Lions for Lambs

Liz and I watched Lions for Lambs immediately after American Gangster and even though I liked it, this one wasn't quite as awesome. In a way it kind of came of as political propaganda and wasn't always sure what they were trying to make me believe. It also reminded me of Rules of Engagement in the sense that a side-story is two stranded marines but the movie is really people talking about that situation. Directed by Robert Redford and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan (The Kingdom), you could definitely see similarities in style and theme from some of their previous work. Redford, who also acted in this, plays a college professor trying to inspire one of his slacker-students to greatness in California. At the same time Meryl Streep is interviewing Tom Cruise, an up-and-coming senator aspiring to the presidency, about a new military plan of action in Afghanistan. Thirdly, we are watching this new plan unfold as two marines, played by Michael Peña and Andrew Garfield, are pinned down by enemy gunfire and just happen to be former students of Professor Malley, Redford's character. So as you can see, this is one of those movies where everything is connected in some way. One thing that was cool about this is everything is happening simultaneously around the world, which is reflected by the time differences between the different situations. Liz pointed out that Tom Cruise, Sen. Jasper Irving, was really just a cleaned up Frank T.J. Mackey from Magnolia. He used the same tactics and cunning to bend his listener's will toward wherever he wanted. He was very manipulative and never really said what he meant; all the while trying to control things around him like the Wizard of Oz. Streep's character, Janine Roth, represents the media. She sees through the senator's manipulation, but her editor won't allow her to write what she really wants because they have to worry about ratings. This is definitely trying to make a point about the media today with how they've covered the "wars on terror." I also liked to see Streep acting again compared with her last performance I saw, The Devil Wears Prada, where she wasn't really doing much at all. I realize she won awards for it, but I felt like the other nominees were much more deserving. Redford's professor seemed just a little bit too forceful to me. It was almost as if he was manipulating his student, but I'm not sure exactly to what. Trying to make him care more about his studies is definitely a positive. However, beyond that I'm not sure what the end goal was. Overall, I'd say this movie is definitely worth seeing before Oscar time rolls around. It might even get nominated for something.