Everett, Wash.
Published: Friday, November 9, 2007

Redford's earnest liberal lectures only lull viewer to sleep

By Robert Horton
Herald Movie Critic

 Nobody's more earnest than Robert Redford, a fact amply demonstrated by his new film "Lions for Lambs," which he stars in and directs. In the baldest possible fashion, this movie summarizes debates for and against the Middle East wars.

At first, it sounds sort of promising: a film about real things. But this movie quickly becomes an excuse for Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan to tell us what they think about it all.

The movie has three locations, and we hopscotch back and forth as all three stories occur during the same morning hour. In Afghanistan, a U.S. military unit tries a bold new strategy in quelling insurgents -- except that two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) get left behind on a snowy mountain.

In Washington, D.C., a hotshot Republican senator (Tom Cruise) calls a veteran journalist (Meryl Streep) into his office for a private meeting. He tells her about the new Afghan strategy, but they also engage in a general debate about the pros and cons of war in Iraq.

In the third location, a California college, a professor (Redford) interrogates a student (Andrew Garfield) whose interest has been slipping in class. This is where Redford speaks most directly to his presumed audience, the disengaged youth of America. And as it happens, he tells the kid about the two soldiers -- former students of his -- who are now trapped on a mountainside in Afghanistan.

Maybe if Redford had made this movie in 2004, it might have had some edge. Seeing it now, there's nothing that will surprise informed readers of Op-Ed pages, even if you read the Wall Street Journal. Regular viewers of "The Daily Show" and "Countdown" will yawn at the points scored by the liberal voices in the argument.

Redford gives the conservative side, notably Cruise's senator, a chance to register its concerns. But this fair-handedness only reinforces what a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Redford is, and it's not difficult to guess where his sympathies lie.

Cutting between the segments gives the appearance of movement, but the film's almost entirely inert. And the sense that we are being lectured is only enhanced by the whiff of condescension in Redford's segment.

Even though this film is clumsy, there is something appealingly old-school about Redford's belief that he can change minds, if only among people who haven't really thought much about the war. Maybe he will. It would be nicer to see him pull off one more "All the President's Men" before too much longer, however.
© 2009The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA