Heavy Times Call for Happy Movies

A few weeks ago our man Dre had some harsh words for the people of America about how we are shunning serious movies in lieu of fanciful ones. My retort? So what? Yeah, we're shunning serious movies. And while many of the ones Dre listed failed for reasons other than being serious (i.e., they were total crap), there is a definite upturn of the nose by audiences against solid, entertaining, serious fare. Like last weekend's Lions For Lambs. Why?We're tired. We're sick to death. We just don't want to hear it anymore. Is there anyone left in this country who thinks war is a good thing? Is there anyone who is glad that we're at war? Is there anyone still itching to hear more about it? No. Not at all. There are very few people left still enamored with the President and even fewer satisfied with his opposition in Congress. And if there's a truly worthy person ready to take his job and inspire us all out of our slump on either side of the aisle, I sure haven't seen him or her yet. No matter what side of the fence you sit on, we can all agree on one thing: we're tired of all the yelling. We're sick of all the bickering. And when we go to the movies we don't want someone to give us something else to have to worry about.

We want fantasy. We want explosions. We want teen sex comedies with a heavy emphasis on the teen, the sex and especially the comedy. We want to watch a giant robot blow up a building and we want to see it from 13 different angles. We want to watch John Cusack fall in love with the girl next door that he hasn't seen in 20 years over and over and over again until he gets it right. We want Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to break out in an unending string of jokes about their private parts and what they want to do with them. And we want all of that to come with a side of fries and a big old heaping helping of happy ending.

So what in the hell is wrong with that?

I want you to do me a favor. Next time you're wondering aloud why the box office is in a slump and why audiences are staying away from the cinema, ask yourself this: are the endings happy? Are the movies designed to entertain rather than preach? Are the audiences seeing the films walking out with smiles on their faces? These are not happy times. Heavy, thoughtful movies are great for happy times. These are heavy times. Give us something happy and don't begrudge us the need for a pick-me-up when we're laying down a ten spot at the box office. You don't tell a depressed person about Africa. You buy them a puppy. So what's really wrong with the cinematic version of that?

Source: www.cinema-pedia.com

Tom Cruise vs. Vince Vaughn: Who Ya Got?

Once again, it's a weekend battle of head-to-head stars. This week we have two more heavy hitters doing battle in slightly different films than they’re used to. In this corner we've got Tom Cruise in the Robert Redford helmed Lions For Lambs. Opposite him in the fur trimmed red trunks is Vince Vaughn in Fred Claus. You know the rules. Let's drop the cage. Two men enter! One man leaves!In the box office this weekend: Winner = Vaughn
The box office has been a family wasteland for far too long. Anything branded family is cleaning up whole hog. And with everything going wrong these days everyone is looking for a pick-me-up. I expect families will run to this like they were giving out free iPhones in the lobby. Lions For Lambs, on the other hand, is a political drama and political dramas are tanking. This one isn't even going to be close.

In the critical arena: Winner = Cruise
On his worst day Cruise is still one of the best actors working today. And here he is far from his worst days. In fact, this is his best performance since Magnolia, which garnered him an Oscar nod. Vaughn, on the other hand, has been in a string of lowbrow comedies. And despite the fact that people love him, critics are dreading this. They're waiting for an excuse to open up on Vaughn, even if it isn't deserved. Cruise is gonna come out on top this week.

In their careers: Winner = Cruise
Vince is an awesome guy. He's got several hits under his belt. And he dated Jennifer Aniston. Lets face it, he's one of life's winners. But he's never hit Cruise's level of fame. Fortunately for him he never has to worry about Cruise's level of infamy either. I mean, honestly, can anyone name Vaughn's religion? No. But everyone has something to say about Cruise's. I still give points to Cruise: Kubrick film, Oscar nod, married Nicole back when she was famous, then married Katie Holmes. Oh, and like a billion hit films. Cruise IS a life winner.

In a fight: Winner = Vaughn
This one is actually close. Cruise is in tip-top physical shape and highly trained in the art of combat. But Vaughn is gigantic. He's like the abominable snowman if the abominable snowman had a five o'clock shadow and a good buzz. And I've seen Vince after a few drinks. The man looks like he could get hit by a Buick and shake it off. Given access to at least a minibar, the advantage goes to Vaughn.

Winner = Tie
I'm actually awarding a tie this week. I have a feeling neither film is destined to be a classic, but both men will continue rolling forward in their careers. Two titans will have collided, been evenly matched, and then will wander off back into Hollywood. Kind of like a Godzilla movie.

