What Lions?

Your regular jingoistic Yankee propaganda. Only difference is that the enemies aren't Vietcong rebels or Arab insurgents. It's the suits in Washington DC. However, this isn't the first time America has taken a look at its own slimy underbelly and then tried to take credit for what it should have done years ago. Kudos to the scriptwriter, who attempts to put war into the only perspective that matters- justification for increased military spending, and hence, justifying the existence of military suppliers and vendors.

We know that it's unfair to compare it with A Few Good Men which also sought to expose the uglier side of the military. The secret of its success was the strongly crafted character for the villain in that case, Jack Nicholson. You respected him, and yet you were glad he got taken down. Tom Cruise's character was well-scripted too. And their interactions was the stuff that made sparks fly. If only we could say the same for Lions for Lambs.

Unfortunately, Tom Cruise doesn't make a good Bad Guy. So you don't hate him enough. Unfortunate, also, that Robert Redford's character is far too romantic to be real. Meryl Streep vacillates between both extremes as a highly successful journalist whose conscience seems to have returned to haunt her for having sold out. (Come on, get real guys!!) Problem is there's nobody to hate in the movie (come on guys, you can't hate Tom!!), therefore, you don't really appreciate the Good Guys. Problem #2 is that there are so many Good Guys that your attention (and sympathy) get kinda divided. So there's a villain you don't really hate, and there are too many heroes, each one to weak to stand on his/ her own merit.

All in all, an average-ish flick. What hurts is that it isn't great because that's what you kind of expect with a cast such as Redford, Streep and Cruise. Pretty lame lions for lambs if you ask me.