Saturday, December 29, 2007

Lions for Lambs

Lions for Lambs. Well, I was excited to see this movie, for a couple of reasons. I love Tom Cruise, and the previews made it look exciting. After a flurry of commercials when it came out, it kind of dropped off the map. Now I know why.

The movie is three parallel stories, that take place at the same time as each other. A 7am student/teacher meeting in California. A 10am senator/reporter meeting in Washington DC and an 8pm military strike in Afghanistan.

Lets look at each of these seperately. We'll move west to east.

Student/teacher meeting at 'A California university' ... Phew, I was afraid it would be at THE California University. This is the worst of the three segments IMO. Robert Redford and some terribly annoying, precocious kid. Lines delivered poorly, spitting out quips, as if the exchange were scripted. What? It is scripted? Oh, then it makes sense. They might as well have been talking straight into the cameras for all the authenticity they portrayed. The Professor(not teacher as previously misreported) is Robert Redford. Poly Sci professor/Director/producer Robert Redford. He seems to be using this movie as a soapbox, and honestly it's annoying. This is what a Kevin Costner written/directed politically charged movie would be like. This is my least favorite of the three segments.

In DC we are shown a meeting between past her prime(in the movie, not my take) Meryl Streep, and the always intense, jaw clenching Tom Cruise. I love Tom cruise for two reasons, I thnk he's a good actor, and he was born in Syracuse, where I was born and raised.
Great town. Cruise is his usual intense self, presenting with the Scientology-enhanced power we know and love him for. Meryl Streep is whimpery and kind of annoying. Republican politician politiking to a liberal reporter. Not much to this one really.

The military strike is an attempt to establish a 'point' for the US military on an elevated position inside of Afghanistan. This is to help us win the war on terror, with fewer numbers than are involved in a normal military movement. There's some intense bang bang, he's dead, and HE's dead. **spoiler alert** two of the US soldiers get stuck in on the ground, by themselves, surrounded by enemy soldiers. These are two former students of Redford, and we see some of their past. They seem an awful lot like as a couple as they unite to be shot together in a last stand against an insurmountable enemy. Moments before an air strike comes in to wipe out the enemy position. Blah blah.

Overall it was billed as exciting. Not exciting. IMO, a BAD movie. Not bad like Kickin it old Skool. Which was low budget, low star power, not taking itself seriously. This movie was supposed to be good. And it just wasn't.

A lot of people will use this movie to US bash, which annoys the crap out of me. Another reason I didn't love it. Oh well.

2 comments:

garboy said...

Just to get an idea on your general tastes in political thrillers. How would you rate Syriana, one of those Clancy/Harrison Ford films, and Traffic, which seem to be of a similar topic/genre?
Also, I always thought Cruise's performances were drug-enhanced and not scientology-enhanced. Now I KNOW they are Holmes-enhanced...

Ilyas said...

Syriana seemed pretty slow and nowhere-going while traffic I enjoyed parts of.