Lions for Lambs (15)

Film

War films

migrate.35028.jpg

Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise in Lions for Lambs

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong>2/5
Rate this  

Time Out says

Mon Oct 15 2007

‘Lions for Lambs’ – or, more accurately, ‘Politics for Dummies’ – is directed by Robert Redford and stars Redford as a corduroy-clad, idealistic university tutor in California who spends most of this self-important and empty film – that’s at least six years too late to have any real relevance beyond the box-office – in conversation with a promising but lazy student (Alex Garfield) who he wants to teach the value of personal and political engagement. Meanwhile, up in Washington, Tom Cruise is baring his whiter-than-white incisors as a smooth-talking, high-flying young senator who has granted veteran television-news reporter Meryl Streep an hour-long audience to announce a new, more aggressive military policy in Afghanistan.

The filmmakers must have imagined sparky, engaging conversation between these duos similar to a high-speed tennis bout between skillful pros; what emerges is more comparable to a lazy afternoon table-tennis knockabout in an old people’s home. While these pairs talk and talk and then talk some more, either directly or indirectly touching on some current and always broad American political divisions, we witness some action in the dark mountains of Afghanistan and the tragedy of two soldiers played by Derek Luke and Michael Peña. We later discover that these two young men are former students of Redford who, considering how best to engage in political discourse, have boldly decided to enlist. And so with these two men on the mountainside, the film’s plot is complete: Redford and Carnahan know all too well that ‘important’ Hollywood movies these days must have circular stories that tie together different, apparently unrelated strands in a flash of slightly corrupted chronology. That way lies universality, greatness and sometimes even awards.

Back to the two soldiers – I’m not sure whether we’re meant to think that these young men are regretting their choice to join the army or that we’re meant to see them as ordinary heroes as they find themselves surrounded by shadowy armed figures on a deserted mountain-side. They emerge as both – not an entirely different perspective to writer Matthew Michael Carnahan’s recent ‘The Kingdom’ in which he also argued that Our Boys – or Their Boys – are suffering the effects of poor decisions by central government. It’s a crafty – some might say cowardly – way of ensuring both dissent and patriotism in the same film. There’s another scene here in which Cruise gives a monologue, the message of which amounts to: ‘Don’t ever forget 9/11’. He’s a smarmy politician and we’re not meant to trust him, yet the music blares up for this speech. It’s have-your-cake-eat-it time.

The politics of this film are basic beyond belief, which would be acceptable is they weren’t also so muddled and unconvincingly expressed. Apathy is a theme: the promising student is obviously a symbol of latent intelligence which, if roused, might make for a more varied and powerful political debate among the American people. Yet this tack is heavily compromised by the casting of the director in the role of the selfless humanitarian with a message; personally, I don’t like being lectured by Hollywood millionaires, especially when their script bears little evidence of real engagement with ideas. The conversation between Redford and Garfield – about grabbing life by the balls, about avoiding regrets, about whether to engage or just to coast along through life – is not very interesting or credible. It’s very stagey, and its point is made early on. Some lines are designed for Oscar-night clips: ‘Rome is burning son,’ says Redford, ‘and the problem is with us.’

Over in Washington, the pairing of Cruise and Streep has a little more dynamism to it. Cruise is fairly charismatic as a teflon politician who tries to charm and flatter Streep into delivering the good news of a new offensive action in Afghanistan, batting away any suggestions that there might be a draft coming and declining to dwell on past errors. But Streep looks like she doesn’t buy a word of her character’s apparent transformation from willing servant of a television network to someone who two hours later throws her editor the most hackneyed line – ‘You were good once’ – while refusing to spin in the usual fashion the government story fed to her by Cruise. Are we meant to believe that this woman who writes features for Time magazine and is a leading American journalist with decades of experience is only jolted into chronic self-doubt and able finally to see that television networks may push a populist agenda after an unexceptional hour-long conversation with a senator about a quite unremarkable foreign policy development? I know Tom Cruise is meant to be charming, but come on... The look on Streep’s face says it all: unconvinced. When she steps out of an anonymous government building in Washington, we’re supposed to recall ‘All The President’s Men’. That film puts this nonsense to shame.

19

Comments

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Nov 9 2007

Duration:

91 mins

Share your thoughts
  1. * mandatory fields

Comments & ratings

Rated as: 2/5 (11 ratings)
  • Those that don't understand this film are the people that would be represented by Tom Cruise. Stupid, ambitious and above all Trevor Johnson. Time Out really got their monies worth with this fool!

