criterionforum.org

Trailer for the first film from the new Cruise/Wagner incarnation of United Artists.

Jeebus that looks baaad. And Redford is just painful to look at. I'm not sure why his wrinkly face is so disturbing to me. Clint and Paul and other older actors seem to have aged much better.

I'll withhold judgment until I see it. I think Tom as a die-hard supporter of the current administration is interesting casting.

As far as Bob, how many redheads do you know age well?

I just don't see this reviving TC's career. Who is the audience for this? I actually was hoping it would be good, but if that's the best they can do for a trailer I've lost hope.

Barmy wrote:I just don't see this reviving TC's career. Who is the audience for this? I actually was hoping it would be good, but if that's the best they can do for a trailer I've lost hope.

I don't see how it needs reviving, since his last picture made almost 400 million world-wide. It's his media image that needs reviving, if that's at all possible.

Barmy wrote:Jeebus that looks baaad.

To be fair, there's not much movie in that trailer at all. It's mostly text, tuneless grinding guitars, and lots of "whooshing" noises.

Besides, how can any movie be bad that has characters named "Wirey Pink," "Skinny," and "Miss Moisturized?"

flyonthewall2983 wrote: I think Tom as a die-hard supporter of the current administration is interesting casting.

Could we get some proof on that "die-hard supporter" part? I do believe I watched footage of him on CNN campaigning for Gore and Kerry.

Andre Jurieu wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote: I think Tom as a die-hard supporter of the current administration is interesting casting.

Could we get some proof on that "die-hard supporter" part? I do believe I watched footage of him on CNN campaigning for Gore and Kerry.

I meant in the movie.

I agree there's no movie in the trailer, but then why put it out there. Nothing happens in it. I do like the revamped UA logo--that's the best part.

Apparently people in theatres have been "tittering" at it when TC appears.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

Andre Jurieu wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote: I think Tom as a die-hard supporter of the current administration is interesting casting.

Could we get some proof on that "die-hard supporter" part? I do believe I watched footage of him on CNN campaigning for Gore and Kerry.

I meant in the movie.

Ah! Ok, that makes much more sense. Sorry about the confusion.

There is a new full-length trailer out. I'm beginning to think that all of the baity fall movies are going to be variations on the same theme.

Looks like this one could go either way. I'm intrigued to see Tom Cruise playing in another "against type" role as a staunch Republican, and I think Michael Pena is a hugely underrated actor. I will interested to see how this one turns out.

Jeff wrote:There is a new full-length trailer out. I'm beginning to think that all of the baity fall movies are going to be variations on the same theme.

That one looks muuuuch better. Hell, I'll see it just to hear my fellow Utahns shout 'these colors don't run' and 'if you don't like America, you can just get out' at the screen. Followed by hurled beer cans and semen.

lord_clyde wrote:

Jeff wrote:There is a new full-length trailer out. I'm beginning to think that all of the baity fall movies are going to be variations on the same theme.

That one looks muuuuch better. Hell, I'll see it just to hear my fellow Utahns shout 'these colors don't run' and 'if you don't like America, you can just get out' at the screen. Followed by hurled beer cans and semen.

Beer cans and semen or beer cans filled with semen?

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Beer cans and semen or beer cans filled with semen?

It really depends if I'm at an indoor theater or the drive-in.

Man that is MUCH better. I still think Redford needs to do a Newman. That lumpen visage is going to scare away anyone under 30 (or possibly 60).

Saw a preview screening tonight and was pleasantly surprised. Redford's film is a scathing critique against the war which evenly hands out blame all around.

Structurally, the film is essentially three separate stories that eventually overlap. The first, and probably the best, is the journalist (Streep) getting an exclusive "scoop" from a Republican senator (Cruise) about the new initiative to "win the war on terror." Both actors are on the top of their game and the smart script by Matthew Michael Carnahan finds equal fault with both sides - the politicians for selling a phony war and the clawless media for not doing their homework. However, the best part about this section is that Cruise's character is never portrayed as dumb, sub-par Dubya caricature. He firmly, and truly believes in everything he is saying and while it furthers his political ambition, he struggles with the decisions he feels must be made for the good of the nation. However, the photoshopped pictures of Cruise with Colin Powell and other such dignataries did elicit some small chuckles.

The next section is a professor (Redford) and student (some guy I'm too lazy to look up) discussing politics, activism and whether it's even worth it anymore. Again, there is a lot of blame handed out here and particularly stings middle and upper class apathy, cynicism and obliviousness.

Finally, we have two soliders who are in the midst of the new initiative being launched by the senator and merely serves to show us the bravery of the soldiers. Redford is not an action director and it shows, but it's not a detriment to the film overall.

