Lions for Lambs
Tags: murder, flashback

Plot synopsis:
Two determined students at a West Coast university, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña), at the urging of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Redford), attempt to do something important with their lives. They make the bold decision to enlist in the army to fight in Afghanistan after graduating from college.
Dr. Malley also attempts to reach talented and privileged, but disaffected, student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), who is not at all like Arian and Ernest. He is naturally bright, comes from a privileged background, but has apparently slipped into apathy upon being disillusioned at the present state of affairs. Now, he devotes most of his time to extra-curricular activities like his role as president of his fraternity. Malley tests him by offering a choice between a respectable grade of 'B' in the class with no additional work required or a final opportunity to re-engage with the material of the class and "do something." Before Todd makes his choice, he must listen to Dr. Malley's story of his former students Arian and Ernest and why they are in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., a charismatic Republican presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), has invited liberal TV journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to announce a new war strategy in Afghanistan: the use of small units to seize strategic positions in the mountains ("forward operating points") before the Taliban can occupy them. The senator hopes that Roth's positive coverage will help convince the public that the plan is sound.
Roth has her doubts and fears she is being asked to become an instrument of government propaganda. Near the end of the film, she informs her commercially-minded boss of her plans to call out the senator's new strategy for what she feels is a ploy, but is shot down. Ultimately, Irving's version of the story is run without the critical interaction. Whether Roth gave in and toed the company line or quit her job is not clear.
In Afghanistan, a helicopter carrying Arian and Ernest is hit by Taliban insurgents. Ernest falls out, and Arian jumps after him. Ernest's leg is badly wounded, and he suffers a compound fracture, rendering him immobile as the Taliban arrive. After a drawn-out gunfight, the U.S. soldiers run out of ammunition. Rather than getting captured, Arian helps Ernest stand up, facing the enemies and turning their empty weapons against them, an action which prompts the Taliban to kill them. The unit commanders attempt a rescue of the downed soldiers, sending A-10 Warthogs, but the weather, time, and distance interfere.
Hayes is then seen watching television with a friend. A reporter is discussing a singer's private life, while below runs a strip announcing Senator Irving's new military plan for Afghanistan. He suddenly falls quiet, contemplating the choices with which his professor had left him.

Review: It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise.
(These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.) While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan.
Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but...
Robert Redford, a symbol of consistency and independence, Meryl Streep, an actress who defined the last two decades of film acting with characters that went straight to the center of something and Tom Cruise, the box office champion who's become a controversial figure despite of his undeniable humanity.
The Seventh movie direction of Bob Redford, Lions for Lambs is a movie about conscience and the effects of politics and the government in society, it also touches several aspects of the American society, such as student issues, the manipulation of media for political propaganda ends.It also invites the viewer to reflect on very important ethical and moral issues of modern society.Great Cast and good direction but I think the most important part of this movie it's the message but as I said before, you'll either loath it or think about it..
LIONS FOR LAMBS is a very intelligent and timely film that addresses what we are doing in Afghanistan and our American policy in handling the issues of the Middle East played out via tremendous performances from Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford, with a strong cast of supporting actors.
Watching Meryl Streep as a Journalist interact with Tom Cruise on the screen and the strong dialog that plays between them is a wonderful piece of writing from Matthew Michael Carnahan as they discuss the issues of winning the war in Afghanistan.
And, as I am reading THE RACE from Richard North Patterson, seeing the Tom Cruise character play to a Journalist to get his story out is another act of political positioning.Robert Redford as the Professor and his student, Mr. SC frat boy, discuss what he should do with his life, and hearing about the story of his two students who came before him, plays out perfectly with what is important to accomplish in America today as a young man and woman.
LIONS FOR LAMBS deserves a large audience, but it may play out as just another political story dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq, and it really deserves the attention and the lessons which the film delivers.
Lions for lambs reminds me of a time when Directors had greater ambitions than to make a huge opening weekend before people realize their film is garbage (Transformers, Pirates, etc...but being saturated with these types of films for so long I doubt many remember what film can be, and accomplish.) Robert Redford strikes me as someone who wants to make a difference and the problem is that the audience has become more deaf to reason than ever.Lions for Lambs is more of a filmed essay than a narrative feature, and being a Kubrick fan, I am all for changing the classic form of Hollywood narrative structure.
These perspectives include a slippery GOP Senator engaging in Orwellian double speak, half-truths and propaganda; a journalist with honest intentions that recognizes her organization's complicity in selling the war leading to the death of 1000's of Americans founded on lies; two brave ideological students who become Army rangers in the hope of making a difference; a wise college professor that recognizes that in America today, lion warriors fight for lamb leadership which have no skin in the game; and a cynical "every man" college student struggling between apathy and activism.If you are not open to honest dialog and introspection, do not seek the truth, are a political or religious ideologue, are one of the 58 percent of Americans that can not identify the three branches of government but can name the three stooges, are part of the apathy crowd, are one that actively engages in cognitive dissonance, are an authoritarian follower, or if your idea of entertainment is just watching things blow up, then this film is not for you.
