list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Lions for Lambs on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Lions_for_Lambs/298867/default.aspx Title: Lions for Lambs
Year: 2007
Director: Robert Redford
Plot: Robert Redford directs this dramatic tale of intersecting lives that weaves together the stories of an idealistic professor's attempts to inspire a privileged student, a former student of the teacher who is wounded behind enemy lines in Afghanistan, and a congressman whose interactions with a seasoned journalist reveal much about the man behind the public persona. Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford star in a film scripted by Matthew Michael Carnahan. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 9
Number of Lists: 6
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:01:45 GMTLions for Lambs2007Robert Redford<a href="/players/P___107758/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Redford</a> directs this dramatic tale of intersecting lives that weaves together the stories of an idealistic professor's attempts to inspire a privileged student, a former student of the teacher who is wounded behind enemy lines in Afghanistan, and a congressman whose interactions with a seasoned journalist reveal much about the man behind the public persona. <a href="/players/P____86295/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Cruise</a>, <a href="/players/P____68676/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Meryl Streep</a>, and <a href="/players/P___107758/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Redford</a> star in a film scripted by Matthew Michael Carnahan. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide9Taggedy Taggged (6-10)6912http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s298867.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Lions_for_Lambs/298867/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/smithco/archive/2008/8/10/33812.aspx Post By: smithco
Post To: My Ponderings on Cinema
Post Date: 8/10/2008 1:44:04 AM
Body: Lions for Lambs starts out moderately interesting. By the end, I really wish I had turned it off after the first fifteen minutes. In the end, this was a lesson on why I should have read reviews of the film before watching it. There are some severe flaws in this movie. Firstly, the relentless left-wing grand-standing is makes it hard to stomach. The air of superiority over the Republicans completely distracts any sense of character or story telling. The film makers forgot that a movie needs to be compelling; they can't just be soap boxes. Secondly, the different plot lines have very little to do with each other. Thus, the conclusion is ultimately unsatisfying. A full movie about the journalist against the politician would have been good, a full movie about the student and the professor would have been good, or a full movie about the soldiers would have been good. But, all three unrelated plots are compressed into vignettes so shallow that I was left wondering why I should care for any of the characters or the messages being preached. Overall, it's a terrible movie and a true example of why propoganda films are so hard to make. If they can't compel me to care about the story, I won't care about the message of the story.
]]>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:44:04 GMTsmithcoMy Ponderings on Cinema8/10/2008 1:44:04 AMLions for Lambs starts out moderately interesting. By the end, I really wish I had turned it off after the first fifteen minutes. In the end, this was a lesson on why I should have read reviews of the film before watching it. There are some severe flaws in this movie. Firstly, the relentless left-wing grand-standing is makes it hard to stomach. The air of superiority over the Republicans completely distracts any sense of character or story telling. The film makers forgot that a movie needs to be compelling; they can't just be soap boxes. Secondly, the different plot lines have very little to do with each other. Thus, the conclusion is ultimately unsatisfying. A full movie about the journalist against the politician would have been good, a full movie about the student and the professor would have been good, or a full movie about the soldiers would have been good. But, all three unrelated plots are compressed into vignettes so shallow that I was left wondering why I should care for any of the characters or the messages being preached. Overall, it's a terrible movie and a true example of why propoganda films are so hard to make. If they can't compel me to care about the story, I won't care about the message of the story. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/4/17/27402.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 4/17/2008 12:01:10 PM
Body: Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:01:10 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog4/17/2008 12:01:10 PM Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/17/27401.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/17/2008 12:00:53 PM
Body: Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:53 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/17/2008 12:00:53 PM Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/warmovieblog/archive/2008/4/11/27206.aspx Post By: WarMovieBlog
Post To: WarMovieBlog Blog
Post Date: 4/11/2008 8:00:58 AM
