Hammond on "Lambs"

email this story
read comments (25)
post a comment

From Maxim's exacting, occasionally contrarian but mostly big-hearted film critic Pete Hammond, Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs (which I saw yesterday but won't be reviewing until 11.1) has gotten its first glowing quote. He's calling it "an urgent, impassioned wake-up call for America, a hot-button politically incendiary work that is certain to become the most controversial and talked-about movie of 2007."

Hammond doesn't mean that friends and families from Vancouver to Key West are necessarily going to debate the merits over dinner starting early next month. He's saying that right-wing commentators are going to jump all over it, which is probably true. If I were MGM, I'd be screening this film to every last Washington, D.C., conservative I could find. The film will be opening on roughly 2000 screens on 11.9.

"Current big star-laden Hollywood films rarely take the kind or risks this one does," Hammond says. This is true -- Lions for Lambs is unusual in this respect. By choosing not to push certain buttons, Redford has made, in a certain fashion, a daring film.

"It's been over three decades since Redford made The Candidate and All The President's Men," Hammond concludes, "but clearly he's still out there, using motion pictures to try and make a difference. Agree or disagree, love it or hate it, you won't be able to turn away."

Redford was young, very handsome, well-sculpted and blonde-haired when he starred in and produced those two landmark political films. Now he's 70ish, slightly barrel chested, copper-haired and -- I don't mean this critically but as a mere statement of fact -- diminished. And it's just not the same equation. It's not just the content of a political film but the look and style of it (including the man doing the talking or pitching) that matters. Everyone agrees that Al Gore had "it" in An Inconvenient Truth. I wonder if audiences will say that Redford exudes the same power and authority.

My favorite line in Lions for Lambs, spoken by Redford's college professor character, explains the title. A German general, being more an admirer of World War II British infantrymen than their commanders, was heard to say, "Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs." That's George Bush and Dick Cheney for you -- draft dodgers in their youth, still in the rear with the gear.

Rome is burning, son.

Van Airsdale bitch-slaps "Funny Games"<< previous | next >>Raimi diercting "The Hobbit"?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 17, 2007 at 12:28 PM

comment #1

AJW says ...

Tru dat, dawg.

Posted by AJW at October 17, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #2

Ian Sinclair says ...

About ten years ago my wife and I went to the city of Cologne in Germany to attend the Anglo-German wedding of a University friend of my wife's. My family came with us. At the reception some elderly German relatives of the bride came over to our table for drinks and asked us if if this was our first trip to Germany. My wife had been before but I said that it was the first trip by my side of the family. The Germans were surprised. Then my late grandfather, Terrence, said, quite cheerfully, that this was not true, as he had been there before, a long time ago, but that he had not taken in a great deal of scenery, as he had been driving a tank at the time.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at October 17, 2007 2:30 PM

comment #3

parttimesaint says ...

Instead of striving for excellently written movie reviews, Hammond always seems to think up a blurb he thinks will look good on Rotten Tomatoes and writes a review around that.

Posted by parttimesaint at October 17, 2007 2:35 PM

comment #4

tpk123 says ...

Is it really only 88 minutes?

Posted by tpk123 at October 17, 2007 2:40 PM

comment #5

Nick Rogers says ...

>> From Maxim's exacting, occasionally contrarian but mostly big-hearted film critic Pete Hammond ...

The hooker with the heart of gold, then.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 17, 2007 2:57 PM

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

"Is it really only 88 minutes?"

How long do you think it will feel like it is?

Posted by le corbeau at October 17, 2007 3:01 PM

comment #7

christian says ...

And just last week the whining about three talking heads was deafening...

Posted by christian at October 17, 2007 3:01 PM

comment #8

Jay T. says ...

They really should have included a few extra scenes to get that runtime over 90 minutes. I know it's stupid, but there's a general perception that any film under 90 minutes isn't long enough to generate true depth. Somewhere deep down there's a part of me that agrees with this... even if I also know this isn't true. A petty point, but I'm just saying...

Posted by Jay T. at October 17, 2007 3:10 PM

comment #9

Mark says ...

88 minutes is lifetime when there's only a couple characters and the script is all dialouge. Before Sunset was only 80 minutes and had plenty of depth.

