Lions for Lambs

Why is it that many movie reviewers seem to cover their ears and shout "la-la-la-la-la" whenever a director takes issue with U.S. government policy?

In Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford presents the studious version of one of Tom Tomorrow's best satirical swipes of 2007. http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/07/16/tomo/. The movie is a careful dissection of how the mainstream news media has operated throughout the Bush administration. ("On bended knee", just as they were when Reagan was President.) It certainly doesn't merit rave reviews -- I'd give it 2 1/2 stars our of 4 -- but deserves more thoughtful consideration that some reviewers have given it.

From his perfunctory review, Roger Ebert must have been wearing an iPod during the movie -- watching but not listening. He notes that the movie focuses attention away from the dialogue and toward the performances. Well, yeah, that's what happens when your ears are plugged.

As usual, Ebert is afraid to express any real opinions. He peppers his review with qualifiers.
...if I have this right.....
.....I dunno
.....I guess

At least Manohla Dargis does a better, more thorough job of missing the point in her New York Times review. She admits that she and her colleagues want it both ways -- urging directors to take on contemporary matters but feigning disinterest when they do so. But what should we expect from folks who spend most of their lives in darkened rooms?

Full disclosure: I was never a fan of Siskel's & Ebert's Shana-and-Jack, point-counterpoint movie debates. Their full-throated enthusiasms made them extremely inviting targets for spoofing, just like the 60 Minutes pugilists.