I agree, mostly, with 'isabelle1955'... Except for the following: 1) TC is not believable as the 'perfectly insincerely sincere' Jasper Irving; will some 'sincere' director please advise Mr. Cruise to stop 'projecting his own image for the camera' and start acting for the script - or, his audience - alternately, the story line. He's - still - just too in love with his agent's image of himself. Go visit a REAL insincerely sincere senator and study him. Try again, and drop your mind's-eye, mirror-image of yourself in the camera for crying out loud! 2) Where's your 'character', Meryl Streep??? where's her guts??? where's the fist-i-ness, the 'cougar' in you??? If you were acting as a real DC reporter (and I've met 'em) there'd be some tough words and emotion in that office interviewing Jasper Irving! Maybe some blood. Hell, you'd be standing on top of his desk instead of smoothing your skirt and blushing every time you 'asserted' a question. You acted like a high-school newspaper reporter for the Chicopee Falls HS 'Pacers' newsletter trying to get an auto-dealer's ad - please, may I have one? Are you kidding me? Lame; stop 'worshipping' Meryl Streep and start critiquing her individual performances. Get a life. 3) I agree - the Afghan scenes were shame-able. So was the acting. 4) Convince what California student? All I saw was yet another young actor who couldn't believe he was in a movie with a hype cast. Go back to school, get a job, serve humanity in a functioning way. 5) Redford did what he could with the cast and script he was given - that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. 5) Which of your two husband's brain-cells are you in love with? Too bad you mentioned him. Hmmmmm. Like being hit over the head with a Brit. Lame, pointless film. No energy, no Mission Statement, no redeeming social value. Watch a baseball game instead; at least steroid use gives you something to cheer about...or, plant a tree in your neighborhood.
Review of Lions for Lambs
