Lions for Lambs

I have searched my memory and I have come to the conclusion that Lion for Lambs is the first Tom Cruise starring movie that has made me think – all thanks to Robert Redford who directed it.


But I must warn Cruise fans out there Lion for Lambs doesn’t have much of a story; no cat and mouse suspense; no death defying action; no sex. The film isn’t about making Tom Cruise looking cool. It’s a debate film, if that is the appropriate description; as all of the characters at one point or another have engaged in a debate with fellow characters. And the issue of the day is the War on Terror.


What mimics as a story are two underprivileged young men, who, to the surprise of many of their classmates sign up for an unpopular war. Yet even they as characters are not exempt from debate. They defended their point of view to their classmates and to their professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford).


I was grasping for an analogy and the best I can come up with is an editorial column. But these columns are often one sided regardless if its argued from all points of view; the publisher’s/paper’s point of view has to stand out. An editorial column brings arguments derived from issues of the day and afterwards the paper makes a case of their own.


Lions for Lambs is surprisingly fair to all sides; it is balanced. Now that’s not something I can say for the creations of anti bush filmmaker Michael Moore.


Arguments for the war can be seen in the scenes involving Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Sometimes the hawkish Irving seems right and sometimes the anti-war Roth gets the better of the argument. If Irving in the end looks like an ambitious presidential aspirant it doesn’t rob the impact of the characters arguments.


Professor Malley’s own “debating” scene is about the undecided which represented by his student. This is the debate, the part of the movie which is most relevant to everybody. It’s the one to watch.


The undecided student, or maybe disheartened is the more appropriate word, is really about the common man. Many are disheartened and yet many of them passionate, but instead of engagement they choose to stay out, be uninvolved, and all the while criticizing.


The films tagline gives the message in a nutshell: if you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything.


Acting wise nothing negative can be said of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. They were perfect. I liked Meryl Streep as a reporter, the way she wore her glasses, asked the questions, and played with her pen. Maybe the surprise here is Cruise. There is not much change in the way he acts, moves, or handles himself; but the role is just perfect for him.


Lions for Lambs is not a film I’d recommend for everybody especially at today’s movie prices. It’s the type film where you might get “nosebleeds” as my friend would describe it.


But if you’re not into the movies for fun then by all means watch it. It’s a thinking movie and the way that society is going, we really have much to think about.

Independence Day

Independence Day’s opening sequence is incredible; one of the best I remember. Dozens of fifteen square mile saucers landing on earth from a mother ship that seems to half the size of the moon; a musical score in the background giving you a feeling of dread; and a line from an R.E.M song “it’s the end of the world as we know it…”

It’s both scary and in some strange way festive, which, if you think about it, seems unfitting in a story that is about worldwide destruction. In this case, the pair of emotions worked because, in all likelihood, a real alien presence would arouse both fear and joy.

Are they good are, are they friendly? Do they even have mouths with which to talk to? By any stretch of the imagination when alien existence is proven true it will be a world changing event that has never been seen before.

Effects wise, there can be no mistaking of the feeling you get the look of the saucers; it was all fear. It was done very convincingly that the viewers may ask themselves how they would react if it was real: city-sized saucers are indeed hovering all over many of Earth’s capital cities; more so when they destroyed many of the planet’s recognizable landmarks.

The destruction of famous landmarks was a nice touch though I wish they’d made it more global; maybe a shot of the Eiffel Tower or the Coliseum. Independence Day has had portions where people of all nations work together, so why not show a shared grief.

The characters are very well portrayed and are simple enough to understand. There’s a stripper, an environmental geek, an indecisive president; there is no character too complex that’ll give you a headache on how they fit in. Everyone is straightforward and simple plus they mesh which is very important.

Of the lot, I don’t like Bill Pullman, the indecisive president. He was meant to look weak as president but unfortunately he doesn’t come off strong at being a pilot which should have been - in the characters own words - his forte.

An old movie buddy of mine cry often cried out imperialism in the many films that we have seen. Independence Day is such a film. The world may unite under such conditions, under the American flag even, but does it have to be under the 4th of July. But it’s an entertaining film I told her so why ruin the fun with such thoughts, which is not to say she was wrong in her assessment.

She enjoyed the film as much as I did. It’s only now, a decade after the film was first shown, that I think of hidden messages and motives.

Why? Caused enjoyed it then; the film was that good that my mind was not floating around on things not seen on screen. That is my barometer; if my mind does not fly off then the movie was/is an entertaining experience.

I am Legend

What if you had the world to yourself? Too big? Then, make it a city; let’s say New York – all its money, cars, art, buildings, weapons; everything is yours.


