I was looking at the movie section (of the Seattle Times) to see if there was a film I might want to see today, and I noticed that Rendition (which I saw only 2 weeks ago, and which has NOT been out that long) was playing NO WHERE in the Seattle area.

So a bit suspicious, I went on line and looked in other local papers movie sections, to see if it was the same thing. I looked in the NY Times, Minneapolis- Star Tribune, Chicago Tribune, and the Houston Chronicle, and it is NOT playing in any of these metro areas.

Now I know that movies come and go, but come on this movie has NOT been out that long, it was released on October 19 (not even a month), so why is it no longer playing anywhere?

I challenge other people on this site to see if they can find it playing anywhere, and then I have to ask WHY?

This country just gets stranger and stranger...

Ron,

Your conservative friend's blogs, do not interest me.

Have you seen this film? Do me a favor, go see it (although you probably can't find it anymore), and then make a comment. Quit posting what other people tell you, I would have thought you could think for yourself, but I guess I was wrong.

The numbers tell the tale.
Rendition

Already on it's way to video

Thanks Loganthor, I see that Blockbuster On-line already has the release date of December 31-2007 for video.

So Melissa, I do not pay my hard earned income to sit in a movie theater to watch Anti-American propaganda. I will wait until it is on video and watch it in the comfort of my apartment. Right now I have a Noam Chomsky film out and I am doing things in his direction that I can not say.

Not my friend but since you asked the question, I remember reading that article and assumed correctly you would read it...

quote:

Ron,

Your conservative friend's blogs, do not interest me.

Have you seen this film? Do me a favor, go see it (although you probably can't find it anymore), and then make a comment. Quit posting what other people tell you, I would have thought you could think for yourself, but I guess I was wrong.

Really Ron, your pig headedness is astounding, your obviously a brainwashed disciple of Limbaugh. The spiking of this future American classic movie has all the fingerprints of a Rovian conspiracy with the rich Illuminati of Hollywood!
You can’t deny it!
Steel just doesn’t melt!!!!
ARRGHGHHG

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:

I challenge other people on this site to see if they can find it playing anywhere, and then I have to ask WHY?

This country just gets stranger and stranger...

… Well, after reading your challenge, I decided to take you up on your offer. After going to my local paper, I too found that the movie of which you speak is no longer in this (Portland, OR) market either. Suspecting that Ron might be on to something in his comment –i.e. ‘market forces’- I also ‘googled’ the box office numbers, and saw exactly what Loganthor shared as well. Nine million dollars that this particular movie brought in, in however long it was allowed to show, are very low numbers indeed. If ‘we’ the buying public do not vote with our wallets when films like these come out, then these films –however interesting or impactful- will not remain on the marquee for very long at all…
… As I was searching the newspaper, I began to scan the pages to see what was actually ‘out there’ as it were, as it has been quite some time since I have gone to a movie myself. The movie “Lions for Lambs” seemed like an interesting one, and I even remembered a review about it on the ‘consortiumnews’ website;

consortiumnews

quote:

In Editor’s Note: The Washington Post and some other publications are predictably panning Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" because it poses tough moral questions about the neoconservative agenda.
this guest review, historian Lisa Pease finds the movie compelling for those same reason

“Lions for Lambs,” directed by Robert Redford and starring Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep, opens this weekend. It is one of the few “must see” films of the year.

Through crackling dialog, splendid performances, and emotional sequences, the film seeks to elevate the national discussion not only on the war in Iraq, but on the Americans at home who have chosen neither to participate nor to protest.

The film’s Web site asks a question one must answer before one can enter: what do you stand for? The film itself asks a bigger question: What are you willing to do for what you believe?

The title of the film comes from a comment a German general offered in a letter during World War I. Impressed by the bravery of the British soldiers, if not their officers, who were often given their commission because of social ranking, not military prowess, he wrote, “Never have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.”

And that’s the essential thrust of the film. Lions have put their lives on the line for a war that was sold by Lambs. Now, what are we going to do about it?

The film interweaves three stories. One features a rising young neocon star, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), who invites savvy journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to bestow upon her a scoop regarding a new military mission in Afghanistan.

He offers her the story first because she wrote the article that put him on the political map when she called him “the future of his party.”

Janine suggests that was not necessarily a compliment, and they begin a battle of wits and rhetoric the likes of which we’ve never heard, and have longed to hear, about the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and possibly in Iran next

The dialog presents a masterful dissection of the rhetoric of war, from multiple viewpoints, and challenges the public’s apathy on the subject. As Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times noted, the film is about “conservatives who care too much about winning and liberals who don't care enough about losing.”

“Lions for Lambs” challenges each of us to live more consciously, to make deliberate choices, rather than to sit back and let choices be made for us through our passivity.

… Here’s another review;

boxoffice

quote:

Packed with star power in a dialog-driven drama about the most urgent issue of our time—the Bush administration's undeclared, unsuccessful so-called war on terror—Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs roars.

it does what a good movie ought to do: it gives one a reason—actually, several—to think.

