Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I can fix that." (It would have been nice if Ice Cube was referring to the screenplay...unfortunately he's not)

Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood sees a profit in them they will continue to roll out these types of appalling, strictly by-the-numbers children's flicks. When it comes to this genre quality is never the concern. It's the money. They hire the cheapest cast and crew they can and supply a reasonably small budget. Filtering little money into the film means that they'll easily return a large profit at the box office, even more easily returning its original budget.

This inevitable sequel to the inexcusably dismal 2005 film Are We There Yet? is just as bad as its predecessor, if not even worse. Ice Cube continues to dig a bigger hole for the corpse of his career by starring in films like these.

After the events of the first film we once again follow Nick Persons (Cube) who is now married to Suzanne (Long) and is now the stepfather of Suzanne's kids. The four of them are living in Nick's small condo that can barely accommodate them all. After Suzanne falls pregnant they soon decide that a bigger house is necessary to support the growing family. While looking for a house they meet wacky realtor/contractor/building inspector/policeman Chuck (McGinley) who convinces Nick to buy a big luxurious house that he can barely afford. Predictably, trouble strikes in the form of termites, dry rot, loss of electricity, falling through floors, and so on.

This then begins the film's journey down into the world of conventional storytelling that we've seen before as things go from bad to worse. It's a bunch of unfunny slapstick gags strung together as a sequel to an already appalling movie.

All the gags and pratfalls are easily predictable several minutes before they occur. I mean who would have predicted that Ice Cube would begin falling through collapsing walls and floors...? Aside from that it's also predictable that he will get struck by lightning, fall from ladders and get attacked by a cavalcade of different animals. And then of course the trademark cherry on top: Suzanne begins to go into labour at an awkward and inconvenient moment.

What's more - it's a credited remake of the 1948 movie Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (complete with an RKO logo at the beginning). But Ice Cube is no Cary Grant. The film is even more tragic by its references to several other (better quality) movies like Jaws and The Birds.

Just like its predecessor, Ice Cube's performance is somewhat questionable. The kids have further lost their appeal because now they're not young. Now they are older annoying snots who are even more irritating. I couldn't believe someone like John C. McGinley agreed to appear in this film. The man can be funny when given good material. Unfortunately there are no clever lines of dialogue for him to work with.

Are We Done Yet? is almost a rehash of the original with a house being wrecked as opposed to an expensive car. The film is phenomenally bad, notoriously unfunny, and pitches a more valuable question to the viewing audience: are we done with this series yet? One of the poorest films of 2007!

"Yeah, I know I drink a lot, I know I do because I'm a writer and that's what I do, I drink. I'm not like those people out there, I can control myself!"

Normally I tend to avoid these kinds of chick flicks. Over the years I haven't viewed many girly films that have ended up being anything more than fluffy clichéd entertainment. I approached 28 Days because of the outstanding cast that this film had to boast. I am pleased and happy to report that this film isn't as bad as I was originally anticipating.

A free-spirited big-city journalist named Gwen Cummings (Bullock) is a raging alcoholic who spends most of her time getting drunk with her equally boozy boyfriend Jasper (West). Frequently the two endlessly party all night; binge drinking into the early hours of the morning. Gwen turns up to her sister's wedding not only late, but also hopelessly inebriated. During the wedding she makes a complete fool of herself by falling onto the wedding cake while dancing uncontrollably. She then aims to replace the cake on short notice and ends up crashing a limousine into a house. Charged with a drink driving offence she is given the choice of jail time or a 28-day rehab program. Not surprisingly, Gwen chooses rehab. At first she is hesitant to get involved in any of the treatment programs; instead denying that she has an addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol. The whole thing seems like a bad joke to her. However after getting to know some of the fellow patients she re-examines her life and slowly conforms to the activities that the other patients are involved in.

28 Days is not so much a comedy but a poignant look at the troubled people of contemporary society. The audience can easily relate to all the characters because we see them commonly on the streets around us. The story is more concerned with Gwen finding a way to deal with life. I thought that this was a refreshing film because I've seen far too many comedies that fail when trying to be something more meaningful than it actually is.

