|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perceptively enlightened,
Robert Redford’s political propaganda film “Lions for
Lambs” loosely translates into smart entertainment. Exceptionally
strong acting and fully fleshed characters are unfortunately unable
to disguise Redford’s opinionated brand of current events,
and he often teeters dangerously close to the edge of being an army
recruiter. Despite the occasional overbearingly preachy tone, the
three steadily converging storylines showcase top-notch direction
and allow clever dialogue fodder for the always enjoyable cast to
consume with pomp, irony and satire.
Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) calls upon reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to receive an exclusive one-hour interview with himself to discuss his new plan to win the war on terror. As he engages in a verbal struggle to make the veteran reporter see his reasoning, his plan of action is already taking effect as a top-secret mission in the Middle East finds two best friends Arian and Ernest (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) abandoned in the cold confines of an icy plateau, waiting for rescue and surrounded by the enemy. Meanwhile, Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), the professor who negotiated with the two soldiers not to go to war, holds a meeting with another hopeful student who shows promise and potential. Lions for Lambs demonstrates Redford’s seasoned talents
as a director through the use of three initially separate storylines
progressing simultaneously. As the film draws to a close, it becomes
more apparent how closely those three groups of people are related,
the fact that all three events take place at the same time, and
the extreme differences in world affair opinions that each group
holds. Despite the occasional flashback, the film is entirely
sequential and in chronological order - something few films still
do, especially when multiple plot lines are concerned. |
 |
 |
Lions for Lambs works
as both a public service announcement and Redford's own propaganda.
While Janine condemns Irving’s elusively intelligent words
and intimidating propaganda, Redford also spoon feeds the audience
with his perceptions of the war on terror. What saves the film from
collapsing on its own hypocrisy is the outstanding performances
by all of the main characters. In a moment of climactic cinematic
irony, Cruise discusses the effectiveness of the trained professional
soldiers stationed in the Middle East, as the covert operation over
Iran tragically unravels and casualties are quickly incurred.
Cruise is inspired as the fast talking, patriotic, red-blooded American Senator who weaves a tale for the press with powerful words and piercing determination. Streep is equally outstanding as the reporter who, despite years of accepting her role as merely a go-between for ruthless politicians to rally their public image, suddenly gains a conscience that forces her to question her position. Redford stars as the professor who is convinced that his talents lie in discovering students with the potential to make a difference, as he did with Arian and Ernest who he was unable to prevent from going off to fight for their beliefs. While heavily opinionated propaganda films rarely equal grand entertainment, Redford is careful to insert a grandiose finale that paints a glowing picture for targets of his mindset on the war. Whether you agree with his outlook and his representation of the “whatever it takes” attitude of the government, Lions for Lambs is arguably well-made and brilliantly constructed. And Cruise Photoshoped into photographs with President Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are hilariously priceless. - Mike Massie |
More
Recent Reviews:
|