Lions for Lambs (two and a half stars?)

Writer: Matthew Michael Carnahan Director: Robert Redford Cast: Robert Redford as Dr. stephen Malley, professor/ Andrew Garfield as Todd Hayes, student/ Tom Cruise as Senator Jasper Irving/ Meryl Streep as Janine Roth, journalist/ Michael Peña as Ernest Rodriguez, student and soldier/ Derek Luke as Adrian Finch, student and soldier

Plot: spoiler Dr. Malley teaches political science in West Coast University, his teaching influences three of his most talented students Ernest (Peña), Adrian (Luke) and later on Todd (Garfield) to take complete opposite approach to their decisions in life. The former two believe in their duties as U.S. citizens is to face the battle front at Afghanistan and enlists for the military, the latter student on the other hand is quite fed up with the politician high talk mumbo jumbo, and decides to turn a blind eye on the war and his studies. The story begins when Ernest and Adrian are already soldiers, all prepared to attack on Afghanistan. At the same time far away from war zone in america, a middle aged journalist Janine (Streep) interviews pro war effort senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), when both of them instinctly try to convince the other, either to tell the government to pull the troops out of foreign soil and admit defeat or, fill more troops over until victory. The story revolves around these six characters(lions), all inevitably tormented by the poor political negotiation(lambs) aftermath. 

Review: To be honest, i bought the tickets a night before not knowing the story but the casts, i mean, how bigger stars can you get? I like cruise, even he casuallly chimps up and down in front of housewives, his obession with scientology, he still made Top Gun and Jerry Mcguire; so Tom, whatever thats bothering you, help me help you too. I love redford, absolutely talented; and gosh, i just adore Streep! All the characters she did show dedication, i am sure all you girls (and boyfriends) have seen Prada, her character supposed to be detested, but she still rules. Back to Lions, judging on acting, to be fair, the critics are right, redford and streep gave it all but cruise is still cruise. The scene when he mourns the innocent soldiers sent to war and died cos of  his over confidence, he merely looks away, turns his face down and closes his eyes for a bit... that marks the lowest point in the movie, may be his character is faking it, but either way is unconvincing. 

I promised myself not to write politics here on AnD, so i wont go into the story behind too much. This movie is concisely political material, those of you who are not into politics, dont watch it; even if you are into politics, dont watch it either. Its context is only to the level of general public and college students, at the end of the day, not only it loses out on core audience, but a lot others who thought the movie is supposed to be entertaining. Strange fact is that Hong Kong releases the movie a day before U.S., out of curiosity i looked up the comments us hong kongers made, turns out their level of understanding american politics is just as low as their appreciation to the movie. Personally i am happy with the film, for the dialog is compelling (critics say long-winded mind you), the characters are all pure adaptation from different point of views in reality ie the patriotic soldier/senator, the idealistic professor/student, the pessimistic journalist/general public, etc. It is afterall, highly sensitive matter that can only be released on cinema till many years after 911 and the declined war effort, so redford, respect!    

Finally, boy i just love to see low budget film pull it off, sadly, this time it didnt. Lets see if this once pretty blond cow boy redford can claim a prize or two like another not so pretty yet hardcore cow boy eastwood did.