Take a hot button subject, an Oscar-winning director, and place some heavy star power in front of the camera and you have all the ingredients for a mega hit that will pack theaters and leave people buzzing, right? Unfortunately, the answer is no in the case of Lions for Lambs.

Lions for Lambs has all those elements but the filmmaker somehow forgot to add the most important part of the recipe to the mix – a real story to tell. Robert Redford's first film as a director in seven years is his most overtly political drama, an intelligent, occasionally provocative feature that wears its political agenda on its sleeves but doesn't convince dramatically or artistically.

While Senator Irving's busy explaining his approach to winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, lifelong friends Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are sitting with their fellow soldiers as their commanding officer explains their next mission – a mission based on Senator Irving's proposal. Their leader admits the plan's being rushed into fruition, but they are under orders to carry out the attack. Exactly how rushed the mission is quickly becomes evident when the unit's helicopter comes under heavy fire and Rodriguez and Finch are left alone in enemy territory after falling (or in Finch's case, jumping) from the helicopte

Senator Irving's priming himself for an eventual run at the presidency and Cruise's performance captures that sickeningly smooth political vibe. Redford's fine as a college professor who's been around the block quite a few times but hasn't given up hope that he can positively influence his students into becoming better human beings.

The usually stellar Streep is, for lack of a better description, wasted as a reporter who knows she's being used and manipulated yet can't seem to stop playing along anyway. Streep's playing a woman who has supposedly interviewed thousands during her four decades in the business, yet she fidgets and huffs her way through this one interview with this particular senator. She knows him, he likes her, so why the nervousness? The decision by either Redford, Streep or a combination of the two award-winners to play her as almost overwhelmed by her interviewee's presence was a weird choice.

None of the leads sell their stories with the exception of Michael Pena and Derek Luke. These two made the most of their parts in Lions for Lambs, and gave the film a much needed jolt of both emotion and adrenaline whenever they appeared onscreen.
Those who've seen the trailer or read anything about the film will know going in that the movie blasts President Bush and all those who backed the war in Iraq. But the film does absolutely nothing to win over the hearts or change the minds of fence-sitters, and that seems to have been its entire goal.

Get engaged, speak out - the call to action is the point of the film. Lions for Lambs is not here to entertain us, it's here to inform anyone willing to listen about what's going on right now in the world. However, and this is where the movie fails so miserably, there's a whole lot of pontificating that leads to absolutely nowhere. That's right, nowhere. After sitting through this dialogue-heavy drama and you're expecting all the insistent yapping to have been leading up to a finale that'll knock your socks off or at least leave you anxious to make your voice heard, there's a meek little ending that's more of a feeble whimper than a roar. Lions for Lambs is an extremely disappointing film that wastes a solid premise. There's neither depth nor vigor (spoken or visually) to any of the contentious back and forth, and though its trio of stars excellently portray their various characters (dangerously self-interested young Republican, conflicted and appalled journalist, noble professor), they remain, throughout, mere stereotypes.
--Saba Sartaj K