Lions For Lambs

This movie was an impossible sell to movie goers in theaters last year. First of all it was an Iraq war movie which is a bad sell to begin with, but if you add into the equation that people of this country have an irrational hatred of Tom Cruise and he stars in the movie, well no one wanted to see it. The fact that people cannot separate Tom Cruise's public persona from his acting is a whole other rant for another day, but it led to Lions for Lambs being in theaters for about a week and meant, even though I wanted to see it, I would have to wait for DVD. The DVD came out this week and I watched it over the weekend.

The movie unfolds in Crash/Magnolia/Babel likeness where three stories somewhat overlap but rarely have direct contact with each other. The first story involves a news reporter, Janine Roth(Meryl Streep) getting one hour of face time with young, hot shot republican senator, Jasper Irving(Cruise). Irving wants to unveil his new plan for "getting a win" on the war on terror in Afghanistan. Irving and Roth spend most of their screen time going back and forth about the mistakes made in the war and blah blah blah. Roth keeps asking about the past while Irving is trying to focus on the present and future. His new plan for war directly effects the second story, that of Earnest Rodriguez and Arian Finch, two army soldiers. Their unit has been told they have to take the top of this mountain because it is easier to win from on high. Things do not go well as their helicopter is shot down and the two young men end up on the snowy mountain top by themselves, both injured and having limited ammunition. As they lay there awaiting certain death, we see flashbacks to when they were young bright college students in a political science class. Their Professor, Stephan Malley(Robert Redford), is the third story. Malley sometimes will take interest in certain students and this semester he has taken an interest in Todd Hayes(Andrew Garfield). Hayes is a bright student but recently has become apathetic to Government and politics and malley has an hour to change his mind.

Lions for Lambs takes a lot of hits for merely being liberal propaganda, which it may very well be, but it is pretty damn well made liberal propaganda. There is also some irony in that the College Professor storyline is all about finding a way to act not just talk, but the movie itself is essentially 90 minutes of pure talk. It is high minded, challenging and interesting talk, but talk nonetheless. Cruise infuses an interesting character into his Republican senator who is the villain, quite frankly, but he makes his plight somewhat understandable. We don't identify with him totally but his comments on how the media shovels as much shit as politicians is a well timed point. Streep does a great job filling out the role of a long time news reporter sick of hearing twisted stories from B.S. leaders, but the lack of resolution to that story, especially from the side of the reporter, is very frustrating. Garfield, to his credit, stands up well with Redford in creating a realistic, if a little too smart, college Sophomore. Redford does his best wise man routine and really lets the words take control, acting more of a conduit than an actor or director(he directed the movie). But again, the lack of resolution was a bit off putting. The story with the soldiers is the most boring and predictable, but at least they get an ending, as unsatisfying as it is.

The screenplay, written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, is really the star of Lions for Lambs. The dialog is what really drives this movie from beginning to end. It is obvious Carnahan had a lot on his mind regarding war, media, politics, apathetic youth and the army. He makes great points about how the young people dying in battle are usually the young people were not even treated well while they were in America. He might not be making terribly new points but he is effective in all of his arguments. He gets to create a dream world where politicians admit their mistakes as well, as the Cruise character apologizes 3 or 4 times for past mistakes. The dialog is easy to follow and understand and it easy for all of the actors to say, but that doesn't mean it isn't effective. Sometimes the easiest way to say something is the best way to say something, Lions for Lambs proves that theory.

With the brisk running time of only 90 minutes, it never wears out its welcome and it never gets boring. Every time we spend too much time on just talking the movie wisely cuts to the two soldiers that, while they are talking, are also doing their far share of shooting and screaming. It probably won't change minds as none of the characters are forced to live with their decisions because when the movie ends there aren't decisions made. A lot of philosophising is done, but no actions are taken, no changes are made, and everyone is left exactly where they started. Maybe that was the plan all along but it left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

Final Grade: B