This is not what I expected.
When it was announced that Tom Cruise had been given control of the old United Artists label, I (like many others) assumed that it would quickly become a summer blockbuster factory. The one thing that Cruise has always been very good at is spotting commercial potential. I expected action flicks, sci-fi flicks, thrillers, maybe even some romantic comedies.
I did not expect Lions For Lambs.
Politics aside, it looks like an interesting film. A quiet little picture, mostly focused on two conversations. One between Tom Cruise (a US military commander) and Meryl Streep (a reporter). The other between Robert Redford (a college professor) and Andrew Garfield (one of his students). The structure allows Redford’s character to preach the anti-war argument, while Cruise’s character preaches the pro-war stance. The conversations are balanced out with footage of two of Redford’s former students in combat.
In a film like this, I’d like to see a balanced presentation. Give both sides of the story and let the viewer decide. But this is a film directed by Redford and his political ideology is right upfront, this is an anti-war movie.
And it may be an excellent one. Unless it opens wide, I’ll have to wait for the DVD release to know for sure. But it sure does sound interesting, if incredibly non-commercial. And it really makes me wonder what Cruise and United Artists have up their sleeves for future releases….
It’s not a good movie. Or, rather, it’s a nice back and forth between the elements that got us into the Iraq war, but, as a movie, I don’t think it works.
However, that it even got made and that it makes no apologies for being what it is means that the new UA label may indeed mean that we can actually look forward to something other than “popcorn” flicks.
And somewhere, sometime I’m going to expound on my thought that Tom Cruise is the Paul Newman of my generation. Only without the salad dressing.