Click HERE for the rest of the heyallright movie review archives.

Lions for Lambs
Reviewed by Theo Michelfeld
Posted: November 12, 2007

There is nothing inherently problematic with a movie that is all talk, or indeed with a movie that is all philosophical debate. But when that movie uses talk and debate to make a case that talk and debate are useless tools of self-distraction or self-importance, you might say there’s a problem. Robert Redford’s new film Lions for Lambs is just such a self-admitted tool of self-distraction and self-importance. And yet, for all of its existential ironicalness, it’s still very good, or at least very much worth your while.

The movie consists of three interwoven vignettes. One features Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep as a Republican senator and a liberal reporter debating various aspects of The War on Terror. Another features Michael Pena and Derek Luke as U.S. soldiers trapped by the Taliban on an Afghan mountaintop. The third features Robert Redford as a college professor, and newcomer Andrew Garfield as his favorite half-apathetic frat-boy wunderkind student. The stories intersect here and there, tangibly and philosophically, but what the plot boils down to is this: The professor is trying to convince the student not to confuse smarts with accomplishment, and not give up on his own potential for great deeds just because the government, the media, and big business all make him want to puke.

I know more than a few people who feel that if a movie tries to tell them something they already know, or convince them of something they already believe, then that movie is no damn good. Lions for Lambs certainly makes itself vulnerable to just this kind of irrational negative reaction. This film, despite its cast of weathered Hollywood veterans, is aimed squarely at young adults, with the intention of showing them that cynicism is not an excuse for apathy. I say that’s a worthwhile message, either to learn or to teach, and I don’t much see the point in advising people to avoid it, unless my only purpose in reviewing a thought-provoking movie is to prove to the world that those thoughts have already occurred to me. As a wise man once said, “Outgrowing someone else’s masterpiece doesn’t necessarily make you a genius.”

Harder to defend is the sense that this project is only incidentally a movie. There is no story to speak of, there are no real characters to create any emotional involvement, and the quality of the acting is almost completely irrelevant. How often can you say that about a film and still give it your endorsement? Nevertheless, if you forego your usual expectations of a film, and accept Lions for Lambs for the cerebral exercise it is, you will likely find yourself engaged.

In particular, the showdown between Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep is worth every penny of your admission ticket. Lord knows, Tom Cruise is a limited and frequently off-putting actor (only slightly less so than Robert Redford) but occasionally Cruise finds a role that allows his inherent lack of soul, subtlety, and humility to come across as an asset. In this film, he is nothing short of perfect—alternately charming, bullying, and evasive, and drawing upon those attributes with cold calculation, like an archer pulling arrows from a quiver. Meanwhile, Meryl Streep is simply Zen-like in Cruise’s overwhelming presence. Her reporter gets pleasantly Socratic on his ass and then waits until she’s out of his office to blow her stack. Folks, if this stuff isn’t entertainment I don’t know what is.

If anything is truly disappointing about Lions for Lambs, it’s that after about an hour of apparently balanced equivocating, the film takes a distinctly liberal stance, and then, from that proudly decisive perspective, it offers no solutions. Ugh. It doesn’t exactly dispel the myth that liberals don’t have any solutions. Even more troublesome is the film’s suggestion that questions about how to confront terrorism are without merit, as long as you can find a dishonest politician to pose them to you.

No doubt Redford and the film’s screenwriter, Matthew Michael Carnahan, would deflect such criticism by saying their movie is a plea for Americans to get involved in the political process, and not intended as any kind of specific panacea for what ails us. And on that score, they’ve made an impressive little film. On the other hand, someone behind me in the theater was asleep and snoring in their seat. I imagine conservatives and action film buffs (two large demographics) are going to either avoid this film or hate it, and a third demographic (people who go to the movies to see a story with characters) is going to feel compelled to resent this film’s betrayal of that expectation. Lions for Lambs is rather like the nerdy kid in class that no one listens to, no one follows, and no one likes, even though everything he says is right. It’s a film without charisma. And I’m standing up for it.

Copyright © 2007 Theo Michelfeld