So much for "lions for lambs"

I have been watching the lavish marketing campaign on TV for "Lions for lambs" for at least a week now, and for the life of me, I can't fathom what this movie is supposed to be about at all. I don't know who cut this trailer together, but they need to be sent back to film school with their diploma shoved up their arse.

I have watched the trailer again and again on TV. I have watched it on the interweb. I have tried reading some of the promotional material on the interweb thingy and still can't make head nor tail of it.

In short, I am as confused as buggery. What is this movie about?

Thank goodness for Google. I happened upon a review today (a scathing review at that) and decided to Google it. I have never had to Google a film before to find out what it is about. There is a DVD rental machine at our local supermarket, and it has a big TV screen on top that shows an endless series of shorts for its contents. I have watched dozens of shorts on that screen, and often they are only 15 seconds long. And they are silent. And I have walked away with a pretty firm idea of what those movies are about.

But I have watched the "Lions" trailers again and again - in full surround sound - and still been none the wiser.

Having read half a dozen reviews, I think it can be summarised as a three part bag of wind starring three people that nobody cares about anymore. They might have made interesting movies back in the stone ages, but the Cabbage Patch doll was all the rage once as well. I have more interest in going out into the backyard and salting slugs than I do in watching Redford, Streeeep and Cruise.

The only interesting thing is the reviews. The Australian reviews in papers like the Age were generally positive, whilst the overseas reviews generally seemed to call it a boring bucket of shite.

All I can say now is that after reading 10 or so reviews, I think I finally have a grip on what this movie is about. It's no wonder the trailer is so confused and disjointed and unwatchable. I get the feeling the movie is just more of the same.

A movie has to give you something. You pay your money - anywhere from $3 to rent a DVD from our supermarket to $13 to see it at a cinema, and you expect something back for that. You want to buy 90 minutes of laughter or fantasy or action, and you want the maximum return for your money.

What does "Lions" give you? If you are wet, fishy type of person, I guess it gives you a belly full of smug, self-satisfaction. An ego bulging with moral superiority.

I think it would just give me a dose of the shits.

I have one good thing to say about it. At least it was funded by people who put their money where their mouth is. If this was made over here, the poor deluded tax payer would have be paying for this bucket of tripe. Even if it is shite, it is privately funded, privately made shite. That to me says a lot of good things about America, although it will probably piss the producers off no end to hear me say that.

PS - what really ticks me off about the trailers is that they spend 50% of their time telling us that two of the actors have won an Academy Award and one has been nominated.

So what? Just because someone made a good movie years ago doesn't mean that they have made a good movie today. It's irrelvent. It's like saying that past stock market performance is an indicator of future performance. It's meaningless, and it is so pretentious, it gets right up my nose. A film is the product of many people - carpenters, cinematographers, lighting people, stunt men, writers, directors, editors, sound, music etc etc. To say that all it takes is one person to do a good job to make a film great is just ridiculous. Many people have to do a great job, or the whole lot is garbage. In fact all it takes is one person to screw up, and the whole lot falls over. No one person can make a great film, but one person can ruin it.

Maybe awards should be given to the fuckwits that ruin great films - assuming they can be singled out and identified.