Source: www.cinema-pedia.com

Review: Lions for Lambs Lacks Roar

"Lions for Lambs," the preachy, star-driven first release of United Artists under Tom Cruise and producing partner Paula Wagner's management, seems to ask every question imaginable about the war on terrorism while offering not a hint of answers.

No one will ever look back decades from now and say "Lions for Lambs" was even remotely a definitive film about the war on terror. Yet there's a certain nobility in the willingness of stars such as Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep to throw themselves on a grenade for what critics might characterize as prattling pedantry or even political egoism.

The movie works here and there and is quite moving in a few places. At other times, it's a dry discourse on who, why and how we're fighting, and what good, if any, may come of it.

At its worst, "Lions for Lambs" is a cheerleading session, not necessarily to take up THE fight, but to take up A fight. Much of the movie plays like a civics lesson, the characters and situations manipulatively constructed to demand of viewers, "Do your duty."

The structure three interlocked stories taking place simultaneously in Washington, California and Afghanistan screams convolution, even contortion, given how relatively short the movie is.

Yet director Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan, who also penned the more conventional terrorism tale "The Kingdom" keep everything so simple and on the surface that "Lions for Lambs" flows easily, if not all that artfully.

In the Capitol, conservative Sen. Jasper Irving (Cruise), a potential presidential aspirant, has summoned fatigued and cynical TV reporter Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to leak news of a bold new strategy in the war in Afghanistan.

At an anonymous California university, history professor Malley (Redford) has summoned a whip-smart but apathetic student (Andrew Garfield) to his office to bully the youth into using his talents for the greater good.

In Afghanistan, two of Malley's favorite former students Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena), who deeply disappointed their mentor by enlisting find themselves in enemy crossfire resulting from the battle plan concocted by Irving.

The movie flits, at times clunkily, among the three settings, which could be said to loosely correspond to the heart (Arian and Ernest's story), the head (Malley's tale) and the guts (Irving and Roth's scenario) of the terrorism debate.

Some will find the stagy, talky premise excruciating and pretentious, and the movie shoves an obvious and heavy-handed metaphor troops seizing the high ground in Afghanistan's mountains down viewer's throats.

Still, sporadically crisp and clever dialogue, along with the earnestness of the performances, particularly Streep's, Luke's and Pena's, make "Lions for Lambs" infectiously involving at times, like overhearing a smart and impassioned debate at the next table.

(Wounded on a mountaintop for most of "Lions for Lambs," Pena finds himself in the odd position of playing one-half of a mostly immobile duo for the second time in a terrorism tale, following last year's "World Trade Center").

More lamb than lion, the movie's a lightweight in the pantheon of United Artists films, which include studio co-founder Charles Chaplin's "City Lights" and "Modern Times," Cruise's "Rain Man," and such classics as "12 Angry Men," "Fiddler on the Roof," "Annie Hall" and "Rocky."

But as ideological dramas go, it's a huge step up from, say, Sylvester Stallone draped in an American flag for "Rocky IV."

"Lions for Lambs," released by MGM's United Artists banner, is rated R for some war violence and language. Running time: 90 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.

Source: www.cinema-pedia.com

Redford's New Film Shown at Rome Fest

Robert Redford hopes his new film, "Lions for Lambs," about U.S. military action in Afghanistan will encourage American youth to "take command of their voice."

In the United States, "we have lost lives, we have lost sacred freedoms, we have lost financial stability, we have lost our position of respect on the world stage," the Oscar-winning filmmaker told a news conference Tuesday.

"I can only speak for my own country, I cannot speak for other countries but I assume it is similar in some countries," Redford, 70, said. "But the future is going to belong to young people and young people have to take command of their voice."

"Lions for Lambs," which follows six individuals over the course of an hour, is being shown out of competition at the Rome Film Festival.

In the movie, directed and starring Redford, two U.S. soldiers from the military's Special Forces are on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan. Meryl Streep plays a hard-bitten journalist who discusses the operation and U.S. government policy with a prominent U.S. senator, played by Tom Cruise. Redford is an aging, idealistic professor who meets with a bright, cynical student.

The war on terrorism saga also explores the issue of media freedom versus political power as Streep's character engages in edgy intellectual parrying with Cruise's senator.

Cruise said the movie "really ignited a huge flame and a lot of dialogue" at screenings at U.S. colleges, "which is what I think is what this kind of film should do."

"Are (American youth) going to become politically active or are they going to move away from it because they are disgusted, they are disillusioned and they don't respect it because there is no morality in leadership so therefore they just move away to other things," Redford said. "If that happens we may have a continuation of what we have had."

"Lions for Lambs" will be in U.S. theaters Nov. 9.

Source: www.cinema-pedia.com