lions for lambs

Ever had an essay you started the night before, pumped full of glossy BS and handed in expecting recognition of your 3 a.m. brilliance? That's what Lions for Lambs feels like-an alarming truth considering it's the latest project to come from film icon Robert Redford.

Redford tackles our current War on Terror from three distinct but connected story lines. Seasoned reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) has an exclusive, one-hour interview with conservative Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). Senator Irving tells Roth about new plans for a U.S. assault in Afghanistan, one that directly affects Army soldiers Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke). Arian and Ernest are past students of college professor Stephen Malley (Redford) who, against his wishes, decided to enlist. In contrast, Malley's current "student of promise" Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) is intelligent but apathetic.

The film feels like a morning lecture that confuses and overwhelms rather than teaches. Roth and Irving's interview, which quickly turns into a debate, is brimming with smug laughs and self-conscious political banter that comes across as deflated and fake. The conversation is superficially tense-far too contrived to channel new insight. As usual, Cruise takes himself a bit too seriously in his role, turning his chin from side to side while asking sweeping questions concerning the War on Terror. When Streep's Roth leaves the interview and looks thoughtfully at the White House from her cab window, the film should reverberate with meaning; instead, Streep simply looks upset that she got talked into doing the film.

Amidst the sea of lessons and important questions raised, a few have great promise. The interaction between the professor and his intelligent but apathetic student is socially relevant. However, instead of expanding on the stronger points of each of the three storylines, Redford allows the conversations to stray and the momentum to fizzle.

Redford and screenwriter Matthew Carnahan successfully questions every aspect of American culture and who to blame (the media, the government, the students-the usual), but that's the only feat they accomplish. Because of its lack of focus, the film fails to make any impression on the viewer. The little passion Lions for Lambs has, confined in the two students-turned-soldiers, is diluted by the pendantic ramblings of the rest of the characters.

The film runs for a mere 88 minutes, providing no time to properly flesh out the characters, but quite enough time to aggravate the viewer.