Body: Lions For Lambs (2007) IMDB Honestly, I was somewhat dreading going into Lions For Lambs. From all the buzz I read and heard, I was expecting a wholesale administration-bashing political commentary from the Hollywood contingent on the war in Iraq.I was wrong. Well, sort of.The expected bashing of the current policies which has led us to the sorry state we are in is there, but fortunately, it isn't the overriding theme of the picture. And because of that, I actually found myself engrossed by the film.Is there a particularly complex story line? No. Lots of hardcore war movie action? Again, no. What you have here is a movie that (hopefully) will make you think, and think hard. There are three interconnected stories going on here, the first involves Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) who has invited reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) into his office to "announce" a new strategy in fighting the war on terror.The second involves two soldiers, Finch (Derek Luke) and Rodriguez (Michael Pena) who find themselves severely injured and stranded on an Afghan mountainside after falling from their Chinook. OK, well, you have to sort of accept that they'd actually survive that... but that really doesn't matter. They're part of the first mission in this "new" strategic initiative.The third, and probably the most interesting plot line of the picture involves a Political Science professor, Malley (Robert Redford) meeting with one of his students, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield.) In my opinion, this section of the film is what its all about. We also find a connection between Finch and Rodriguez to Dr. Malley.Frankly, most of the picture is just talking heads. Normally, this would make for a rather dull and uninteresting 100 minutes of screen time. Not so. It's what they are saying here that grabs your attention and actually makes you think.You see, the picture basically blames the ills of America in general, and as it relates to the war, on our own increasing apathy. Basically, we don't give a shit anymore. And you know what? They're absolutely right.We don't learn from our past mistakes, as Roth so helpfully points out to Irving. The whole "smaller groups" and "hearts and minds" thing was done before, and it didn't exactly work out so well.We don't understand what it means to have a stake in anything important. Hayes attitude towards his class, and life in general illustrates that. Malley's counter-arguments to him are just brilliant, and quite insightful.Then there are our two stranded men in uniform. They signed up after Malley's trying to dissuade them. They are the ones who have the ultimate stake in things.Sure at times things get a little preachy. Rodriguez and Finch's classroom presentation on "engagement at home" was the prime example. It somehow felt out of place, right up until they slapped their induction notices on the projector.Basically there is no set beginning, middle, and end to the story. There isn't really a "story" to speak of. This is a philosophical journey, and by the end of it you should be thinking about everything put in front of you. I know I was.Lions For Lambs has its weak moments, but overall I found it involving on an intellectual level you don't get from the traditional war movie.Technorati Tags: lions for lambs, dvd, 2007, iraq, policy, politics, tom cruise, meryl streep, robert redford, andrew garfield, michael pena, derek luke Lions For Lambs (2007) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News
]]>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:00:58 GMTWarMovieBlogWarMovieBlog Blog4/11/2008 8:00:58 AMLions For Lambs (2007) IMDB Honestly, I was somewhat dreading going into Lions For Lambs. From all the buzz I read and heard, I was expecting a wholesale administration-bashing political commentary from the Hollywood contingent on the war in Iraq.I was wrong. Well, sort of.The expected bashing of the current policies which has led us to the sorry state we are in is there, but fortunately, it isn't the overriding theme of the picture. And because of that, I actually found myself engrossed by the film.Is there a particularly complex story line? No. Lots of hardcore war movie action? Again, no. What you have here is a movie that (hopefully) will make you think, and think hard. There are three interconnected stories going on here, the first involves Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) who has invited reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) into his office to "announce" a new strategy in fighting the war on terror.The second involves two soldiers, Finch (Derek Luke) and Rodriguez (Michael Pena) who find themselves severely injured and stranded on an Afghan mountainside after falling from their Chinook. OK, well, you have to sort of accept that they'd actually survive that... but that really doesn't matter. They're part of the first mission in this "new" strategic initiative.The third, and probably the most interesting plot line of the picture involves a Political Science professor, Malley (Robert Redford) meeting with one of his students, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield.) In my opinion, this section of the film is what its all about. We also find a connection between Finch and Rodriguez to Dr. Malley.Frankly, most of the picture is just talking heads. Normally, this would make for a rather dull and uninteresting 100 minutes of screen time. Not so. It's what they are saying here that grabs your attention and actually makes you think.You see, the picture basically blames the ills of America in general, and as it relates to the war, on our own increasing apathy. Basically, we don't give a shit anymore. And you know what? They're absolutely right.We don't learn from our past mistakes, as Roth so helpfully points out to Irving. The whole "smaller groups" and "hearts and minds" thing was done before, and it didn't exactly work out so well.We don't understand what it means to have a stake in anything important. Hayes attitude towards his class, and life in general illustrates that. Malley's counter-arguments to him are just brilliant, and quite insightful.Then there are our two stranded men in uniform. They signed up after Malley's trying to dissuade them. They are the ones who have the ultimate stake in things.Sure at times things get a little preachy. Rodriguez and Finch's classroom presentation on "engagement at home" was the prime example. It somehow felt out of place, right up until they slapped their induction notices on the projector.Basically there is no set beginning, middle, and end to the story. There isn't really a "story" to speak of. This is a philosophical journey, and by the end of it you should be thinking about everything put in front of you. I know I was.Lions For Lambs has its weak moments, but overall I found it involving on an intellectual level you don't get from the traditional war movie.Technorati Tags: lions for lambs, dvd, 2007, iraq, policy, politics, tom cruise, meryl streep, robert redford, andrew garfield, michael pena, derek luke Lions For Lambs (2007) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News http://www.spout.com/blogs/laraemeadows/archive/2007/11/9/21555.aspx Post By: laraemeadows
