Customer Reviews

Lions For Lambs (Full Screen Edition)

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

LIONS FOR LAMBS as a movie has the courage to do just what the message of the film attempts to do: encourage the American public to stop being so apathetic about our position in the global community. The dramatization of three points of view about the Middle East conflicts (it not only takes on the Iraq debacle, but adds the Afghanistan and Iran problems as well) could, in lesser hands than Robert Redford's direction of Matthew Michael Carnahan's script, be a preachy bore. But while the 'action' of the film may not grab the viewer, the afterburn of the message will haunt the thinking person.

Three scenarios interweave (at times a bit bumpy in the editing, and at times a bit distracting): adamantly pro-war Republican Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) is interviewed by veteran 'thinking' journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) and each defends/attacks the current strategy of the war in Iraq (Irving is taking calls about the latest 'expansion' into Afghanistan); Professor Malley (Robert Redford) tries to resurrect a sense of involvement in a student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) once bright but now sinking into the apathy of living the good life; ex-students of Professor Malley - Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernesto Rodriguez (Michael Peña) - have committed to the idea of acting for change and have ended up being dropped in Afghanistan in the very 'new' war Senator Irving is addressing. By stirring these three approaches to the manner in which the public is currently addressing the war in Iraq in a concurrent conversation, the film involves the viewer in the crossfire of apathy and misinformation that come from failed education, faulty governmental intervention and the media sellout to get ratings. It is not a pretty picture, but then our current state of affairs is not one of which we can be proud.

There are no answers here, just harsh realities and questions as to why we can remain so passive as a nation involved in the lowest state of global respect ever known. The film has flaws, but if the viewer can digest the information illustrated by some very fine acting, perhaps there may be a chance for a wake-up call. Watch it for the message, not expecting a thriller or an action movie. The mind is what is engaged here. Grady Harp, April 08

The title "Lions for Lambs" refers to a quote from a German General during WWI regarding the British army. The Germans were most impressed with the Brit soldiers' fighting ability, but they didn't particularly respect the men who commanded them. Essentially, unblooded, starched collar men were setting objectives for a war they knew nothing about.

"Lions for Lambs" takes place over a very short period of time--less than a day in three separate scenarios. It opens with Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), a veteran reporter of 40 years, being granted an exclusive one on one hour with Senator Jasper Irving. In the interview, the Senator extols that Ms. Roth help him sell a new initiative for the US war with Afghanistan. This initiative had begun 10 minutes before their interview commenced. Essentially, the US Forces in Afghanistan are going to use small point insertion of troops to break the enemy's back--very similar to the plan General Abrams used in Viet Nam. Can the Senator get Ms. Roth's support for this new plan and sell it to the US people?

Next, we see Prof Steven Malley (Robert Redford) talking with Todd (Andrew Garfield, a student from his political science class. He offers Todd a deal--either accept a blue collar B for A work and non-attendance or entertain a proposition. Why did he offer it? Because Todd was one of the few students who showed true potential and encouraging those people to do something with their lives was why Malley still taught college. Can he convince Todd to enter the program he's suggesting?

The final set of people we see are two students Prof Malley mentioned in his talk with Todd. Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are two of the US Special Forces unit who are parachuting into Afghanastan to "show the enemy the full measure of American mean." Their helocopter is fired on due to poor intelligence and Rodriguez is knocked out of the craft. Arian follows him in the jump--to stay with his 'brother' in both arms and spirit. The damaged helo has to leave due to the continued fire. Can Command get a chopper back in time to rescue the two brave soldiers?

These are the basic questions involving the three groups of people, but of course there's more discourse than that. Essentially, the Senator's and Professor's portions of the film are all talk and the two soldiers' are mostly action. Redford manages to entwine the three storylines almost flawlessly. There are only a couple of flashbacks in Redford's own scenes and they forward the story along. Performances by all the major cast were excellent. Meryl Streep was the best I have ever seen.

My one star deduction is for the simplicity and heavy-handedness of the message. "Lions" came a hair close to being preachy.

It's unfortunate that many don't demand much of movie-making and even less of themselves. I for one demand a great deal from both.

This movie was complex in the sense that it didn't provide a neatly summarized and easily digestible answer to what is a very complicated question, mortality (i.e., how to get the best value out of ones life).

By interweaving the different plots it conveyed a contrast that couldn't have been accomplished otherwise.

But most importantly, this movie was about choices. Whether your a journalist who realizes you are doing a disservice to your profession by going along to get along, or whether your a student that finds comfort in being cynical as opposed to buckling down to change things for the better or perhaps if you choose to put your safety in harms way for the greater good, these are all choices that may not fit easily in one's comfort zone. Tough choices indeed, and as such should not be expected to be dealt with cavalierly.

This movie made its point abundantly clear. Which is to say, we all have a part to play in making the world a better place. We just need to determine which is the best way for us to do our respective part.

