I do not understand why this movie was panned by critics. Have their standards gone too low that they cannot appreciate a movie that challenges their mind-set? Let me see, “No Country For Old Men” got five stars from nearly all the critics (not to mention vigorous Academy nods) and it was almost sticky with all the blood from Javier Bardem’s killing spree - oh I liked it at first, but the ending blows. ”Lions for Lambs” however, got two measly stars from Ebert, and not even a single one from Roeper (who gave Miami Vice, four friggin’ stars) ??!! I have such high regard for critics that my mind is having a hard time wrapping itself around the idea that they’ve gone mainstream on me. To base your criticism of a certain movie, on non-conformity to formulaic scripts, just isn’t fair.
Of all people, I have no problem with fast-paced action, sharp comedy, or eye candy in movies. Matter of fact, I’m still dreaming about Ryan Reynolds in “Definitely Maybe”. But while I appreciate the fact that, one goes to the movies periodically, to get entertained, (heck, escapism is my mantra too…sometimes) you cannot obviate the need to confront unpleasant truths and be forced to rethink popular opinions at one point or another even in a venue such as film. So for the longest time, I put off renting this film, thinking it might be too boring or preachy, and besides (disappointing) titles like “National Treasure 2″, “In Bruges”, and “Cloverfield” got in the way. I’m glad there is a long queue to “Jumper” and that “Bank Job” is not yet available, which made this next on my queue. Having braced myself for a snore fest, I was pleasantly surprised to find myself riveted from start to finish. The only reason I gave this 4 stars was Tom Cruise (how do I put this…was too pretty for the film?) and the fact that they killed off the two soldier guys. I know, I know…the realities of war…(*sigh*)
For clarification purposes, I am not, nor will I probably ever be, an intellectual. Puhleez. I can’t even maintain a steady, consistent argument with my husband, without all my points being butchered one by one. But see, you don’t have to be of the cerebral persuasion to understand this film! All the points to be made are right there, staring you in the face! It’s a very scathing commentary on everything about the ongoing war, the apathy about it, and pummels both liberal and conservative arguments while raising valid points from each side. I didn’t care for the ending, but for once, the ending didn’t matter at all. The meat of the film was the discourse between Redford and his student, and Cruise with Streep.
I cannot say that this is an eye-opener. Most of the statements are not mind blowing, true, but they are jarring because (in the words of Chandler Bing) they are “smack dab in the middle of the truth!”
So apt, for example, you’d be hard put to come up with a more appropriate monicker for leaders like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld than “lambs” and the armed forces, “lions”.
12 July 2008 at 9:16
We loved this movie too! Hinantay ko sa netflix coz of the bad reviews and we were surprised at that. Of course we thought maybe we were biased because it is a little too personal for us…well D more. I guess in the age of reality TV people (here) are not used to thinking anymore. So saddd…I loved Charlie Wilson’s War too. I have not seen No country but I’ve seen There will Be Blood…I didnt think it was all that but Daniel Day Lewis did deserve that Oscar…as always the guy can really act.
14 July 2008 at 14:31
i also have this on my netflix queue (aha naunahan kita sa jumper!). will move it up, mapanood na nga. i’ve been putting it off because of the nega reviews too.
di kaya yung mga critics, pine-personal si tom?
15 July 2008 at 3:34
baka nga pinagtripan si tom cruise. wawa naman. although his performance was ok. i still think he was too pretty to be in that role. tsk tsk tsk…although i can’t think of anyone ideally suited (at the moment)