Lions for Lambs

5 / 10

Staring: Robert Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise

Plot: As two U.S. Army rangers are put in peril in Afghanistan, their former college professor (Redford) tries to inspire an apathetic student (Andrew

Garfield) in California. Meanwhile, a veteran journalist (Streep) interviews a slick, Republican senator (Cruise) about the mission the two soldiers are on.

The Good: In comparison to the several brainless movies that come out each year, it’s nice to see something that at least tries to say something relevant.

The Bad: The message becomes bogged down with heavy-handed rhetoric and statements. It tells more than it shows.

The Lowdown: With Robert Redford in the director’s chair, it almost goes without saying that “Lions for Lambs” would be a grand statement of a film.

That is only half true. In spite of the fighting scenes in Afghanistan, most of the time the focus is given to Cruise, Streep, Redford and Garfield talking in offices. The film relishes in the dramatic potential of watching two smart people have a conversation.

Because of this, the film makes no attempts to hide its obvious statement on America’s War on Terror. It says it loudly for an hour and a half.

One might go into this film with a sense of admiration for its writer, Matthew Michael Carnahan, who already attempted to combine current politics with action in this year’s “The Kingdom.” While most films aim to sell tickets by pandering to the masses, he and Redford make a bold and admirable attempt toward essaying the country’s current state of affairs.

But it only works up to a point. For the first half, the film is riveting in its intimacy with the dual conversations. The military stuff is kind of distracting.

Then, as soon as the soldiers’ story gets exciting, the conversations become heavy-handed and preachy, with Streep lamenting the fall of journalism, Redford criticizing apathy and Cruise preaching the “whatever it takes to win” agenda.

While its reliance on dialogue is admirable on a technical level, some people will leave this movie with a poor taste in their mouths because of it.

It lacks enough character depth to really drive home its emotionally deep premise. Each character seems to be an archetype more than a real person. By the end, there is not as much to learn about these people as is initially promised.

While it’s certainly not the first film to come out that critiques the Iraq war, it feels the most didactic. A documentary can get away with that and still be compelling, but this is technically fiction. With several other critically acclaimed documentaries on the subject, from Michael Moore to “No End in Sight,” one ponders the usefulness of this film.