I can’t help opening this piece with material wealth because it stood out in the trailer; the aircraft carrier, the sports car, the laptop…


When I was in high school, I had this fantasy of being trapped in a mall and helping myself out to all the goodies. I am Legend main character, Robert Neville (Will Smith), has all the wealth of New York and is obviously feeling empty. He talks to a dog, sometimes engaging in full debates; he arranges mannequins in a video store as if they were fellow patrons; and he watches reruns of NBC news!


My two favorite shots would have to be Neville sleeping in a bath tub and the noise all around is that of a jungle; and the other is a shot of money scattered, millions of dollars worth. The message is obvious – material wealth is nothing if you’re alone. 


Issues tackled in the film; its plot; I have seen tackled numerous times in many films: last man on earth, apocalypse, meaning of money and relationships when alone. I am Legend is a cross between Cast Away and 28 Days Later. It’s not as dramatic compared to the former and not as horrifying compared to the latter. Cast Away and 28 Days Later are good films by the way like this one which I am reviewing now.


I can’t promise much of the kick-ass action or comedy Will Smith is known for because for much of the film it’s a monologue that is if you don’t count the dog barking. But somehow I loved it; Smith actually pulled it off. How many actors do you know can capture your attention for almost two hours, all by themselves?


My respect for Will Smith has certainly grown in this film as he had convinced me for the duration of the film, the enormity and the pain of being alone. It helps that the movie had good visuals and cinematography.


So with that being said, watch this film with good company: a date, a friend, a love. It’s a nice film. You may enjoy it or you may get bored, but whatever happens, it’s nice to have somebody.


All Smith had was a dog.

The Kingdom

The Kingdom is not a very good film in spite of being relevant with the times. It’s a donut because it started big and ended great, but it had no fulfilling content in between.

There is an historical recap at the opening credits where you’ll get some highlights encompassing almost a hundred years of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ; from the colonial days to the crash landing planes of September 11.

There was a small portion in that intro about oil which got my interest. Tackling it would have given the film more personality in the sense many people are already alleging that American interests are not about peace and democracy in the Middle East but securing oil interests. Saudi is after all the leading oil producer in the world.

Issues of that nature, sadly, were not tackled. After the opening credits, history lesson, and a perfectly executed terrorist attack in the opening sequence the rest of the film is all about explosions, guns, and CSI-like investigations.

Jamie Foxx plays, Agent Ronald Fleury, the head of the FBI team sent over to Saudi to investigate an attack against US citizens. He’s a great actor with an Oscar statue to prove it. I liked him best in his role as a cab driver in Collateral. He and Tom Cruise had good chemistry as taxi driver and cold blooded assassin exchanging (or debating) views on life and morality.

There was a nice opportunity for a love-hate relationship in The Kingdom in Agent Fleury and Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). An FBI agent and a Saudi colonel; worlds apart; they could have done some meaningful passionate exchanges of concerning both cultures and yet there was none.

Chris Cooper (Agent Grant Sykes), Jennifer Garner (Agent Janet Mayes), and Jason Bateman (Adam Leavitt), round up the rest of the FBI team. I like Cooper and he was his usual best. Can’t say the same for the former Alias star; her performance was fine but the role itself lacked depth. If Alias fans are hoping for some kick-ass performance from their hero they will be disappointed because there just isn’t much of her.

Jason Bateman is just an odd man out for me. They were trying to have him as comic relief and his humor is just wrong in the situation they are in. Overall the collection of actors just didn’t blend as well as they should.

There is nothing spectacular, no suspenseful cat and mouse chase. When you finish watching this film you will get to the conclusion that ineptitude and perhaps cultural backwardness is the chief hurdle in the investigations; and it takes an ‘enlightened’, capable, FBI agent to truly get to the bottom of a terror attack. All Agent Fleury had to do was to give one honest statement to a Saudi Royal and that’s it. The investigation goes on high octane.

But if I were made to choose between the closing scene/statement and the entire film I would choose the ending. It’s a one liner said twice in the course of the film in whisper; only in the end was it disclosed. This one line was said in time of grief by both American and terrorist; it is a true sentiment by many people. We have much reason to worry.

“Don’t worry”, it goes, “we’re going to kill them all.”

It was Galman . . . .

“It was Galman who did it”.


Like a broken record, this line was repeated by 16 soldiers over and over again since August of 1983 when the exiled former Senator Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino Jr. was shot at the airport tarmac.


So what is their point in saying it over and over again?


