‘Lions For Lambs’ - Can We Say Political Agenda?
‘Lions for Lambs’ is a perfect example of how the entertainment business is using movies to push their political agenda on the audiences of the world. The screen writer (whose name escapes me) obviously has some personal views of the war on terror and is trying to push those ideas on to the people watching.
Listen up Hollywood none of us go to the movies to watch something that drips with sarcasm and can start up a heated debate in under 60 seconds. We go to the movies to forget about the horrors and frustration of the world around us.
Now if the movie had been about the sacrifices that the men and women of the armed services have been doing over there to protect us than we wouldn’t have minded so much. Listening to a true story is one thing – but listening to something that makes fun of the country we live in is a good way to get hated around here.
It is sad to see such well accomplished actors (Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, and Robert Redford) play in a movie like this. They did a great job acting out their character (which is to be expected) so when we say the movie was well …crap we aren’t blaming that on them. We’re gonna have to go with whoever came up with the storyline and blame it on him.
Don’t bother wasting your time and money on this. I wouldn’t even bother with it when it comes out on DVD. I agree with what one of the audience members said - why can’t they make movies like they used to when John Wayne was alive!
Lemme know what you think
(17 votes, average: 2.24 out of 5)
Loading …
Clearly some people are living in the moment better than others.
Whether you fight dying what you believe or you act it out on the big screen is for all of us to enjoy.
Lions for Lambs has a good message behind it when you choose to look at it through creative thoughts.
There is nothing political that stands out in the crowd when one person just writes about it in an article.
Good job Cruise & Redford!!! This movie is for the the older & young generations.
Comment by Dave Herbert — November 14, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Get real! Many moviegoers enjoy thought provoking films; obviously your ilk prefer no brainers.
Comment by Ari Viuq — November 14, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
I think that when it comes to this movie everyone is going to have their own unique opinion. Some people will love it while other will hate it. It’s like that with every movie. I’m not into movies that stir up too much debate (debate causes conflict)so I have to agree with the author on this one. I don’t know about all of you - but bashing the war and discussing how bad our government is doing is old news and getting a little boring. Also where did it say that the author didn’t like thought provoking movies? I agree that true stories are much better.
Comment by g-nome — November 14, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
You obviously don’t get the message of this movie. It is definitely not anti US. It isn’t even against the anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan (which is where the military action takes place.
The message is to be committed to SOMETHING and ACT on those committments. The Redford character didn’t agree the actions of the student-soldiers but he admired them for having a committment and acting on that comittment.
The message is also that some individuals in the government have adgendas and lie and get others to lie about things to promote those adgendas, and that sometimes these people don’t learn from past mistakesw. Have you had your head in the sand about how Cheney pushed the CIA to report that Hussein had a huge stockpile of WMDs including biologicals, despite reports from the UN inspectors that no such WMDs could be found and that supposed biological weapons factors were not even close to being such, based on actually going into the buildings in question. Cheney didn’t even learn from past successes when he declared during the first gulf war that it was a bad idea to topple Hussein because the mess that we face today would be the likely result. Hmmmmm.
Comment by Bob D — November 14, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Does anyone else find it interesting that people who have had no apparent desire for the welfare of this country - other than to make millions off its structure - are the first ones to demean and defame it? While others, who have spent much of their adult lives defending our nations freedoms, never achieve a status from which to nationalize their thoughts? The only interest Redford, Cruise, Roberts, Streep, et al have is tearing apart what they have never chosen to defend. You Cowards.
Comment by tj — November 14, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I’m glad that sucker is creative…….cause it ain’t got nothin’ else goin’ for it .
Comment by Marv Rothhaar — November 14, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
The problem with a movie like this is that in the USA people are free to attend this movie and draw their own opinions. Even the most hardened conservative is not about to go out on the street and protest after seeing a movie like this. Conservatives don’t protest because they have jobs and more important things to do like be with their family. However, you know the Arab world will use this movie to justify their hatred and terrorist acts and continue to paint the US military with one broad brush. I really hope that these type of films that the American Left loves to produce for their own don’t end up getting any of our guys killed.
Also I love how the left likes to throw the word lie around when speaking about the Bush administration. Didn’t Clinton once go on TV to proudly proclaim that he had authorized the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear, biological & chemical weapons factories. So what happened, did Clinton manage to take them all out with one day of airstrikes, while keeping his calendar clear for Monica? It is not a lie when every country is lead to believe that Iraq had these weapons by the very leader of the country. Even Saddaam’s own Republican Guard commanders believed they had WMD. Now, it would have been a lie if the Bush administration planted evidence and claimed they found WMD, but that has never happened. How could anyone prove that Iraq had no WMD with the cat and mouse game the UN inspectors were forced to play? After 9/11 should we have just continued to play defense? Remember the inspectors were fooled once before and it took Sadaam’s son-in-law spilling the beans for them to return to Iraq. Oh yea-he is not around anymore to tell his story. Would you all on the left prefer that Saddaam was back in power? Is the fact that he was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands not enough reason to remove him from power. I find it incredible that both our terrorist enemies and the American left want the same end game for our troops which is truly dispicable and shameful. I support the troops and their mission!
Comment by Ter — November 14, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Ter,
I think as soon as we discovered there were no WPD’s, we should have gotten the hell out of there, and let Saddam get back to controling those animals over there, it’s not or business, our solidiers should not be dying for those butchers over there, Saddam was not anymore of a threat to this coutry than the leader of Iran, Bush has made a big mess of things over there, and we need to do something, There definetly no easy way out now.
Comment by John — November 14, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Hey Y’all,
Due to computer errors I lost some of your comments (sry). You can re post if you want. Thanks for the honest comments.
Comment by lucky_irish87 — November 15, 2007 @ 9:01 am
I respectfully suggest this review is a sham. Reading the article, you get the distinct impression that this reviewer hasn’t even seen the film. He can’t recall the screenwriter (which you could easily look up on IMDB.com), he thinks Robert Redford simply acted in the film, and he doesn’t mention one single event that occurs in the film, not one plot point, not one quote.
He goes on and on about how he’s against people bad-mouthing our troops, which is outside the purview of what a reviewer should be concerned with: the plot, the acting, the production quality and so on.
He claims “(N)one of us go to the movies to watch something that drips with sarcasm… We go to the movies to forget about the horrors and frustration of the world around us.”
That’s patently absurd. If he were right, then powerful films like “Good Night and Good Luck” would never be the draws that they obviously are.
He says, “Now if the movie had been about the sacrifices that the men and women of the armed services have been doing over there to protect us…” which displays an obvious bias, as he does when he says “(The actors) did a great job acting out their characters…so when we say the movie was well …crap we aren’t blaming that on them. We’re gonna have to go with whoever came up with the storyline and blame it on him.”
He obviously doesn”t even know that Redford directed the film, and is as responsible for the “storyline” of the film as anyone.
If you’re going to review a film, try and watch the film first, otherwise, leave it for someone with an open mind, and without an agenda.
Comment by TemplarScribe — November 15, 2007 @ 10:45 am