Spider-Man: Far From Home
Toy Story 4
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
This movie was awesome. A lot of read between the lines in this well done drama. How this got a 26 on the tomato meter is baffling. Maybe the people that voted were too dumb to understand the storylines, seeing that they are used to superhero movies.
cuts down its essential asset..
Lions For Lambs
Lion For Lambs is a character driven political thriller about the repercussions that war breeds which is depicted and debated with every possible perspective in here.
It's satirical theme is a bit downer which is the core reason why it starts rotting faster as it ages on screen; even the crisp in here is diplomatic. Set in three different chapters or tracks, the narrative is intriguing through which it lures the audience and addition to that, it also uses its star power and puts Cruise and Streep at front, with arguments going head to head against each other.
The cinematography, editing and d.o.p. is possibly one of the worst things in here since it is eerily annoying as it fails to pull off even a single conversation. The writing isn't as layered as it seems, if anything it surfs over the material and is afraid to dig in deeper. The background score is at points daft and questionable but has sharp sound effects and stunning visuals that favors in on maker's side.
The conversations are debates, they are gripping and keeps the audience on the edge of the seat, but it isn't bred appropriately, it isn't layered despite of being as Cruise mentions once, "high-minded debate". Pena's track offers him range and room to flaunt in, his skills which he does, whilst Cruise and Streep are more reserved and less expressive alongwith Redford and Garfield's similar portrayal.
Few arguments and the star power are the only high points of this sinking feature. Redford as a director, seems distracted in order to create or draw out glorifying or loud moments as much as he can which actually results into an unstable and uneven feature.
Lion For Lambs is a passionate project that lost its way in production, execution and opinions that cuts down its essential asset.
Well, I guess it's a movie about political games and shows that politics is not an easy subject.
"Lions for Lambs" probably comes from the idea that politicians who never risked their lives (lambs) command soldiers who risk their lives every day (lions). But on the other hand (in my opinion) of course politicians have moral pressure.
Regarding political games - for example, sometimes politicians need to make decisions which might be good for the country, but might not be supported by most people and thus they need media to help them show good side of their decisions.
Well, it is a known fact that rich politicians can push their better more and that media is extremely powerful tool for that. Just look at propaganda in Russian-Ukrainian war in Donbass, like two nations became even worse enemies, especially the amount of propaganda in Russia, that totally changes the way people think there. If you look in Russia in Ukraine - most TV channels are owned by politicians. . Coincidence? Not really. It is a powerful tool. Soon maybe most news websites will also be owned by politicians? Interesting, how in Ukraine some TV channels never wanted to show people like Saakashvili, because they were owned by corrupt politicians.
Also, this movie had interesting idea, that people who were born poor and in bad areas when they grow up they join the army and want to fight for the country who didn't really care about them. While kids who had everything in their life, like me, don't want to join the army and die for the country, even if we are really patriotic.
Well, this movie has really a lot of dialogues, the whole movie basically dialogues between several people, which is unusual for movies. Simply speaking there are ~6 main characters and Tom Cruise is one of them. He looks really nice here, he's adult and handsome and has that Ethan Hunt look. The dialogues are really fast, so I didn't follow everything really, but if I would watch it again and would follow every line then maybe I would understand this movie better.
Actually enjoyed it. Good performances although loquacious dialogues may be getting away from the actors at times. Certainly thought provoking.
Ive seen plenty of movies that try to push a particular agenda, but few are so blatant and downright preachy like Lions for Lambs. This movie is broken up into 3 separate stories that it cuts between all related to the War on Terror. Heres each one spelled out:
1. The most aggressive in its politicizing is between a cocky Republican politician (Tom Cruise) and the liberal reporter who is interviewing him (Meryl Streep.) These 2 light up the screen with their charismatic performances, but largely get nowhere other than telling us what we should be thinking. Its like watching any political debate on TV, as they simply volley back and forth with their views. Most of these arguments are the same ones you could hear (and probably have heard) countless times before and on any news network every day of the week.
2. Next there is the story of two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) who are good friends and are part of an assault on the enemy in Afghanistan. This story almost has no point other than to add some action sequences, and to add stakes to what everyone else in the film is talking about. These guys are likable and of course its always tough to see a depiction of American troops being asked to risk their lives for something they might not believe in, I just wish this was part of a better film (instead of being used as a tool to make a point.)
3. Finally there is a college student with promise who has lost his drive (Andrew Garfield) and his professor who wants him to be something better (Robert Redford.) Its a whole lot more speechifying just like the first pair, and is also well-acted. Again, in a better film, the elements we see here could have been amazing. I think this story is meant as the moral were supposed to take home. Its basically telling us, if we have a problem with our country and the way its being run, we need to stop being apathetic and get involved.
Theres nothing particularly wrong with what Lions for Lambs is trying to say, and if you are a liberal it might be nice to watch a movie that so proudly says it. However, the way it is presented feels so hamfisted that I was just bored instead of invested in it. A smart movie in this genre would show you things that make you question your own views, but this movie practically screams in your face what your view should be and why. They arent changing anybodys opinion with that technique, thats for sure.
On pourrait reprocher à Redford et Carnahan leur non-objectivité sur ce Lions & Agneaux, mais ils en seraient sûrement heureux. Dans ce qui tangue parfois vers la conférence que vers le cinéma en tant que tel, Robert Redford aligne tous ses arguments contre la gestion de la guerre en Irak et ses solutions. Michael Peña et Derek Luke sont excellents, Tom Cruise et Meryl Streep en font juste ce qu'il faut pour ne pas alourdir leur conversation. C'est cependant sur l'arc académique de Robert Redford et Andrew Garfield que Lions & Agneaux atteint ses sommets d'intérêt. Le montage est remarquable, la musique pas trop envahissante, les quelques seconds rôles au diapason. Lions & Agneaux n'est pas pour tous les goûts, mais une franche réussite.
Two has-beens and Cruise , do not waste your time
Compact, enthralling piece that delves into war from political, academic, media and military (as well as personal) perspectives. A lot for 1.5 hours! Redford's best directorial effort since his Oscar-wimming Ordinary People. So many things revealed in this treatment, things often not mentioned in public. After viewing the movie, we have a better idea of why. (I wished they'd mentioned the military/industrial conglomerates that obviously profit from war.)
As usual, Meryl Streep is fascinating go watch. Not so Redford's character, who comes across as too smug.
Just saw this (1/11/16) finding it in the library and being impressed with the cast. I never heard of it and wondered why as I am an avid movie follower. I gave it 4 stars due to the ingenious interweaving plot construction and depth of acting of all involved. I thought it might be new and was shocked that it was made 8 years ago when I researched it on Rotten Tomatoes! Perhaps it was before its time as I
appreciated the portrayal of social conscience and the lack thereof.
Better than reviews would suggest but it does dare question military thinking :0