Even after saying that, 28 Days is a film that also contains a bunch of fantastic gags. I adored the clever parody of the typical daytime soap opera. Because of how convoluted and hilariously over-the-top soapies actually are, it's great to see a soapie that is actually meant to be funny.

Many of the laughs can also be attributed to the sensational cast. Sandra Bullock has never played anyone quite like this character. This has even been called her best performance to date. Bullock suits her role perfectly. She's entirely believable and perfectly cast. However, the major stand-out for me was the gay German dancer played by Alan Tudyk. Now this is a focused performer! Throughout the film he never breaks his complete concentration. Every line is delivered in an amusing German accent. His testimony about forks was entirely improvised by Alan on the spot! All his mannerisms are very funny at times.

28 Days, of course, is a great comedy with a few good messages about life. On the contrary there's also a selection of flaws. There are some laughs, but I felt a distinct lack of quality laugh-out-loud moments of which the film has precious little. Naturally, this is a matter of taste. I also thought that the film was heavily clichéd at times as well as being highly predictable during its middle section. Even with those clichés being present, I must also say that the film manages to avoid many of the typical conventions of the genre. This is always a good sign.

Overall, I found 28 Days to be great viewing if you're bored on a rainy afternoon or if you want a night of good laughs and drama. Don't raise your expectations too high and you won't be disappointed. Certainly worth a screening or two.

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"

After the Monty Python troupe bathed in the massive success of their hilarious low-budget picture Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the team soon regrouped to produce another silly, incredibly hilarious comedy. Life of Brian is a brilliant sacrilegious production that combines irreverent humour as well as political and religious satire. The results are as outstanding and hilarious as they were when first released about 30 years ago.

Logically enough, Life of Brian is a film about a boy named Brian Cohen (Chapman). Brian is born in a stable on the original Christmas right next to the stable where Jesus is born. As a result the three wise men mistake Brian for the Son of God and present his bewildered mother with gifts...soon rectifying their mistake. We then jump forward a number of decades to "Judea, AD 33, Saturday afternoon...about tea time" when Brian is a fully grown man. Brian's mother had raised him to believe that his father was a certain Mr. Cohen, but one day Brian discovers that his father was a Roman centurion named Naughtius Maximus (joke name, of course). Brian, fuelled by his hatred for the Romans and refusing to believe he is one, is horrified and decides to join a rebel group called the People's Front of Judea (not to be mistaken for the Judean People's Front). After joining this rebel group a very amusing string of events begin to unfold. This includes being captured by the Romans, being mistaken for the Messiah and even being assigned for crucifixion.

Life of Brian is a film I truly adore! Being a big fan of Monty Python for numerous years I always find their style of humour to my liking. This film suffered criticism for its sometimes offensive views on religion. If you are one of those people and take the Python's views on religion seriously then I think you have a problem. Maybe you should go watch some religious propaganda and feel a lot better about the content in that. The film was even banned in certain parts of the world. Can't priests and heavily religious people just accept a good laugh?!?

I loved the performances from everyone in the cast. Even though the six members of the Python team play several roles, they are determined and give it 100%. They all have their moments of utter hilarity...even if it means a bunch of nudity. (Yes, Graham Chapman, I am looking at you. R.I.P.) The filmmakers cover all the basics...from Caesar with a speech impediment to Jesus delivering a sermon atop a mountain to a crowd who seem to be more concerned with insults concerning noses.

The six Monty Python members can certainly write a good script while in each other's company. In this film there's creativity and original humour all over the place. The film was shot in the beautiful location of Tunisia. The production values are quite good for a low-budget comedy (we can excuse a few minor technical faults for the sake of entertainment).

Life of Brian could be the best Monty Python movie in existence. This and Holy Grail are both downright hilarious and entertaining. Highly recommended! Interesting trivia fact: the film was financed by George Harrison of The Beatles.

