A warning-Lions for Lambs

I seen it D/L .........worthless .. an I agree ...
anti tom cruise ...could of saved you D /L ......an redford swarking . .....an that other old ...old woman streep .....
 
yeah, every trailer i have seen for this movie looks dull, po-faced and so contrived to win the Oscar vote. in fact, i find movies like this more contrived than something like Crank as the latter has no delusions about what it is, but something like this looks like it has been made to fit every tick box in the Oscar category
 
One star in the Guardian, two in The Times, three in Time Out, "deeply disappointing" in the Telegraph - Mark Kermode's positive review on 5 Live must be the exception that proves the rule. Shame: it's one of those weeks when an intelligent political drama would have made a nice change to the predictable stuff on at most cinemas.
 
I liked it! It's not anti war at all, it's all about the grey area. It's a film that is almost solid talking for the duration, but the actors really pull it off. RedforRAB character is slightly too much to take at points though. I read something in the Guardian about it the other day, in which it accussed the film of being disgustingly liberal, I mean do they not see the irony!?!?!
 
I really enjoyed it too, I was worried at first when the smarmy Tom Cruise character came on that we we suppose to like and follow what he was saying but I really felt like the Meryl Streep character totally unsure what to believe.
Having seen the trailer beforehand I wasn't sure I'd like it but I thought it did show the different view points and interwove the stories really well.
I suppose the OP 's warning is for people that want to go to the cinema and not have to think...which is some people's choice for entertainment, I know I sometimes want to 'switch off' when I go, maybe it requires the right mood too. :)
 
I kind of want to see this film because it has Meryl Streep in it. Who I love. But it also has Tom Cruise in it. Who I hate and I rarely watch anything with him in!
 
I went in to this film worried I wouldn't be able to forget about all the awful PR Tom Cruise has had over the past year, but as soon as he came on screen I remembered how good an actor he really is, and forgot about all the personal stuff.
 
If you mean Peter BraRABhaw's review, he said it gave liberalism a bad name and that it was "dull, inert, schoolteacherly, desperately self-conscious in its exposition of the issues - and with hogwhimperingly bad performances." It's not exactly ironic for a journalist on a (vaguely) liberal paper to pan a liberal film for being dull and badly acted. But are you saying it's not dull and badly acted?
 
*WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS AHEAD*

Saw this tonight and found it excruciatingly dull, and I usually like films with a slow pace.

It was pretty much in real time, and I doubt it topped 90 minutes but it seemed much longer.

In a way it was an interesting social commentary as it showed a few different viewpoints, but I think all that was really undermined byt the scenes with the two soldiers in Afghanistan. There was no grey area here; they were shot down, surrounded and killed. I know it showed the human sacrifice, but the underlying message was that the troops are right to be there and are doing a heroic and thankless job. I'm not saying that reflects or doesn't reflect my personal opinion, but I don't think it did as good a job of covering the grey area as the other scenes did.

The scenes at the university were painful, in my opinion. Just so drawn out and with little to hold the audience's interest.

But, the film did lose me early on when Glenn Close's character referred to WWII as being won in under five years. Clearly the Americans don't acknowledge the time before they joined.
 
Back
Top