Lions for Lambs

Watching Lions for Lambs feels a lot like taking your medicine: It may be good for you, but it doesn't go down smoothly. In this case, the ailment is the malaise that sets in when a country -- here, the United States -- sends its young men and women to fight a war that goes on indefinitely. The storylines seem like the recipe for a thoughtful, provoking piece of cinema. Which it is, on some levels. The push-pull dynamic between the journalist and the senator is fascinating and, it seems, fairly on the money. But Lions for Lambs is also didactic and dogmatic. Viewers are often told what to think instead of being given the chance to discover the truths the movie aims to convey. Actually, it all feels a lot like a poli-sci lecture, albeit one with great actors.

Cruise is brilliant here, subduing his usual manic tendencies and exhibiting an almost menacing penchant for control that serves his character very well. He goes toe to toe with Streep, who's superb as usual. Of the movie's three sections, Redford's storyline suffers most from inertia. Yes, he holds the camera's gaze, but the conversation between him and his "student" feels curiously dispassionate -- ironic, considering that he's trying to light a fire under the kid. And while it's certainly moving, the soldiers' section is predictable. Too bad you can't say the same thing about resolving war and other conflicts.