"I love a happy ending! Hahaha!" (An actual quote from the film. Although in this case I wouldn't mind any ending...as long as it's over!)

Pointless family movies are another disease in Hollywood. Every year without failure the studios continue to roll out standard by-the-numbers family movies that are clichéd beyond all belief. Why do the studios do this? Simple - because they don't cost much to make and they are capable of pulling in stacks of money from the younger audience.

Are We There Yet? is yet another indescribably appalling mess of a family movie in the vein of those aforementioned clichéd family flicks. The only difference is that this film is one of the worst I have experienced in a long time, and it's a film that I wish had never come to fruition.

Nick Persons (Cube) is a swinging bachelor who meets divorced attractive single mother Suzanne (Long). As Suzanne leaves on a business trip, her ex-husband cancels his plans to take care of the kids...and Nick volunteers to take them. From there the film sinks into the world of clichés, predictability and just plain unoriginality as Nick takes the kids in his new car to Vancouver to meet with Suzanne. The two kids have never liked any of the men her mum has dated in the past...and of course try everything they're capable of to make the trip a nightmare for Nick.

It's typical black comedy we've seen millions of times before as things get destroyed and begin going from bad to worse (not to mention the complete implausibility of a deer turning into Mohammad Ali and beating the crap out of Ice Cube).

Are We There Yet? is the typical American family film strictly for the kids - i.e. corny lines, cheesy, happy ending, predictable, impossible events just for the sake of getting a giggle out of a child...gee, I could go on all day. I think it goes without saying that the acting, directing, screenwriting - basically the all round filmmaking is typical for the genre.

Ice Cube has done some good work in the past. I haven't seen any excellent work from him and I don't expect him to. But hell, he has got to make some good career moves. Anaconda, xXx: The Next Level and now this pile of manure. The two young performers playing the kids are both annoying little snots. We're not supposed to like them and hence have motivation to empathise with Ice Cube's situation. However it's a little hard to do this when it's really clear that the only reason Ice Cube's character is doing this is to get into the good books of a pretty woman. And this is supposed to be a film for the kids?

The ending was the final insult, and the last nail in the coffin. It's the same movie we've seen billions of times before with a different title slapped on it. Ice Cube...your career is over and all previous respect I had for you is gone.

"Frank Lucas is the most dangerous man walking the streets of our city."

American Gangster is another film of 2007 that separates the audiences who seek rubbish blockbusters (like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, etc) and those who seek fine filmmaking no matter how slowly the film is paced. To like this film, you must be part of the latter.

Ridley Scott's latest directorial outing is nothing short of a masterpiece; an expertly crafted intense American crime drama led by talented stars and a director in top form.

Before getting on with this review I must be perfectly frank: the trailer for American Gangster was the worst way to advertise the film and does no justice to the final product. I wasn't at all interested in the film after watching the trailer; however I was pulled along after winning tickets. I entered the cinema with little expectations...but after exiting that cinema I realised that I had just witnessed one of the best films of 2007 and possibly Ridley Scott's finest hour. American Gangster is very powerful and heavy at times; showcasing strong violence, drug use, nudity and lots of profanity...the rating reflects the maturity and age one must reach in order to view the material. While I was in the cinema watching the film I was shocked to see youngsters as young as five or six being allowed by their parents to exhibit this heavily mature production.

American Gangster is based on the true story about drug kingpin Frank Lucas (Washington) who became the first black man to successfully smuggle drugs into the United States. He begins his smuggling career by using coffins containing dead soldiers (and high class drugs) shipped back from Vietnam. Frank's product is the purest on the market and is in massive demand amongst the consumers. We follow Frank as he grows his drug industry, while at the other end of the law he is being shadowed by a cop named Richie Roberts (Crowe). Richie's objective is to finally bring the drug kingpin to justice and prevent any further damage to the American population.

