Lions For Lambs

It's totally insulting for any thinking individual.

Politics-4-dummies is probably more sophisticated than Redford's selfimportant piece of crap.

[IN THE INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH, THE CRITIC SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE FILM, INSTEAD GIVING US HIS OPINION ON HIS PERCEPTION OF THE POLITICAL SLANT OF HOLLYWOOD PROPAGANDA, HIS OPINION ON HIS PERCEPTION OF THE POLITICAL STANCE OF THE DIRECTOR, AND CONFESSING HIS "BOREDOM" WITH CONTENT HE OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO GRASP (ELSE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMMENT ON IT). WHEN A CRITIC CAN DO NOTHING IN HIS FIRST PARAGRAPH BUT SPEW SELF-INDULGENT BULL, IT IS TIME TO STOP READING AND MOVE ON TO A CRITIQUE OF SUBSTANCE, LEST WE WASTE OUR TIME INSULTING THOSE TOO DENSE TO BE INSULTABLE.]

Frank -- You obviously have a problem with the first paragraph of a lot of our reviews... I think we should explore this. What about your childhood makes you hate movie critics that can't write a good first paragraph?

Would you like to write your own first paragraph for us? I think that in order for our writers to live up to your (currently mysterious) standards, we are going to need an example of what a good first paragraph is...

Frank, that's right. I just couldn't grasp the complexity of this film. Here's a revised first paragraph...

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Work better for ya?

Kevin Carr's review is so insultable, I find myself at the height of my insultability...Kevin should show more insultinglessness in his writing.Goodwin is the man

Brian, I'm insulted.

Kevin: Meet the new intro... same as the old intro!
But thanks for responding to my comments. You've got one thing seriously wrong, though. I don't hate the critic. I hate the review, or more specifically, the critic's failure to give any real critique, and to replace it with mindless opinion, which means nothing to me.

Perhaps you could look at my response to Nate's comments on my comments.

Thanks... Frank

Frank,

Thanks for the response. I did check out your comment on Nate's review. I can see your frustration, but I think you're failing to see that a review is exactly a person's opinion. It's not meant to analyze or even give insight into the film to extract a greater understanding. A review is meant to give the critic's opinion of the film.

I wasn't going to bog myself down with debating the strawman arguments and platitudes put forth in the film. Rather, my opinion is that it was a talky, boring mess of a film precisely because of what it was.

Also, I think it is entirely appropriate to launch a review with the political background of the film and the critic. In fact, I've been criticized for not doing that enough in a review like this. Ultimately, my big complaint was that the film was nothing but propaganda for Redford and company's liberal ideals, which I don't necessarily agree with.

Ultimatley, I think I gave a rather decent analysis of why the film fails as a movie and why it ultimately failed at the box office.

K

OK, Kevin, of course I expect you to stick to your guns. And you might remember that my original comments here just explained why I refused to read past the first paragraph, because I am looking for reviews that will give me analysis and insight about what happens on the screen. I think you're probably right that the vast majority of reviews are just giving their opinion of the film. I think all of these people are in the wrong business. They should be culinary critics. Tell me whether you like the burgers from McDongle or BurgerPrince better. Tell me how it tasted to you. Lots of people want to know. I'm just not one of them. If I did want to know about the burgers, I'd go try one myself. If you wanted to write your review for me, I'd like you to skip telling me the opinion part of your review, and focus on why you hold that opinion. Something like: I liked the movied because of the fact that Tom Cruise has a new haircut. Now tell me something about his haircut... something about why you decided you liked it. Do you see how this is different than telling me your opinion about beef flesh? You can't say anything significant about the beef, other than it tickled your palate or it didn't. With movies, you can deal with ideas. And the funny thing about this analogy is that with films, if you take the time to analyze and dig for insight, the taste of the burger actually changes, which doesn't happen in the restaurant!


So, in your vehemence at trying to convey the bitter taste this film leaves in your mouth, you actually start to touch upon the substance of the film, but as I see it, each time you get it wrong. You say the professor is trying to motivate the slacker to become an intellectual like himself. I think you didn't listen to the dialog carefully enough. Prof sees the potential in the student, and tries to help him free himself from the pervasive apathy of his slacker-generation values. He tells you point blank that doing this is what has made his career worthwhile to himself. Why should we doubt him? Or what evidence do we have that he really is recruiting for the intelligensia? What is great is the way the dialog proceeds, and there you could make some significant comments, whether you took the side of the prof or the student, instead of dismissing it all as "straw arguments and platitudes" without a single example of how you came to that conclusion. As you might have seen from my review of Elley, I think the real purpose of the whole college scene in the movie was to illustrate the decision-making process for the students who became soldiers, and that Todd Hayes, just like the audience, is really just a witness, left to make up his own mind about it all.

What I applaud is how well Redford captured the dynamic of what is going on in our culture today. I cannot for the life of me understand how people are raging about the moving being liberal propaganda. I want someone to take some scene or statement from the movie and explain what they think it means, and why. But sadly, most people, despite... or rather because of the fact that people are constantly being assaulted with news and media spin... are unable to clearly grasp the situation, so they fall back to their "party line". I thought this movie did a good job of letting people see the issue clearly... which could only help to move toward a solution. If you think Redford is putting a spin on it, point it out, referring to the film, and then you would have written a review I could read.

Last point. You cast shame on Redford ... shame, by the way, being a way of stopping the dialog... instead of engaging him on the issues. ( Funny thing, that point of view was examined in the dialog with student Hayes.) Here's a comment from a response to my review of Elley by Loukas:

There is nothing idealistic about being a professional soldier, it’s pure extortion by the state of a class-based economy and of course it affects only the underprivileged.

So, here we have someone's opinion. But what Redford did was give us "what if" picture. What if there were an American who thought that being a professional soldier could be idealistic? What would that person be like? What would they say? How would they defend their position? What would be the consequences of that decision. Once you have the example up on the screen, then you can talk about it in context.... which offers hope that in the process of examination, common sense might be forged. And you are free to make the case that the soldiers on the screen are just the victims of extortion by a class-based economy. Point out what is missing from the film, what isn't believable, what doesn't ring true. The only restiction, of course, is that you need to stick to the film. You have to work with the scenario on the screen, not whatever ideas you want to bring in for whatever ax you want to grind. How could you rewrite the scene in the college where Malley's class debates the two would-be-soldiers, exposing the extortion of the class-based economy?

So you see, far from casting shame on Redford, I applaud him for creating a work of art that engages people, and helps them get a handle on the issues important to their lives.

Thanks again.... Frank

Frank,

Did you read past the first paragraph? Also, it's okay that you don't like this guy's review, but do you really need to type in ALL CAPS to get your point across? Way to legitimze liberal stereotypes there, kiddo.