Lions for Lambs (2007)

User Rating:

6.2/10   

Director:

Robert Redford

Writer (WGA):

Matthew Michael Carnahan (written by)

Release Date:

9 November 2007 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | War

Tagline:

If you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything

Plot:

Injuries sustained by two Army ranger behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor.

Plot Keywords:

Afghanistan | Professor | Decision | California | Reporter

Cast

Robert Redford	...	Professor Stephen Malley
Meryl Streep	...	Janine Roth
Tom Cruise	...	Senator Jasper Irving
Michael Peña	...	Ernest Rodriguez
Andrew Garfield	...	Todd Hayes
Peter Berg	...	Lt. Col. Falco
Kevin Dunn	...	ANX Editor
Derek Luke	...	Arian Finch
Larry Bates	...	Soldier
Christopher May	...	Soldier
David Pease	...	Soldier
Heidi Janson	...	Soldier
Christopher Carley	...	Sniper
George Back	...	Student
Kristy Wu	...	Student

MPAA:

Rated R for some war violence and language.

Runtime:

92 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Colour:

Colour

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital | DTS | SDDS

Certification:

South Korea:15 | UK:15 | Ireland:12A | Netherlands:16 | Singapore:NC-16 | Australia:M | Finland:K-11 | Hong Kong:IIB | Taiwan:R-18 | Malaysia:U | Philippines:PG-13 | South Africa:10M | Norway:11 | Denmark:11 | Sweden:11 | Germany:12 | Canada:14A (Alberta/Manitoba/Ontario) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:PG (British Columbia) | USA:R (certificate #43901) | Argentina:13 | Argentina:16 | Switzerland:10 (canton of Vaud) | Switzerland:10 (canton of Geneva) | Brazil:12 | New Zealand:M | Singapore:M18 (DVD rating) | Norway:10 (TV rating)

Filming Locations:

Claremont, California, USA

Company:

Andell Entertainment

Trivia:

In an interview to the Variety magazine, Tom Cruise said he had made the film out of deep respect for Robert Redford's body of work, which he said had inspired him since Ordinary People (1980).

Goofs:

Continuity: When Janine and Senator Irving are leaving his office he puts on his blazer and his collar flips up, he attempts to flip it down as he lowers his arms but fails. When the camera switches angles his arms are down and magically so is his collar.

Quotes:

Janine Roth: We took Iraq? How did I miss that?

Movie Connections:

Featured in "The O'Reilly Factor: (2008-04-04)" (2008)

Soundtrack:

Yankee Doodle Dandy

I may agree, but that doesn't excuse poor film-making.

I have seen a number of truly horrible films that are supposedly provocative or tackling the hard issues recently. I watched "The Kingdom" the other day, for example. As it turns out, it was written by the same writer of "Lions for Lambs", Matthew Michael Carnahan. I'm suspecting a trend.

Why I didn't like it: 1. Bad performances from good actors. Dare I say it? Meryl Streep was terrible. I see better acting day-to-day in the intermediate acting class I teach. When you give a good actress a bad part, she will fail in it. Her only real contribution to the role was the slightly humorous line she appeared to have coached-improvised in the TV station. Robert Redford was as dreary and predictable as his part was written. Perhaps he was too tired from directing this terrible personal politics statement to make nuanced decisions. Instead, he played this with the nuance and expertise of a young Schwarzenegger. The only solid performance was by Tom Cruise, who had the best part in the film. Why is this? Because the writer didn't have to write anything. Carnahan could just Google up some right-wing rhetoric and slap it on the page with minor adjustments that my playwriting 103 students could do in two days.

2. The writing was cheesy and ill-advised. What I thought was going to be a provoking political thriller was actually a sad pseudo-film, pseudo-historical fiction docudrama with very little to say that everyone, not just the learned, has heard before. Some scenes read as smoothly as a 60s recruitment video or an after-school special. The whole film had definite elements of it in that it was blatant in its moral statements to the point of Robert Redford walking up to me and saying, "Don't trust the right wing. War is bad." I agree with that statement, but the film the message is conveyed in must be good or at least passable. When the writing seemed so pushed into pseudo-realism that I'm sure the studio demanded, it created an unfortunate choice for me as an audience member: Should I suspend my disbelief so far as to demean myself or should I just be put off that I'm not getting my ten dollars back?

3. There is no emotion in the film. The wealthy college student shows apathy, the two poor kids show misguided courage and determination, the college professor is like a dull version of Olmos in "Stand and Deliver", but for political science. The young gun Republican is evil, the reporter rediscovers her integrity, her boss cares about ratings, wash-rinse-repeat for 88 minutes. The problem is, all of these characters are so stock; we encounter these people over and over again in films and in real life. This was such a student film. It'll hopefully get put away on the unreachable top shelf of the local store.

4. Disproportionate praise of the troops. Redford obviously wants to support the troops by bringing them home. In the film, Americans are heroes who overcome incredible odds and are willing to fight for the freedom and the blah blah blah. I wholeheartedly believe in care and emotional support for troops, but the film just drooled over them like gods.

Why I liked the film: Summer Hernandez Kowalski when you see her on-screen. That's it.