Dull ‘Lions’: Just
wake me when it’s over

At the Movies
By Senitra Horbrook

Politics can spark the most heated debates among the most rational of people, but there’s not much to debate when it comes to the "political thriller" Lions for Lambs — it’s both dull and preachy.
I have heard the movie described as a thriller, but there’s nothing thrilling about Lions for Lambs. It has a message, or agenda, as some may say, but when I go to the movies I’d rather be entertained than lectured. At the very least, a movie should try a bit harder to keep me from yawning and checking my watch.
Lions for Lambs had Oscar bait written all over it, starting with the director/star Robert Redford and costars Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. Redford plays Dr. Malley, a political science professor who spends his part of the movie talking to a privileged yet apathetic student about social activism. We are interjected with flashback scenes of two of Dr. Malley’s former students who joined the military after taking his class.
We also see those students, Ernest and Arian (played by Michael Pena and Derek Luke), as present-day soldiers in Afghanistan who are facing difficulties because of the military’s latest war strategy.
Cruise plays Republican senator Jasper Irving, who has invited journalist Janine Roth (Streep) for a one-on-one interview to announce a new military strategy for the war (the same one responsible for the troubles of the two soldiers we see).
The reason Lions for Lambs is so dull is that it’s nearly 90 minutes of non-stop talking (lecturing is more accurate) with very little action. There’s a bit of military action, but most of the movie is either Redford talking to his student or Streep and Cruise talking in an office adorned by badly Photoshopped pictures of Cruise with President Bush.
Redford doesn’t deserve all the blame for the movie’s missteps; screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan shares a good deal for scripting a movie that plays more like a documentary than a feature film. Carnahan also wrote The Kingdom, which now seems a lot more entertaining when comparing it to Lions for Lambs.
Streep is the only one of the big three who seems to truly be playing a role. Journalist Roth is appropriately conflicted by the propaganda her employer wants her to publish and what she feels is the truth.
Cruise gives the feeling that he just memorized lines and overlooked substance in their delivery. I expected more from him, especially since this is his first movie under the revamped United Artists studio after his publicized split from Paramount last year.
As for Redford, well, his presence seems to be a shell of his glory days.
The goal of Lions for Lambs seemingly is to inspire social activism. It also doesn’t see many redeeming qualities in America — in addition to criticizing the war, it is critical of the government, journalists and apathetic Americans.
The premise for Lions for Lambs had a lot of promise. I have heard it compared to Crash, but with the racism theme changed to social activism.
Crash, an Oscar winner, was thought-provoking and entertaining. Lions for Lambs is thought-provoking at times, but, unfortunately, it’s as entertaining as watching C-SPAN for 90 minutes. ••
Movie Grade: D