In Tom Cruise, we trust.
Three separate stories somehow find their ways of connecting to one-another the way you wouldn’t expect (or maybe you’re a movie dick, and do expect it). Robert Redford plays a college professor talking to one of his most-promising students (Andrew Garfield) about what he possibly could and could not do for his future; Meryl Streep plays a reporter interviewing a Senator (Tom Cruise) about a new war-plan in the making; and two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) get caught behind enemy lines without a hope or prayer in the world.
If a regular, everyday person gets pissed-off about the war and doesn’t agree with the intentions; then most likely, that person goes on throughout their day, keeping their thoughts and ideas to themselves, and occasionally blasting-out all of those thoughts and ideas whenever they get to shot to, either around a group of co-workers, friends, family, or total and complete strangers. Either way, this is the story of the everyday man who has a voice and that’s it. Hollywood stars are like us in the ways that they too have a voice, but they also have money, powerful friends, and in Robert Redford’s case; a camera, a crew, and a script as well. First problem right there.
Regardless as to whether or not you agree with the war, why we are over there, and whether or not it’s a waste of time and lives, you will find something to take out of this movie. There’s plenty of important ideas the movie is willing to spout-out at you that makes you feel like it knows what it’s talking about, and even better, has the best intentions at-hand. However, like with most movies along the same lines of this one, best intentions don’t mean jack-shit if you can’t give me a compelling story, compelling characters, and just an overall, compelling and entertaining piece of cinema for an hour and a half. That’s all I ask, that’s all I want, and that’s all I need to enjoy myself and if I get that, then hell, go to freakin’ town on the idea-spouting! But, if you can’t give me anything that’s the least-bit compelling, nor can you even give me an hour and a half movie time-limit (this runs a cheap-o 88 minutes), then buzz off!
That’s what I felt like saying to Robert Redford by the end of this movie because everything he tells us and lectures us on throughout this whole movie, is nothing more than that: just lectures. If I wanted to be lectured on how the war is bad, how it’s waste of time for our people to be over there, and how politicians continue to make mistakes about it, then I would have either taken a Political Science course, gone to a student-rally, or just went online, and typed in “Why the war is bad”, and thus, there would have been over 6,000,000 results and all for the price of $0. However, when you ask me to go out of my way, drive to the nearest theater-complex, and actually throw out about $9 or $10 for one of these lectures, then you can just forget it. Thank the high heavens I never payed a dime to see this movie, and according to the box-office results for this thing: apparently nobody else did either. Just goes to show you that the typical, American movie-goer wasn’t as dumb as we all thought they were. Then again, they probably went out to see Transformers that weekend so I guess that statement doesn’t hold much truth.
Also, it’s not even like everything this movie is trying to say is anything new, revolutionary, mind-boggling, or original that we haven’t already heard or seen said before. Watching Fahrenheit 9/11 will probably tell you the same exact stuff that this movie is, but instead, with more insight, more humor, more personality, more entertainment, and just more of a “movie-aspect” to the whole product that will actually have you feel like you really made the right decision to see it. This movie, which is not a documentary, just tells you stuff that you have already heard before and doesn’t necessarily break any new-ground. It’s almost like Redford had this movie in his head ever since the war started, and then had to wait an extra 6 years until it was almost too late to where everything he said was relevant.
Though he shows signs of getting older as a director, Robert Redford still has the knack and talent to make himself work as an actor, and I guess that’s worth complimenting when you take the whole movie into place. Redford has a natural charisma to him, that still lies within himself, no matter how old or wrinkly his luscious face gets. The guy’s got charm to him, and it only gets better with age. However, the one who steals the spot-light away from him is Andrew Garfield, in a very early-role of his career as a student that has promise and has the brain to make a difference in this world, but just won’t take the bait on everything that he’s being taught. The kid’s a bit cocky and over-his-head with certain ideas, but Garfield makes it work and shows that it doesn’t matter if you’re up against a veteran actor like Redford, you can still do a helluva job and get your name out there for the whole world to see. I don’t know if that worked with this movie or not, but hey, at least he’s Spider-Man now, so that’s got to account for something.