Ridley Scott's directing absolutely blew me away. Every scene is meticulously crafted and adds new meaning to the plot with not a wasted second: this film is one of the finest of its genre. With his skilled direction and authoritative images, the audience will feel compelled to shut up and watch for the film's duration of almost 3 hours. Scott is always a perfectionist when he is behind the camera. His determination shines.

I must also mention the performances from everyone in the cast...they were all incredibly amazing. Denzel Washington is flawless in the title role. We have never seen Denzel portray a character like this one. This alone shows his versatility as a performer. Russell Crowe's portrayal is stellar and concentrated. While watching the movie I was especially engaged in every line that Crowe delivered. He is also realistic and believable. Credit must go to each and every cast member for their stellar efforts.

Throughout the film's running time there is little action and hence will be found boring by those who crave Michael Bay rubbish. However the action that unfolds on screen during those rare occasions is both heavy and difficult to watch. I sat in awe; hypnotised by the film's power and brilliance. After the screening of the film concluded I left the cinema in silence. I was stunned at the brilliance of this masterpiece.

Many people overlooked this movie because of its long running time and automatically classified this as "boring" due to little action. It's a shame that modern movie audiences only look for blockbusters that are created far too frequently these days. Masterpieces of this stature are rarities in Hollywood during this day and age. I wish that filmmakers would focus on masterpieces in lieu of blockbusters.

I'm going to make this very clear: if you're expecting non-stop action and 2D characters, stay very clear. But if you're looking for an expertly crafted modern masterpiece, watch this movie without hesitation. Plain and simply, American Gangster is one of the best films of 2007.

"You have the heart of a king."

After the atrocious watered-down Disney version of The Three Musketeers I felt that Hollywood had made one too many films concerning Alexander Dumas' classic story. However, The Man in the Iron Mask is writer/director Randall Wallace's take on the source material. And at least this wasn't a dilute PG-rated Disney film aimed at the children. While watching this film my fears were soon alleviated.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the dual roles of heartless King Louis, and his brother Philippe. Louis is the king of France who ascended to the throne after the death of his father. Louis' brother Philippe could not also take the throne of France and was instead thrown into prison with his face hidden behind an iron mask (therein lies the title). The city of Paris is starving; its king is spending more time debauching young women and filtering money into unnecessary wars. King Louis is a heartless ruler who cares for no-one but himself. His arrogance causes a stir amongst his royal guard. Determined to save the country from starvation, the film then follows the now aging illustrious musketeers; Aramis (Irons), Athos (Malkovich), Porthos (Depardieu) and D'Artagnan (Byrne). Due to his loyalties towards the king, D'Artagnan abandons the three other musketeers as they conceive a clever plan to replace King Louis. To do this they must break Louis' brother Philippe out of prison, remove Philippe's iron mask and train him to take the place of his heartless sibling.

The plot of The Man in the Iron Mask isn't as conventional or as clichéd as it could have been. It is a refreshing story that was relieving to see after the horribly childish Disney film (both were based on different stories, but Disney's film was just far too by-the-numbers and thin). Instead of Disney, 20th Century Fox stepped in to release this one. Although the film isn't as violent as it could have been, the themes are a lot heavier and the triumphant moments aren't as cheesy.

I found it interesting that the musketeers have now aged quite severely and have passed their prime. This just shows their versatility as soldiers after many years of fighting.

Unlike many adaptations of Dumas' story, this film is concerned with the larger-than-life sword fights the four men undertook and their swashbuckling exploits instead of tracing their roots. Several films have looked at how the men came to be, thus it would have been far too tedious to show the back-story of the foursome yet again. In a sense it's a great companion piece for Disney's The Three Musketeers. That film is cheesy beyond belief but it at least tells the story behind the forming of the musketeers reasonably skilfully. The Disney film also shows how to make a mediocre film out of a great story. The Man in the Iron Mask shows how to make a remarkable movie out of terrific source material.

