I don't think Seminole was even expressing his own opinion, but that of most of the reviewers. Rotten Tomatoes has it at a dismal 26%, and words like "inert", "pontifical", "hubristic", and "flat" are sprinkled through some really bad reviews. As one reviewer who obviously wanted to love it said, "I agree with the politics, but the presentation is robotic, blinkered, idiotic, alien.."
You have to work to find a good review, but there are a couple.
But even they admit that the work has real problems.
...the movie consists mostly of people sitting around rooms, usually two at a time, debating the conflict in Afghanistan, the quagmire of Iraq, the arrogance (or is it stay-the-course courage?) of war-on-terror politicians, the superficiality (or is it muzzling?) of the press, and the complacency of everyone else.
Are we having fun yet? Lions for Lambs may be the first movie that feels as if it should have a credit that reads, 'Based on an episode of The Charlie Rose Show.' The tiny scale and armchair talkiness mark the movie as a bit of a folly, an act of idealistic hubris in today's commercial marketplace, yet that's its (minor) fascination too.
ANd that was a positive review!
It's disappointing because these are fine actors, and we were looking forward to seeing them, but I can't stand being talked AT. Michael Moore at least entertains.
I want to rent "Iris", which I haven't yet seen. Just finished reading Iris and Her Friends, the second book by her husband, John Bayley, about her illness. This wasn't really about Iris, but more about him as she declined with her Alzheimers. He is a brilliant man and writer--and a very odd person. The book is painfully honest, though, and every page has a literary quote or allusion. |
