Ranking Every Film in 2007 1-44: Part I

Here's a series I'm starting where I look at a year (Boxofficemojo and idbm provide yearly lists. It provides a good measure on your movie-viewing habits) and every film I've seen in that year and rank them. 2007 was possibly my most prolific year as a movie watcher at 43 1/2 films due to the fact that I was working a strenuous job at a crowded movie theater and would regularly plop into a movie after working a long shift. It was also a spectacularly awful and disappointing year overcrowded with sequels that failed to deliver (the tail-end of the three biggest moneymaking trilogies of the decade-Spiderman, Shrek, and Pirates all landed with a resounding thud), a slew of ambitious war films that were quickly forgotten (anyone remember The Kingdom? The Kite Runner? Can you tell the difference between Redacted or Rendition?), the sudden emergence of Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow as kings of a new brand of schlubby comedy, an overpopulation of Office cast members in films and a mistaken belief in the range of Michael Cera. I'm going to have a little fun with the credits so bear with me.
So here we go:

1. 3:10 to Yuma dir. James Mangold, starring Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, Ben Foster, Alan Tudyk, Gretchen "Where I" Mol, Logan "Before he was America's favorite indie goth kid" Lerman-It was just a remake, but I thought the dialogue was Shakespearean, the acting was top-notch and the action was raw and authentic in a way that few films in this CGI Age are. 
2. Lars and the Real Girl, starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul "I couldn't cut the mustard on Parks and Rec" Schneider, Patricia "redheads can act too" Clarkson, Kelli "Never heard of her before but had to look her up because she's awesome" Garner-In seven words or less: Entirely original in concept, sweet, unconventional, inspiring.
3. There Will be Blood, dir. Paul T. Anderson (middle initial included because coincidentally one of the worst directors in Hollywood also has that name), starring Daniel "Super Annoying  Method Man" Day-Lewis, Paul Dano-I only saw about 60% of this film but could recognize its originality and perfection. The film's soundscape and visual detail are both striking. 
4. Michael Clayton, directed and written by Tony Gileroy, starring George "I'm an attention whore, want to hear more about my Italian Villa?" Clooney, Tilda "Ice queen" Stinton, Tom "That vaguely British guy" Wilkinson, Sydney "Also a famous director" Pollock-Well-deserving of a best picture nomination. A complex tightly-paced thriller that makes tackling corporate corruption seem sexy and exciting. The film was topical and asked questions to which there were no easy answers.
5. Sicko dir. Michael Moore, I generally don't find the movies to be the best way to expose myself to non-fiction, thus, I tend to judge them by entertainment value. Michael Moore has that in spades and he also (for lack of a better word [seriously, thesaurus, you're giving me nothing here]) arouses passion from his audience. 
6. The Great Debaters dir. Denzel Washington, starring Denzel Washington, Forrest "Hot off his Oscar win" Whitaker, and (I'm not kidding here) Denzel "If Forrest and Denzel had a love child" Whitaker, Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett-Bell-Without even knowing the history behind the story, you can tell there's a little Disneyesque truth stretching to fit the neatly told story arc of an underdog beating the odds (i.e. Did they debate Harvard? nope, just USC). Still, I found the film delicate and nuanced with an unusually strong performance from Forrest Whitaker and the film's delving into the civil rights movement, feminism on a college campus and the intellectual struggle of undergraduate life all resonated for me.
7. Darjeeling Limited dir. Wes Anderson, written by Wes Anderson and Roman "I can never remember how many p's and l's go in that last name and have to look it up , uggh!" Coppola starring Owen "This was made right after his suicide attempt" Wilson, Adrian "Won an Oscar, Kissed Halle Berry, Haven't Done Much Since" Brody, Jason "The Nerdy Guy from Rushmore" Schwartzman, Anjelica Huston, Amara Karan, cameo by Bill Murray-I happen to think it's as profound and enjoyable of a film as the rest ofWes Anderson's output  and I challenge you to watch this film as if you've never seen his other films and tell me that the originality of Anderson's vision doesn't strike you here too.
8. Hairspray dir. Adam Shankman, starring Nikki "Lived on the same street as my cousins" Blonsky, John "Channeling his Inner Woman" Travolta, Christopher "No, seriously, the guy can act, dance and sing" Walken, Zac "American Teendom's Favorite Boytoy circa 2006" Efron, James "The Guy From X-Men Who's Not as Popular as Wolverine"  Marsden, Queen Latifah, Amanda Byrnes, Brittany Snow, Michelle "Seriously? I thought she was dead" Pfeiffer, Allison Janey, Elijah Kelley-An absolutely excellent piece of ensemble work with swinging music. I wanted to gag when they called the group of teens the "Nicest Kids in Town" but at least they were self-conscious enough to call Marsden's character "Corny Collins."
9. Juno, dir. Jason Reitman, written by Diablo "Ex-stripper" Cody, starring Ellen "Too short to be considered hot?" Page, Michael "One-Note" Cera, Jason "Justine's Brother" Bateman, Jennifer Garner, JK "The Deadpan King" Simmons, Allison Janney, Olivia "Damn you and your complicated last name" Thirlby-If you were around in 2007, you would be convinced that Diablo Cody was the second coming of the messiah for screenwriters. She's not all that, but Juno is a sharply acerbic, regionally specific, and bitingly funny script. 
10. Lions for Lambs, dir. Robert Redford, starring Tom Cruise, Meryl "I lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones at the Oscars" Streep, Robert Redford, Derek Luke, Michael Pena, and Andrew "Before he was famous" Garfield-It wasn't a very cinematic film as it took place in three mostly static locations in real time. It rates so highly with me because I found it thought-provoking and one of the few pieces of art I was exposed to that had something original to say about the war in Iraq and said it well. 
11. Charlie Wilson's War dir. Mike "Did you know he was once known as a comedian?" Nichols, starring Tom "Everyman" Hanks, Julia "Not as good as her brother" Roberts, Amy Adams, Philip "Damn you, I can never remember how many l's are in your name and always have to look it up" Seymour Hoffman, a cameo by Emily Blunt who does little other than stand on a balcony with her clothes off-If you go back in time to 2007, you'll see that this film had a lot of pre-release buzz and was touted as an Oscar contender. It didn't quite live up to that, but it was an interesting take on the American political hero and even the American dream. The apologetically sleazy congressman got a piece of legislation through that saved lives in Afghanistan. In the second piece of irony, it would lead to the Taliban, but who's counting? There was a definite sense of fun to the film. 