The obvious, it’s not their fault. If we are to believe the soldiers that fateful day was just bad luck for Ninoy; it was just the former senator’s time to go. One man just happened to penetrate a quarantined area full of soldiers and media. One man, with suicidal tendencies apparently, went up close a former Senator surrounded by guards and shot him with a pistol.


The later admission that one, only one, of the soldiers lead Galman in did not change the fact that the picture is so horribly wrong. One man, one shot, one kill.


‘One shot, one kill’ is something I hear that snipers would normally do, but then Galman did not carry a rifle. His ‘one shot, one kill’ was so close that he himself got killed.


How close into the ‘kill zone’ was he led in, I wonder? I find it hard to believe that he was left alone by the one soldier that led him once they got through the entrance. An airport is a high security area in any part of the globe, and the (former) Manila International Airport should be on the highest alert since the number one enemy of the state was expected to arrive. Galman had to be led in as close as possible, making his soldier ‘bodyguard’ as vulnerable as he is when the time comes.


Didn’t the rest of the security detail wonder that one of their group had led someone in?


The area where Ninoy was shot was devoid of people; well known footages of the day had guards blocking the stairs that lead to the kill area. How is it that Galman, who shouldn’t be there, in the first place, got close enough in a spot where there was no civilian around?


Maybe he was dressed as an airport mechanic or any personnel common in the area to blend in. But still, one mechanic closing in should have raised an alarm when the natural reaction of people was to avoid soldiers and VIPs. Soldiers are trained killers lets be honest and therefore it is also in their training to avoid being killed; and that entails that they have eyes not only on the front but to scan the entire 360 degrees.


To say that Galman slipped quietly into their backs unaided is just bullshit.


But shit happens right? Galman got ‘lucky’ that day because everything had by design and by neglect caused him to have a clear shot of his target after all its been known that it doesn’t take an entire conspiracy to kill. One man with the desire is enough.


In June 5th, 1968 Robert Kennedy was killed by Sirhan Sirhan in a hotel kitchen as the senator was about to leave. The killer, a young Palestinian, was later subdued but not before he was able to unleashed a volley of bullets.


November 4, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin as killed after attending ironically a peace rally by a fellow Jew, Yigal Amir, a law student in his 20s. Rabin died later on in surgery from the three gunshot wounds he suffered.


Like Ninoy, the two victims I have enumerated here are also guarded; they are after all powerful men in their respective countries. However, the assassins here had the advantage of a crowd which masked their approach until the last moment. Galman had no crowd to mask himself, yet compared to Sirhan and Amir, he had unleashed one perfect shot.


So is it conceivable that only one man did it helped by only one, maybe two, of a 16 man security detail?


That question has lingered in my mind since the chorus of “it was Galman” gained new life with a big help from Public Attorney’s Office Chief Persida Acosta. The answer that I keep coming back to a video footage that I see every year, like clockwork, on August 21.


The footage was of Ninoy who had just landed, talking to passengers and reporters; maybe checking if his toothbrush was still in his bag while he waits. Three soldiers (or policemen) came in to pick him up. They were the strangest three soldiers I have ever seen because they were just too camera shy. What they showed was not the character of soldiers I’d expect during martial law.


One wore glasses; the second was trying in vain to cover his face with his hands. The third seemed normal enough, relaxed, as he looked for Ninoy. Camera shy soldiers is not proof I know but still it’s a strange sight. Maybe they were pro-Ninoy and were ashamed to show their family who shared the same sentiment that they were there to arrest former senator.


Maybe they were afraid of the NPA. Ninoy was accused of being a communist sympathizer and these guards were wary of a backlash.


The footage keeps bothering me every time imprisoned soldiers say its Galman, it’s not their fault. Without going into politics, I believe wholeheartedly that soldiers and policemen are brave people. To go into a career which has one foot in the grave certainly needs an enormous amount of courage. It was a pure and simple arrest of an unarmed man; what can be so  embarrassing about that.


We’ve seen in recent days soldiers firing warning shots at a hotel where the lightly armed company of Senator Trillanes and Gen. Lim were holed up. Later in the night they went in with tear gas and arrested not only the principals but also a number of reporters. It was an embarrassing sight but I see no soldier hiding his face.


On that note Trillanes’ mutiny of four years ago, a.k.a Oakwood mutiny was clearly wrong and yet you see all of the Magdalo soldiers displaying their face with pride.


I tried all scenarios and only one answer seemed plausible to me. The three who were embarrassed to pick up Ninoy were camera shy, seemingly embarrassed, because they were already practicing the familiar refrain; “it was Galman who did it”.