Las lesiones sufridas por dos "rangers" del ejército tras las líneas enemigas en Afganistán han desencadenado una secuencia de acontecimientos que afectan a un congresista, un periodista y u... Leer todoLas lesiones sufridas por dos "rangers" del ejército tras las líneas enemigas en Afganistán han desencadenado una secuencia de acontecimientos que afectan a un congresista, un periodista y un profesor.Las lesiones sufridas por dos "rangers" del ejército tras las líneas enemigas en Afganistán han desencadenado una secuencia de acontecimientos que afectan a un congresista, un periodista y un profesor.
- Premios
- 3 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
If you're hooked already, like I was, you're going to want to rent this one. Plus, it's Robert Redford's baby (meaning, he directed it) so you know it's going to be well-made and full of top-notch acting. If this ever does get turned into a stage play, I think it'll be a great success. Many theatergoers will enjoy the witty dialogue and agree with the message. A word of warning, though: if you find yourself agreeing with Tom Cruise as the movie starts, you might not enjoy the rest of it. I wouldn't exactly classify this film as a "message movie," but it definitely has a theme. If you're a Republican, there's a chance you might not like it.
The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.
At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.)
While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.
Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.
Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.
Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.
In this regard it works really well and it is hard to argue with the points about taking part in society rather than just focusing on one's self and I particularly liked the way that it did not condemn those who do that with a weapon, with politics, with reporting to help others be involved etc. I can understand why it has gotten this "liberal" tag because of who made it and because it is "intelligent" but it doesn't deserve this because it generally does keep the neutrality reasonably well. Of course though there is a slant to the left on what it is saying but not to the extent where ti does feel like you are being preached at this is not a Michael Moore film here.
Nor is it a perfect film though. Those looking to be told a story and nothing more will find themselves disappointed because, although there is a narrative flow to it, this is not really what it is about. Instead it relies heavily on engaging the viewer's brain and making the audience think that way, how the film ends is not all that important because you carrying on mulling over things for yourself as you leave the cinema. For me this happened but for others I can understand why the film would have come across boring, pointless and open-ended; I don't agree with you but I can see how it happened.
The cast are all very good though because everyone understands the need to sell their characters. Cruise plays very well as the politician and the film treats him with respect as a character. He plays well with Streep, who is equally good and uses her performance to let the media have a kick that it does deserve. Redford and Garfield provide the meat of the piece and their simple discussion comes over natural and effective in presenting the challenge to the viewer. Peña and Luke have simpler characters but are engaging as students and soldiers. It is very much an ensemble piece and everyone does work well in their various twosomes, the support cast may have Berg, Dunn and other familiar faces but really it is about the three pairs, all of whom work well.
Lions for Lambs has been lumped in with anti-Bush and anti-Iraq films and will have been dismissed by many as just about piece of left-wing propaganda and this is a shame because this is far from the truth. It is not a perfect film in some regards but it is not preaching but rather challenging all viewers, no matter what you think, to get involved, to take part, to question things, to think for one's self. It is thought-provoking and challenging and for that it is well worth seeing for yourself.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe photo that Jenine (Meryl Streep) observes on Senator Irving's (Tom Cruise's) office wall of him dressed as a young cadet is a still photo from Cruise's role in TAPS - Más Allá del Honor (1981).
- ErroresWhen Rodriguez and Arian are giving their presentation, they place letters of induction on the projector to show the class they enlisted. A letter of induction is a draft notice. The draft was over for over thirty years when the movie takes place, and since they volunteered, they would have used DD Form 4/1 "Enlistment and Reenlistment Document"
- Citas
Professor Stephen Malley: The decisions you make now, bud, can't be changed but with years and years of hard work to redo it... And in those years you become something different. Everybody does as the time passes. You get married, you get into debt... But you're never gonna be the same person you are right now. And promise and potential... It's very fickle, and it just might not be there anymore.
Todd Hayes: Are you assuming I already made a decision? And also that I'll live to regret it?
Professor Stephen Malley: All I'm saying is that you're an adult now... And the tough thing about adulthood is that it starts before you even know it starts, when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd, no Lifeguard is watching anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end.
- ConexionesEdited into Lions for Lambs: World Premiere Special (2007)
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Lions for Lambs
- Locaciones de filmación
- White House - 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, Columbia, Estados Unidos(exterior second unit)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 35,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 15,002,854
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 6,702,434
- 11 nov 2007
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 64,811,540
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 32 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1