Lions For Lambs

See Larger Image	Starring: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, Peter Berg, Michael Pe?a Directed By: Robert Redford Average Customer Rating:


Audience Rating: R (Restricted) Binding: Video On Demand Release Date: 2008-10-13 Running Time: 92 Studio: MGM Theatrical Release Date: 2007-11-01
Related Items Charlie Wilson's War There Will Be Blood Michael Clayton The Bucket List Atonement
Spotlight customer reviews: Customer Rating: Summary: Interesting Points of View, But Disjointed Comment: I like that there are multiple points of view given in one movie, but it was way too disjointed. A bit too cliche as well. Customer Rating: Summary: buried by preachiness, an important point Comment: I can understand why Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford's recent movie, received mixed reviews; in fact, I can completely understand why many people would hate it. It is preachy, very preachy. About a third of the movie shows Tom Cruise's character (a Republican senator) preaching at Meryl Streep's character (a veteran reporter) in support of the administration's war on terror, while the reporter in turn preaches to the senator about the mistaken war in Iraq. In the process, they preach at each other about their complicity in America's failures. That's already a lot of preaching. But here is the genius of the movie: it questions whether the political debates in government and academia have any meaning at all. The sympathetic heroes of the movie are two young men who tire of the arguments and choose action, to wit, going to Afghanistan to fight for their country. They end up in mortal danger as a result of political decisions that are being debated in offices and hallways a long way away. The movie itself has four main settings. The first is the office of the senator. In the second, a university professor's office, Robert Redford's character debates a promising but disengaged student about his role in life. In the third setting, the reporter is arguing in her editor's office about the role of the press. The fourth is a snowy mountain ridge in Afghanistan. The first Great Debate is between the senator and reporter. Both are consummate insiders. The senator is a key player in a new aggressive military strategy in Afghanistan, with implications for Iraq, Iran, and the entire Near East. The reporter's first reporting job concerned Vietnam, and her liberal sensibilities --- anti-Republican and anti-war --- come through loud and clear. After running though the well-worn arguments for and against military action in Asia, the two end up challenging each other over who is using who in the relationship between media and government. The reporter takes the argument back to her editor and it takes on a different slant: what is the relationship between the corporate world and `real' news? The more accessible argument is between the professor and the student. The professor is a Vietnam vet turned protester, who became a professor. He thought that he could use his mind, his words, and his professorial credentials to change the world. He failed. He resigned himself to a different mission: to single out a few exceptional students and push them toward greatness. Now, those of us who teach the social sciences can be forgiven, I think, for considering the professor something other than a failure. We teach about history and geography and politics, but these are things that don't necessarily reach most kids, but for good reason. They do not have a frame of reference for understanding the vital importance of these subjects. But as they grow up, they will use what we teach --- though probably without awareness ---- as they connect the mental dots and make sense of the world. The student opposite Redford's professor was me. He became a cynic, figuring at a young age that certain elites make the decisions, and that even entering those elites is corrupting. So make some money, live the good life, and wash your hands of the decisions made in the halls of power. But I had two fundamental underpinnings that determined my post-college life. I considered myself a responsible agent --- that I and I alone was the determinant of my life. And second, that I owed it to others that I contribute something in exchange for a good life. So I joined the military, thinking that in serving my country, I was fulfilling both of my duties. This brings me to Afghanistan. Two soldiers were in the professor's class. They chose action, they chose to do something. They believed that serving their country gave them credibility as agents of change that academia did not. The professor tried to dissuade them, but they joined the Army, as special forces soldiers. This put them in grave danger, and this tied them to the other debates. Should the student live the good life, or risk being pinned down by the Taliban in an icy gorge in the Hindu Kush? How much does it matter if the senator's military plan is the right one? Does it diminish the soldiers' nobility and exonerate the professor and student who choose a battlefield of words in a cushy college setting? If the soldiers die, is the reporter to blame for playing the insiders' games instead of sounding the alarm? Does the path of action turn the soldiers into pathetic pawns in a game played for the benefit of distant powers? Or are they the only real players, and the pathetic ones are the suits who send our hopes into the snowy skies over a shadowy and barren country? Customer Rating: Summary: Interesting psychological drama in near real time Comment: "Lions for Lambs" features a high-powered, ultra-conservative US senator (Tom Cruise) who is apparently in line to be his party's next candidate for president, a well-known liberal television reporter (Meryl Streep), a political science professor (Robert Redford), one of his current students, and two of his former students. As the film gets rolling we learn that in Washington, D.C. the senator has allocated an entire hour for an inverview with the reporter. At the same time on the west coast the professor is having a one-hour meeting with a student who shows great promise, but who is not striving to meet his own potential, and around the world we see what the two former students are doing in Afghanistan. As time ticks by the senator reveals a new military strategy for Afghanistan, the professor tells his student about his two former students who volunteered for the army and are serving in Afghanistan, and we see how the new military strategy affects the students that are in the army. The story develops as the interview progresses, the meeting moves along, and the fates of the two soldiers serving in Afghanistan are shown...all during the same one-hour time period. I found this to be a captivating and compelling tale. Note: This review is based on a content-edited version of the film. A solid 4-star offering. Well worth watching, but probably not destined to become a classic. Customer Rating: Summary: WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN Comment: This is THE worst movie I have ever seen...could not watch it even for 20 mins and came out of the theatre... you can do anything in this world other than watching it ..period. Customer Rating: Summary: See it NOW Comment: Actually, 3 stars for composition, 4.5 stars for message, 5+ stars for final graphics. This isn't cut together as an action film, though it could have been. It's not pure entertainment, either. It's a provocative movie that makes no secret of its intent to challenge your personal convictions. It's completely gutsy. If you have family in the armed forces on deployment overseas, this one could be pretty hard to watch. Otherwise, it's a must see! Watch it before the month is out. Watch it twice if someone you cared for was taken by war -- once for yourself and once to honor the memory of the fallen. More Reviews