Anybody seen "Lions for Lambs"? Honest Review...

[Limelight]

Want to see the movie, but interestingly I check the User/Critic reviews on Yahoo everyone slammed the thing. I thought about saying forget it until I read a few of the User Reviews..

http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/drv?mid=1809826835&s=&ys=o3Maf_nJb.yby4WokDDJfw--

You notice how so many of them say the same thing? I expected to see "preachy" and "talky" as most Americans ask for things of substance, but are too stupid to appreciate them when they arrive. But I kept seeing "Unamerican" and "left wing agenda" and all this other crap in there. I suddenly started thinking maybe these weren't written by real people that saw the movie, but by every jackass on Free Republic they could coax into going on there and putting up these schlock reviews.

Anybody who's actually seen the movie please let me know if it's worth the time and money to see it?

[livetohike]

1. Just saw it last night

Yes it was worth the time (only 1.5 hours long) and it was worth the money.

If you don't leave there energized to help get us out of this mess, then you weren't paying attention. Redford could be "preaching to the choir", but I thought it was a balanced view and the writer did an excellent job. All of the acting was great, imo.

[Warpy]

2. I saw the same trend at Rotten Tomatoes

and will wait for some first tier reviewers to weigh in.

The thing that seemed to annoy them the most was the amount of dialogue. The top tier reviewers will be able to tell the difference between actors spewing speeches at each other and real dialogue. I will await their opinions.

In the meantime, I can see why juveniles who have experienced most movies as special effects strung together with a weak storyline and minimal dialogue would be completely flummoxed by a movie where characters actually talk.

[Sal Minella]

3. BBC Story/Review/Article

BBC article about the movie --

"Do you want to win the war on terror? Yes or no?" asks Cruise. "This is the quintessential question of our time - yes or no." How and why we got there is not the issue, he says. "We have to move forward... do whatever it takes."

It reminded me of a long summer when Tony Blair dismissed almost every question about a potential war in Iraq by stating that it was "neither imminent nor inevitable". It was soon so "imminent and inevitable" that to question it seemed unfair on the British soldiers preparing for it in the Kuwaiti dessert.

Awkward questions about the lack of weapons of mass destruction were similarly avoided until sufficient time had passed to dismiss them as missing the point.
...
"They bank on your apathy," he (Redford as as the Professor) says. "They plan strategies around it. The problem is not with the people who started this, the problem is with us who do nothing to stop it." ...for Cruise this is a very different genre - more Mission Questionable than Mission Impossible. And that suggests a mounting anxiety among Americans about their war on terror.
...
Lions for Lambs is on general release in the UK.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/7088403.stm

Published: 2007/11/10 09:17:03 GMT

© BBC MMVII