 |
 |
Lions For Lambs is a labour-of-love project about the state of the Union -- war in the Middle East, a muzzled media, apathy in the general populace.
The film is meant to be a rallying cry for social activism in America.
It's more like a rallying chat.
There are a few problems.
The film, which has an impressive cast, unfolds in three connected scenarios.
In one, a seasoned political reporter (Meryl Streep) is permitted a lengthy interview with U.S. Senator Jasper Irving, a sort of GOP used-car salesman/politician played with oily enthusiasm by Tom Cruise. The Senator tries hard to impress upon the reporter that an important new military strategy in Afghanistan is going to win the war and rebuild the country. She has her doubts.
|
In the second scenario, two soldiers (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) involved in that brand new military strategy prepare to meet their fate on a mountaintop in Afghanistan.
In the third scenario, the former professor of those two soldiers (Robert Redford) explains how the men wound up in Afghanistan -- as he attempts to convince a lazy student that being a rich, disaffected slacker is not a useful career choice.
Lions For Lambs is an indictment of the current U.S. administration and the current military engagement in Iraq. The movie also suggests that a disengaged population and a media dedicated to fluff have had a large role to play in the decline of the American empire. Trouble is, that disengaged population isn't likely to see this movie, which leaves the usual problem of preaching to the converted.
The segment involving Cruise and Streep is really good -- Cruise always manages to be fascinating as a duplicitous character -- and most of the performances are first-rate. (Redford isn't quite believable as a college professor and the soldiers, Derek Luke and Michael Pena, don't get enough screen time to matter to the viewer.)
The movie, however, is mostly talking. And some of it is interesting talking, but only if you already know the subject matter.
You can see the problem.
The filmmaking is a bit clunky, and the three stories don't quite add up; what we have here is just not fully engaging.
Redford, who also directs, may have been hoping that a big cast would ease people into this political territory, and maybe he's right. If you don't need movie stars, you can get a better take on much of the same subject matter in the documentary No End In Sight.
(This film is rated 14-A)