Lions For Lambs

Caught Lions for Lambs at a special screening with a Q&A afterwards with David McKenna, Film Division, Columbia University (http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/art/app/arts/film/faculty-bio.jsp?faculty=40) and Anne Nelson, SIPA faculty, Columbia University (http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/directory/an115-fac.html).

I wish this film had been better. It raises some valid issues, particularly the nature of TV news these days, when we often have to ignore the main story/images of Paris Hilton or whoever and try and read the crawl on the bottom of the screen where the real news is often relegated. At 88 minutes, the film goes by quickly; too quickly. It’s just too simplistic in its approach. It touches on a few things, then races to the end. Even structurally it’s very simplistic, cutting between only three major settings and stories, with a fourth story line (potentially the most interesting, ie, the back story of the journalist, played by Meryl Streep, left in the wings and only hinted at). Streep, of course, is always worth watching; Cruise is Cruise but he’s not bad as a villain (see Collateral), although I think he looks too young for this role. Robert Redford was OK in his role, though his direction is not especially inspiring. Andrew Garfield was annoying as the promising student Redford prods to supposed greatness.

Destined for greatness this film obviously isn’t, and that’s too bad, for United Artists and for us, the audience. With this film missing its mark, so too possibly, will the impetus be missing for studios to make similar films.