Lions For Lambs | 
| Director: Robert Redford
Actors: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, Peter Berg, Michael Pe?a
Studio: MGM
This item is no longer available
Rating:  94 reviews
Sales Rank: 5832
Genre: Action
Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: Video On Demand
Running Time: 92 Minutes
ASIN: B001954D6W
Theatrical Release Date: November 1, 2007
Release Date: October 13, 2008
| |
| Synopsis:
Directed by Academy Award winner Robert Redford, the story begins after two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian (DEREK LUKE) and Ernest (MICHAEL PENA), follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (REDFORD), and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged but disaffected student (ANDREW GARFIELD) who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. the charismatic Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (CRUISE), is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist (STREEP) that may affect Arian and Ernests' fates. As arguments, memories and bullets fly, the three stories are woven ever more tightly together, revealing how each of these Americans has a profound impact on each other and the world. |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 89 more reviews...
 It takes time for the punch to be felt... April 9, 2008
Grady Harp (Los Angeles, CA United States)
202 out of 213 found this review helpful
LIONS FOR LAMBS as a movie has the courage to do just what the message of the film attempts to do: encourage the American public to stop being so apathetic about our position in the global community. The dramatization of three points of view about the Middle East conflicts (it not only takes on the Iraq debacle, but adds the Afghanistan and Iran problems as well) could, in lesser hands than Robert Redford's direction of Matthew Michael Carnahan's script, be a preachy bore. But while the 'action' of the film may not grab the viewer, the afterburn of the message will haunt the thinking person.
Three scenarios interweave (at times a bit bumpy in the editing, and at times a bit distracting): adamantly pro-war Republican Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) is interviewed by veteran 'thinking' journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) and each defends/attacks the current strategy of the war in Iraq (Irving is taking calls about the latest 'expansion' into Afghanistan); Professor Malley (Robert Redford) tries to resurrect a sense of involvement in a student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) once bright but now sinking into the apathy of living the good life; ex-students of Professor Malley - Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernesto Rodriguez (Michael Pena) - have committed to the idea of acting for change and have ended up being dropped in Afghanistan in the very 'new' war Senator Irving is addressing. By stirring these three approaches to the manner in which the public is currently addressing the war in Iraq in a concurrent conversation, the film involves the viewer in the crossfire of apathy and misinformation that come from failed education, faulty governmental intervention and the media sellout to get ratings. It is not a pretty picture, but then our current state of affairs is not one of which we can be proud.
There are no answers here, just harsh realities and questions as to why we can remain so passive as a nation involved in the lowest state of global respect ever known. The film has flaws, but if the viewer can digest the information illustrated by some very fine acting, perhaps there may be a chance for a wake-up call. Watch it for the message, not expecting a thriller or an action movie. The mind is what is engaged here. Grady Harp, April 08
Well acted and directed November 9, 2007
R. Kyle (USA)
12 out of 14 found this review helpful
The title "Lions for Lambs" refers to a quote from a German General during WWI regarding the British army. The Germans were most impressed with the Brit soldiers' fighting ability, but they didn't particularly respect the men who commanded them. Essentially, unblooded, starched collar men were setting objectives for a war they knew nothing about.
"Lions for Lambs" takes place over a very short period of time--less than a day in three separate scenarios. It opens with Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), a veteran reporter of 40 years, being granted an exclusive one on one hour with Senator Jasper Irving. In the interview, the Senator extols that Ms. Roth help him sell a new initiative for the US war with Afghanistan. This initiative had begun 10 minutes before their interview commenced. Essentially, the US Forces in Afghanistan are going to use small point insertion of troops to break the enemy's back--very similar to the plan General Abrams used in Viet Nam. Can the Senator get Ms. Roth's support for this new plan and sell it to the US people?
Next, we see Prof Steven Malley (Robert Redford) talking with Todd (Andrew Garfield, a student from his political science class. He offers Todd a deal--either accept a blue collar B for A work and non-attendance or entertain a proposition. Why did he offer it? Because Todd was one of the few students who showed true potential and encouraging those people to do something with their lives was why Malley still taught college. Can he convince Todd to enter the program he's suggesting?
