Powerful

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

hyped garbage

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Writer Matthew Michael Carnahan has written a screenplay that looks at all aspects of war and does so by superimposing alternative philosophies - theoretical, political, news reportage, and the lives of soldiers - in a manner that allows the viewer to hear all aspects of that never ending question of 'Is WAR necessary?'. Under Robert Redford's direction it not only works - it triumphs, in large part because the cast is so excellent. The thesis: Injuries sustained by two Army rangers behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor.The three viewpoints are presented by 1) a Republican Senator (Tom Cruise) who's a presidential hopeful gives an hour-long interview to a skeptical television reporter (Meryl Streep), detailing a strategy for victory in Afghanistan 2) two special forces (Michael Peña and Derek Luke) under the guidance of a Lt Col (Peter Berg) ambushed on an Afghani ridge await rescue as Taliban forces close in; a poli-sci professor (Robert Redford) at a California college invites a promising student Andrew Garfield) to re-engage. Decisions press upon the reporter, the student, and the soldiers. The war in question is the Afghanistan crisis post 9/11 but the tenants for all wars remain the same. Being able to follow the types of thoughts and responsibilities from the philosophy of political science, the manner in which the government is run, and the response of soldiers in battle makes an indelible impression. This is an excellent time to return to this 2007 film.

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.

When this movie came out, it was panned by the right as being "too anti-Bush" and anti-war. Well, what could we expect from Hollywood other than that? Now, 7 years later, the story line seems eerily prophetic. Senator Irving (Cruise), responding to the journalist's (Streep) question "Why not just pull out?", says (paraphrasing here), "One, Iraq goes back to being a third world country in ruins, two, Iran will have nuclear capability, and three, Afghanistan will continue to be the crap-hole it is, with a strengthened Taliban as a result." Funny, this is exactly what Barack Obama has accomplished. His pulling out of Iraq has destroyed what was a budding democracy, his weakness in dealing with Iran has them on the verge of having a bomb, and his pending promised pull-out from Afghanistan will have made 10 years of war there all for nothing, at the cost of an indeterminable amount of "blood and treasure". And hundreds of young men and women walking around on aluminum "legs", trying to make do with plastic arms, or dead.... or worse. And yes, Virginia, the Taliban (and al-qaeda) are indeed strengthened, despite the Obama claim that they were "decimated". All told, a good movie. Great performances by Cruise (very believable as the either idealistic or phony (depending on your political point of view) "rising star" senator, Redford as your typical overpaid anti-war ideologue, and Streep as the reporter who thinks it's more important to report the news as she sees it as opposed to simply reporting the news. A great "message" movie, whether you take it from the point of view of the right or the left.