Leoni per agnelli

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!

Lions for Lambs is a current issue film that deals with several relevant topics. The central plot revolves around essentially three settings that don't directly affect each other through action. They do however affect each other through course of action presented in debate. Cruise plays Jasper Irving, a GOP senator with a new plan of action for the war on terror. Streep is a veteran reporter who is interviewing him. Simultaneously, Redford is a college professor who has called a student into his office. A conflict in Afghanistan is taking place which is linked to the aforementioned plot lines.

Lions for Lambs surprised me with it's balance. I'm an open Republican, and felt that this movie was not a cliché attack against the power that be. The Cruise character could have been given irrefutable hatred material. He could have been caught in a scandal. He could have alienated others with religious furor. Instead he is real and forms educated arguments. He seems rational, and passionate; he can also make a turn to present himself to the public. I don't see this as an attack, but one of the many skills politicians need to succeed. With all they go through and the decisions they have, they don't want the mocking that crying before the camera would carry. The left is represented by Redford's professor and Streep's reporter. Both are treated with rationale conviction. Neither has a clear anti-GOP agenda. Both of these characters even go as far as to acknowledge the error in the ways of their side. If there is a message to the film, it is that we are being sheltered from reality. It was clear to this viewer that Redford is stating that we are placing focus on the minuscule while matters of true importance are treated as second rate. Surely this is something we all can agree on in Lions for Lambs and this comes into fruition as the film evolves.

Aside from the political commentary, which it makes no dance around, this a dialog heavy film. Characters are pinned against their situations which cause them to restrain from a course of action both physically and metaphorically. The conversations are engaging, but it would be arguably more favorable to allow the characters interaction. A few additional technical merits could have gone a long way. For example, the CGI of the Chinook helicopter was not up to par; a memorable score and unique cinematography are also absent. The screenplay is inherently foiled by remarkable coincidence; but there was no way around that. At a scant 88 minutes, Lions for Lambs is quick to get to the point but it is over too fast. These miscues keep it from perfection. Served as they are, Lions for Lambs is thinking person's film that comes highly recommended.

"Lions for Lambs" follows three interconnected storylines that all revolve around politics. More narrowly they revolve around the politics of war, and more specifically still: the war in Afghanistan. At the time of the release of this movie the U. S. had been in Afghanistan for about five years and only now, roughly twenty years after storming Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for their role in 9/11, has the U. S. decided to bring their last troops home.

The three storylines "Lambs" followed were 1.) Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and one of his students (Andrew Garfield) at a university somewhere in California. 2.) Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) who were also students of Prof. Malley's before deciding to enlist in the army. 3.) Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) who were ardently discussing the U. S.'s new strategy for ending the war for good which just so happen to involve Rodriguez and Finch.

There you have it. You have American politics, with fighting being a part of it, being discussed in broader more philosophical terms in the professor's office. You have an actual politician discussing how to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan. And you have actual soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. It all made for some interesting and even somewhat passionate arguments, but that's where it stopped. "Lambs" seems to have been made to make its viewers think and come to their own conclusion about who or what was right and wrong. I can appreciate that even if I wasn't the biggest fan of the topic.

It's easy to imagine the 2007 drama Lions for Lambs performed on the stage, since the story is so dialogue-driven and only three simple sets-or merely four chairs, if a modern take was adopted-would be necessary. Three stories are all related, each including a dialogue between two characters, in a time-sensitive story during the current (depending on when you rent this movie) war in the Middle East. In one, a powerful Republican senator, Tom Cruise, tries to persuade a liberal journalist, Meryl Streep, to write a favorable piece on his efforts for the war. In another, a California university professor, Robert Redford, tries to get an apathetic student, Andrew Garfield, to care about current events. In the third, two soldiers and friends, Michael Pena and Derek Luke, find themselves isolated and fighting for their lives during a mission gone wrong.

If you're hooked already, like I was, you're going to want to rent this one. Plus, it's Robert Redford's baby (meaning, he directed it) so you know it's going to be well-made and full of top-notch acting. If this ever does get turned into a stage play, I think it'll be a great success. Many theatergoers will enjoy the witty dialogue and agree with the message. A word of warning, though: if you find yourself agreeing with Tom Cruise as the movie starts, you might not enjoy the rest of it. I wouldn't exactly classify this film as a "message movie," but it definitely has a theme. If you're a Republican, there's a chance you might not like it.

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.