Movie Review - 'Lions for Lambs'

Lions for Lambs

Starring Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford
Directed by Robert Redford
Rated R

Lions for Lambs preaches an anti-war message loudly, boldly and badly. It isn’t enough merely to be a political film, but even a poorly crafted message in the cause of something good is still a poorly crafted message.

Regardless of its intent, Lions for Lambs spins out of control and struggles to get the reasons behind its message front and center. Perhaps it’s the structure – Lions for Lambs feels like a stage play – and perhaps it’s the multi-layered stories that compound the problem rather than clarify it.

Accepting that the Iraq War is at the very least broken, Lions for Lambs throws around blame, short-term fixes and big words with little meaning, all in hopes of achieving some great consensus. And as the multiple perspectives keep flying at you, the only thing that crystallizes is that there’s not one train of thought you’re supposed to follow. That’s just bad screenwriting.

A college professor (Robert Redford) preaches political involvement to an intelligent but unmotivated student (Andrew Garfield) through the example of two former students who had less advantages but more drive (Michael Pena and Derek Luke). 

Those former students are now soldiers in Afghanistan, fighting in the first wave of a new mission to win the war on terror. The deployment is the brainchild of a Senator on the climb (Tom Cruise), who gives an exclusive interview with a cable network reporter (Meryl Streep), adamantly copping to administration failures in the past while emphasizing the bright future ahead.

Of the intertwining stories, only Cruise and Streep can do anything with their moments on screen, particularly Cruise, whom you never for a moment doubt in his sincerity and mission, despite your feelings for his point of view. Streep seems overwhelmed at first, but it’s simply part of a measure portrayal that takes a while to come to a boil.

The bad screenwriting mentioned earlier is by Matthew Michael Carnahan, whose similarly bleak Middle East film, The Kingdom, is much more streamlined, interesting and entertaining.

Lions for Lambs suffers from a generational disconnect. For people who have lived through both, Iraq is the younger generation’s Vietnam; for younger viewers and younger Americans in general, it’s not their anything else. The script gets right that the War on Terror is the most important event in the world of this generation, but when a 71-year-old director tells them that – much like Redford’s professor tries in vain to reach his younger, disillusioned student – it’s the way the message is conveyed that ultimately falls on deaf ears.