Drama | Thriller | War - 8 November 2007 (Russia)
Director: Robert Redford
Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan
Stars: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford
Director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan tell us about the War on Terror in three parts: a meeting between a college professor (Redford) and his star pupil (Andrew Garfield); a Time Magazine reporter (Meryl Streep) interviewing a gung-ho GOP senator (Tom Cruise); and two soldiers (Michael Peña, Derek Luke) trapped behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. So, the separation of settings is quite clear - the classroom, the battlefield, and the oval office. The story lines are tenuously strung together; the connection is thematic,but not so dramatic, as I wished. The film tries to make a statement — or perhaps a series of statements — about war, the current political climate and the world in general.
Lions for Lambs provides a more debate about the wars we’re in ( The World ) and may soon be in.
Because the edge of a border peace between different countries around the world has pretty clear boundaries and limits - and you shouldn't have a purpose to disturb them. The trio of all-star actors is real good, and so we can see a great number of different negatives reviews, but I should say, that there is no bad actors play ( especially for such people), there is a chance in an uncertain transfer of unconfirmed information. It's always very difficult to go in front of the main view, you can always find a flurry of criticism.
Lions for Lambs is a good movie made by smart people ( I'm very confident in this thought) who probably believe their film can honestly make a difference or start a dialogue, but the truth is - this film is an unsuccessful product with the expiry date of 3 or maybe 4 years. So, I can't say, that I like or dislike such film, because it's very inconvenient to hang out in the hole of Time.
Director: Robert Redford
Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan
Stars: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford
Director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan tell us about the War on Terror in three parts: a meeting between a college professor (Redford) and his star pupil (Andrew Garfield); a Time Magazine reporter (Meryl Streep) interviewing a gung-ho GOP senator (Tom Cruise); and two soldiers (Michael Peña, Derek Luke) trapped behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. So, the separation of settings is quite clear - the classroom, the battlefield, and the oval office. The story lines are tenuously strung together; the connection is thematic,but not so dramatic, as I wished. The film tries to make a statement — or perhaps a series of statements — about war, the current political climate and the world in general.
Lions for Lambs provides a more debate about the wars we’re in ( The World ) and may soon be in.
Because the edge of a border peace between different countries around the world has pretty clear boundaries and limits - and you shouldn't have a purpose to disturb them. The trio of all-star actors is real good, and so we can see a great number of different negatives reviews, but I should say, that there is no bad actors play ( especially for such people), there is a chance in an uncertain transfer of unconfirmed information. It's always very difficult to go in front of the main view, you can always find a flurry of criticism.
Lions for Lambs is a good movie made by smart people ( I'm very confident in this thought) who probably believe their film can honestly make a difference or start a dialogue, but the truth is - this film is an unsuccessful product with the expiry date of 3 or maybe 4 years. So, I can't say, that I like or dislike such film, because it's very inconvenient to hang out in the hole of Time.
Andrew, I am a bit confused about your review. I feel that most of it is not done by you.
ОтветитьУдалитьYou are to redo the task and use the plan suggested rather than do it freestyle.