Movie Review: Lions for Lambs

Wow. This movie is the most non-committal statement movie I've ever imagined could exist, much less actually seen. It essentially threw out every possible opinion on a topic with absolutely no stance taken on anything.

Lions for Lambs is about the war on terror; a fictional drama set in the present. It follows three interwoven stories, each one a face-off between two idealistically opposed parties. First is GOP Senator Tom Cruise and liberal reporter Meryl Streep, who debate the successes and failures of the conflict. Second is college professor Robert Redford and his jack-ass student, Jack Ass. Lastly, two soldiers in Afghanistan shot down while on a mission and surrounded by enemy Taliban.

In all three story lines, important issues are debated in different ways. The most dramatic and interesting is the soldier's story. They are Americans whose idealism led them to volunteer for military service. Their conflict is very straight-forward: Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are shooting at them; they must fight for their lives.
The other two story-lines are severely hampered narratively and ideastically. Director Redford's own storyline portrays the impact of the war through the eyes of the educational institution. Redford's professor is trying to get a gifted but lazy student to engage in his own future. The student demonstrates almost zero potential aside from a ridiculously brief flash-back. The film needed a lot more time to flesh-out a character I cared about. As it comes across, the student is an idiot and if he is supposed to broadly represent American students, then our nation deserves the misfortune it brings upon itself. I don't buy it; perhaps because I attended a very conservative school that didn't tolerate any of the idiotic behavior the student in this film perfectly embodies.
The most annoying storyline was the Cruise-Streep story. It represents the politics/media conflict within the framework of the war on terror. In the end, it boils down to a plethora of talking points from both sides of the issue. It was long and protracted, and I found it to be very generic and eye-glazing. I definitely entered the movie already identifying with Cruise's character's position, so listening to Streep's character trying to get a media story was painfully annoying and pathetic.

I've already written more than the movie really deserves. All the way down the line I say pass. The problem with war movies set during on-going wars is that they run a real risk of being rendered null and void by actual events. I think that has happened here, and I'm already forgetting the movie. Watch the trailer--it has the whole movie in a succinct, concise form.