12. King of California, starring Michael Douglas, Evan "Definitely not a dude" Rachel Wood-Just watched this yesterday (which is what got me thinking about 2007). The deadbeat dad is a tired convention but not many movies are focused so solely on a father-daughter dynamic. There wasn't a separate plot with a love interest or any conclusion for the character other than her resolution of her feelings toward her dad. 
13. Bee Movie, produced by Jerry Seinfeld, starring Jerry Seinfeld, Matthew Broderick, Renee Zellweger, Patrick Warburton, Chris Rock, cameo by Ray Liotta-I might be alone but I don't think it was such a bad start for Seinfeld's foray into animation. The bee-on-human sexual undertones made me a little uncomfortable, but I thought the jokes were sharp as was the overall comic plot. It harkened to the days of Pixar's first films like Monster's Inc. and Toy Story that were permeated by an adventurous attitude of fully exploring the comic possibilities of a familiar-yet-foreign world. 
14. Spiderman 3, dir. Sam Raimi, starring Tobey "Who will always look 23" MaGuire, Kirsten Dunst, Bryce "My sister met her at summer camp once!" Dallas Howard, J.K. Simmons, Rosemary Harris, Topher "Amazing" Grace, Thomas Haden "Get me to the" Church "On time", Cliff "Won an Oscar in 1968" Robertson-We're only on #14 and getting to the films I wouldn't enthusiastically recommend. I never found Spiderman as colorful as some of the other superhero series with its obvious symbolism: The girl next door is literally the girl who lived next door, and James Franco is so broody and blatant he virtually was walking around with a "Future token villain" name tag. Then again, the Spiderman series showed it could have fun with stock characters. J.K. Simmons's newspaper editor was also very much a stock stereotype, but he was undeniably entertaining. So while the Spiderman series is flawed on the whole, the third installment was able to both have fun within its rigidly thought-out universe AND end in an emotionally satisfying coda. 
15. Elizabeth The Golden Age, dir. by Shepac Kapur, starring Cate Blanchett, Clive "Handsome" Owen, Geoffrey Rush, Samantha Morton, Abbie Cornish, Jordi "My name requires not one but two spanish accent marks" Molla-This film is insanely high in terms of historic attention to detail. Even if it isn't and it turns out that the production team's research department was completely wrong about everything, it wouldn't matter because the atmosphere of the film felt so real and was so mesmerizing. The film is a more subtle than dynamic study of politics, war, sexual repression, idolatry (the kind where you look up to a person rather than the religious kind), and class. Look closely, it's all there. 
16. Eastern Promises, dir. by David Cronenberg, starring Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen, Vincent Cassel A thriller intense enough that I can literally remember my heart beating from watching this movie 4 1/2 years ago. Something I can't remember years later is the plot which is what makes for a memorable thriller. I'm also not giving the film too many points for its most memorable set piece: A nude knife fight scene in a spa's steam room which felt a little self-indulgent to me. Still, it's kind of a weak year, so it's up in 16. Plus Naomi Watts always kills it. 
17. Waitress, starring Keri "Felicity Forever" Russell, Nathan "King of the Comic Con Geeks" Fillion-A charming story with a nuanced performance by Russell that echoed the depressed housewife performance by Jennifer Anniston in "Good Girl."
18. Knocked Up, dir. Judd Appatow, starring Seth Rogen, Leslie "I'm sleeping with the director but I can act too damnit" Mann, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd, Jonah "Cameoing in every movie I can" Hill, Kristen Wiig, Bill "Don't be a Player" Hader, Craig Robinson and nearly everyone from the Office and SNL in cameo roles-I tend to find Apatow a little overrated and think he's produced as many duds as he has genuinely enjoyable films. His films often are raunchy just for the sake of being raunchy and contain plots that meander off course. Knocked Up, however, was enjoyable on all levels and its winding plot was one of its biggest strengths. Hard to buy Seth Rogen as a suitable romantic match for Katherine Heigl but, then again, I'm not the first one to point that out. 
19. Across the Universe, dir. Julie Taymor, starring Jim Sturgess, Evan "Again, not a dude, see the middle name" Rachel Wood-Some of the appeal of the film depends on how much of a Beatlemaniac you are, and some of it depends on the beauty of the visuals and vocals. While the visuals and musical numbers are stunning and the efforts to encapsulate the entirety of the 60's within a few characters is admirable, most of the film's main characters (I'd be content never seeing another film with Sturgess in it) are bland and uninspiring. Some are expys of famous people with none of the charisma. Taken as a series of disparate scenes (like Fantasia), the film is highly enjoyable.
20. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead dir. Sidney Lumet, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan "Handsome" Hawke, Amy Ryan, Marisa Tomei, Albert Finney-This film barely registers with me five years later. The premise is excellent, the ending was powerful, and it's always a delight to see Albert Finney in a film, but something about it didn't resonate that well
21. Bourne Ultimatum, dir. Paul Greengrass, starring Matt Damon, Joan "Amazing in  Pleasantville" Allen, Julia "What the heck is she doing here?" Stiles, David Strathairn-The Bourne series has never been interesting to me as anything beyond a series of well-executed action scenes. Why do I care about this character? Despite Damon's general awesomeness as both a leading and character actor, there just isn't enough pathos (yeah, I used a fancy word, deal with it) behind Jason Bourne to make a series. But then again, that action was hard to discount. Like Spiderman 3, Bourne Ultimatum ended on a high note with an emotionally satisfying conclusion. 
22. Blades of Glory starring Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler, Will Arnett, Jenna "From the Office" Fischer, Jon Heder, Craig T. Nelson By no means, a memorable or ambitious film but one that was pleasant, funny, and delivered at its level of ambition. 
Part II where I mercilessly make fun of the bottom half of 2007

