Here is a review on movie I watched a few months back that got me questioning and thinking and rethinking a lot. The review says much of how the story goes although it does not say much of how good the movie was - well, I found the dialogue very compelling that I did not notice other aspects of the movie. Anyway, here is a review from Canadian Cinephile’s Reviews. I tried creating a personal review but didn't get to finish it.
Lions for Lambs is a film destined to polarize audiences. Directed by Robert Redford, Lions for Lambs is an indictment more than a film and contains a slew of political discussion that will either enthrall or bore viewers. Seeing this film is really a question of whether or not one is prepared for the material and not a question of whether one wants a fun evening at the cinema. Lions for Lambs is a film that is intended to provoke thought, opinion, debate, and action. Redford’s film is not a film that is designed to divert attention from global affairs, but rather is a film that is designed to shine a light on the reactions and lack of actions on the part of the general public. It is a scathing critique, overall, but its uneven delivery undercuts its overall effectiveness.
Lions for Lambs takes the form of three interrelated stories and follows the characters through very basic scenes. Most of the scenes in the film, save the war scenes, are single-room dialogue-driven scenes that work through the ideologies that bring the war scenes about. Contrary to what a lot of the reviews say, Lions for Lambs does indeed have a structure. It is purposeful in its pacing and in its discussion of the ideologies, without question. The scenes cut back and forth frequently, highlighting various points and factors by providing a running commentary on the actions currently displayed by the United States on a global scale.
The first story involves two university students that follow the inspiration of their idealistic teacher, Dr. Stephen Malley (Redford). Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena) enlist in the military, much to the chagrin of Malley, and become involved in the war in Afghanistan. The sequences involving Arian and Ernest are the weakest in the film, as they are shot in an “action movie” sort of way and are often rather intrusive in terms of the overall scope of the film. The dialogue scenes between the other characters are much more intense, exciting, and enthralling in terms of pacing and action in the context of the overall film.
The second story involves Dr. Malley and a disaffected student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). This story takes place in Malley’s office as he meets with Hayes over coffee to discuss Todd’s attendance and dedication to his classes. Todd reveals that he has become disillusioned with political science and simply wants to be an “average Joe” to enjoy his personal happiness. Malley sets out to scold/inspire Todd in a set of scenes that reflect the overall intentions of Redford with Lions for Lambs. The idea here is to help Todd (the audience) overcome their cultural and political apathy by inspiring and coercing action in any and all terms. The “action” in terms of the characters of Arian and Ernest was to join the war - an “action” which Malley deplores and admires. The action in terms of Todd and the audience of Lions for Lambs is up for grabs as the credits roll.
The third story in Lions for Lambs is the strongest. A Republican presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) invites a reporter, Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), into his office for a one hour meeting. In the meeting, Irving announces a new war strategy in Afghanistan that proposes small troop units (like the ones Ernest and Arian wind up in) occupying small mountain regions before the Taliban can do so. As Irving reveals his strategy, a discussion erupts between he and Roth that highlights the role of media, the passive nature of mass media, and the role of government policies in shaping lives. It is an intriguing discussion that is well acted by both Cruise and Streep, as the script pulls no punches in creating an affective character in Cruise’s Irving and a sympathetic character in Streep’s Roth.
Lions for Lambs takes risks in its execution and, for that reason, is worth watching. It is a bold film that produces bold ideas and challenges key policies. Redford aims to provoke and challenge the viewer here, using a fictional narrative to innervate and energize his audience into potential action. The goal of Lions for Lambs is admirable and moving. The execution is, however, uneven at times. The strongest scenes are really strong and the weakest scenes are, sadly, really weak. This produces a feeling of misplaced apathy towards certain characters. I found myself losing interest during the scenes involving Ernest and Arian and found myself getting excited to see the next scene to feature Roth and Irving. As a whole, Lions for Lambs is heavily flawed.
The dialogue here is often strong, but often mediocre. The scenes with Malley and Todd are great examples of script failure. Redford is really good, while Garfield is wooden and uninteresting overall. Redford’s lines in the scenes are strong and poignant, packed with punchy resolve and a will for the future. Meanwhile, Garfield’s lines, while intentionally riddled with apathy, are so cookie-cutter and normative that one feels apathy about Garfield’s character’s apathy. Instead of willing Garfield’s character over the hump and on to something greater, the dialogue and performance by Garfield simply bores while Redford works his ass off to carry the scenes. Only during the sequences involving Cruise and Streep is true acting equality shown.
Lions for Lambs is a dialogue heavy indictment of American policy and a strong film in terms of its risk-taking and its effective viewpoints. The execution of the film overall lacks key components, however. With a stronger script and better performances, Lions for Lambs would be a significant film in the annals of cinema history. As it is, however, Lions for Lambs is an above-average polemic and simply an average film. It’s still good enough to recommend it, though, as I feel its importance trumps its overall execution.
Trailer:
