Movie Review Lions for Lambs

Lions for Lambs (2007)

Directed by Robert Redford 

Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan 

Starring Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Michael Pena, Andrew Garfield 

Release Date November 9th, 2007

Published November 8th, 2007 

A valuable dialogue on the most important topics of our times is well engaged in Robert Redford's Lions For Lambs. Inter-cutting three different stories, unfolding simultaneously, and one important flashback, Lions For Lambs fails in structure but succeeds for its intentions. The inescapable issue is how tremendously un-cinematic Lions For Lambs is. Maybe I'm grasping, but a movie needs to be more than the sum of its windy pretenses. Even as someone who agrees wholeheartedly with the message, the message fails in the milieu and good intentions bog down for lack of a more compelling cinematic arc.

Robert Redford directs and stars in Lions For Lambs as a political science professor, everyone just calls him doc. This morning Doc is early to chat with Todd (Andrew Garfield) , a student with a sharp mind who refuses to apply himself and often just doesn't show up. The war and the government has so disillusioned young Todd that apathy has set in. For the next hour Doc attempts to awaken the engaged mind of this student with so much potential.

As that is happening in California, a journalist (Meryl Streep) has arrived in the office of a young Senator (Tom Cruise) who, years earlier, she had proclaimed the 'future of the Republican party.' The senator took the hyperbolic headline to heart and now wishes to repay her unintentional compliment with a real important scoop. As the two chat, a military operation that the senator helped plan is getting underway. He hopes that telling the journalist this story will help him with another front page headline to add to his presidential resume.

Meanwhile, the soldiers assigned to carry out the new strategy have left the comfort of the American base in Bagram on their way to a remote, hilly region of Afghanistan, dangerously close to the Iran border and covered in snow. A gun battle causes PFC's Finch (Derek Luke) and Rodriguez (Michael Pena) to fall out of a transport copter into an enemy nest. Surrounded, they must conserve their ammo, nurse their wounds, and deal with the cold as they await a rescue.

Each of these three storylines, written by the very talented Matthew Michael Carnahan, dovetails off of the other with modest detail. Using Mark Isham's quietly compelling score to link one scene to the next, Redford makes no pretense about what his point is. Lions For Lambs is about excoriating cowards who make decisions in Washington while our lions are sent off to die to protect these lambs. It's a heavy handed point but a well made one, especially if it already speaks to your beliefs as this film does mine.

I've opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and listening to Robert Redford and Meryl Streep make the points that I have already made myself, in various arguments over Iraq, is quite affecting for me. However, it may mean nothing to you. If you are for the war, a supporter of the President and his policies, you won't like much of Lions For Lamb. The film is unabashedly, unashamedly liberal and that, at the very least, is bold especially just a mere three years after the Dixie Chicks were threatened with death and the end of their careers for speaking out.

Times change quickly and now a spate of Hollywood heavyweights have taken on the war to varying results. In The Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, Redacted, Rendition and a number of documentaries have taken on the war to varying degrees of success. Robert Redford delivers, arguably, the most thoughtful film of the bunch but also the least cinematic. Sorry, but we need more than just actors speechifying for over an hour. The film lacks dynamism and feels stultifying by being limited to a one speech after another structure. 

There is little to no visual accomplishment to Lions For Lambs. Don't get me wrong, it is professionally shot, but only a few scenes, those set in the mountains of Afghanistan, manage to be visually compelling. The rest is just a series of conversations shot almost statically in two shots broken up by the occasional showy camera move or tight close up.

Tom Cruise has the most difficult role in the film, that of the conservative voice, a strawman for the liberal messaging of the movie. His ambitious Senator may look like John Edwards but he talks like Dick Cheney. Jousting with Streep's skeptical journalist, Cruise more than holds his own. His character being a natural villain, a congressman and snake oil salesman, he is doomed to be outwitted but he doesn't go down without a fight.

Watch how Cruise regulates that star charm, holding back on that natural glint in his eye. It's an extraordinary effort because the man is effortlessly charismatic. He literally has to dial it down to play a charismatic congressman. In Lions For Lambs Cruise brings just the perfect mixture of political savvy, ugly ambition and earnest passion. He's the kind of villain who doesn't see himself as the villain and those are the best kinds of villains. 

Lions For Lambs ends with a poignant offering of why Redford chose this title. I won't spoil it for you but I will say that anyone who questions Redford's patriotism and commitment to our troops will have not seen these final gut wrenching scenes. In the end, Lions For Lambs should be far better than it is. The subject matter deserves a more compelling direction. It needs more than just a series of soapbox declarations and condemnations. Valuable subject matter is rendered inert due to a lack of style that keeps Lions for Lambs from transcending its polemical intentions.