Controversy In Every Line Of ‘Lions For Lambs’
Lions For Lambs – starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep – is a controversial movie that highlights the War on Terror and every political thing that surrounds it. Matthew Michael Carnahan – who also wrote the screenplay for ‘The Kingdom’ does a horrible job of blending in his political views with the drama of the movie.
Loosely set in real time, Lambs tracks three storylines that unfurl over the course of one hour. In his Capitol Hill office, GOP savior Sen. Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) grants reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) an exclusive interview. He quietly confesses that Iraq was a mistake before mapping out our country’s next strategic international operation in Afghanistan.
Across the country, California college professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford, who also directs) chastises a once-promising student (Andrew Garfield) for wasting his potential. Malley’s motivational tool is a story about his two best students who, against the teacher’s wishes, chose to serve their country by enlisting in the military. Not surprisingly, Malley’s scholars are the lead soldiers in Irving’s Afghani front, and things aren’t going as planned for the brave paratroopers.
Cruise , Streep, and Redford all do a great job acting out their respective characters and we expected no less from these respected actors (except maybe Cruise). When it comes to the downfall of the movie we don’t blame them for it.
This will definitely bring up controversial debates to anyone who watches this movie. The fact that the movie does not support the war may bring a few angry glances from the big time real supporters watching it.