Plot Overview
Robert Redford’s latest directorial work is an artistic departure for its actor-turned-filmmaker, who has, up until this point, made extremely poignant and memorable films, including the heartfelt American classic Ordinary People (1980) and the fact-based stunner Quiz Show (1994). Unfortunately, Lions for Lambs turns out to be a major disappointment on both dramatic and creative grounds. The movie follows three storylines that unfold in a single day and crosscuts between the protagonists of each via some flashbacks. The first story involves a respected, powerful senator (Tom Cruise) who just ordered a significant military strategic move, who schedules a private meeting with a veteran journalist (Meryl Streep) in search of a hot story. The second segment follows a life-changing conversation in a California university between a political science professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), and his bright, but underachieving student (Andrew Garfield). Finally, the third installment chronicles the lives of two marines (Derek Luke and Michael Pena), former students of Malley, who are fighting for survival in the mountains of Afghanistan.

The Good
Lions for Lambs has good-hearted intentions that push across various thinking points to its intended audience. It raises critical and provocative issues and almost tries to be a wake-up call for the American people, asking them to stand up for what they believe in. Most of all, the movie is propelled by its superlative cast that mainly benefits from the strong works by Cruise, Streep and Redford. Unfortunately, this is all that Lions for Lambs has going for it.

The Bad
Although the script by Matthew Michael Carnahan raises many questions, they include nothing the viewer has not heard before. By the way, this is the same guy who penned yet another political propaganda movie, The Kingdom, which opened a couple of months ago. The problem with Redford’s realized product is that it feels like an after-school special or a lame version of a Lifetime Channel movie. Although it has some arguments here and there, the film is never convincing or engaging in anything it attempts to prove. It is composed of two people on the East Coast, who are just talking and talking and talking and two people on the West Coast, who are just talking and talking and talking…with a few action scenes in between. The narrative structure is too conventional and the flashbacks are beyond lame. The message is too dull and preachy, which makes total sense because the film’s ideas are incredibly shallow and thin. Finally, at the running time of 88 minutes, Redford’s feature feels like a two-hour bore.

Final Word
Considering the fact that such a great cast came together to make an ambitious political statement under the helm of legendary Robert Redford, Lions for Lambs unfortunately turns out to be one of his weakest directorial achievements. There seems to be a lot of heart that went into the production, but not so many brains. Yes, war is awful and we should all ask ourselves what should be done about it. Too little, too late. In the end, you will only wonder if this is all the artist wanted to say.