The final set of people we see are two students Prof Malley mentioned in his talk with Todd. Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are two of the US Special Forces unit who are parachuting into Afghanastan to "show the enemy the full measure of American mean." Their helocopter is fired on due to poor intelligence and Rodriguez is knocked out of the craft. Arian follows him in the jump--to stay with his 'brother' in both arms and spirit. The damaged helo has to leave due to the continued fire. Can Command get a chopper back in time to rescue the two brave soldiers?
These are the basic questions involving the three groups of people, but of course there's more discourse than that. Essentially, the Senator's and Professor's portions of the film are all talk and the two soldiers' are mostly action. Redford manages to entwine the three storylines almost flawlessly. There are only a couple of flashbacks in Redford's own scenes and they forward the story along. Performances by all the major cast were excellent. Meryl Streep was the best I have ever seen.
My one star deduction is for the simplicity and heavy-handedness of the message. "Lions" came a hair close to being preachy.
Lions for Lambs Movie Review November 8, 2007
thejoelmeister (www.GoneWithTheTwins.com)
11 out of 15 found this review helpful
Perceptively enlightened, Robert Redford's political propaganda film "Lions for Lambs" loosely translates into smart entertainment. Exceptionally strong acting and fully fleshed characters are unfortunately unable to disguise Redford's opinionated brand of current events, and he often teeters dangerously close to the edge of being an army recruiter. Despite the occasional overbearingly preachy tone, the three steadily converging storylines showcase top-notch direction and allow clever dialogue fodder for the always enjoyable cast to consume with pomp, irony and satire.
Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) calls upon reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to receive an exclusive one-hour interview with himself to discuss his new plan to win the war on terror. As he engages in a verbal struggle to make the veteran reporter see his reasoning, his plan of action is already taking effect as a top-secret mission in the Middle East finds two best friends Arian and Ernest (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) abandoned in the cold confines of an icy plateau, waiting for rescue and surrounded by the enemy. Meanwhile, Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), the professor who negotiated with the two soldiers not to go to war, holds a meeting with another hopeful student who shows promise and potential.
Lions for Lambs demonstrates Redford's seasoned talents as a director through the use of three initially separate storylines progressing simultaneously. As the film draws to a close, it becomes more apparent how closely those three groups of people are related, the fact that all three events take place at the same time, and the extreme differences in world affair opinions that each group holds. Despite the occasional flashback, the film is entirely sequential and in chronological order - something few films still do, especially when multiple plot lines are concerned.
Lions for Lambs works as both a public service announcement and Redford's own propaganda. While Janine condemns Irving's elusively intelligent words and intimidating propaganda, Redford also spoon feeds the audience with his perceptions of the war on terror. What saves the film from collapsing on its own hypocrisy is the outstanding performances by all of the main characters. In a moment of climactic cinematic irony, Cruise discusses the effectiveness of the trained professional soldiers stationed in the Middle East, as the covert operation over Iran tragically unravels and casualties are quickly incurred.
Cruise is inspired as the fast talking, patriotic, red-blooded American Senator who weaves a tale for the press with powerful words and piercing determination. Streep is equally outstanding as the reporter who, despite years of accepting her role as merely a go-between for ruthless politicians to rally their public image, suddenly gains a conscience that forces her to question her position. Redford stars as the professor who is convinced that his talents lie in discovering students with the potential to make a difference, as he did with Arian and Ernest who he was unable to prevent from going off to fight for their beliefs.
While heavily opinionated propaganda films rarely equal grand entertainment, Redford is careful to insert a grandiose finale that paints a glowing picture for targets of his mindset on the war. Whether you agree with his outlook and his representation of the "whatever it takes" attitude of the government, Lions for Lambs is arguably well-made and brilliantly constructed. And Cruise Photoshoped into photographs with President Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are hilariously priceless.
- Mike Massie
 a star-studded poli sci lesson November 10, 2007
Roland E. Zwick (Valencia, Ca USA)
10 out of 16 found this review helpful
**1/2
"Lions For Lambs," director Robert Redford's all-star dissertation on life in a post-9/11, "War on Terror"-dominated world (and easily the most sermonizing movie since "Crash"), takes place in three entirely separate locales: a United States senator's office in Washington D.C., an unnamed university campus in California, and a remote, snow-covered hillside in rural Afghanistan.
