Morgan Bell
Kynaston
REVIEW: Lions For Lambs
May 21st 2008 16:22
Directed: Robert Redford (The Horse Whisperer, Quiz Show)
Written: Matthew Michael Carnahan (The Kingdom)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford
This film felt like it was intended to be pro-war propaganda but with extremely confused messages and alot of backflipping. Streep is an accomplished reporter interviewing Cruise who is a conservative military-trained Senator trying to promote a new mission in Afghanistan through the media . . . meanwhile Redford is a vietnam-vet college teacher who is trying to rid a rich student of his complacency by comparing him to a couple of poor kids who enlisted in the army (and are currently the pawns in Cruises diabolical plans) . . . by the time i got to the end i was wondering what the actual point was? It seemed like a vehicle for Tom Cruise to make patriotic statements like he and Jack did in "A Few Good Men" but then the film back-peddles a bit and shows Cruise as opportunistic and using soldiers as bait to serve his political ambitions . . . Streep likens Iraq/Afghanistan to Vietnam but is it only to give Cruise a softly-spoken wall to bounce his diatribe off? Is the film implicating the media as being partially responsible for the war due to its inability to stand up to the politicians? I think Redford was advocating the questioning of the government yet applauding the students who chose to enlist . . . it kind of seemed like anyone opposing the war was shouted down and silenced, those brave enough to participate in the war were sacrificed for the sake of ego, and those orchastrating the war were successful . . . i think the underlying message was the we should endeavour to stand up for something, but for what? Is fighting "evil" futile? And wich "evil" should be fought? The message was either to question authority or to stop the terrorists . . . but then at the same time dont bother because nothing ever changes and the brave (lions) are being led by the unscrupulous (lambs) . . . its a very mixed message, im clearly very confused!
Written: Matthew Michael Carnahan (The Kingdom)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford
This film felt like it was intended to be pro-war propaganda but with extremely confused messages and alot of backflipping. Streep is an accomplished reporter interviewing Cruise who is a conservative military-trained Senator trying to promote a new mission in Afghanistan through the media . . . meanwhile Redford is a vietnam-vet college teacher who is trying to rid a rich student of his complacency by comparing him to a couple of poor kids who enlisted in the army (and are currently the pawns in Cruises diabolical plans) . . . by the time i got to the end i was wondering what the actual point was? It seemed like a vehicle for Tom Cruise to make patriotic statements like he and Jack did in "A Few Good Men" but then the film back-peddles a bit and shows Cruise as opportunistic and using soldiers as bait to serve his political ambitions . . . Streep likens Iraq/Afghanistan to Vietnam but is it only to give Cruise a softly-spoken wall to bounce his diatribe off? Is the film implicating the media as being partially responsible for the war due to its inability to stand up to the politicians? I think Redford was advocating the questioning of the government yet applauding the students who chose to enlist . . . it kind of seemed like anyone opposing the war was shouted down and silenced, those brave enough to participate in the war were sacrificed for the sake of ego, and those orchastrating the war were successful . . . i think the underlying message was the we should endeavour to stand up for something, but for what? Is fighting "evil" futile? And wich "evil" should be fought? The message was either to question authority or to stop the terrorists . . . but then at the same time dont bother because nothing ever changes and the brave (lions) are being led by the unscrupulous (lambs) . . . its a very mixed message, im clearly very confused!
| 119 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i wouldve liked to have seen meryl slap tom just to spice things up a bit! lol
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by Cheryl J
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
As an aside, it truly is a testament to the amount of damage Cruise has done to his movie career when people can't stomach the thought of watching a movie because of him being in it. I don't think he is a bad actor - he certainly isn't a great one - but after all the hoopla over the last couple of years I just want to run screaming from the room when I see him in anything.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
yeah this one is trying to be like a magic eye puzzle or a tarot card reading where you will see what you want to see in it, but it was far too much fence-sitting and mixed messages for me
Cruise was as arrogant and cocky as he is in every role you see him in . . . he has made a career out of being the epitome of clean-cut american pie even though hes a controlling closet homosexual who is trying to dominate what is the modern day equivalent of the masons . . . little man syndrome i think