Leoni per agnelli

Before watching Lions For Lambs, leave your expectations at the door. Watch the film on it's own merits and open yourself to new ideas, themes and storytelling. I suspect that many reviewers felt disappointed by Lion For Lambs because is did not correspond they idea of what a film should be. I think that if the filmmaker is able to get his point across, keep it believable, and affecting they have done their job. If they manage to make to think, change your view on life, or try new things then even better.

Lion For Lambs represents a new way of thinking. It requires the audience to participate in the film, think about what they are seeing and then apply that thought to their everyday lives. In these times of conflict, people need to open their eyes to the world around them and how it affects them.

Matthew Michael Carnahan's script is a means to encourage discussion and I must I was more than influenced by the exceptional delivery from the three main leads. These three characters are not cardboard cut-outs, nor are they black and white sound-bites, they want to do what's best for who they represent their and yet each of them, like ourselves, face a moral dilemma. Streep's Janine Roth struggles between telling the truth or satisfying commercial and public ideals. Cruise's Jasper Irving remains out of touch with the public citizen in his brashness for foreign politics, but is blinded by an ideal and unachievable future, not dissimilar to the politicians of today. While Redford's Stephen Malley represents the left, the educated individual desensitised to the mindless ramblings of politicians and media phogies. In his young apprentice, he is forced to rethink his values and morals. But is it enough to affect change or is the damage already done?

Too say the film overreaches its scope, self-defeating in a ramble of didactics is presumptuous. I think it merely causes us to think about what is happens and maybe change our perspective and think about the other side of the argument instead of the bigoted morals spewed forth from political factions. Thus today people pay superfluous attention to the over zealous media.

While it may lack the decorated production values, score and sets of a typical Hollywood film, the focus remains rightly so on the story and characters. The actors merely tell the story and the viewer is invited to participate in the discussion for change. In fact, I would rather think for myself than rather that sit back and be told what to think.

I think people wrongly see this as an attack on their morals and ideals. Viewers need to stop taking things at face value and be more assertive about what they see – instead of complaining, respond. Write a letter to your politicians! I'm tired of being lectured to and I whole heartedly accept Mr Redford's invitation to participate in a discussion with an open mind.

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.

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.

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.