Lions for Lambs

The story revolves around three parallel plotlines: the first follows an American senator (Tom Cruise) trying to pitch a new military plan to a journalist (Meryl Streep); the second involves a university professor (Robert Redford) attempting to convince a bright student to change his way of thinking and take on greater responsibility; and the third follows two young soldiers sent on a dangerous mission in Afghanistan—who, by the way, happen to be students of that professor. The connection between these three threads has an idea behind it, but the execution was a bit lukewarm.

The film talks about politics, media, education, and war in a direct and clear manner, and this might be its biggest flaw. Instead of letting you immerse yourself in the story and reflect, it tries to serve you the moral lesson on a silver platter. I felt like the film was lecturing more than storytelling.

That said, I can’t deny the acting… The entire cast delivered excellent performances. Tom Cruise was convincing as the smart and cunning politician, and Meryl Streep was brilliant as usual. Robert Redford was calm and profound in his role, though I felt his character was somewhat predictable.

The direction is simple, and perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the film is its message, which asks: "As individuals, what is our responsibility toward the world around us?" An important question, but it could have been presented more powerfully.

Honestly, the film wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t strong enough either. It works better as a discussion or study film rather than an entertaining one.

My rating: 6/10

A political and intellectual film more than an entertaining one. Suitable for those who enjoy serious debates and deep dialogues, but not for all tastes.

This is a film that focuses more on dialogue and political messages rather than action or fast-paced events. Honestly, I didn’t expect it to be this calm!

The story follows three parallel arcs: The first is about a U.S. Senator (Tom Cruise) trying to push a new military strategy to a journalist (Meryl Streep). The second is about a university professor (Robert Redford) trying to convince a smart student to change his way of thinking and take on greater responsibility. The third is about two young soldiers sent on a dangerous mission in Afghanistan—who happen to be former students of that professor.

There’s an interesting idea connecting these three arcs, but the execution was a bit lukewarm.

The film talks about politics, media, education, and war in a very direct and clear way, and this might be its biggest flaw. Instead of letting you dive into the story and think, it tries to hand you the lesson on a silver platter. It felt more like a lecture than storytelling.

But I can’t deny the acting… The entire cast delivered excellent performances. Tom Cruise was convincing as the smart and manipulative politician, and Meryl Streep was amazing as usual. Robert Redford was calm and deep in his role, though I felt his character was a bit predictable.

The direction is simple, and perhaps the film’s most distinguishing feature is its message, which asks: "As individuals, what is our responsibility toward the world around us?" An important question, but it could’ve been presented more powerfully.

Honestly, the film wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t strong enough either. It works better as a discussion film or for analysis rather than pure entertainment.

My rating: 6/10
A political and intellectual film more than an entertaining one. Suitable for those who enjoy serious debates and deep dialogues, but not for everyone.