Don't waste time getting lost in 'Lambs' political jargon

By Brittany Benjamin

Having stopped at the concessions stand before the movie to buy the essentials -- popcorn, candy and soda -- I realized within the first 10 minutes of "Lions for Lambs" that I had forgotten something.

My pillow.

Not for me, but for the poor fellow sitting directly behind me with the nasal problem that caused him to snore absurdly loud. He fell asleep before the end of the opening credits.

He wasn't the only one. A man sitting to the right of me was enjoying the view of the back of his eyelids.

Even as I sit here writing this review, there are chunks of the movie that I don't remember. Did I fall asleep, or was I so bored that I had tuned out all dialogue in the film to stare blankly at the colossal mole on Tom Cruise's face?

I can't say for sure.

What I can say is that "Lions for Lambs" should not have been as awful as it was. It had a potentially promising storyline, as well as a stellar cast. With talents like Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford, who directed and starred in the film, the all-star cast should have been enough to keep "Lions for Lambs" afloat.

No life raft is large enough to save this movie.

At a short 88 minutes, the movie was painfully long. The plot was lost in political jargon, which viewers tried exceptionally hard to follow for the first 10 minutes before giving up and opting for a mid-evening nap.

The movie opens with Janine Roth (Streep), a renowned reporter, walking into Senator Jasper Irving's (Cruise) office for an exclusive interview on a new plan for military combat in Afghanistan.

Irving, who is hinted to be one of the most influential men whispering in President Bush's ear, admits to previous failures in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He promises that this new course of action will bring a speedy victory to the war on terror.

Little does Roth know that while he promises success, the plan is already failing in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, from the confines of his California university office, professor Stephen Malley (Redford) tries to motivate one of his students to pursue an education in political science. Malley tells the student, who shows a natural talent in the subject, that if he doesn't stand for something, he might fall for anything.

While Redford's goal is ultimately to likewise motivate viewers to stand for something and take action, his message is lost in the background noise of the movie's incessant and dull dialogue.

The only saving grace occurs in the short scenes that take place in the university's lecture hall lead by professor Malley. Students will be able to relate to the playful banter that occurs between students, bringing the geographically distant wars closer on a spine-tingling emotional level.

While audiences have come to expect great things from Redford, director and founder of the esteemed Sundance Film Festival, the movie is obviously an attempt for Redford to grumble about the wars.

While Redford brings up some valid points, he ultimately comes off as griping.

The movie ends with so many unanswered questions, leaving viewers feeling empty and uncertain. In a way, Redford is no better than the hypocritical political figures he criticizes in his film -- he promises actions but never delivers.

As a viewer, I felt used and let down. I went to the movie to be entertained, not to have Redford preach to me from his soapbox.

At least next time I know to save the $20 I spent for ticket and concessions. I'll opt for a free nap instead.

Grade: C-

Contact Brittany Benjamin at (408) 551-1918 or brbenjamin@scu.edu.