I think when I first saw the trailers for director Robert Redford’s (Quiz Show, A River Runs Through It) Lions for Lambs, I thought it was a movie I had to see. The previews made the film look exciting, and it was loaded with A-list actors. Well, when the commercials for the movie became 15-second clips after the first week and the movie scored a whopping 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, the need to see it quickly waned. The movie earned just $15 million at the box office. Box office earnings don’t necessarily represent the quality of a film, but this movie hoped to garner a lot of money. While the production costs of this movie were low (I’ll explain below), stars like Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise commanded high-dollar figures for their appearances. This wasn’t a little indie movie. MGM produced this movie. On top of a film that was received so poorly by critics was a plot (stories about the war in the Middle East, especially political-driven ones) that had consistently kept moviegoers away back in the early 2000s. Lions for Lambs was a decent movie, but certainly not a great one. And it was by no means as exciting and as drama-filled as the trailers portrayed it to be. Lions for Lambs is a dialogue-driven movie and one that succeeds because it was chalked full of such great actors.

In one story, a professor (Redford) at a high-end university in California tries to get a talented and promising, but increasingly disinterested and truant student (a young Andrew Garfield – The Amazing Spider-Man, Never Let Me Go) in his political science class to become more engaged and become more aware of the events surrounding his life. Professor Stephen Malley (Redford) does his best to be a psychologist to determine why Todd (Garfield) has stopped coming to his class. He has so much promise and wonders what has made his prize student so apathetic, to which Todd replies, “What’s the point what I do? None of it matters.” To counter Todd’s apathetic attitude, Malley tells his pupil the story of two of his former students, two of the most inspiring and memorable students he ever taught.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, Republican senator Jasper Irving (Cruise – Mission Impossible, Minority Report) invites respected newspaper journalist Janine Roth (Streep – Doubt, August: Osage County) of an emerging military initiative that will guarantee a victory in Afghanistan. Irving and Roth have had a respectful working relationship over the years, and he would like her to report on this rather than all of the dire news that comes out each day about the events occurring overseas. The military strategy, as Jasper explains, involves reaching the high grounds in Afghanistan before the Taliban can get there. This consists of deploying troops earlier in a less than ideal environment. The weather conditions are unpredictable, and the terrain is not as identifiable covered by snow.

Nonetheless, if successful, controlling the passes at these mountains and preventing Taliban troop movements is crucial to winning the war. The biggest problem with this storyline is you would think that Jasper has invented glasses that could peer into every Taliban hideout in the world and know exactly where each member of the militia is. Deploying troops at favorable spots before an enemy can get there is hardly a groundbreaking strategy. Nonetheless, Jasper tries to sell it to Janine as any politician would. When Janine asks when this strategy will be deployed, he replies, “It already has.”

This movie could have been a play, and maybe it should have been. Even the action scenes could be portrayed slightly differently to show this. However, I still don’t know if it would garner the interest. You certainly wouldn’t get the exact number of recognizable actors, and, perhaps, that could be a detriment to the film since the acting is the only thing that holds it together. I wouldn’t call Lions for Lambs a political speech delivered by Robert Redford, but something is underwhelming about this film, considering all of the involved talents. If you are interested in watching this movie, I would do a little research first by looking at movie reviewers you respect and seeing if it is worth your time. It’s hard for me to say one way or the other. For me, it was entertaining and slightly thought-provoking, but it’s not a movie that I would have any interest in seeing again.

Plot 7.5
Character Development 6.5/10
Character Chemistry 8/10
Acting 9/10
Screenplay 7/10
Directing  7/10
Cinematography 7/10
Sound 7/10
Hook and Reel 7/10
Universal Relevance 7.5/10
73.5%

Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie

• The Ides of March
• Born on the Fourth of July
• The Contender
• Rendition
• Courage Under Fire