Comments on: “Lions for Lambs” about as subtle as a tank

By: Wallace

Wallace — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:37:15 +0000

I’m watching this movie last night and thought that most of you were missing the points the producer and/or director would like to make. This movie flunked big time in 2007 in the midst of the unpopular was led by incompetent president. I’m pretty sure it will do much better if it was released in 2008. Although the script appears shallow in the military operation process (No backup plan or rescue plan in place). I found the dialogue between Dr. Malley (Redford) and his students quite fascinating. Most of the critics made before mine did not provide adequate response why they disagree with Dr. Malley’s reasons given to his privileged, smart but out of touch student. In my opinion, his argument of why most of us choose popular choice over the right choice is the profound one.

I suggest that all of you watch this movie with an open mind.

By: Eric Melin

Eric Melin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:58:31 +0000

Yeah, it’s too bad he doesn’t make subtle, complicated movies like “Quiz Show” anymore. I put that on my newest Top 10 - Actors Who Direct.

By: Tammi Hawk

Tammi Hawk — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:58:23 +0000

2/3 of this movie had a chance. Streep was very good; Cruise was scarey real but his presentation sounded like the nightly reruns of the republican party; The Redford part pretty much ruined in…except closeups of that gorgeous rugged face that women my age never get tired of.

By: Scieno Rhino

Scieno Rhino — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:49:43 +0000

Hey Tom, why don’t you drop more money on L. Ron Hubbard. I’m sure he can teach you to be more creative, even though he’s pushing daisys! Obviously, you have not been taking your treatments in Clearwater!

By: simon

simon — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:11:13 +0000

This film is perhaps guilty of over simplifying the viewer’s expectations of politics, promoting the notion that a nation’s policy is necessarily driven by “righteousness”. I believe most viewers understand national policy is also about securing what’s in that nations best interests.

The way I see it, the war on terror started with muslim extremists / nationalists opposing the presence of the USA’s military forces in the Middle East. The USA then tries to engage in a conventional fight with those nations which might be harbouring the “enemy”. The film failed to address the question at the heart of the issue, which is surely: was all the death and destruction so far, really necessary and/or justified to prevent further terrorist attacks back home, while engaged in the Middle East securing reasonably priced oil?

Also is the USA really losing this war or is it indeed achieving its goals? But at what financial cost? All questions not addressed.

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:02:17 +0000

Fucking liberals.