‘Lions for Lambs’ Review

B

     As American politics grow more and more heated on military involvement in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood started to make a point of its own. And rather than just remind us of recent terrorist activity by blowing up everything in sight, director Robert Redford’s ‘Lions for Lambs’ combines many talented personalities into an interesting political thriller that provides the audience with plenty of thought-provoking questions on current affairs… all it lacks is the answers

     When two West Coast University students follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Redford), and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the ultimate decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is torn between his influence, and his admiration. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged student (Andrew Garfield) who is the opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. a charismatic Republican Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist (Meryl Streep) that may affect Arian and Ernest’s fates. As heated arguments, memories and bullets fly, these three stories become woven together, revealing how each of these Americans has a profound impact on each other and the rest of the world.

     Aside from his controversial marriage to Katie Holmes, and his obsession with scientology, veteran Tom Cruise continues to maintain a string of solid performances, and his portrayal of the senator in ‘Lions For Lambs’ is beyond believable. With acclaimed assistance from Streep and Redford, there certainly isn’t a bad performance among this lengthy cast. Compared to prior work, however, mostly all of these stars seem to be falling back on their potential.

     When Redford began production, he must have quickly realized that this project would play out more like a debate, rather than a show of pure entertainment, because regardless of whether or not people walk out satisfied, no one can criticize Redford for playing it smart and keeping the reel short (roughly 90 minutes).

     Any strict news watchers who follow the current affairs of America  may have actually found a treat in this compiled triangle of dramatic storylines and heated debates, but it won’t take long afterwards for viewers to realize that the questions raised in the film are left wide open for them to answer personally. It’s certainly never wrong to address any political questions that you know will have many answers, but if you’re going to use filmmaking as an outlet, you might as well try to at least convince viewers of something.