Post To: laraemeadows Blog
Post Date: 11/9/2007 12:37:30 PM
Body: Lions for Lambs examines the consequences of American apathy, fear mongering, and willful, mindless submission to the drum beat laid out by those whose only tool for change is the hammer of war. While the themes are timely and meaningful, Lions for Lambs lacks resonance to make a stabbing point about our current military, political and media situation or poignant enough to make a more historical point about dispassion by citizens. Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) calls reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), to take an entire hour to explain his new plan for winning the war in Afghanistan. Timidly and politely, Roth tries not to repeat her personal mistake when covering the run up to the Iraq War. The soldiers involved in the new plan, Earnest Rodriquez (Michael Peña) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are confronted by unexpected danger and left on a freezing mountain with only each other. Earnest and Arian’s former college professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) tries to motivate his underachieving student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) by recounting his experience with the two hard working students turned soldiers. All of the performances in Lions for Lambs can be explained in one simple word, fine. There is nothing shameful about their performances but none of the actors rocked my socks either. I was disappointed that such a powerful cast could produce such a lackluster, uninspired performance resting just on the edge of downright dull. Cruise, Streep, Peña, Luke, Garfield and Redford seem to be a reasonable effort to their characters but there is a distinct lack of depth and strength to the writing. Lions for Lambs is a question from writer Mathew Michael Carnahan to the audience; will you stand up for what you believe, give what you can, or will you tune out and make excuses for why you can’t? Carnahan asks an important question, one we all would be wise to answer. What Carnahan didn’t do is require an answer by stabbing the question into our conscience with a hot poker and searing it into our brains. Carnahan’s attempts to sway the minds of those people unswayed seems more apt to reinforce the minds of those who already agree with his opinion. There is a lack of grey area that may be a relatable character for those persons who don’t already agree with him. In many ways it felt like an atheist trying to talk an evangelical out of their religion by saying, “Duh, stupid, there is no god.” I am personally troubled by the lack of interest in important things, ignored by a well fed and well entertained society. It is a question that Hollywood is perfectly suited to pose. Lions for Lambs whispers the question to people who aren’t listening and in the end, affects nothing.
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:37:30 GMTlaraemeadowslaraemeadows Blog11/9/2007 12:37:30 PMLions for Lambs examines the consequences of American apathy, fear mongering, and willful, mindless submission to the drum beat laid out by those whose only tool for change is the hammer of war. While the themes are timely and meaningful, Lions for Lambs lacks resonance to make a stabbing point about our current military, political and media situation or poignant enough to make a more historical point about dispassion by citizens. Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) calls reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), to take an entire hour to explain his new plan for winning the war in Afghanistan. Timidly and politely, Roth tries not to repeat her personal mistake when covering the run up to the Iraq War. The soldiers involved in the new plan, Earnest Rodriquez (Michael Pe&ntilde;a) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are confronted by unexpected danger and left on a freezing mountain with only each other. Earnest and Arian&rsquo;s former college professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) tries to motivate his underachieving student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) by recounting his experience with the two hard working students turned soldiers. All of the performances in Lions for Lambs can be explained in one simple word, fine. There is nothing shameful about their performances but none of the actors rocked my socks either. I was disappointed that such a powerful cast could produce such a lackluster, uninspired performance resting just on the edge of downright dull. Cruise, Streep, Pe&ntilde;a, Luke, Garfield and Redford seem to be a reasonable effort to their characters but there is a distinct lack of depth and strength to the writing. Lions for Lambs is a question from writer Mathew Michael Carnahan to the audience; will you stand up for what you believe, give what you can, or will you tune out and make excuses for why you can&rsquo;t? Carnahan asks an important question, one we all would be wise to answer. What Carnahan didn&rsquo;t do is require an answer by stabbing the question into our conscience with a hot poker and searing it into our brains. Carnahan&rsquo;s attempts to sway the minds of those people unswayed seems more apt to reinforce the minds of those who already agree with his opinion. There is a lack of grey area that may be a relatable character for those persons who don&rsquo;t already agree with him. In many ways it felt like an atheist trying to talk an evangelical out of their religion by saying, &ldquo;Duh, stupid, there is no god.&rdquo; I am personally troubled by the lack of interest in important things, ignored by a well fed and well entertained society. It is a question that Hollywood is perfectly suited to pose. Lions for Lambs whispers the question to people who aren&rsquo;t listening and in the end, affects nothing. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/9/21550.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/9/2007 10:01:32 AM