    Catalyst1 Mon Oct 26 2009
    Rated as: 5/5
    Report
  • It is not a new thing for young men to be duped into going to war, it has been happening for centuries. The army were at my son's Primary school teaching the children to march, and they had not even consulted the parents beforehand. I think the job of the army is to defend us against attack, but not to interfere in the poltics of other countries. You do not see the Australians or the Swedish getting involved the way America and Britain do. There are lots of evil regimes in the world and the way to deal with them is to shame them in the way that apartheid was shamed. But blasting people with rockets is really not a civilised way to behave, and makes us no better than them. This was a very unusual film and perhaps the reason people do not like it us because they expect special effects and explosions and car chases. I agree that it was more like a play than a movie, but the script is excellent, as are all the performances. I am glad this movie was made and I hope it provokes people to think about the "war on terror" and whether that is what it really is, or is it just a question of America and Britian protecting their economic interests abroad.

    Anne Marie Wed Apr 23 2008
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • this is the worst film ever,its not a triller,documentry,action film,love story,war film,its americans blown there own trumpet about how educated,and more advanced to the rest of us.newsflash...their not

    mojo123 Wed Apr 16 2008
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • Probably the worst movie I've ever seen. It looks like someone gave some big hollywood stars a lot of money to read a school boy's drivel. It is inconceivable that any studio ever released such nonsense. Robert Redford,l have followed you all my movie going career, but this is one I'm just going to forget you had anything to do with. Too mind bloggling bad to contemplate. Don't even buy the DVD.

    Alison Hudson Fri Dec 21 2007
    Rated as: 1/5
    Report
  • This is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. It challenges viewers to accept their own possible complicity in public policies which are corrupt and destructive. We have to ask ourselves why we are apathetic while crimes are committed in our names. We also should ask ourselves why we can't be honest about this movie, why all major reviewers want to pan it and run from it. Perhaps the truth hurts too much. If reviewers find truth boring, if they can't think enough to understand this brilliant picture, things are even worse than Redford has portrayed. Is this picture talking only about a past conflict? No, it is talking about the best and the brightest who are dying as we speak. It is also clearly talking about the Iran invasion waiting in the wings. What are we going to do about it right now? Wake up people! Wake up!

    Anne Chamberlain Thu Dec 6 2007
    Report
  • well, i didnt understand the film, i thought that if it was on a saturday, it could have benn much better, but no, it was on a friday .... i mean who do they think i am .... even though i am not part of it, it must be said i am.

    richard gould Sun Dec 2 2007
    Rated as: 3/5
    Report
  • If there was was an award for the silliest movie of the year this should definetly win it. A part from the cast, the rest is pathetic and exceptionally dated. I hope that the very few who trust politician and the media would finally switch to alternative sources for their informations (blogs Utube or specialist sites) and perhaps search for ways to let politician know we dont buy their lies anymore. The movie calls to a cry for justice, moral and values that certainly are not reinstated through warfare or politics. Feel sorry for the youngsters in the movie whose Ideals are exploited by the army that convince them to the legitimacy of war and instead deliver a circus. The most viscid is Robert Redford as a university teacher showing an establishment far removed from teaching anything useful no wonder talented students withdraw from such junk. All of the above is well known no need of making a movie about it.

    rufus Thu Nov 29 2007
    Report
  • While I'm at it where did the lambs come from? Like Google, I am very familiar with the classic first World War quote of "Lions lead by donkeys" but have never heard of lambs coming into it. Can anybody provide the original quote or is Redford up a gum tree?

    wavering Thu Nov 22 2007
    Report
  • Well, have just wasted good money to see this drivel. Do they think we are idiots who need to be talked to like 5 year old kids? The only good part was Tom Cruise who, in his role of ambitious senator on the make just oozes duplicity, bullshit and simplictic nonesense "do you want to win the war on terror, yes or no?" If we have to watch this kind of stuff to win the war on terror (whatever that might be) then put me down for "probably not" Am now going to watch the only good thing to come out of the USA for a while "Family Guy" on the telly

    wavering Wed Nov 21 2007
    Report
  • Mastermind, I think this was set in Afghanistan. Ok film, good points made and Tom Cruise is actually quite good so its worth seeing (though is he really just playing himself?).

    Julian P Wed Nov 21 2007
    Report
  1. 1
  2. 2
  • Hotwise
  • Cool brands
  • Star