Yes this movie requires the viewer to pay attention. Yes it will make you think about your past experiences with college, the government and the media. I bought the DVD to give to my two grandsons who are in college and facing the reality of being an adult in today's world. But first I will give it to my sons, who, like me, faithfully served in the military and found our country's leaders and media lacking. This movie brilliantly shows the real world interplay of social and political forces that shape and alter our lives.

If you are among the restive viewers who have been ignoring War on Terror films in droves, or if the patter of perspectives usually found in stage plays is not your bag, then let me say first up that Lions for Lambs is not for you. A conventional "plot" is conspicuous by its absence, about 80% of the film is polarized chitchat, and it throws more questions into the fray than pat answers. Caveat emptor.

If, on the other hand, the idea of witty back-and-forth on issues very germane in this day and age does not make you want to run back to Seinfeld reruns, here's a taut script packed to the gunnel with some gloriously insouciant dialogue.

We follow three separate strands of it. Tom Cruise plays a presidential hopeful (but, in customary irony, he emphatically denies ever wanting to be one) who has engineered a secret new war strategy to tame the new kind of enemy that lurks overseas. The dubiously labeled "forward operating points", we learn. He announces this ever so speciously to a veteran reporter, played by Meryl Streep. Two soldiers, played superbly by Michael Peña and Derek Luke, implement those new orders and land in serious peril. That's the second thread with actual combat action. In parallel, Redford completes the trifecta as a political science professor in "a California university", down but not out by the apathy of students, trying to galvanize one of them who is drifting from studies.

All talk and no play could make Jack a dull boy. But Redford's assured direction has the clip and the pizazz to make the static seem kinetic. Streep and Cruise electrify simple banter about popularity polls and botched invasions that feel like they took place last month. There's a liberal dollop (pun intended) of wit and erudition to her talk. As though spurred by her refined touch, Tom Cruise is on a "Magnolia"-caliber roll, bringing a creepy charisma to a senator clearly in love with the heft of his role.

Surprising, too, is how equal the newcomer Andrew Garfield is to the task of countering Redford as the wayward student whose surfer dude mannerisms conceal a keen mind. On occasion, this professor-pupil talk makes for the worst kind of dialectic--a dry and cliched public service announcement more than clever drama. But thankfully just when we are about to check our watches, we are rescued by provocative interludes of US soldiers stranded in the inclement peaks of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's militants are depicted as shadowy creatures, literally, which is a touch disingenuous but it's not hard to overlook. The two former students who joined the US army bring enough chemistry to their roles to add an emotional edge.

But to me, therein lies the biggest ham in the script: the portrayal of these hard-working scholarship boys who trundle off into war zones because they want to do "good". There's been a tendency in recent years to aggrandize the common soldier which, while properly laying the blame on the political management, risks offering an unrealistic look at the experience of war. Remember Jarhead? Ultimately, these are scared kids lost in a foreign country, a reminder of the human life put at risk by high ideals and political sloganeering. Ahem, Mr. Redford.

As a critique of modern politics, however, it plays an even hand. Cruise's senator's assertions hark back to the now-(in)famous Tony Blair speech that gave a short shrift to evidence, vaguely acknowledges past mistakes while repeating them, and displays bafflement for the adversaries who refuse to play by his rules. But Streep's reporter isn't fully devoid of blame either, compromised by the media's early cheer-leading for the Iraq War and her inability to effectively question the party line.

It's rare to see a high-profile movie out of mainstream Hollywood that goes so far out of its way to include everyone, not just the like-minded. It may smack of armchair moralizing, but boring it is not. And unlike some other recent films such as Rendition, which I nonetheless enjoyed, it isn't preachy either. Instead, to coin a phrase, it's urgeful: whatever you believe, please do something about it.

A timely message wrapped in delightful theater.

This movie had a lot of potential, it had a really good premise and could have been a really good movie but it failed miserably.

The #1 problem with this movie was that the producer/director did not do their homework. By that, I mean ALL the military aspects of this movie were laughable (I literally laughed where inappropriate). I won't point out all the mistakes, I'm not someone who does that. I don't want to spoil anything so just know when you're watching, that two "American" soldiers, especially Army Special Forces would NEVER do what these two do at the end, its insulting for those of us who are over here fighting right now that people will believe that.

The other BIG problem with this movie was the script, not the story or even the screenplay but the dialogue itself. Watching this was like sitting through a liberal Political Science lecture. The movie was almost painful to sit through, and at just over 90 minutes thats really saying something. Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep are two of the best actors alive and in this movie, I could tell they were acting. I didn't believe he was a senator and I didn't believe she was a reporter. Cruise and Streep did their best with the script and the direction they were given, but all in all this movie was just BAD.

If you're looking for a GOOD movie about Afghanistan and why we're still here, watch "Charlie Wilson's War" It blows this movie out of the water.

