"Lions for Lambs"

Is anyone planning on going to see the new film "Lions for Lambs" this Friday? It seems like it will be a good movie and I hope to be able to see it soon, maybe Saturday. I am also hoping to see the movie "Rendition" soon.

I think Redford is suppose to be on Larry King tonight it should be interesting to hear what he has to say.

"A companion peice to an Inconventient Truth" and he expected to see "Al Gore walk in at any minute". So the morons hate it, it must be good.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/11/12/071112crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=2

We were promised a spate of intelligent, probing films about America’s wars abroad, and about the implications for life back home, but results so far have been ragged. To be fair, directors face a heavy task. How can you explore the policy debate over Afghanistan, say, without having your movie sound like a policy debate? To judge by “Lions for Lambs,” the answer is: You can’t.

Robert Redford’s film, written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, is braided from three strands, like a rope. First, an eager young senator in Washington (Tom Cruise) reveals a new military initiative to a skeptical reporter (Meryl Streep). Second, we watch that initiative in practice, as a pair of front-line troops (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are left wounded on an Afghan mountain in the snow, with the Taliban closing in. Third, we listen to a professor (Robert Redford) who taught the two soldiers at college, where they were close friends, while he tells a fun-loving student (Andrew Garfield) to get off his backside and engage with the world.

The three stories are intercut through-out the film, to lend it at least the illusion of momentum. Sadly, unless you are Jean-Luc Godard, the sight of your characters discussing the political ethics of their own actions is unlikely to ravish the eye, and “Lions for Lambs” is most charitably described as Ibsen with helicopters. It winces with liberal self-chastisement: Redford is surely smart enough to realize, as the professor turns his ire on those who merely chatter while Rome burns, that his movie is itself no better, or more morally effective, than high-concept Hollywood fiddling. He may even spare a smile for the harshest irony of all: the one scorching performance here, cheerfully laying waste to the niggles of the peacemakers, is that of Tom Cruise, who does for Republican warmongering what he did for the rampant libido in “Magnolia.” In person, he is reportedly a Democrat, but the G.O.P. should poach him anyway; why settle for crusty old Fred Thompson when you could have young Top Gun himself?

was just not that good and seemed "short" with no resolutions except one ~ and that was the last message on the screen.


i'd give it a C -

I never go by what critics say. I see the film and decide weather or not it was worth the matinee price and if i'll recommend it to my pals. I support anything that Redford does. Ive been a huge fan since the Butch Cassidy & Sundance Kid days.

Jodie Foster is another. Both are intelligent and hugely talented.

I also like Redford of late. He was on GMA and had a rather grizzed old guy quality to him.

She's one of those actors who actually acts, unlike others (Sean Connery) who are just ready made personalities you can plug into various roles.

Maybe I am just getting old but I am appreciating some of the older actors of late. Not really old, mind you, but of course Meryl isn't exactly a kid and neither is Jodie.

n/t