just watched this tripe on sundance channel
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lions for Lambs
kasparhauser44 — 13 years ago(December 07, 2012 12:48 PM)
wow. this is a really bad movie. the fact that redfored read this screenplay and was interested enough to act in it and direct it really shows that he is not that smart, not very clever, and that he is basically a sell out war justifier. when you watch this film in 2012, looking back 5 years onto 2007 when george bush was still the president, and then you look at the montage of all the pictures that meryl streep is looking at of tom cruise's senator character with dick cheney, condoleeza rice, donald rumsfeld et al, and you realize that the whole purpose of the film is to justify these genocidal wars for profit AND REDFORD COSIGNS by making this movie- which is nothing more than a shifty prevaricartion and ultimately, a justification for these wars OF terror. i wont spoil it, but the ending was pathetic on many levels, most of all the pathetic protest of the sell out media stooge played by meryl streep. this movie is nothing more than a neo-liberal excuse for imperialism. the fact that redford buys into this garbage is not surprising, but when you confront it face to face its undeniable.redford went in my book from being an overly pretentious, but sufferable leather faced pretty boy to a bufoonish and clownish dunce and stooge for the war industries. people who aree impressed by english accents will think this film is smart, well written, well acted, and filled with complexity. PS the scenes with streep and cruise were more like a wry, unconvincing deappan comedy routine: wtf was up with that?
-
jstang411 — 13 years ago(January 17, 2013 01:50 PM)
A course in grammar might help you out in the future.
Your first and only IMDb post ever (or since).and you went right to the grammar thing with a non-substantive response on a very old board.
BTW Redford is pretty darn cool..for some reason I'm thinking you have met him too, perhaps even on set. -
smoko — 13 years ago(January 29, 2013 12:52 AM)
@kasparhauser44
the whole purpose of the film is to justify these genocidal wars for profit
Well IMO the scenes with Streep and Cruise had them debating the pros and cons of the Iraq war, rather than giving pure justification. I loved their scenes, it was the other two storylines that I didn't like - it was like watching one third of a good movie. -
smfilm — 12 years ago(February 04, 2014 01:16 PM)
kasparhauser44
wow. this is a really bad movie. the fact that redfored read this screenplay and was interested enough to act in it and direct it really shows that he is not that smart, not very clever, and that he is basically a sell out war justifier.
you didn't understand the movie at all it's anti war, pro citizen involvement the whole point is to ridicule the US governments manipulation of our citizens and our willingness to swallow that and live shallow lives based on reality TV instead of making a difference.
you have zero idea what you are talking about -
ndenton-1 — 10 years ago(May 05, 2015 11:37 PM)
No smfilm it's a horribly written, badly acted and directed sledge hammered home, movie. 33 million dollars for what? Something that was written produced and filmed in probably less than a week? I've seen better productions done by grade school students.