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.
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.