Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep deliver "three knockout performances" (Vue Weekly) in this powerful story about how the decision makers at the top affect American soldiers on the ground half a world away.
An idealistic professor (Redford), a charismatic U.S. Senator (Cruise) and a probing TV journalist (Streep) have opposing viewpoints about the actions of our nation and the attitudes of its citizens. But the human consequences of war become chillingly clear for two of the professor's former students, who find themselves trapped behind enemy lines, fighting for freedom... and their very lives.
The considerable authority of Robert Redford pulls some heavyweight talent into Lions for Lambs, a rare Hollywood foray into flat-out political filmmaking. Three dramas, all connected, play out simultaneously during the same hour: On a mountainside in Afghanistan, two U.S. soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) find themselves stranded during a new military surge; on Capitol Hill, a Republican senator (Tom Cruise) tries to sell the new strategy to a seasoned reporter (Meryl Streep); and in California, a professor (Redford) tries to light the fire of commitment in an increasingly apathetic college student (Andrew Garfield). Director Redford cuts back and forth amongst these arenas, a gambit which thankfully obscures how weak the one non-talkfest (the Afghanistan segment) really is. You can tell Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan put their juice in the debate between Cruise and Streep, which summarizes Right and Left views on the Middle Eastern wars, and does so reasonably lucidly--although there is little here that would surprise anyone who has looked into the subject. The college section suggests Redford's belief that there are lots of people, distracted by tabloid culture and self-centeredness, who haven't looked into the subject. So he lectures us about it, sounding suspiciously like an old geezer remembering the good old days. If this film had been released in 2004, it might at least have bucked majority opinion, but coming out in fall of 2007, it already felt like old news. --Robert Horton
Customer Reviews:
Avg. Customer Rating: 3.0 / 5.0
Interesting Points of View, But Disjointed:
I like that there are multiple points of view given in one movie, but it was way too disjointed. A bit too cliche as well.
buried by preachiness, an important point:
I can understand why Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford's recent movie, received mixed reviews; in fact, I can completely understand why many people would hate it. It is preachy, very preachy. About a third of the movie shows Tom Cruise's character (a Republican senator) preaching at Meryl Streep's character (a veteran reporter) in support of the administration's war on terror, while the reporter in turn preaches to the senator about the mistaken war in Iraq. In the process, they preach at each other... more info
Interesting psychological drama in near real time:
"Lions for Lambs" features a high-powered, ultra-conservative US senator (Tom Cruise) who is apparently in line to be his party's next candidate for president, a well-known liberal television reporter (Meryl Streep), a political science professor (Robert Redford), one of his current students, and two of his former students. As the film gets rolling we learn that in Washington, D.C. the senator has allocated an entire hour for an inverview with the reporter. At the same time on the west coast the... more info
WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN:
This is THE worst movie I have ever seen...could not watch it even for 20 mins and came out of the theatre... you can do anything in this world other than watching it ..period.
