Leoni per agnelli

Overall, it's a decent movie. Could have stood more action, more texture. It becomes a little boring after the endless cuts between three different settings where each new shot is quite similar to the last one in the respective setting. But, the dialouge between Redford and the student is interesting. Lots of people are saying its "patronizing"...I didn't really feel that. Apparently that would make me stupid according to some that have commented on this film. But, I didn't really feel that was the intent, feel of it. It's more of a "set back and look at YOUR life and ask yourself if you're really doing all you could be" type of film. I only give it six stars because of the ending and because I feel the film lacks enough texture and becomes a little dry throughout.

A great movie. this is the decent start point for define it. first, for performances. second, for the perspective about politic and war. not the last, for the admirable job of Robert Redford. sure, after many films about similar subject, it is easy to criticize it or see it as anti-war propaganda, political manifesto - and it is realy is one -. but it is more than a story of idealism and fall of noble intentions. it is a film about rolling history. about its trues and about the need of desire to change everything. not as expression of naivety . but as duty. short, a real great film.

Lions for Lambs is a current issue film that deals with several relevant topics. The central plot revolves around essentially three settings that don't directly affect each other through action. They do however affect each other through course of action presented in debate. Cruise plays Jasper Irving, a GOP senator with a new plan of action for the war on terror. Streep is a veteran reporter who is interviewing him. Simultaneously, Redford is a college professor who has called a student into his office. A conflict in Afghanistan is taking place which is linked to the aforementioned plot lines.

Lions for Lambs surprised me with it's balance. I'm an open Republican, and felt that this movie was not a cliché attack against the power that be. The Cruise character could have been given irrefutable hatred material. He could have been caught in a scandal. He could have alienated others with religious furor. Instead he is real and forms educated arguments. He seems rational, and passionate; he can also make a turn to present himself to the public. I don't see this as an attack, but one of the many skills politicians need to succeed. With all they go through and the decisions they have, they don't want the mocking that crying before the camera would carry. The left is represented by Redford's professor and Streep's reporter. Both are treated with rationale conviction. Neither has a clear anti-GOP agenda. Both of these characters even go as far as to acknowledge the error in the ways of their side. If there is a message to the film, it is that we are being sheltered from reality. It was clear to this viewer that Redford is stating that we are placing focus on the minuscule while matters of true importance are treated as second rate. Surely this is something we all can agree on in Lions for Lambs and this comes into fruition as the film evolves.

Aside from the political commentary, which it makes no dance around, this a dialog heavy film. Characters are pinned against their situations which cause them to restrain from a course of action both physically and metaphorically. The conversations are engaging, but it would be arguably more favorable to allow the characters interaction. A few additional technical merits could have gone a long way. For example, the CGI of the Chinook helicopter was not up to par; a memorable score and unique cinematography are also absent. The screenplay is inherently foiled by remarkable coincidence; but there was no way around that. At a scant 88 minutes, Lions for Lambs is quick to get to the point but it is over too fast. These miscues keep it from perfection. Served as they are, Lions for Lambs is thinking person's film that comes highly recommended.

Good directors always have a point of view, and Robert Redford is no exception. Once a gorgeous leading man, he has emerged in the past years as a fine director. What he's always been is a political and environmental activist. So "Lions for Lambs," coming from him, should be no surprise.

The film, which runs only 88 minutes, shows us three scenarios: a Senator (Tom Cruise) handing an intelligent reporter (Meryl Streep) a "new plan" for the war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a strategy from the Vietnam War that didn't work; a professor (Redford) prodding a lazy student (Andrew Garfield) about his beliefs and urging him to be an active, not passive participant in the world; and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) behind enemy lines in freezing Afghanistan. The reporter doesn't want to write the story given to her by the Senator because she feels it's false, but she needs her job; the hawk Senator is, after all, only doing his job, as is the professor; and the two soldiers are doing theirs.

This could have been a stunning film - as it is, it does hold interest despite being very talky. The stark picture of the soldiers juxtaposed with the Senator in his well-tailored suit ("says he in the air-conditioned room," Streep reminds him as he's talking about the war) is a sad reminder that for all the plans, the statistics and the estimates, soldiers are human beings, and young human beings at that, committed to what they're doing - and the professor's student could easily have been one of them, freezing in Afgahanistan instead of contemplating his life. In fact, the two soldiers were the professor's students.

Despite what others have said, there aren't any true good guys or bad guys in "Lions for Lambs." Talk is cheap (and there's plenty of it in this movie) - it's easy, detached from a set of circumstances, to intellectualize it or to work it like a chess set. It's easy to say you don't believe something and won't write it - when your job is threatened, you fold. What the film has is two heroes. Despite what everybody talks about in the movie, two people literally put their lives on the line. For what? Well, that's for you to decide.

So many negative comments about this movie. But I think we should take a moment to assess what the movie is about. Starting from the title to the credits, the movie is not about a heroic battle or an indelible mistake by a over zealous, self absorbed government. It is about understanding a mindset. If any of you have ever read Francis Fukuyama... its about history repeating itself. Its about the common man being a pawn, about how life really is not a 'great equalizer'. Redford does a brilliant job looking at showing the dynamic impact numerous aspects/events and individuals who impact our lives truly have. The self serving ego of one senator, or the inability of a teacher to persuade a student, or a reporter having to turn a blind eye to conscience because of a need to put a meal on the table the next day. It is nice to finally watch a Hollywood war related film without a heroic massacre. Or a rescue from the jaws of death, or the pity of a sympathetic enemy. Indegenes (French film about WWII) was the last movie that actually attempted to understand the core of the individual, the motivation of an action. Redford captures the same...a stellar film maker!