Dr. Malley's lessons figure into the lives of his students and one particularly disengaged youngster (Andrew Garfield) who's prone to fraternity rites, channel-surfing and ditching Dr. Malley's class. As the challenging Westerner, seventysomething Mr. Redford is positively charged in an about-face from his role as the irritable rancher in An Unfinished Life. The brash student is the stand-in for today's text-messaging, passively spoon-fed automaton, one of many instantly recognizable types in this head-spinning talkathon.

Three couplings populate the picture. Besides the college pair, who signify a strand of hope for a future influenced by new intellectuals, there's a United States senator who supports the war on terror (Mr. Cruise) and the journalist (Miss Streep) to whom the senator grants an exclusive preview of another half-baked incursion (this one in Afghanistan). The third duo is two soldiers (Derek Luke, Michael Pena) attempting to engage the enemy in this historic military mobilization created by America's intellectuals.

… Now, here’s the box office numbers for this movie;

boxoffice

Domestic Total as of Nov. 11, 2007: $6,710,000 (Estimate)

… One of the few ways I have concluded to be the most effective manner in which to ‘support’ the Arts, as well as the many authors of all the numerous books I find kinship with, is by buying their product. It is one of the few most tangible ways in which I can literally –and metaphorically- say; “Well done!”… Personally, I have dozens of books laying around the house that I will probably never read, simply because in many cases I have already come to similar conclusions that many of these authors and writers speak and write about, and I see little need in going over information that I have already gone over… However, by buying their books, I am ‘supporting’ their efforts, as well as the efforts of other like-minded individuals, and in a very real sense ‘voting with my wallet’…

… If we do not wish to see this movie succumb to the same fate as the previous title you mention –then we had better get out of the house, and get out our vote!… I just checked my paper, and I see that the last showing is @ 9:50 tonight. I know that I am more inclined to ‘buy a book’ than to ‘buy a film’ –the principle is still the same. As soon as I’m done here, I’m off to vote once again with my wallet, and support those dastardly Hollywood Liberals in the most practical manner I can muster… And in the process, I’ll even be ‘entertained’ as well as ‘informed,’ as a result… As a matter of fact, the first reviewer I linked to from ‘consortiumnews’ closed her review with the very same suggestion;

quote:

Godot isn’t coming. Our fate rests in our collective hands. It’s time to engage, in whatever way is meaningful to us. Supporting such a message by attending this film would be a good start.

… I couldn’t agree more…

Lawrence. While, I disagree with your politics in many ways. I do admire your willingness to look at your individual decisions as being important. It is not like we can not make a few simple decisions to support those causes we believe in and in the same manner avoid those things we do not...

quote:

The movie “Lions for Lambs” seemed like an interesting one

Morning, Lawrence-

Thanks. I looked it up, and it's now playing.

With Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, it might last longer at the box office than Rendition.

quote:

SUNDAY AM: I heard Tom Cruise did Lions For Lambs for "virtually nothing" to help kick-start his revival of United Artists. Without that, the R-rated movie starring Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed, never would have gotten off the ground. Maybe that would have been kinder. Because even with a very moderate budget of $35 million, the political polemic was killed by moviegoers and reviewers alike this weekend, opening to a paltry $6.5 million from 2,215 theaters with an anemic per screen average as well. Even with only a 92-minute running time, the pic even fell far short of the studio's rock-bottom expectations of $8 million.

LInk unit

Movie critics, and the consuming public, are measuring sticks. Not sure what kind, but there you have it:

quote:

Redford himself delivers a fine turn, but his scenes are not as scorchingly showy as those between Streep and Cruise.

But, it’s Redford, the director, who raises the difficult and more relevant questions for the film’s viewers: Is it better to do what’s right knowing you may end up failing? Or, are you content with maneuvering your political and moral principles “just around the edges of the flame”?

link

quote:

The least resourceful actor among them, Cruise, distinguishes himself the most. As a senator distancing himself from his president's failures in Iraq while advancing his own tactics, which didn't work for hawks in Vietnam, he exudes the hollow yet impermeable confidence of a salesman who always sells himself.

link

quote:

“But few Americans are eager to spend their money to listen to the Jane Fonda set say, 'I told you so!’ for two hours.”

link

To whom it may concern...

I was all ready to clip in something about why I don't view art by Pablo Picasso or Walker Evans, something about because of their wrongheaded views about women. But then, I changed my plan, when I saw we were still on the subject of whether Tom Cruise acted in a decent movie with a decent script and whether the consuming public wanted to watch it. So, I thought, well, it's a decent observation anyhow. And it's also a false observation, about Picasso and Evans. I can separate the "Art" from the "Artist" and that's not a simple trick, but easier when the Art has been given the breathing space of the passage of time. Contemporary art, of course, is subject to the whims of the gossip rags and the "free market."