Leonardo DiCaprio hadn't made a big name for himself yet. Some of his only credits included What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Diaries and Romeo + Juliet among several others. For the most part he was the romantic pretty boy lacking any emotional depth. DiCaprio's acting is acceptable but not great. He was the pretty boy a lot of the time; however I occasionally really liked his style of acting. At least his romantic lines aren't cringe-worthy. Although nothing groundbreaking, credit must go to DiCaprio for a solid effort in playing dual roles. I have no complaints about the four that play the renowned musketeers. These men are certainly a smart choice to play such characters. They have the dry wit and chemistry: something that cannot be said for Disney's production.

The Man in the Iron Mask boasts some elegant production (and costume) design as well as lavish sets and dazzling locations. Every shot looks like a genuine photograph from the film's historic period. My only complaint: gross over-length and a few too many clichés. Aside from that, I enjoyed this exceptional movie that is unforgettable and extravagant.

"There's a tiny person on that speck that needs my help!"

It's delightful to believe that one of Dr. Seuss' novels has finally been successfully made into a movie. After the atrocious Cat in the Hat I was unenthusiastic to approach another movie adaptation of a Seuss novel. I am happy to report that Horton Hears a Who! is a fantastic, entertaining movie that is guaranteed to provide entertainment for the whole family.

Horton (voiced by Jim Carrey) is an elephant enjoying life in the Jungle of Nool. One morning while Horton is having his bath, he becomes convinced that he is hearing tiny voices coming from a microscopic speck of dust. Horton is confident that there is an infinitesimal world living inside that speck of dust and vows to protect the small community from the harsh jungle that surrounds them. The animals around him believe that Horton is going insane as they can't hear these supposed voices. But of course Horton is in fact right: in that speck of dust lies the town of Whoville. But it becomes apparent that the entire population is vulnerable to destruction with Horton being their only hope. As the disaster is about to strike, Horton sets off on a journey to find a safe place for the town of Whoville.

Horton Hears a Who! is animation at its best. Like all films from companies like Pixar and Dreamworks we have come to expect nothing but computer generated animation of the highest order. Here we have superb looking animals, realistic terrains and inventive cinematography. All the images are bright and colourful. It's all extremely eye-catching and fun to watch.

This sublime animation is accompanied by the accomplished voice cast. Jim Carrey isn't as overzealous as he usually is. Being an animation film his over-the-top antics wouldn't be as powerful. He still puts on a number of peculiar, wacky voices throughout the film. I thought that Carrey did as exceptional job. Steve Carell is another actor famous for overacting and being silly. Here, he is restricted to more childish humour but he is still given quality lines of dialogue to work with.

Horton Hears a Who! also contains a fairly decent screenplay. Throughout the movie there are a number of great laughs, funny lines and amusing situations. I will admit that the laughs weren't always first-rate. There is no abundance of great laughs unfortunately. Even after saying that, I will also admit that I found some of the gags quite hilarious. The kids will definitely appreciate the over-the-top mannerisms of some of the animals. For their age range they just need pretty pictures to look at to ensure they don't get bored. I can assure you that the kids won't get bored.

I liked the whole style of the film. The Dr. Seuss nature of the film is retained; there's rhyming narration, enlightening characters and a kid-friendly atmosphere. I cannot judge how faithful the film is to its source material because I haven't read the book for several years. From what I remember the filmmakers made a harmonious transition from book to film.

Horton Hears a Who! is simple family entertainment. It's corny, predictable and clichéd; however at least it's a fun film that guarantees the interest of a young child for its duration. It succeeds in getting its target audience interested while also inserting laughs that ensure an adult (or teen) will have a suitably fun time as well.

"What do you want me to do, dress in drag and do the hula?"

I still remember when I was a tender age of 3 and first saw The Lion King on the big screen. When it was released on VHS it became a film I watched almost everyday. I would not be alone in saying that this film was an essential part of my early childhood. Because I had watched this film so much I have basically committed every scene to memory.

