I desperately wanted to feel something for Lions for Lambs. I wanted it to be great so I could praise it as a courageous effort that would be underappreciated by the masses. Or I wanted it to be awful so I could make fun of Tom Cruise. But it was neither, which is somehow the most disappointing thing of all. Lions for Lambs is neither brilliant nor dismal, instead it’s in that horrible limbo which many movies find themselves in these days – messing with Mr. In-Between.

The concept is an interesting one. It’s essentially three two-person stories: the first is about a Senator and a reporter (Cruise and Streep); the second about a student and his professor (Redford); and the third focuses on two soldiers (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) in Afghanistan. Cruise is selling the story of a bold new military initiative in the War on Terror to Streep while the soldiers are implementing it in real time. Redford provides context as he counsels one of his troubled students, and the stories are woven together, back and forth, usually in five-minute bursts. I take my hat off for the idea. It’s clever and daring, and if Lions for Lambs had pulled it off, it would have been something to behold.

Sadly, it doesn’t, and at times the film feels as preachy as it is aimless. I think it would be fair to say the film is anti-politician first and foremost. Everyone else besides Cruise in the story is treated as a fully fleshed out character with pangs of conscientiousness and moments of bravery. I wouldn’t call this an anti-war film because it never really gets there; it never really makes a big statement at all, actually. This is the biggest fault I can find with Lions for Lambs: by being too concerned with making some sort of judgment about what’s happening in the Middle East it also defangs the film.

One other negative factor: Tom Cruise. As I mentioned earlier this week people were completely taken out of the film by his presence. When a photo of the “Senator” and George W. Bush appeared on screen, to provide depth, people giggled and laugh. The basic vibe was “Hey, that’s Tom Cruise and GW!” It was funny and sad, and it’s a shame that the makers of Lions for Lambs didn’t realize what an anchor Tom Cruise has become.

I essentially can’t recommend this one to all but the heartiest of movie lovers. The concept is interesting, and if you have to see either this or Fred Claus, you should choose this. But that’s about the only victory this film should claim. It will be forgotten in about a week. While that fate was a shame for a well-done thriller like The Kingdom, it’s well deserved here. If you’re going to make a serious film about serious issues the least you could do is take a stand. People respect authenticity. They don’t respect mush.

Grade: C-

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us