Body: As political polemic and as entertainment, Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs is mostly unsuccessful, but as a statement of purpose on behalf of its co-star and executive producer, Tom Cruise, it’s mildly fascinating. Through sheer force of star power, Cruise manages to temporarily hijack this lumpy lecture, and turn it into a battle cry against the corporate media that both built and destroyed him. You probably don???t need to be reminded that Cruise has had a rough couple of years, culminating in the announcement in November 2006 that he and long-time producing partner Paula Wagner had signed a deal to resurrect MGM???s dormant United Artists. Some saw this as a savvy move for both Cruise and MGM: disappointing box office on Mission Impossible: 3 aside, there???s still no one on the planet with Cruise???s international name-and-face recognition, and as he proved with War of the Worlds, which made $65 million in its first weekend just a scant month after the couch jumping incident, the guy can open the right project regardless of what???s going on in his personal life. But skeptics (myself included) wondered if MGM was just throwing Cruise a bone???if they weren???t doing anything with UA anyway, was handing the brand over really a sure sign of confidence? The guy had???has–something to prove. With his career at the crossroads, the choice of Lions For Lambs as the vehicle to drive him over the hump is not an immediately logical one. It???s worth noting that Cruise didn???t go looking for politically relevant story to tell???Redford signed on to direct the script, and then called Cruise, looking to cast him. And I may get permanently disinvited from Sundance for saying this, but I???m not sure if Redford fully knew what he was getting into. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:01:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/9/2007 10:01:32 AMAs political polemic and as entertainment, Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs is mostly unsuccessful, but as a statement of purpose on behalf of its co-star and executive producer, Tom Cruise, it’s mildly fascinating. Through sheer force of star power, Cruise manages to temporarily hijack this lumpy lecture, and turn it into a battle cry against the corporate media that both built and destroyed him. You probably don???t need to be reminded that Cruise has had a rough couple of years, culminating in the announcement in November 2006 that he and long-time producing partner Paula Wagner had signed a deal to resurrect MGM???s dormant United Artists. Some saw this as a savvy move for both Cruise and MGM: disappointing box office on Mission Impossible: 3 aside, there???s still no one on the planet with Cruise???s international name-and-face recognition, and as he proved with War of the Worlds, which made $65 million in its first weekend just a scant month after the couch jumping incident, the guy can open the right project regardless of what???s going on in his personal life. But skeptics (myself included) wondered if MGM was just throwing Cruise a bone???if they weren???t doing anything with UA anyway, was handing the brand over really a sure sign of confidence? The guy had???has–something to prove. With his career at the crossroads, the choice of Lions For Lambs as the vehicle to drive him over the hump is not an immediately logical one. It???s worth noting that Cruise didn???t go looking for politically relevant story to tell???Redford signed on to direct the script, and then called Cruise, looking to cast him. And I may get permanently disinvited from Sundance for saying this, but I???m not sure if Redford fully knew what he was getting into. (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/9/21548.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/9/2007 8:00:54 AM
Body: Tom Cruise’s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture’s progress or lack there of? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/9/2007 8:00:54 AMTom Cruise’s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture’s progress or lack there of? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/FilmCouch/FilmCouch_45_Tom_Cruise/302/21537/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: FilmCouch
Post Date: 11/8/2007 7:12:36 PM
Body: Tom Cruise's tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:12:36 GMTpaulFilmCouch11/8/2007 7:12:36 PMTom Cruise&#39;s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky http://www.spout.com/blogs/lopezdash/archive/2007/11/8/21527.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: The Movie Blog
Post Date: 11/8/2007 12:46:47 PM
Body: Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts over at the Washington Post are reporting that the Washington premiere of Lions for Lambs was a veritable who's who of Hollywood and DC insiders. In addition to stars Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and his wife Katie Holmes, DC insiders in attendance included "Dan Snyder, Madeleine Albright, Ted Leonsis, Lynda carter, George Stephanopoulos, David Gregory and a bunch of congressfolk..." events I'm very much looking forward to "Lions for Lambs" and am intrigued by the way Hollywood is interfacing with (and portraying) a post-9/11 world. For many years following the attacks, references to 9/11 or to terrorism were simply not allowed and did not appear in mainstream US cinema. The past couple of years (particularly since the release of World Trade Center and United 93) have seen a growing interest in film that is critical of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. My theory on this, and please tell me what you think, is that, WTC and United 93 provided the cinematic closure (the type of catharsis that is inherent in the moviegoing experience) that the American people needed before we could move beyond (but never forget) those events. In a way, reliving the tragedy restored the ability to question the decisions made in response to it. Recent films that touch on the post-9/11world relative to US foreign policy include Syriana, The Kingdom, No End In Sight, and Vantage Point.