It had been about 5-10 years since I last watched this brilliant Disney movie. Needless to say, a re-screening was highly necessary because of how powerful this film was on my childhood years. The Lion King was first released in 1994. Now the film is regarded as a classic. Currently as a teenager I can say that this film still has the same impact and power despite what age range you have reached. As a child you appreciate the slapstick humour on screen. When characters do amusing antics the kids will have a good laugh. Of course they don't know what is going on most of the time. In later years the magic is still present. You can devour the film for its plot and clever script. You can analyse how innovative the animation is. And yet, you can still laugh at the mannerisms of the animals.

The Lion King is the story of a young lion cub named Simba (voiced by both Thomas and Broderick) who is heir to the throne of Pride Rock now run by his father Mufasa (Jones). But Simba is forced into exile when he is at the receiving end of a treacherous, deceptive plot courtesy of his jealous uncle Scar (Irons). After the death of Mufasa the kingdom is now ruled by Scar who will essentially spell doom for Pride Rock. While Simba lives another life he becomes the unlikely friends of a meerkat named Timon (Lane) and a warthog named Pumbaa (Sabella). But as Simba's rightful kingdom is crumbling due to its poor leadership, his past returns and leads him to his rightful destiny of becoming king.

The Lion King has a fairly straight-forward plot that will work on the surface for the kids. As you grow older you look past its pretty pictures and see something a lot deeper than you would have originally remembered. In a nutshell, the film is loosely a Shakespearean drama rich in themes of jealousy, deception, betrayal, murder and redemption. In essence this formula we have seen countless times before. It's just not as noticeable because of its pretty new packaging for the clichés to breed inside. Of course this is a children's film so these clichés and formulaic plot points can be excused.

The Lion King is one of the cleverest Disney films in existence. Its appeal stretches to each and every age range. The film has its adorable moments, hilarious moments and of course the intense or tragic moments. This is not your average Disney movie at all!

The most memorable image for me was the introduction of the renowned Timon and Pumbaa. These two were a particular favourite of mine when I was a youngster. Nathan Lane is a piece of perfect casting. His excellent lines of dialogue had me in stitches. The rest of the voice cast are outstanding. Jeremy Irons is another stand-out as the sadistic, evil Scar. Many of his lines are memorable because of how brilliantly he delivers them.

The animation is indeed incredible even after all these years. The film is breathtaking in its amazing images shown using simple animation techniques. Naturally, the cherry on top is the music. Elton John contributed to the music here. In addition to Elton we also have Tim Rice and Hans Zimmer collaborating to produce the music, songs and score. Do you expect this to go wrong?

The Lion King is a treasure chest rich in nostalgic memories from my childhood. It has been so many years but this film is still one of my favourites. The Lion King is the fundamental embodiment of a children's animation film. Laughs, clever characters, witty dialogue and great animation. If you haven't seen this for several years I suggest another screening is required. You will become addicted once again.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

John Ford was one of the many luminaries of the western genre. With one of his final western films, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is truly one of the most elegant westerns in cinematic history. The two principal actors featured here are enough to guarantee unfathomable success.

Set in the Wild West, James Stewart plays a United States senator named Ransom Stoddard who travels to the town of Shinbone to pay respects to one of his old friends. Newspaper reporters begin speculating about the senator's business in such an insignificant western town. Ransom concedes to the press and decides to share his story. Subsequently the film is a series of extravagant flashbacks that shed light on Ransom's close friendship with a cowboy named Tom Doniphon (Wayne). His friendship begins after Ransom is beaten badly and robbed by a group of outlaws lead by the renowned Liberty Valance (Marvin). Vowing revenge, Ransom utilises his skills as a lawyer in an attempt to clean up the west without using violence. He teaches those in need how to read and write. His use of literature and words makes him a respected member of the community. However he realises that the west is not controlled by law and order but by murder and violence. Cowboys and gunslingers take the law into their own hands as they decide who lives and who dies. Ransom's story then uncovers how his political career became so successful after he became known as "the man who shot Liberty Valance".

