Continue with Google
>
Lions for Lambs Reviews
I was drawn in by the characters and the actors' portrayals. Each character/actor cared about what they were tasked with; not just cared but fully engaged in it with an intelligence that was gentle, subtle, and emotional. I didn't feel lectured. I felt for what was going on. If critics felt lectured, they weren't engaged with the people, the characters. Why that was they'd have to answer for themselves. I found them relatable and easily got involved with each one. They were each vulnerable so they kept my interest. Each scene flowed into the next, and it was apparent from the start that they were related. Maybe I didn't know how at first, but somehow it didn't feel disjointed. Well done. A story well worth telling and exactly in the way it was told. Avoid the synopsis. Let the film unfold.
This movie was probably made ahead of its time. The dialogue is relevant to today just as much as to when it was made. University student played by Andrew Garfield speaks about his right to just sit back and put in little effort to reach his full potential just enjoy the life his parents gave him based on them giving him a better life than they had. The two students who become soldiers hold an idealistic view of the contribution they can make to society. The politician boasts about the new plan to win the war on behalf of another country. All add up to the tragedy of the plot. We can reflect how this has led to the attitude of today where business men run a country rather than the politicians, but the business men care less about the people than they do about the money. I liked this film very much. I had to listen hard to follow what was going on, but I understood the meaning behind it. It left some open questions at the end . Where did the student go from here? Did the journalist stick to her beliefs or was she hammered into the shape the newspaper business now prefer. Clicks not truth.... ? Did the politician aim for the Whitehouse despite his predicted protests of humility? How did the professor continue when the story of the outcome of his soldier students broke? A sad story. Thought provoking, and worth a watch all these years later. 2007 to 2025? What's changed?
It's just appeared on Prime over here and looking at the excellent cast we expected something good. But , frankly, it's very boring, disjointed and has a very simplistic political viewpoint. I don't recommend it.
Worst movie. Was bored out of my mind. Bad acting and plot.ø even thou major actors in the line up What a waste of time
Incredibly stale and overperformed, the college class scene was a perfect case of nobody in real life has ever spoken this way before.
This is a very engaging movie. It has an interesting plot-structure. It switches back and forth between an episode of Americans fighting in Afghanistan and a Senator selling our Afghan strategy to a journalist (Meryl Streep). Engaging movie with actors who are fun to watch (Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Streep), and a lot to say. I highly recommend it.
A very strong cast gives some sense to the film. A lot of loose ends, questions in the air. Still, it was worth watching.
In 2007 Lions for Lambs was released. This war themed drama features Meryl Streep, Robert Redford and Tom Cruise. The film is actually three different stories being told in simultaneously that revolve around the United States' "War on Terror". One story involves the smug up-and-coming Senator Irving (Cruise) who is attempting to sell his new military strategies to the well-respected journalist Janine Roth (Streep). The second story revolves around two military personnel (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) whose lives are affected by the senator's strategy changes. The third story is that of a college professor (Redford) trying to reignite the passion of a student (Andrew Garfield) whose attendance and drive have waned. The three stories are intertwined but never actually touch. I was disappointed by this because it didn't allow Streep to act with Redford (he also produced and directed the film). Instead, most of her time on-screen time was spent with Cruise. For me, this was the acting equivalent of listening to Barbra Streisand sing a duet with Yoko Ono. I couldn't help but feel the exasperation Janine was exhibiting as she listened to Senator Irving's plans was simply Streep channeling her own frustration trying to act off Cruise. The film is very heavy handed and consists of many monologues that might have been better suited for a debate than a plotted movie. For the most part (Cruise aside) it's very well acted, and there are lots of questions that the audience is left to ponder. If questioning things is something you enjoy, then this film might be for you, just be prepared to be a bit bored during the journey.
The film was made in 2007--It's a blatant disgusting piece of propaganda. The result of the chaos, death, and destruction created by the U. S. in the Middle East in its quest for resources is now more than evident (2022). If you love propaganda, mindless flag waving, and watching your tax dollars disappear down the rabbit hole of the military industry (even in a fictional kind of way), this movie's for you. I wonder how long it will take before the American people realize that it's not about "democracy," (unless democracy is delivered via drones and bombs), and peace. It's about Empire and the resources necessary to keep that Empire afloat.
These 2 quotes sum up the debate in the movie. Cruise's character: "We simply cannot allow their form of evil and terror to spread. And through precise military action we will take the essential first step." Streep's character: "First step? But what have we been doing for the past six years, Senator? You know, World War ll took less than five." These sum it up because the journalist's criticism is dishonest. If she really wanted a decisive, short war with minimal casualties to American soldiers, then she would advocate for WW2-style rules of engagement. Instead, the military is hampered by self-sacrificial rules of engagement (i.e. "precise military action" = Americans on the ground in Afghanistan instead of bombs from above against the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia that are the root cause). That self-sacrificial strategy is presented as equivalent to war in general. Thus, the inevitable conclusion that most people make is: "Well, if *that* is war, then I'm against war." In short, real war of self defense has been taken off the able as an option, and our soldiers and civilians continue to die while the jihadist movement continues decade after decade. We would still be fighting (or would have lost to) the confederates, nazis, and imperialist shinto if such self-crippling rules of engagement had been used back then. Later, Cruise's character insists that they'll do "whatever it takes." In reality, he means "whatever it takes... within the narrow boundaries of what is allowed by the self-sacrificial rules of engagement." In short, the blame for any and all collateral damage should be on the aggressor (the jihadists)--not the defender (the Americans). Until we correct this preconception, ending the threat will not be possible and our soldiers and civilians will continue to die while evil is appeased.
I don't understand the audience and critics score this is one of those rare movies that kept me interested in the dialogue alone.
It is on Amazon Prime so I watched it, together with the lure of such luminaries as Redford, Streep, Cruise. Worth watching but it felt like 3 one act plays rather than a movie. All 3 seemed unrealistic. First off the "University in California" is Stanford and having attended and graduated from that august palace of learning I can tell you that the professors do not give a sh*t about undergraduates. The Redford character seems very unrealistic though the disaffected student is on par. Most of the my classmates fit that caricature. As far as the act with the soldiers I had 2 questions: (1) what idiot does not clip in in an aircraft and (2) what idiot jumps out after him if/when he falls out? Director seems to have watched Point Break too many times, people do not really do that in real life. For me the Cruise/Streep one-act play was the most engaging. Watching this in 2021 with the Taliban triumphant and ascendant made thr 2007 dialogue all the more hilariously ironic.
Ok I will admit, this movie did not live up to my expectations! A ok film, but overall too much mind games in the film instead of the story! I know what Redford was going for but the movie drags on and on etc.
Lions for Lambs, a decent propaganda movie that contrasts well with the the horrid viewpoint that regime change is a national option (PNAC). And America determines rightness for weaker though sovereign states. Might .... right? Streep, Cruise, Redford excellent. Not thought provoking but a presentation of an old and important dynamic - the view of those on top determine national policy - wise or unwise.
It was very well written and hits really hard for someone who just graduated and doesn't really know what to do next
The plot is all over the place and some elements are more effective than others. That said this cast makes it watchable.
Una serie infinita di cliché e di patriottismo visto e rivisto. Personaggi poco originali e clamorosamente stereotipati. Peccato perchè con un cast del genere le possibilità erano veramente infinite. Tra le note positive il titolo stesso, mi piace.