Site search
sponsored by
 
Welcome, Guest  avatar

Please enter the following information:

Email or Screen Name:
Password:
  Remember Me
 
  Forgot Password?
  Become a Member
  Close Window
Lake Tahoe News,Real Estate,Entertainment| Tahoe Daily Tribune
Jobs
Lake Tahoe News,Real Estate,Entertainment| Tahoe Daily Tribune
Real Estate
Lake Tahoe News,Real Estate,Entertainment| Tahoe Daily Tribune
Classifieds
Lake Tahoe News,Real Estate,Entertainment| Tahoe Daily Tribune
Search for homes by MLS, classified listings, rentals, and much more!

Lake Tahoe News,Real Estate,Entertainment| Tahoe Daily Tribune
Home  >   > 
<< back
Friday, November 9, 2007

'Lions for Lambs' depicts war from different viewpoints



Print Comment
Meryl Streep, left, and Tom Cruise star in "Lions for Lambs."  /  David James / MGM
Meryl Streep, left, and Tom Cruise star in "Lions for Lambs." / David James / MGM
Current movies about the war and its resolve are a hit-and-miss proposition on screen with audiences and at the box office. Studios can get nervous when actors express their point of view on America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recent box office receipts show that, for the most part, moviegoers are split on having their movies political. Some, such as "Enemy of the State" (1998), did quite well, while others failed to find an audience. Some movies on the subject can polarize an audience depending on which part of the country the film is shown in. There's also the perception (accurate to some degree) that Hollywood only has one point of view, which turns off a lot of folks even before viewing and judging said movie on its own merit.

"Lions for Lambs" tries to balance out the controversial subject of war, giving the audience several points of view, to make them think and form their own opinion.

The title of the movie was coined by a German officer during World War I. The officer's comment referred to the bravery of British soldiers who followed orders from their criminally stupid "lambs" of commanders. Director/producer/co-star Robert Redford makes no apologies on where he stands on America's current military strategy but insists his movie is not an anti-Bush flick. Redford offers up multiple sides to this story, with the idea that there are those with a nonbinding point of view as well. It's still a tough sell, though.

Tom Cruise deserves kudos playing hard-nosed, conservative young Sen. Jasper Irving, who has aspirations to become president and will stop at nothing to obtain that dream. (He must have watched a lot of Fox News to capture the essence of the Republican point of view.)

Most of his time is spent with reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), trying to angle the interview so that it slants his way, giving her exclusive insights on how war can be fought and ultimately won given unlimited resources such as military personnel and financing.

Redford's role is that of Dr. Stephen Malley, a respected professor of academics who instructs his students (particularly one) to get themselves involved with current events, world issues and to start acting on one's words rather than just talk about it. (Redford has taken this lesson to heart, appearing at select college campuses across the country speaking at screenings, but picking universities that would be receptive to his film.)

The third part of the movie involves two of Malley's students (Derek Luke and Michael Pe&#241;a) who are now serving overseas, caught up in the war itself, fighting on the front lines. The three stories constantly intersect with one another, giving the movie momentum and comparing those involved as bystanders with those whose lives are literally at the mercy of those who haven't even see combat duty, who can go home at the end of the day not worrying if they'll be alive the next day.

"Lions for Lambs" definitely has quite a range of talent connected to it. For one thing, the movie was written and co-produced by Matthew Michael Carnahan (brother of Joe Carnahan, who wrote and directed "Smokin' Aces," which was shot up here in South Tahoe), whose past work included the script for "The Kingdom," which offered up a controversial look at our presence in the Middle East.

The movie is designed, in part, not to change your opinion of why America is at war, but, if anything, to understand why we still continue along the same path given new and more accurate information. Meanwhile, there's the world looking at us evaluating the decisions we make and how we hope to end this war eventually.

What's tough to swallow in this movie is, no matter how good the acting is (and there are some noteworthy performances here), knowing how the real actors feel about America's involvement in this war brings it home that they are acting, and against what this government is doing. Sort of like Barbra Streisand going off on her political rants, and wondering if that $500 ticket to hear her sing is really worth it.



-- Howie Nave is host/manager of The Improv comedy club inside Harveys and reviews films for seven radio stations throughout Northern California and Nevada, including Sirius Radio. He hosts "Howie's Morning Rush" on Tahoe's KRLT radio, and you can see his film reviews on RSN.



Keepin' it reel:

Now Playing: "Lions for Lambs"

Starring: Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Michael Pe&#241;a, Andrew Garfield, Peter Berg, Kevin Dunn and Derek Luke

Directed by: Robert Redford

Rated: R for some war violence and language

Running time: 90 minutes

Howie gives it: 3 out of 5 bagels


Print del.icio.us digg reddit
Comments
Previous Guide Line
Next Guide Line
About Us | Staff | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Swift Communications