There all supposed to form this profound statement, "People act in their own interest." The problem for me is that I am in college right now and all the statements made in this movie play like a freshman debate in Political Science 101.
Redford, as Professor Stephen Malley, tries to motivate the intelligent, liberal minded, but apathetic student, Todd Hayes, played by Andrew Garfield, and in doing so teaches us all why, 'failing to try,' is much worse than, 'to have tried and failed.' This message is supported by two parallel stories that show just how difficult trying to make the right decision in real life can be.In one story, reporter Janine Roth, played by Meryl Streep, is burdened with the decision and repercussions of whether to publish propaganda fed to her by a hawkish architect of a new Afghan offensive, Senator Jasper Irving, played by Tom Cruise.In the other story, we watch as two students from an impoverished neighborhood make the risky choice between going to an elite graduate school, taking on more debt and pursuing a high paying career to pay it down, or enlisting in the military to fight in the middle east so that upon their return, their experience will allow their voices to be heard, the government will pay for their graduate education, and they can pursue a career that will allow them to make a difference.In this timely and topical film, Redford expertly shows us just how difficult, but important, doing the right thing is, and reminds us that by deciding to do nothing, we are actually making the decision to let the other side call all the shots..
This part of the film asks why the young generation of today, youngsters born in the 1980s and 1990s just don't seem to care; and tries to realize what happened to us as a society that led us up to this point.The third story is a more Republican take on the turmoil events surrounding us, this time focusing on two American soldiers who find themselves stranded in a hostile territory in Afghanistan, surrounded by Taliban forces who wish to wipe them off the face of the planet.
Robert Redford directs this film, and like so many of Redford's directing efforts, "Lions for Lambs" ponders the tumultuous intricacies to the prevailing circumstances which pertain to a complicated situation (In this movie's case, the Iraq War).
It was refreshing to see the audience laugh in clusters at points in the dialog, but rarely all on the same line.Here are some of the numerous themes and morals in 'Lions for Lambs':a) The media's role in selling the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq and in particular the governments spoon-feeding of the message to the media b) To not squander the great privileges one has, and to seize the day c) To realize that the choices we have lessen as we age, so we ought to start making the right choices as early as possible d) Even if one has sold out, it is never too late to take a stand for humanity e) Those that are aware "Rome is burning" have an obligation to do somethingStreep is my favorite actress and her performance as a seasoned journalist was phenomenal.
And all of this offered to us by an excellent script, superb direction and outstanding acting (I can't imagining despising the Cruise character and what he stands for more or feeling more empathy for Streep's weariness.) We are all caught up in a scenario that presents one of the major moral dilemmas of our time, whether we choose to acknowledge it or bury our collective heads in the economic and cultural cushions to which we have not only grown accustomed, but have come to believe are our entitlement.
To tackle a moral dilemma one must be willing to wrestle with his/her values and beliefs, and examine what it will take to act upon them.If you leave this movie unable to shake your uneasiness, if you find yourself not really looking forward to light conversation over a glass of your favorite wine afterward, but would prefer to go home to a quiet house and try to make sense of what is going on in the world--even as you recognize it isn't making sense--then, experiencing "Lions for Lambs" was a successful experience..
Does boring mean that the film makes you think, that it tells stories on different levels, that it merges the reality we live in today, that it forces the audience to acknowledge that every day US soldiers and Irak civilians die in a war created by private enterprise?The film addresses young people, the indifferent and those who are convinced by the war propaganda, the mishandling of news by multinational media people who seem not to question official information, politicians who continue to uphold official decisions so as not to tarnish their careers, and the impotence felt when one can do so little to stop the war mongers..
Here we have what will likely be a divisive movie that, despite intentions to admirably show American ambiguities and hypocrisies lying on many sides of the terrorism debate, rears an unmistakable liberal sentiment underneath a dumbed-down script (realizing who wrote this further's the disturbance) and overly dramatic performances.Three inter-cut narratives (two excessively talky/preachy, one repetitiously bland) do little at forming a cohesive whole until everything shoddily comes together near the end, but despite all that the film goes by generally quick with enough "provocotive-popcorn" moments to engage a large crowd of people who like their reality-based dramas spoon fed.I suppose it is a good thing Lions for Lambs manages to fit in an empty mind's worth of quotable, bite-sized flavored, crispity controversies when addressing all us knuckleheads who let others do much of the dirty laundry our country currently washes.
Both Pena and Garfield as the soldiers steal the film and are in the best moment of the movie when they stand up in Redford's college class and talk about poor kids entering the war and why a draft is needed.
And instead of putting himself in yet another one man show, he combines forces and shares the spotlight with a stellar cast comprising Robert Redford, who also takes on directing duties, and Meryl Streep, in a story that touches on quite realistically on current affairs, based on scribe's Matthew Michael Carnahan's take on the entire political situation in the USofA currently, with special focus put into its war on terror.While Tom Cruise's recent antics might have irked some and taken off some of the shine off his star power, I can't help but be mesmerized by his take as the toothy grinning like a Cheshire cat, cock-sure character of a Republican senator, who's on the party's good books, and billed as the next big personality that will probably take the White House one day.