The other story in this movie is with Streep and Cruise, who show that they have good banter between each other, but still feels like some of their weaker-attempts at making a crappy-script work. Cruise is charming as the manipulative, but well-intentioned Senator that has a tough job and knows it, and shows you that he can play slimy, but still make you like him and feel like he’s a good guy, underneath the whole charade of being way too cool for school. On the opposite-end, Streep is okay as the reporter, but it really feels like a role that should have been played by somebody else, like somebody younger, or somebody that isn’t as amazing as an actress as Streep, mainly because we expect more from her. Apparently her character is a little cuckoo for Coco Puff’s, even though it rarely shows when she’s able to keep her cool with the Senator, but that was probably just another attempt at trying to give us character-development from Redford, that just so happened to not work.
The last story is probably the least-interesting out of all of them, and that’s a real shame too because I like Derek Luke and Michael Pena and I feel like they can be really good in certain movies, when they’re given good scripts to assist them. This is not one of those scripts. Basically, all of the scenes we get with them are either they’re talking to a class about their political-beliefs, or they are stranded in a field, injured, and trying to not get killed. We’re supposed to feel bad for them and get a sense that this is like every poor solider that decides to sign-up for the war: but we don’t. It feels manipulative and shallow, as if Redford tried his hardest to take a jab at the military and also humanize it at the same time, but just comes off as forced.
Consensus: Redford’s intentions obviously mean well and aren’t to make everybody out there that he disagree’s with, look like total and complete a-holes, but Lions for Lambs features nothing else other than a bunch of ideas, lectures, and opinions that aren’t new, aren’t special, and don’t really serve any meaning, other than to show you that A-listers really know what’s up with the world. I call bullshit.
3 / 10 = Crapola!!
Good review! Definitely hit the nail on the head! It’s a preachy movie, and a lot of it brings about interesting / important discussions, however, for most of the film, the story isn’t compelling. The part with the soldiers is the most compelling part of the film, and that doesn’t include Tom Cruise nor Robert Redford – both of whom for which the storylines are underwhelming to say the least. I had to read deep into your review to even recall what the Tom Cruise storyline was even about.
It’s a movie that had some sort of chances, but just let them loose in favor of speeches and lectures we didn’t really need. No matter how important they were. Thanks!
I just finished writing a brief review of The Company You Keep, which included the line: “Redford, perhaps because he was burnt by the backlash against his overly didactic Lions for Lambs, feels like he is pulling punches.” I even softened it; originally it read “appallingly didactic”. That movie was the pits.
I still want to see that. Who knows though? Redford may have to give up some time soon.
Hello, I have nominated you for The Liebster Awards
Well I guess I made a good call of not watching this movie when I had the chance. Plus, I’m a bit hesitant of the whole war topic anyway since it’s politics and I’m not very pro-politics.. not against it as well just… I don’t care.
Don’t even bother then, Ray. Unless you want to hear crap you hear all of the time. This time just from million-dollar celebrities. Thanks!
Dan, can you just tell us how you *really* feel about the movie? Haha. I’ll have to agree with you that I did not see this movie. It went through one ear out the other when I saw the previews. I did see the Transformers instead. They also had a political statement about the war, but in a much more crunching metal and exciting way than this movie. Good review. 🙂
Hahah totally did. Thanks!
LOL – Crapola indeed!
I kept thinking the whole movie…stop f@cking talking and get back to the dudes stuck behind enemy lines.
I guess I’ll stay away from this one. haha great review dude!
You just saved me from wasting 88 mins of my movie time! 🙂
I started watching this movie shortly after it came out on DVD. It was late at night and I really was not into it, so I turned it off after about 20 mins. Now it’s about 5 years later and I have not gone back and finished it. Your review makes me want to keep it that way. On the other hand, it may be interesting to go back and see just how bad it really is. It will probably sit in its case for a couple more years.
This reminds me I should have a Meryl Streep marathon…
I completely agree with your observation. This movie is just an 88-minute lecture. The exchanges between Merryl and Cruise are some of the most redeemable moments of this awful film, but even then, they had a horrible script to work from. I can’t help but think that the only reason those two signed up was because of their friendship with Redford.
[…] Lions for Lambs (2007) […]
[…] Lions for Lambs (2007) […]
[…] Lions for Lambs (2007) […]
[…] Lions for Lambs (2007) […]