In the first setting, Tom Cruise plays a smarmy Republican lawmaker who has decided to grant an exclusive briefing to a seasoned political reporter (Meryl Streep) regarding a new military strategy the Americans are implementing in Afghanistan. In the second sphere, Redford is a veteran political science professor who is trying to convince a bright but deeply cynical student to overcome his apathy and to become actively engaged in the political process. Finally, Michael Pena and Derek Luke are two of the professor's former students who a few years earlier decided to put their lives on the line by joining some special op forces and who are currently trapped behind enemy lines after the helicopter on which they are riding comes under intense artillery fire while on a mission.
Thoughtful and timely political discourse is such a rare commodity on American screens these days that one feels downright ungrateful for not responding more positively to Redford's film. Matthew Michael Carnahan's screenplay comes with an obviously liberal slant, but it does try more than most to be reasonably fair-minded in the points it is making and to see things from a multiplicity of angles. The problem is that, for all its good intentions, the film comes across more like a TV or radio debate than a full-fledged fictional drama. Redford's talking-heads directorial style results in a series of static mini lectures, virtually devoid of passion, cohesion or drama. How can Redford expect the audience to get all worked up and agitated about the issues he's presenting when he himself seems to be having so much trouble doing so?
The didactic tone leaves very little room for any actual character development, with the people in the film functioning as little more than convenient mouthpieces for the writer and director. This is a shame because the movie has some cogent points to make about patriotism, political apathy, materialism, celebrity culture, the government's use of fear and paranoia in manipulating the masses, and the responsibility a free press has in exposing corruption and deceit, particularly in a time of national crisis. Yet, the movie itself is so academic, inert, and talky that whatever issues it is raising get submerged in the tedium. Oddly, the movie has a clunky disjointedness that one generally encounters in films adapted from stage plays, even though the screenplay in this case is apparently an original creation.
In the role of actor, Redford comes across as smug and condescending as the professor, while Todd Hayes exhibits zero charisma as the supposedly brilliant boy whose soul Redford seems intent on saving (or, at least, kick-starting into the future). Cruise and Streep play off each other well in the scenes they have together, and it's especially interesting watching Streep portraying a character who is the antithesis of the one she plays in the similarly-themed (but much better) "Rendition." Pena and Luke are given far too little screen time to make much of an impression as the two lads who demonstrate their patriotism through actions rather than mere words.
One could live with the movie's preachiness if the film itself were at least well done, but "Lions For Lambs" fails because it commits the one unpardonable sin of dramaturgy - it places its story at the service of the message rather than the other way around. Thus, instead of a work of art, what we get is a piece of well-intentioned agitprop - a high class poli sci lesson in place of a compelling movie.
 Pretty awful...no matter what your politics are April 27, 2008
mrliteral
10 out of 11 found this review helpful
At first glance, you'd think that Lions for Lambs would be a good movie: after all, it stars Tom Cruise, Robert Redford and Meryl Streep, all reasonably decent actors, and is directed by Redford, who's received acclaim for some of his past directorial efforts. Unfortunately, it is a tedious, preachy film that seems more designed to deliver a message than to entertain; it winds up doing neither well.
There are three distinct storylines going on, all taking place over a period of an hour in different regions of the world. In California, Robert Redford is a political science professor debating an apathetic student about political activism during the former's office hours. There is no plot, just a bunch of back-and-forth arguing. Meanwhile, two of Redford's former students - who actually followed his call to participate, though not in the way he intended - are now Special Forces soldiers trapped on a mountaintop in Afghanistan after a mission went wrong. This is the only storyline that is minimally interesting, probably because it is the only one with any real action in it.
The third storyline involves a Republican senator played by Tom Cruise giving an interview to reporter Meryl Streep. The purpose of their meeting is to unveil the purpose of the Afghanistan mission, which Cruise does not yet know has gone wrong. The interview, however, turns into a debate about the United States's efforts in the Middle East, and it is grating to watch. The attempt to provide a semblance of balance fails: Cruise's pro-war stance is so filled with cliched lines - and he comes off too glib - that he is utterly unbelievable. Streep isn't much better on her side.
From a political standpoint, I actually agree with a lot of what this movie says, but it does it so poorly that it undermines its own cause. I often say I can enjoy a good book or movie even if I disagree with its politics, as long as it's done well; similarly, I can hate a book or movie that I agree with if it's done bad, as this one is. Whether you are for or against the Iraq war, this movie should be avoided.
|
|
|