Posted by Mark at October 17, 2007 3:23 PM

comment #10

bmcintire says ...

The runtime on this one is a perfect deception. The movie does not drag, and ends just before it would begin to enter that territory. And though it feels like it goes by quickly, you're shocked to learn that you were really only in there for 88 minutes. I'm anxious to hear what Jeff thinks on this one. I liked a LOT more than I expected to.

Posted by bmcintire at October 17, 2007 3:38 PM

comment #11

hanimal says ...

is #15 for meryl possible?

Posted by hanimal at October 17, 2007 3:51 PM

comment #12

YND says ...

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but Pete Hammond is the biggest pull-quote whore in contemporary film "journalism". I would love to hear examples of his supposed "occasionally contrarian" streak. Check out his history on Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-12102/ -- Every Friday my friends and I flip through the L.A. Times to see what ass movies he gave the big thumbs-up to that week. (THE GAME PLAN is "a comic touchdown"! THE HEARTBREAK KID is "outrageously hilarious"? THE KINGDOM is "a riveting ticking timebomb of a movie" and "the last 30 minutes are so intense you won't be able to move"?!?) A movie has to be really undeniably lousy for Mr. Hammond not to find something to blurb about.

Posted by YND at October 17, 2007 4:22 PM

comment #13

Zimmergirl says ...

So clearly Wells hated it. It's so funny; do they actually think they're fooling anybody by letting web guys like Poland and Wells see movies early and then making their hold up their bad reviews. If Hammond is already out with his review, Wells would normally be writing one also but he's holding it. Why? Because he didn't go for it.

"Tru dat, dawg." LOL.

Posted by Zimmergirl at October 17, 2007 4:22 PM

comment #14

malibugigolo says ...

The movie argues that the leaders of the 4th estate know what is best for the world, so of course, anyone from that bastion of the society liking the movie is not a surprise. In that regard it is just like All The Presidents Men.

If you think the espouser of the title quote, under the guidance of Kaiser Bill, had any great affinity for the grunts more so than the British, you would be sadly mistaken.

Posted by malibugigolo at October 17, 2007 4:31 PM

comment #15

christian says ...

US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III."

We better wake up fast.

Posted by christian at October 17, 2007 5:22 PM

comment #16

James Rocchi says ...

Suggesting that Pete Hammond liked a film is the biggest non-news flash of the century; The man's eligible for the Peter Travers/Shawn Edwards/Earl Dittman level of meaningless enthusiasm. Also, the difference between Maxim and pornography? I'd be embarrassed if you caught me 'reading' Maxim. Hammond throws around exclamation points and brief blurbs of delight to a degree where they become meaningless; his enthusiasm for a film means less to me than the crumbs of food trapped in the corners of a glutton's mouth after they've shoved something in their face and swallowed, never ever actually tasting it.

Posted by James Rocchi at October 17, 2007 5:45 PM

comment #17

Hallick says ...

The trailer makes the movie look like 88 minutes of movie stars spoon-feeding me THE TRUTH. It isn't really going to be that insufferable, is it?

Posted by Hallick at October 17, 2007 5:52 PM

comment #18

Larry says ...

Through simple mathematical logic, if what's in the trailer is in the film, the film cannot be any good.

Posted by Larry at October 17, 2007 10:00 PM

comment #19

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Pete Hammond seems to know his stuff when he talks about it at length, but indeed, he has become as oft-quoted as Dittman/Edwards/Fischer/Travers, and seemingly for the same reason.

I pay no attention whatsoever to his Maxim blurbs, but when allowed to speak or write at length about something, he's no dummy.

Posted by Luke Y. Thompson at October 17, 2007 11:25 PM

comment #20

Devin Faraci says ...

Hammond's a hack and a shill. He has an editorial mandate from Maxim to get his name on as many ads as possible. He's the face of the cancer that is killing film criticism, and he should be deported to hell.

Posted by Devin Faraci at October 18, 2007 12:05 AM

comment #21

Heleno says ...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this isn't the liberal harping y'all seem to fear. Isn't writing this off because of Redford's politics a little like writing off Atonement, sight unseen, because of Knightley's pout? Both are going to feature, I suppose, but that doesn't mean they're going to ruin the film.

Posted by Heleno at October 18, 2007 4:29 AM

comment #22