enigmatic to the end.

Production values are fine. Philippe Rousselot's widescreen lensing and Jan Roelfs' production design manage distinctive looks for the three strands, from the burnished, formal interiors of Irving's office and the sunnier, relaxed campus quarters to the grit and snow of an Afghan mountaintop. Mark Isham's score is low-key until the muddled finale of the military strand, when it slips into unseemly (and inexplicable) patriotic bombast.

As if to underline the symbiotic link between Carnahan's two scripts, "The Kingdom" helmer Peter Berg pops up here in a supporting role.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by FilmFan720 »

So...it should now go down as the frontrunner for Best Picture?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

A good friend of mine whose opinions I hold in very high regard just saw 'Lions for Lambs' and called it repugnant. He is as liberal as anybody on this board, but says the film is basically a two hour mouth piece for liberal inefficiency, a film that boils down the Iraq situation into "There are no easy answers! At least we can talk about." The war scenes are terrible with fake CGI snow and the Tom Cruise/Meryl Streep scenes are monotonous. Apparently the Robert Redford scenes are the best, if only because there's some degree of restraint and humanity. He says the film doesn't have a shot in hell for any award, that it's the same at the end as in the beginning, and that it's the single most self-congratulatory film of the year.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”