A quality western is only guaranteed if there is a stellar plot. In this case, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has what could be the best plot for a western I have ever seen. The 50s and 60s were certainly the decades dominated by loads of successful westerns. It's impossible to forget westerns helmed by Sergio Leone, or westerns that starred such stars as Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper or John Wayne. These three men were the essential embodiment of a western protagonist.

With this film, John Wayne plays a fairly original role. Wayne still has the baggy trousers, the trademark walk, the recognisable facial expressions and the fast gun-touting skills. Despite this pile of conventions his character is explored to be a man of more moral depth. His portrayal is engaging and engrossing. I found it easy to get into the movie due to his dynamic performance. Because John Wayne was so famous during the period of the film's release this is an offer too tempting to resist. On top of this we have a straight-forward, intriguing plot and one of the world's all-time greatest actors: James Stewart. When this film was made it was clear that Stewart was aging. This doesn't stop him from delivering one of his most memorable roles to date. He still has his charm and charisma now mixed with bravery and honour. It's very easy to empathise with his character.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance of course has the usual conventional bad guys: they are dirty, have bad teeth and look very unsavoury. Although a contemporary audience would usually find this far too stereotypical you must remember that this was made during the period of the westerns. It was tradition to have these characters included.

The film is topped off admirably with smart direction and an exciting score. John Ford will always deliver when it comes to the western genre. Each director made their own mark on the genre. Each director has a different way of staging the action, placing the camera and building up intensity. Ford is a natural when it comes to this style of movie.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was pasted and criticised upon original release. Decades later and the film is now considered as a classic and one of cinema's greatest westerns. It depends on your taste in film whether you will enjoy this one or not. Especially if you like westerns, this is a film you cannot afford to miss.

"Nowhere else have I seen such lions led by such lambs."

Lions for Lambs marks the first feature from the now Tom Cruise owned company of United Artists. Despite its poor box office profit and heavy pasting, I found the movie to actually be quite decent.

The film is three different stories told in parts throughout the movie. The main story is concerned with action in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. Two soldiers end up wounded and vulnerable on the top of a snowy mountain. Low on ammo and low on energy, their superiors back at base do what they can to launch a rescue mission. The next story is about a journalist (Streep) who visits a congressman (Cruise) to interview him for a story. The final tale is about a young student (Garfield) who arrives one morning in the office of a university professor (Redford) to discuss his future among other things.

The film is straight-up dialogue, talking and exposition. Those expecting anything action-orientated will be disappointed. The lack of action was the biggest problem. I know it was meant to make a political statement and not be an entertainment piece, but it's rather impossible to do so towards the audience by just using scenes of dialogue. The performances were good and the script was intelligent, but the whole thing feels so boring. Black Hawk Down, for example, made an exceptional statement with scene of action and dialogue.

The lack of an actual meaty story is another problem. There are 3 stories to tell, but without an actual solid plot to drive these tales it feels very hollow and empty. Instead it relies on the audience's knowledge of the war on terror as a basis for the plot. So what will happen in 20 years when it's revisited long after the war on terror is over? Some who approach it may think of it as an entertainment piece, but they will be clueless about which war it is meant to be symbolising. Such other political war films like Black Hawk Down give the viewer insight into what has happened and what is planned, rather than diving straight into the action. Still, I liked the performance and the precious little action was kind of satisfying (although the special effects looked a bit dodgy).

Tom Cruise's performance wasn't too bad. As a congressman, he does okay. But he just appears to be Ethan Hunt behind a desk discussing political issues. Meryl Streep was one of the stronger actresses in the film. She makes a very stern journalist. As for Robert Redford (who also directed), well I think he did a pretty good job.

It's a shame that Lions for Lambs didn't turn out as good as some other dialogue driven war films like Ed Zwick's Courage Under Fire. Instead we're fed a bunch of biased American propaganda that attempts to be more than it actually is.

It's not powerful enough to make a worthwhile political statement, and it's not enjoyable enough to be considered an entertainment piece. I don't really know how to describe it, really. Worth seeing, but one of 2007's biggest disappointments.