Lions for Lambs plays out three stories running in parallel, nearly in real time save for a few flashbacks to help flesh them out. The centerpiece would be the verbal sparring between Tom Cruise, as presidential hopeful Senator Jaspar Erving, and Meryl Streep, as reporter Janine Roth. Their meeting is focused on the launch of a new strategy in Afghanistan that would turn the tide of the war and deliver an American victory. Jaspar is not backing down on his belief that this is the way of the future and will ensure a win. On the other side of the coin Roth is attempting to get some actual detail from Jaspar with regard to his conviction that this is the correct way to go.
On the other coast we are introduced to Professor Malley(Robert Redford) who is having an early morning meeting with a smart and promising student who has stopped caring, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). They discuss the way government is working and the ways to incite change, the point being Malley's desire to give Hayes a little fire, get him involved with something, anything. Hayes represents most of us, bright, yet unmotivated and unwilling to try something under the belief that we would end up in the same place anyway.
The third story follows a pair of Malley's former students, a bright pair with the world at their fingertips who, as part of a class debate (seen in flashback) put their words to the test and enlist in the army. As the film begins, the duo, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), are part of Jaspar's new initiative. They head into the snowy peaks as part of a small group charged with taking the high ground before the Taliban can move in. However, what is believed to be a safe zone is still very hot, and the two are left injured and exposed.
What did I get out of the movie? Well, the politicians got us in before we should have, not even considering if we should have, the media is at least as culpable for selling the war to the public, and it is the little people, the everyday Joes, who pay for it. Yes, if not for government and the media we would not be in this war, or at least not in the version we are living today.l
Article comments
1 - Taffe
Patrons are voting with their feet, and opting not to attend and support movies like this . Hollywood needs a reality check. Movie goers don’t want this type of entertainment.
2 - bliffle
The reviews I've read have all said that it's too preachy. Too didactic. I surmised that it's a leftist movie converse of an Ayn Rand novel.
Sounds boring.
3 - Cha Cha
This movie was very excellent movie. It's a very sad thing when american rather not here about the truth or watch what's happening to us as a country. I believe EVERY AMERICAN needs to see this movie.
4 - Triniman
I found it preachy with too much dialogue. Still, it may be the first film that points the finger also at the media for enthusiastically selling the war to the public.
Hollywood churns out endless crappy films that few people want to see. Despite "voting with their feet," these films continue to be made. Hollywood has never gotten the message because just enough people see these rotten films.