I have to admit that I had actually looked forward to him delivering that all famous "Yes or No" line from the trailers, though "Whatever it takes" may well be immortalized amongst his other more legendary one liners like "You could be mine" (Top Gun), "Show me the money!" and "You complete me" (Jerry Maguire) and "I want the truth!" (A Few Good Men).War on Terror movies are proving to be popular subjects in the tail end of 2007, especially when USA is sabre-rattling Iran.
And Lions for Lambs couldn't be any more current when Cruise's Senator Jasper Irving shows off his new tactical strategy against the guerrilla enemies, with words so carefully crafted and chosen by a brain nurtured and educated from Ivy League education, relating them to Streep's Janine Roth, a journalist who has been granted a one hour one-on-one session interview, with so much conviction, appeal and charisma, you're more than likely to fall for his charms, if not for Roth to bring him down to earth with reflections from the past.Told in separate segments, each taking a look microscopically at the issue, but each when put together forms a bigger picture putting you in a Deus Ex Machina position, I thought the best segment belonged to Cruise-Streep, where they debate on politics, and media responsibility, with keen dialogue between the two parties filled with thrusting and parrying of various push and pull factors.
Lions for Lambs  2007 Directed by Robert Redford Starring Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Michael Pena, Peter Berg, Derek Luke and Andrew Garfied.No other movie made in recent times and which had a political subject has ever been misrepresented and misunderstood as Lions for Lambs.
And this is what the movie is actually about, the fact that the people of today have chosen to accept being told what to do and what to believe, instead of QUESTIONING.The reporter in Lions for Lambs is the complete contrast of the reporters from "All The President's Men" and the student is the complete contrast of the main character from "Three Days of The Condor".
A mish-mash narrative as three stories collide; two soldiers who get wounded in Afghanistan, Senator Irving (Cruise) being interviewed by Political journalist Roth (Streep) and Redford engaging a student in a debate regarding life, principles, morals, the universe and everything else.Tom Cruise should get an Oscar nod, he plays the slimy US Senator who wants to create good for his own personal gain (typical 'I am for the people' politician) regarding the situation in Afghanistan, while Meryl Streep plays an strong and opinionated political journalist, and frankly is just over-shadowed by his presence throughout.Then the film goes downhill with the other two 'stories' or 'events' taking place.
No wonder so many right-wing hacks post bad reviews.Lions For Lambs has one major fault however, a failure actually, and it is clearly evident in many of the negative comments about it: the film has apparently not reached the ones who need it most.It is an intelligent and moving work that, far from being the "anti-war propaganda" some simpleton labeled it, actually attempts to intelligently engage the major source of its criticism: people who are either incapable of honest debate or so immersed in the waters of their own idiotology, they simply can't hear the truth.Perhaps grunting and primitive hand gestures might work better.
i just saw it today and i have to say this movie has Oscar buzz all over it , the acting was amazing especially Meryl if she docent get a nod for Rendition she will defiantly get one for this , tom and Robert were also good but this wasn't there best performance, the directing was great which i think will get Robert a directing nod also , i agree with some reviewers that the story isn't that strong and at times becomes a little too preachy , also the action in this film isn't done in a good way for instant the scene were the soldiers are in the military plane looks fake and unrelated to the outside shot of the plane, this movie has it's down moments and they weren't many but i think the witty script makes up for an interesting and intelligent movie in the end..
Robert Redford brings up a very important discussion in his new film, supported by great acting and an agile, instigating narrative.Because the story surrounds many vital areas of our system, like the Military, Politics, Journalism and Education, many people can be stimulated in a lot of different perspectives.
'Lions for Lambs' discusses the same situation with much greater responsibility and a brilliantly written and structured screenplay.The plot of the film revolves around three events that are happening simultaneously  an ambitious Senator's (Cruise) interview with a leading journalist (Streep), a formerly zealous and now reckless student's meeting with a professor (Redford) of political science and a military attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Americans should not be fighting wars just to flex their military muscle.And the fact that dimwit Robert Redford got it wrong - it was lions led by donkeys, not lambs, shows how stupid a film it is.Can't even get the title right.I won't even keep or pass on the DVD.
If you were to ask the bulk of people who have seen this movie, they'd probably tell you that "Lions for Lambs" is a politically-charged film with an ensemble cast.
Hopefully for the better.The reason, i think, Lions for Lambs is getting a low rating is because people expected to see more war action scenes which the movie is absolutely not about.Oscar recommendation..
Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise deliver the performances of the century.Lions for Lambs is the truth, people..
The third tract involves a very cynical TV news reporter (Meryl Streep) being given a hard sales job on the War On Terror by an up-and-coming neoconservative U.S. senator (Tom Cruise).If this doesn't seem much for a movie, it's not because LIONS FOR LAMBS itself is to blame.