Meryl Streep waxes smug in "Lions for Lambs".
I'm one of the fortunate folks in Iraq who gets to take a partial day off on Tuesdays, so to pass the time I took a field trip to the Iraqi-run shops up the road. I wasn't able to locate "Redacted" (has anyone actually seen it out there in milblog land?), but I did find one of the recent anti-war films, Lions for Lambs. It should be noted that Iraqis are incredibly shrewd businessmen, and I'm probably not gonna be able to score a copy of "Redacted" since the shopkeeper felt it would slander his customer base. But Lions for Lambs was available, so I snatched it up for a couple bucks.
The rotten tomato meter is at 26%! So apparently the movie didn't fare so well stateside. It was incredibly pompous, took leaps and bounds in logic to connect the current conflict against terrorism with the war in vietnam, and reminded me of the motivation behind the folks that just won't let the 60s go. However, it did bring up some important issues in our society. The disaffected college student is a good representation of how intelligent youth are becoming only concerned with the endless parade of consumer products and celebrity gossip peddled to breed us into sheep. The reporter represents how the zeitgeist is still upset that communism never took hold in America and that all wars are pointless and just result in death. While, Robert Redford's character shows us that it's Hollywood elitists like him that know what's best for this country, and he says we're losing the war! Even Afghanistan! I don't agree with the movies message, but I do find anything that provokes thought interesting. I recommend checking it out if you have the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment