Lions for Lambs (2007)
Three stories told simultaneously in ninety minutes of real time: a Republican Senator who's a presidential hopeful gives an hour-long interview to a skeptical television reporter, detailing a strategy for victory in Afghanistan; two special forces ambushed on an Afghani ridge await rescue as Taliban forces close in; a poli-sci professor at a California college invites a student to re-engage.
Watch Trailer
Free Trial Channels
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
A waste of 90 minutes of my life
A story that's too fascinating to pass by...
One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
I don't know. It was a multiple-story-line film, like Crash, but those story lines never intersect.
Or soapbox. and much like a soapbox this movie is on wobbly wheels that go great, downhill.
The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan were perhaps the most controversial topics in American during the late 2000s for any number of reasons. What "Lions for Lambs" does, under the solid direction of Robert Redford, is examine the War on Terror from a number of different perspectives, keeping the dialogue fair for everyone involved. While the film can get a little over- the-top dramatic at times, ti ends up being a very thought-provoking piece on the nature of politics and war in America.For a basic plot summary, "Lions for Lambs" focuses on three distinct scenarios:1. Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), very much a hawk in terms of political orientation, being interviewed by journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) over a new battle initiative in Afghanistan. 2. College Professor Stephen Malley (Redford) having an office-hours meeting with student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) about motivation towards the future. 3. Two Marines, Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke), who once were members of Malley's class, now on a dangerous mission deep in the Middle East.What I really like about this film is that it is very much a "thinking piece". It will really get the brain churning about all the different issues surrounding things like terrorism, American imperialism, and the nature/role of the press. During my lifetime I've been on both sides of the "war on terror" conversation, and there were moments in this film where I could identify with both sides of the dialogue.I have to give a lot of credit to Redford for having this all come together as well as it did. It would have been so, so easy to make this an "agenda" film, but that is not what happens in the least. From what I recall, I haven't seen a film quite this balanced when dealing with such heavy political and human issues. Each and every character is nuanced and thinks about something in a different way over the course of the movie.So, I truly give high, high marks for "Lions for Lambs", especially if you are the kind of movie- watcher who enjoys a good "thinking piece" about political/war issues.
Merely a soapbox for a Redford rant. Had potential: an examination of how soldiers' lives are sacrificed to further the careers of politicians. Unfortunately, Robert Redford turned it into a soapbox and gave an incredibly biased and preachy diatribe on the matter.The simple 3-setting, 3 viewpoints, was pretty simple and effective, but gets boring after a while. The military scenario was contrived and unrealistic. Great cast - Meryl Streep, Redford himself, Tom Cruise, Peter Berg, Michael Pena, Andrew Garfield - but they're all wasted, due to the script and direction.Ultimately, a very disappointing movie from a great cast and once-great director.