Review: Lions for Lambs

I went to see "Lions for Lambs" today… and by “went” I mean I walked to my room and downloaded it off the internet for free. -Like I’d pay to see this crap!

If you want to see the best War on Terror movie you have to go back to before there was even a War on Terror (well, at least before we started fighting it). The movie stars Denzel Washington along with Bruce Willis and Tony shalhoub. It is called “The Siege”.

But back to Lions for Lambs: Tom Cruise is the aspiring, young hawkish-Republican and Meryl Streep is the veteran liberal news reporter; while Redford is the open-minded college professor mentoring a misguided student whose anti-establishment views are typically ignorant.

The movie is the basic, simpleminded debate we see everywhere on every news network for 24 hours a day. "Lions for Lambs" is literally one tired political talking point after another (from both sides). For example, Streep’s character makes the comment, referring to Iraq, that “we attacked a country that didn’t attack us”. And the Republican brings out the, “Do you want to win the war on terror” line. Nothing in this movie is thought-provoking or new. –the “Mission Accomplished” banner was even brought up.

However, the story is not entirely one sided, it is a reasonably balanced movie; although, Redford gives the moral high ground, not surprisingly, to the news reporter. It is also clear that the point of the film is not to initiate a high level of debate but rather to express his misguided contempt for the media for allowing the Bush Administration to go to war 'unchallenged'.

Plus, the reports of Al Qaeda being decimated in Iraq and success of the troop surge makes his Lions for Lambs somewhat outdated. Overall, the movie is boring and lacks political intelligence.