Thanks, critics!

Updated on November 5, 2007 By Ken Begg 15 Comments

I was going to skip seeing Lions for Lambs this weekend (much like nearly other American, presumably), figuring I really didn’t need to be preached at by Robert Redford.  However, that was before I saw the TV commercials.  As an announcer proclaims (that’s right) “The critics rave…” we got short review excerpts from The Movie Minute, Maxim *and* DailyKos.  Well, any film that gets respect from sources like those *must* be good.

Plus, a 36% positive rating at Rottentomatoes.com…that’s really good, right?  Even if the handful of good reviews seem to be lauding the film as a simpatico political statement rather than, you know, like as a movie or anything.  I mean, these snippits are from the positive reviews:

“In  spite of the clunky package, the film’s message really is a good one.”

“If the picture is talky and the dialogue sometimes stilted, that’s a small price to pay for a drama that attacks the American public’s diminishing sense of commitment.”

“A passionate plea for honesty, courage and standing up for what you believe in, Lions for Lambs is a powder keg of a film. It’s a film to debate and discuss.”

Thanks for making me think, critics at Culturevulture.net, Compuserve and Urban Cinefile!

Pin It



Related Posts

  • will

    Agreed. I might be more inclined to agree with some of Redford’s politics than you, but this movie looks atrocious. I don’t know why it is Hollywood hasn’t been able to make a decent political film about the Iraq War. I mean, Rendition and Lions for Lambs and the upcoming Charlie Wilson’s War (which looks just as awful)….ugh.

    In the 70’s, filmmakers were able to make decent and sometimes even great politically themed films. What’s going wrong now?

  • will

    Are my comments seriously being deleted or just disappearing randomly?

  • Hmm. None get deleted, but a certain number end up in a queue waiting for me to approve them. I’m not sure what the criteria is that triggers this, but I’ve never had one that I saw fit to block.

  • But, but it’s the most anticipated movie of the year! The commercial says so!

  • will

    woops….my comment showed up.

    Sorry. eheheh

  • I just picture a self-important dude like Redford grinding his teeth at the fact that the commercials for his Grand Opus are reduced to quoting the *cough* film critic at Maxim.

  • Andrew

    Is this one Robert Redford’s Billy Jack Goes to Washington?

  • See, now *that* I would pay to see.

  • Where there many successful movies about the Vietnam War during the Vietnam War?

  • Marty’s got a good point. So maybe the problem is that Hollywood is jumping the gun making these films in the midst of the war? Particularly if things continuing going in our direction and the war is substantially won by the time Bush leaves office, might not these films all in the future seem as one-note and foolish as The Green Berets?

  • Dan Coyle

    I’m against the war and I can’t see myself watching Redford’s opinion on it. I still have Last Castle flashbacks. Granted, that wasn’t “his” movie per se, but he obviously thought there was something in Rod Lurie’s horrific script worth salvaging.

  • BT

    It may be because the movies sucks, but I certainly think part of the reason no one wants to see the movie is because the advertising campaign blows. I’ve seen the commercial any number of times, and all I know is there there is a helicopter in it, and Tom Cruise yells a lot. Add in the fact that 3 or 4 war themed movies are coming out, and we are still fighting in Iraq, the movie had no chance unless it was going to say something really different than what you could hear nightly on Olbermann or OReilly. Apparently it doesn’t.

  • I’d say the bigger problem is that filmmakers don’t seem to know how to make a movie with a statement anymore without it turning into nothing but a series of shrill sermonizing. It doesn’t matter if that statement is political, religious, conservative, liberal, etc. They’re almost all written in such a manner nowadays as to beat the audience over the head with their message. Plus, they always have to stack the deck in favor of their message by painting those representing the opposing viewpoint as either evil or ignorant caricatures.

    The bigger problem with making Iraq War movies today is not a matter of the ultimate outcome still pending; it’s that polls show people are sick of the war and fed up with this administration’s handling of it, and yet Hollywood seems to think people are going to want to flock to movies about a war their sick of hearing done so with an “I told you so!” attitude.

  • The Foyster nails it. Subtext, people. Subtext. Let the story convey the message, and if some people miss it and just enjoy a night at the movies, live with having delivered a good film.

    That kind of thinking doesn’t win you Oscars, though.

  • The Rev. D.D.

    I don’t think Oscars have meant a damn thing for a long time; too bad more don’t agree or we might get more subtext in our films, rather than the screeching sermons we’re served up so often these days.