Lions For Lambs presents an overlapping drama that follows three story lines.  The film attempts to challenge the conduct of the "War on Terror" through by tracking dialogue between a reporter and rising Senator, a Professor and a promising student, and two students who previously studied under the professor, who are involved in escalating operations in Afghanistan.  The intertwining stories attempt to take an anti-war stance in a rather sophomoric plot that seems more preachy than touching.  This film would have been more effective using a subtle message than to stand on a soapbox the way that this film manages to do.  I watched it for entertainment...if I want a sermon, I can go to church for free.

There are several problems with the plot.  The most glaring issue is the ending, which was both anti-climactic  as well as boring.  It seemed the writers used an unimaginative ending that was intended to be thought provoking in one aspect, and cliche in another.  The ending left me wondering why I wasted 88 minutes on an unintelligent, unoriginal propaganda piece.  The dialogue was okay at times, and utterly boring at others.  The acting was shockingly bad.  The major actors were upstaged by their unknown counterparts in this film.  The segments that focused on the professor (Robert Redford) and his prize student (Andrew Garfield) felt more like an after school special than anything.  However, Garfield was surprisingly likable and sharp in his role.  The storyline between the Senator (Tom Cruise) and reporter (Meryl Streep) was a yawner...I've seen soap operas with more meat to them.  Streep delivered on the emotional aspects surrounding her own inner turmoil, but the script left her with very little else to work with.  The best segments surrounded the action in Afghanistan between friends (Michael Pena and Derek Luke).  Although the special effects were laughable, the interaction between these two young actors was excellent.  They were the bright spot in an otherwise forgettable film.

Lions For Lambs attempts to bring home the human side of the war through the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.  But Director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan spent too much energy focused on the message and missed the opportunity to develop the action in Afghanistan.  The two characters seemed genuine, with a back story that provided some depth to the characters, as well.  The briefing room scene felt authentic and started to draw me in at the beginning of the film.  But once the pair get on a helicopter, the opportunity seemed squandered.  The action sequences were incredibly fake as was one characters decision to jump out of a helicopter in the middle of the mountains.  No way.  No how.  The fact that he lands feet from his friend (and they both live) is even harder to swallow.  The scenery for the rest of the action in Afghanistan seems like a bad Hollywood set.  The low lighting was incapable of adding any realism to the scene.  The ending of that segment was even harder to accept.  Things just don't happen that way.  The fact that Redford included induction notices for the two...when the draft hasn't been around for decades was another not-so-subtle attempt to engage in hyperbole.

The storyline involving Redford was preachy and a bit condescending.  Although Redford's character (Professor Malley) claims to encourage free thinking and stimulate discussion (which was a major theme in this film...one that it failed to observe)...his comments about the two soldiers in Afghanistan are a bit disturbing.  Malley passes judgment on the two, summarizing their decision as a mistake...a wrong path chosen...and he accepts some of the "blame" for their decision.  What is wrong with wanting to serve your country or make a decision to join the military.  Many people would not consider that decision a "mistake," they would consider it patriotic or heroic.  The judgmental language with no attempt at balance undermined the entire train of thought.  The quality of the writing and video in this segment felt like an after school special.  I disliked almost everything about that entire section of the movie.

The interaction between Tom Cruise (Senator Irving) and Meryl Streep (reporter Janine Roth) was a bit better.  Cruise looked polished and the set was exceptionally well constructed.  The Senate Office provided a realistic backdrop for the scenes.  Streep allowed for some subtle emotion, which was the only contribution she was able to make.  The dialogue was hackneyed and vague.  The intent was to show the press corps as having allowed the President to go to war in Iraq without any clear mandate or plan.  My recollection was that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN Resolutions and was pursuing a WMD program...it had nothing to do with 9/11.  I recall Clinton and Gore also claiming that Iraq had WMD...so the "Bush lied" stuff is lost on me.  However, I agree that the press needs to question the President and obtain clear answers on issues.  Bush did not have a clear objective in Iraq...and that was the issue I found in the conduct of the war.  The war itself was legal and justified...with no lies needed to justify our actions.  But having an exit strategy would have been nice.  Planning for the military to dissolve and become an insurgency would have been nice, too...but then...there is a certain amount of hindsight in these arguments.  So, the reporter and Senator banter back and forth, revealing the Senator as a politician who uses the troops to advance his own cause and the reporter as a sellout.  The entire exercise was rather boring to watch.  I editorialize a bit here, because Streep poses the question "Why did we send 150,000 troops to a country that did not attack us..." in an attempt to rehash questions that re-write history.  Iraq was not a response to 9/11...it was conducted in response to material breaches of UN Resolutions.  As much as films like this attempt to change the facts, people like me remember them and will stand ready to set the record straight. 

Lions For Lambs was hit with a surprising R Rating by the Motion Picture Association of America.  The war scenes are rather tame by today's standards.  The gore factor is minimal, with a helicopter scene that has a couple of injuries and some ground combat that has a slight gore factor that is obscured by terrible lighting.  The strong language provides another prong for the rating, but it was contextual.  The F bomb did not prevail in this film.  I would not personally restrict this movie from any audience.  Although it is clearly preachy propaganda, the content was not that objectionable.  Youngsters who scare easily should obviously avoid it.

Lions For Lambs could have been a decent film in spite of a message that I do not agree with.  I have seen films that offer an opposing view, that are tastefully done.  Subtlety has a way of winning people over (even if it doesn't change their core beliefs).  Preachiness has a way of making people tune out.  This movie was preachy, poorly constructed and weak.  The plot lacked interesting themes, the dialogue focused more on agenda than quality of conversation, the special effects appeared to be low budget and the acting was stiff.  The unknown actors made the "lions" of Hollywood pale in comparison.  Because I enjoyed Pena, Luke and Garfield, I offer a bonus star...I like seeing lesser known talent on the rise.  Two stars out of a possible five.

Recommended:
No

Video Occasion: None of the Above