Tom Cruise, plays an ambitious Senator, looking to make a big splash by using the current War and the current situation to get his name on the map by taking out the enemy, AT ALL COSTS. I thought it was some incredible acting and some great propaganda. That last line may sound very awkward and it should, but the film recognizes the Senators mumbo jumbo talk as he avoids questions and disregards the past because it's not very important. And we know what happens when we don't pay attention to the past. It's sending the message that he's a buffoon, not that he's right. They use the propaganda very effectively. One second you like what he's saying then the next you're questioning his motives as he obviously has no plan for failure since he insists on his intelligence and assumes victory. The Senator is repeating the same "colossal mistakes" we made in the past as he chants, "Whatever it takes." I thought it was an incredibly ugly portrayal of the side of Senators and politicians that we don't see. We watch Cruise press upon his version of the story so that the people can believe in his strategy that will end the war on terror. It was very sugar coated as well, much like watching a senator talk, which made it incredibly realistic. We think we have an understanding of their policies, but there are so many politicians with their own agendas that winning a war on terror doesn't necessarily mean they cares if we win. This senator just wants the word "win," next to his name for a future campaign slogan for President. I thought that was easily the best part of the film. It also shouldn't be surprising the Senator is a Republican and the reporter a liberal Democrat being bullied around by the faulty Republican. In the conversation we see that the Republican has no clue what he's talking about and the Democrat knows everything and questions everything and when she asks about the estimated death toll of the invasion she doesn't get an answer. Here we see the powerful bully the media. If you have no interest in politics once so ever (Redford may come to your house and kick your @ss), you probably hated it and found it very boring. It's very political and we see this stuff everyday. Off the top of my head, I'd say this was Cruise' best performance since, "Magnolia," that performance being his best.
Now the tedious part, for me, was the student and teacher (Redford) going back and forth- some of the most forgettable stuff I've ever seen in film history. It gets so boring it's almost unwatchable. Near the end of their conversation, Redford has this monologue, and basically looks right into the camera and tells every person watching to quit your day job and try to become a politician. If you don't have the brains and wealth for that, then vote you lazy, good for nothing, American. That was straight force feeding propaganda. That's very bad which ends up making the film hypocritical and this, along with the pointless story with the student and teacher, a pretty bad film overall. In competition for the worst part of the film is the actual war sequence as we follow the lives of two soldiers who left for the war against the teacher's wishes after doing a class project. It's clichéd out the rear end. Some of the stuff they did is so old and so unoriginal that they were copying films as far back as "Dr. Strangelove." And more recently with "Behind Enemy Lines," which was an average war film, but much more effective, and "Black Hawk Down." It seemed to drag and actually get in the way of everything else just to make us feel bad as they put these two men in the worst position possible as the writer was almost nervous all the other crap going on would put us off and not care. So they try to make us care. The one soldier who jumps out of the plane to save his friend is basically the same cliché as the soldier going out to the middle of the road to pick up another dead soldier as he too is shot down or when one soldier jumps on a grenade to save his friends. If it's not based on true events, then it strictly Hollywood and this is a Hollywood type war, especially with all the CGI. Then they land 10 feet apart when he jumps about 30 seconds later AND THEY BOTH STILL LIVE!!!! Easily some of the worst war footage I've ever seen in any film. It just dragged and dragged. The worst part of the war sequence is the death sequence that get's extremely heavy-handed. The soldiers die together. With broken legs, they both stand up, facing an army of Afghans. Facing certain death these two men don't cry for home or momma, they stand up like Lions as the Senator gets the bad news from the other side of the world like a Lamb in a grassy field as these Lions die for their country. I don't know what was worse: Robert Redford calling me a bum (assuming that I'm a bum in the first place) or 40 year old clichés. I don't know.
"Lions for Lambs" has some promise and great writing between the senator and journalist, but after that it's a bleak film that preaches the same messages over and over: Our government is run by a bunch of lambs and we, the lions, have to do something because they won't.
Now the tedious part, for me, was the student and teacher (Redford) going back and forth- some of the most forgettable stuff I've ever seen in film history. It gets so boring it's almost unwatchable. Near the end of their conversation, Redford has this monologue, and basically looks right into the camera and tells every person watching to quit your day job and try to become a politician. If you don't have the brains and wealth for that, then vote you lazy, good for nothing, American. That was straight force feeding propaganda. That's very bad which ends up making the film hypocritical and this, along with the pointless story with the student and teacher, a pretty bad film overall. In competition for the worst part of the film is the actual war sequence as we follow the lives of two soldiers who left for the war against the teacher's wishes after doing a class project. It's clichéd out the rear end. Some of the stuff they did is so old and so unoriginal that they were copying films as far back as "Dr. Strangelove." And more recently with "Behind Enemy Lines," which was an average war film, but much more effective, and "Black Hawk Down." It seemed to drag and actually get in the way of everything else just to make us feel bad as they put these two men in the worst position possible as the writer was almost nervous all the other crap going on would put us off and not care. So they try to make us care. The one soldier who jumps out of the plane to save his friend is basically the same cliché as the soldier going out to the middle of the road to pick up another dead soldier as he too is shot down or when one soldier jumps on a grenade to save his friends. If it's not based on true events, then it strictly Hollywood and this is a Hollywood type war, especially with all the CGI. Then they land 10 feet apart when he jumps about 30 seconds later AND THEY BOTH STILL LIVE!!!! Easily some of the worst war footage I've ever seen in any film. It just dragged and dragged. The worst part of the war sequence is the death sequence that get's extremely heavy-handed. The soldiers die together. With broken legs, they both stand up, facing an army of Afghans. Facing certain death these two men don't cry for home or momma, they stand up like Lions as the Senator gets the bad news from the other side of the world like a Lamb in a grassy field as these Lions die for their country. I don't know what was worse: Robert Redford calling me a bum (assuming that I'm a bum in the first place) or 40 year old clichés. I don't know.
"Lions for Lambs" has some promise and great writing between the senator and journalist, but after that it's a bleak film that preaches the same messages over and over: Our government is run by a bunch of lambs and we, the lions, have to do something because they won't.