]]>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:46:47 GMTlopezdashThe Movie Blog11/8/2007 12:46:47 PMAmy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts over at the Washington Post are reporting that the Washington premiere of Lions for Lambs was a veritable who&#39;s who of Hollywood and DC insiders. In addition to stars Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and his wife Katie Holmes, DC insiders in attendance included &quot;Dan Snyder, Madeleine Albright, Ted Leonsis, Lynda carter, George Stephanopoulos, David Gregory and a bunch of congressfolk...&quot; events I&#39;m very much looking forward to &quot;Lions for Lambs&quot; and am intrigued by the way Hollywood is interfacing with (and portraying) a post-9/11 world. For many years following the attacks, references to 9/11 or to terrorism were simply not allowed and did not appear in mainstream US cinema. The past couple of years (particularly since the release of World Trade Center and United 93) have seen a growing interest in film that is critical of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. My theory on this, and please tell me what you think, is that, WTC and United 93 provided the cinematic closure (the type of catharsis that is inherent in the moviegoing experience) that the American people needed before we could move beyond (but never forget) those events. In a way, reliving the tragedy restored the ability to question the decisions made in response to it. Recent films that touch on the post-9/11world relative to US foreign policy include Syriana, The Kingdom, No End In Sight, and Vantage Point. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/10/24/21130.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/24/2007 9:01:49 AM
Body: While Tom Cruise continued to abstain from publicizing his own politics on the Lions For Lambs press tour, the film’s director and co-star Robert Redford “lash[ed] out against the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” at a press conference in Rome yesterday. “We have lost lives, we’ve lost sacred freedoms, we’ve lost financial stability; we’ve lost our position of respect on the world stage,” said the sometime Sundance Kid. “The world’s first user-generated movie” begins shooting this week in London. MySpace users picked the director and some of the stars; Ewan Bremner’s in it, too. Be very afraid. I’m not sure exactly what “two-way plug-and-play technology” entails, but the MPAA thinks it puts their copyrights at risk, and they want the FCC to ban consumer electronics manufacturers from making and selling it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog's blog
]]>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:01:49 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/24/2007 9:01:49 AM While Tom Cruise continued to abstain from publicizing his own politics on the Lions For Lambs press tour, the film’s director and co-star Robert Redford “lash[ed] out against the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” at a press conference in Rome yesterday. “We have lost lives, we’ve lost sacred freedoms, we’ve lost financial stability; we’ve lost our position of respect on the world stage,” said the sometime Sundance Kid. “The world’s first user-generated movie” begins shooting this week in London. MySpace users picked the director and some of the stars; Ewan Bremner’s in it, too. Be very afraid. I’m not sure exactly what “two-way plug-and-play technology” entails, but the MPAA thinks it puts their copyrights at risk, and they want the FCC to ban consumer electronics manufacturers from making and selling it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog's blog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 201

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 247

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT20174247Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrorism/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrorism
Number of films tagged: 981

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:04:22 GMT98149117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journalism/MemberTagFilms.aspxjournalism
Number of films tagged: 1146

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 65

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT11464165Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/professor/MemberTagFilms.aspxprofessor
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 39

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:14 GMT7422239Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politician/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitician
Number of films tagged: 1569

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT15691425Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/afghanistan/MemberTagFilms.aspxafghanistan
Number of films tagged: 105

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:03:25 GMT105817Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/congress/MemberTagFilms.aspxcongress
Number of films tagged: 69

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:07:31 GMT69517Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/propoganda/MemberTagFilms.aspxpropoganda
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 7

]]>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:40:29 GMT747Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/INTELLECTUALLY-STIMULATING/MemberTagFilms.aspxINTELLECTUALLY-STIMULATING
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:57:21 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/international-relations/MemberTagFilms.aspxinternational-relations
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 58

]]>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:05:56 GMT58158Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tomcruiseistomcruisecrazy/MemberTagFilms.aspxtomcruiseistomcruisecrazy
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:46:31 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/waronterrorism/MemberTagFilms.aspxwaronterrorism
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:02:21 GMT7400Tag