If the film seems like a blunt polemic, it's not. Sure, Redford dishes out a lot of heat to the right-wing, but doesn't let the left wing just flap their lips. He finds sympathy for the soldiers, but also disagrees with the war. He argues for a motivated left wing that wants real change and will actually try in some capacity to do something. Ultimately, Redford does something that many other of the Iraq films haven't been doing this fall and that's actually attempt to show that it's a complex issue and that we're all losing something the longer it goes on.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Saw a preview screening tonight and was pleasantly surprised. Redford's film is a scathing critique against the war which evenly hands out blame all around.

Structurally, the film is essentially three separate stories that eventually overlap. The first, and probably the best, is the journalist (Streep) getting an exclusive "scoop" from a Republican senator (Cruise) about the new initiative to "win the war on terror." Both actors are on the top of their game and the smart script by Matthew Michael Carnahan finds equal fault with both sides - the politicians for selling a phony war and the clawless media for not doing their homework. However, the best part about this section is that Cruise's character is never portrayed as dumb, sub-par Dubya caricature. He firmly, and truly believes in everything he is saying and while it furthers his political ambition, he struggles with the decisions he feels must be made for the good of the nation. However, the photoshopped pictures of Cruise with Colin Powell and other such dignataries did elicit some small chuckles.

The next section is a professor (Redford) and student (some guy I'm too lazy to look up) discussing politics, activism and whether it's even worth it anymore. Again, there is a lot of blame handed out here and particularly stings middle and upper class apathy, cynicism and obliviousness.

Finally, we have two soliders who are in the midst of the new initiative being launched by the senator and merely serves to show us the bravery of the soldiers. Redford is not an action director and it shows, but it's not a detriment to the film overall.

If the film seems like a blunt polemic, it's not. Sure, Redford dishes out a lot of heat to the right-wing, but doesn't let the left wing just flap their lips. He finds sympathy for the soldiers, but also disagrees with the war. He argues for a motivated left wing that wants real change and will actually try in some capacity to do something. Ultimately, Redford does something that many other of the Iraq films haven't been doing this fall and that's actually attempt to show that it's a complex issue and that we're all losing something the longer it goes on.

Nice review. I'm willing to see it now. The trailer makes it look so pompous and simple. If what you say is true, and the dynamic between Cruise and Streep sizzles, I'll be seeing this soon. Thanks again, Antoine Doinel...

I saw this last week during a special screening and I have to say that despite its short running time (88 min) this is a finely crafted film which analyzes how we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be sold into the idea that America is the moral/politcal arbiter for the rest of the world, or as Tom Cruise's chracter says "it is America's righteous duty to make the world safe for democracy." Yet what needs to be asked is what does America mean by democracy? Is it SUV's that help deplete the oil reserves and ensure that the planet will die, food that has no nutritutional value but is easily recognizable or merely the ability to consume and buy so many useless products that serve no function except to make others wealthy.
One of the other key points of the film is how the very institution which is supposed to serve the interests of the people, that of the fourth estate (media) have been corrupted to the point of simply speaking the mishmash of the government without asking if there is any fact or evidence to support the rash and bombastic claims such as Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of this film, Redford displays how the neo-cons inability to understand logical approaches might lead to people believing that Iraqi insurgents are in fact crossing from Iraq into Afghanistan through Iran.
Finally what the film does through its constant reliance on talk and sitting is to illustrate that in this one of the defining periods of American and global history, we are all captured in a state of stasis and inertia and this is why Iraq, as hopeless, bottomless pit of a war may continue unchecked. What Redford seems to be arguing is that in the end the only way to stop this war is for the American people to get up, stop buying and protest in the streets. Don't lose yourselves in fake celebrity news and reality tv programming when there is so much at stake. After all if we don't stand up, what will we do when we are waging war on Iran?

What I'd like to know, and this is trite, but do Tom and Bob have any scenes together?

Nice observation on the constant sitting/inertia filmnoir1. And yeah, I didn't realize how short the running time was until I came out of the theater. It really packs a lot into a very compact and efficient script.

The criticism of the media hit pretty hard for me. I recently finished reading Brothers: The History Of The Kennedy Years and what's noted in there is that the CIA at that time had over 400 planted journalists or contacts at newspapers all over the country. I can only imagine what kind propaganda machine the government has in place now. Also the thinly veiled swipe at General Electric/NBC was very nice.

And exte, thanks, and yes indeed Cruise and Streep are maginificent together. It's a real pleasure to watch them parry and they are easily the best part of the film.

Saw the showing in NYC tonight. It's just another liberal patriotic flag waving bullshit movie that was made so the people involved could get oscar nods. Avoid at all costs.

Raoul Duke wrote:It's just another liberal patriotic flag waving bullshit movie

Name another one.

tavernier wrote:

Raoul Duke wrote:It's just another liberal patriotic flag waving bullshit movie

Name another one.

Rendition

Was it really liberal, patriotic, flag-waving and bullshit?

These seem mutually exclusive to me.

And Manohla trashes it.