The point of this film is quite clear to me: Incompetant political figures (the lambs) risk the lives of brave individuals fighting for our country (the lions). For what reason are the lambs doing this? Only (ONLY!) for their own political image. By no means do these politicians actually care about the safety of their country...only about what will get them elected next time.

So who are the heroes in this film? The soldiers and...the media. As director Robert Redford tells it; the media take the twisted lies and propaganda that the right-wing politicians are spewing and straighten it out to the stories that we read in the paper. Alright, great.

Meryl Streep plays the reporter, who was one of the people who fell prey to the "terrible lies" that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks regarding who was responsible. She is interviewing Tom Cruise, a politician who the audience is obviously supposed to dislike.

Here's the problem(s).

This is a propoganda piece! Now, propoganda isn't neccasarily bad, but Streep's climatic rant toward the end of the film makes a valid point against the film itself. When questioned why she doesn't want to print the story given by Cruise's character, Streep says that "all he gave was propoganda." In other words, she argued that she wouldn't be printing NEWS, she would be printing a piece of biased propoganda. That is essentially what this movie is.

This is not a debate for a certain view...it is mere propoganda masquerading as a provocotive look at the debate behind the Iraq War. When you can make your opponent say whatever you want so that you can come up with some clever retort, it isn't exatly valid debate.

Bottom line; Do not be fooled...this is Redford's bitter views spun into an angering propoganda piece. The very politicians he condemns may be more like him than he thinks...

At first glance, you'd think that Lions for Lambs would be a good movie: after all, it stars Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep, all reasonably decent actors, and is directed by Redford, who's received acclaim for some of his past directorial efforts. Unfortunately, it is a tedious, preachy film that seems more designed to deliver a message than to entertain; it winds up doing neither well.

There are three distinct storylines going on, all taking place over a period of an hour in different regions of the world. In California, Robert Redford is a political science professor debating an apathetic student about political activism during the former's office hours. There is no plot, just a bunch of back-and-forth arguing. Meanwhile, two of Redford's former students - who actually followed his call to participate, though not in the way he intended - are now Special Forces soldiers trapped on a mountaintop in Afghanistan after a mission went wrong. This is the only storyline that is minimally interesting, probably because it is the only one with any real action in it.

The third storyline involves a Republican senator played by Tom Cruise giving an interview to reporter Meryl Streep. The purpose of their meeting is to unveil the purpose of the Afghanistan mission, which Cruise does not yet know has gone wrong. The interview, however, turns into a debate about the United States's efforts in the Middle East, and it is grating to watch. The attempt to provide a semblance of balance fails: Cruise's pro-war stance is so filled with cliched lines - and he comes off too glib - that he is utterly unbelievable. Streep isn't much better on her side.

From a political standpoint, I actually agree with a lot of what this movie says, but it does it so poorly that it undermines its own cause. I often say I can enjoy a good book or movie even if I disagree with its politics, as long as it's done well; similarly, I can hate a book or movie that I agree with if it's done bad, as this one is. Whether you are for or against the Iraq war, this movie should be avoided.

This is a thoughtful film and well worth watching. "Lions for Lambs" offers various perspectives on the "War on Terror". It also addresses the problem of apathy and the lack of faith in government.

I was surprised to find how much I related to the diverse characters in the film who defended opposing views: The truth-seeking journalist; the young men from poor neighborhoods who want to make the world better; the intellectual slacker who sees through the bull of politics and asks "what's the point of caring or getting involved?"; the senator who promotes the need to smash obvious evil with military might in order to prevent it from spreading; and the university professor who believes we all still have a responsibility to care, no matter how bad and pointless it all may seem.

Despite their opposing positions, I found at least some things that were reasonable in all of the characters.

One of the most important points "Lions for Lambs" makes is that the US media has lost its way with terrible consequences. Television news in particular has become laughable. With so much time and effort given to covering pop stars and missing white women, there is little air time left for analytical coverage of government policies and actions--not to mention the 25,000 children who die each day in poverty around the world or the rapid loss of our planet's biodiversity.

No one should approach this movie with the expectation of seeing an action-packed war movie. This is mostly a talking-heads film. If you are a thoughtful person who knows and cares about current events, you will probably enjoy this movie.


However, if you await the latest reports on the Britney Spears' saga with breathless anticipation, then this movie is likely to disappoint you. Then again, you may be the very person who needs to see it most.

---Guy P. Harrison, author of

Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know About Our Biological Diversity

and

50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God



-

If you want to think critically about the real issues at stake in the politics surrounding the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, buy this movie. Both major viewpoints are represented honestly, and the movie leaves it up to you to decide.

Or, if you're a college student not sure what your role in society should be, buy this movie. Robert Redford's character's exchange with his student will speak to you, as it did to me.