The current events-inspired political thriller just might be
the newest Hollywood fad. These films seem to be churned out with as much speed
and as little thought as the recent unrelenting wave of animated creature
movies. "Lions for Lambs," the latest film about the pitfalls of the War on
Terror, makes some genuinely inspirational and extremely important points to
the modern audience. Unfortunately, the film does so in such a remarkably
uninteresting fashion that it probably would have been more effective as a much
shorter article in a leftist news rag.

"Lions for Lambs" presents us with three different
storylines that directly coincide in terms of their themes, but mostly have
only vague, narrative relations. Janine Roth is a journalist, played by Meryl
Streep ("The Devil Wears Prada"), who reappears in Hollywood's frontal assault
on the current presidential administration after her role in the recently
released "Rendition," a film of similar subject matter. She interviews Jasper
Irving, a senator played by Tom Cruise ("Mission: Impossible III"), who has a
new strategy for the War on Terror. Meanwhile, two soldiers involved in
Cruise's plan survive a helicopter crash and fight for their lives in the
frozen, mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. At the same time, Stephen Malley, a
university professor played by the film's director, Robert Redford ("An
Unfinished Life"), meets privately with a student in his political science
course and tries to persuade him to apply his intelligence by moving from
passive acceptance of the political status quo to a more active position.

All three of these interwoven storylines make the same point
that is blatantly and repeatedly set forth over the course of the film: The
American public cannot idly watch the evening news and accept poorly planned
strategies to win the War on Terror. If the people have the will for change,
change will come. This is undoubtedly a genuine case to be made, but the film's
drawling narrative hardly comes across as inspiring, despite how clear the
point might be.

An especially noteworthy aspect of this call to action is condemnation,
not only of the government, but also of other societal institutions. "Lions for
Lambs" at first seems to blame current political debacles on the GOP, but
gradually broadens its scope of condemnation to the news media. The film
finally sets its gaze on the apathetic American who has seen the wartime mission
fail on television so many times that reports about Britney Spears now earn
news stations higher ratings than death tolls from the Middle East.

This argument is clear and pertinent, but it becomes tangled
and lost in the surprisingly static performances of the film's several big
names. Even Meryl Streep, who typically commands an entire scene with the flick
of a wrist or the raising of an eyebrow, seems defeated by the futility of the
film. But the issue to be taken here is perhaps not with the actors'
performances, but with the actors themselves. The presence of such big names
muddles the heartfelt convictions of the film and causes it to come across
primarily as a sort of Hollywood leftist "propaganda."

Similarly counter effective is the music. Far from enhancing
the film, the occasional and almost random bouts of intense music served only
to detract from the realism and actually attempted to turn the movie into a superficial
political thriller, which, let's be clear, it most certainly is not. There are
no thrills to be had here, just points to be made.

The issue with "Lions for Lambs" is not that Redford's call
for action will fall on deaf ears, but that his intentions come across statically,
as just another vaguely inspiring political film that deals with current
events. This new genre is especially unconvincing because, as soon as the real life
current events that these films are based on change, the films become moot.
"Lions for Lambs," like its brethren, will almost certainly pass out of memory immediately.

 
2 out of 5 stars