Mediocre propoganda.

Lions for Lambs marks the first feature from the now Tom Cruise owned company of United Artists. Despite its poor box office profit and heavy pasting, I found the movie to actually be quite decent.

The film is three different stories told in parts throughout the movie. The main story is concerned with action in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. Two soldiers end up wounded and vulnerable on the top of a snowy mountain. Low on ammo and low on energy, their superiors back at base do what they can to launch a rescue mission. The next story is about a journalist (Streep) who visits a congressman (Cruise) to interview him for a story. The final tale is about a young student (Garfield) who arrives one morning in the office of a university professor (Redford) to discuss his future among other things.

The film is straight-up dialogue, talking and exposition. Those expecting anything action-orientated will be disappointed. The lack of action was the biggest problem. I know it was meant to make a political statement and not be an entertainment piece, but it's rather impossible to do so towards the audience by just using scenes of dialogue. The performances were good and the script was intelligent, but the whole thing feels so boring. Black Hawk Down, for example, made an exceptional statement with scene of action and dialogue.

The lack of an actual meaty story is another problem. There are 3 stories to tell, but without an actual solid plot to drive these tales it feels very hollow and empty. Instead it relies on the audience's knowledge of the war on terror as a basis for the plot. So what will happen in 20 years when it's revisited long after the war on terror is over? Some who approach it may think of it as an entertainment piece, but they will be clueless about which war it is meant to be symbolising. Such other political war films like Black Hawk Down give the viewer insight into what has happened and what is planned, rather than diving straight into the action. Still, I liked the performance and the precious little action was kind of satisfying (although the special effects looked a bit dodgy).

Tom Cruise's performance wasn't too bad. As a congressman, he does okay. But he just appears to be Ethan Hunt behind a desk discussing political issues. Meryl Streep was one of the stronger actresses in the film. She makes a very stern journalist. As for Robert Redford (who also directed), well I think he did a pretty good job.

It's a shame that Lions for Lambs didn't turn out as good as some other dialogue driven war films like Ed Zwick's Courage Under Fire. Instead we're fed a bunch of biased American propaganda that attempts to be more than it actually is.

It's not powerful enough to make a worthwhile political statement, and it's not enjoyable enough to be considered an entertainment piece. I don't really know how to describe it, really. Worth seeing, but one of 2007's biggest disappointments.