Lions et agneaux

Overall, it's a decent movie. Could have stood more action, more texture. It becomes a little boring after the endless cuts between three different settings where each new shot is quite similar to the last one in the respective setting. But, the dialouge between Redford and the student is interesting. Lots of people are saying its "patronizing"...I didn't really feel that. Apparently that would make me stupid according to some that have commented on this film. But, I didn't really feel that was the intent, feel of it. It's more of a "set back and look at YOUR life and ask yourself if you're really doing all you could be" type of film. I only give it six stars because of the ending and because I feel the film lacks enough texture and becomes a little dry throughout.

Good directors always have a point of view, and Robert Redford is no exception. Once a gorgeous leading man, he has emerged in the past years as a fine director. What he's always been is a political and environmental activist. So "Lions for Lambs," coming from him, should be no surprise.

The film, which runs only 88 minutes, shows us three scenarios: a Senator (Tom Cruise) handing an intelligent reporter (Meryl Streep) a "new plan" for the war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a strategy from the Vietnam War that didn't work; a professor (Redford) prodding a lazy student (Andrew Garfield) about his beliefs and urging him to be an active, not passive participant in the world; and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) behind enemy lines in freezing Afghanistan. The reporter doesn't want to write the story given to her by the Senator because she feels it's false, but she needs her job; the hawk Senator is, after all, only doing his job, as is the professor; and the two soldiers are doing theirs.

This could have been a stunning film - as it is, it does hold interest despite being very talky. The stark picture of the soldiers juxtaposed with the Senator in his well-tailored suit ("says he in the air-conditioned room," Streep reminds him as he's talking about the war) is a sad reminder that for all the plans, the statistics and the estimates, soldiers are human beings, and young human beings at that, committed to what they're doing - and the professor's student could easily have been one of them, freezing in Afgahanistan instead of contemplating his life. In fact, the two soldiers were the professor's students.

Despite what others have said, there aren't any true good guys or bad guys in "Lions for Lambs." Talk is cheap (and there's plenty of it in this movie) - it's easy, detached from a set of circumstances, to intellectualize it or to work it like a chess set. It's easy to say you don't believe something and won't write it - when your job is threatened, you fold. What the film has is two heroes. Despite what everybody talks about in the movie, two people literally put their lives on the line. For what? Well, that's for you to decide.

So many negative comments about this movie. But I think we should take a moment to assess what the movie is about. Starting from the title to the credits, the movie is not about a heroic battle or an indelible mistake by a over zealous, self absorbed government. It is about understanding a mindset. If any of you have ever read Francis Fukuyama... its about history repeating itself. Its about the common man being a pawn, about how life really is not a 'great equalizer'. Redford does a brilliant job looking at showing the dynamic impact numerous aspects/events and individuals who impact our lives truly have. The self serving ego of one senator, or the inability of a teacher to persuade a student, or a reporter having to turn a blind eye to conscience because of a need to put a meal on the table the next day. It is nice to finally watch a Hollywood war related film without a heroic massacre. Or a rescue from the jaws of death, or the pity of a sympathetic enemy. Indegenes (French film about WWII) was the last movie that actually attempted to understand the core of the individual, the motivation of an action. Redford captures the same...a stellar film maker!

Thumbs are of no use in talking about Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs." Sticking them up or down makes little sense. It's not that kind of movie. What kind is it? Pretty much without a category.

The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.

At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.)

While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.

Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.

Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.

Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.

I came to this film with it already square in my mind what I was getting into. The media and the reviews here had already informed me that this is the liberal media having yet another dig at the Bush administration and the policies in Iraq etc. Knowing that, and sharing those views roughly, I decided to watch it but did hope that it would not be too clumsy as a fictional attack on a subject that is already covered everywhere you look. What I got though was not that but something much more interesting and something much more unexpected. What I got was a film that more or less pushed the political points to one side and challenged those on the bench of politics to get involved rather than just sitting there moaning. It took me by surprising but essentially this is the reason for the entire film – not to bash Bush, not to condemn Iraq, not to push Democrat policies but just to challenge the viewer.

In this regard it works really well and it is hard to argue with the points about taking part in society rather than just focusing on one's self and I particularly liked the way that it did not condemn those who do that with a weapon, with politics, with reporting to help others be involved etc. I can understand why it has gotten this "liberal" tag because of who made it and because it is "intelligent" but it doesn't deserve this because it generally does keep the neutrality reasonably well. Of course though there is a slant to the left on what it is saying but not to the extent where ti does feel like you are being preached at – this is not a Michael Moore film here.

Nor is it a perfect film though. Those looking to be told a story and nothing more will find themselves disappointed because, although there is a narrative flow to it, this is not really what it is about. Instead it relies heavily on engaging the viewer's brain and making the audience think – that way, how the film ends is not all that important because you carrying on mulling over things for yourself as you leave the cinema. For me this happened but for others I can understand why the film would have come across boring, pointless and open-ended; I don't agree with you – but I can see how it happened.

The cast are all very good though because everyone understands the need to sell their characters. Cruise plays very well as the politician and the film treats him with respect as a character. He plays well with Streep, who is equally good and uses her performance to let the media have a kick that it does deserve. Redford and Garfield provide the meat of the piece and their simple discussion comes over natural and effective in presenting the challenge to the viewer. Peña and Luke have simpler characters but are engaging as students and soldiers. It is very much an ensemble piece and everyone does work well in their various twosomes, the support cast may have Berg, Dunn and other familiar faces but really it is about the three pairs, all of whom work well.

Lions for Lambs has been lumped in with anti-Bush and anti-Iraq films and will have been dismissed by many as just about piece of left-wing propaganda – and this is a shame because this is far from the truth. It is not a perfect film in some regards but it is not preaching but rather challenging all viewers, no matter what you think, to get involved, to take part, to question things, to think for one's self. It is thought-provoking and challenging and for that it is well worth seeing for yourself.