Again with the liberal Hollywood! “Lions for Lambs” is the third major film released in the past two months about the conflict in the Middle East following “Rendition” and “In the Valley of Elah”‘s lead. Having a usual liberal bias, “Lions for Lambs” tackles the war in Afghanistan.
The movie begins with reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) interviewing Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) about the mistakes made in the War on Terror, but he quickly changes the subject by unveiling a new tactic being used in Afghanistan at that very moment.
Meanwhile, at a generic California university, Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) sees “potential” in a lazy, distracted student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). Malley tells Hayes about two students exhibiting that same “potential,” Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña), who volunteered to serve in Afghanistan and are currently fighting in Irving’s new strategy.
When flying over a mountain pass, the black hawk carrying Finch and Rodriguez is attacked. Rodriguez is wounded and falls out of the helicopter; Finch jumps out to try and save his friend.
“Lions for Lambs” was basically one long lecture. Irving lectures Roth to stop looking at the past and set the public’s eye on the future. Roth lectures her boss about why feeding the public Irving’s opinion is bad journalism. Malley lectures about how his gung-ho former students, like lions, are being wasted by incompetent hacks in charge, the lambs (hence: “Lions for Lambs”). Politicians suck. Journalists suck. War sucks. We get it!
The issues brought up: Afghanistan, which has basically been swept under the rug, the growing nuclear threat of Iran and Irving’s plan that underscores “whatever means possible” in big, bold letters, and journalism’s failures in the lead up to the war: are valid issues to discuss. However, monologue after monologue, comically misused French horn blasts, and low budget war scenes after everyone has already had their fill of celebrities telling us what to think just doesn’t work.
The war sequences were downright laughable. “Titanic” may have had more believable circumstances, better special effects and better acting than this. The attacked black hawk and snow-covered mountains Finch and Rodriguez were stranded on were so clearly computer generated that it was hard to even take them seriously.
However, I understand that big budgets aren’t always in the question. Good acting can potentially make up for this loss, but Luke’s and Peña’s lifeless interjections just couldn’t.
The big names were better in the acting arena but not much better. Cruise’s character was smooth and convicted. He delivered his incredibly script-y lines and clichéd body language tactfully, much like you’d expect a politician to. Paired with the usually wonderful Streep, their dance was ever so contrived and ultimately fell flat.
Redford, who also directed, has a rich and creamy speaking voice which is great for all the talking he does, but there was nothing particularly magical about his performance. Garfield sat, added some smart-ass commentary, and sat some more. Riveting.
At the end of the day, pulsing strings dubbed over serious expressions does not intensity make; it’s either there or it’s not. In “Lions for Lambs,” was it ever not
Although their hearts were in what they consider to be the right place, “Lions for Lambs” is why the rest of the world hates liberal propaganda: Its slow, force-feeding of opinions makes even Democrats queasy. Please, please, skip it.