Old-Timey Reviews of 2 Tom Cruise Films: Valkyrie & Lions for Lambs

VALKYRIE
Valkyrie features Tom Cruise as star and producer of a true story about a group of German officers who made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Hitler and launch a government coup over Germany in order to spare the country a more merciful surrender pact with the Allied forces. Despite a few setbacks, Valkyrie is a well-crafted political thriller.

Chief among these setbacks is Tom Cruise, himself, which is somewhat of a disappointment because this man has taken a lot of beatings from the press and general public over the last couple of years and I'm usually one of his starch defenders. Cruise doesn't even attempt a German accent and doesn't really inject any personality into the role. It's ridiculously hard to suspend your disbelief and think you're watching anything other than some strange time travelling story of Tom Cruise playing himself inserted into 1944 Germany*. Fortunately, Cruise is surrounded by a really solid cast: Among others, Bill Nighy, Terrence Stamp (My Boss' Daughter, Get Smart), and Tom Wilkinson, fresh off his amazing performance in Michael Clayton last year. Wilkinson's character as a top general with loyalties to Hitler could have been someone you could have built an entire movie around.

As in the X-Men series, director Bryan Singer doesn't just jump into the action but takes his time building suspense, even if the score is annoyingly over-dramatic at times. If you're expecting an action film, you're bound to be disappointed. It's more of a backdoor political piece that reminded me a little bit of The Contender. For the first half of the film, Cruise is just going from Nazi official to Nazi official trying to find the right allies and gather signatures to enact his grandiose plan, but it's like a game of political chess. Singer also shoots in stately and grandiose interiors and fulls the visual imagery with symbols of Nazi power to show how daunting of a task to try to topple this regime. Evidently, all Nazis had offices with 30-foot high ceilings. Overall, the picture is thought-provoking, tragic, and memorable.

LIONS FOR LAMBS

A journalist (Meryl Streep) conducts a one-on-one interview with Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) over his new initiative in Iraq. Irving, played with all the cockiness that some of us liken to the Tom Cruise persona (and mistakenly Tom Cruise himself) is forceful in trying to get Streep to see a certain point of view and borderline bullies her into accepting his line of thinking that this new strategy is going to work and is worth the human cost. If you replaced Matt Lauer with Meryl Streep, it would practically be a dramatic reenactment of Cruise's famous tirade on The Today Show arguing against prescription medicine. My point here is Cruise is perfectly cast, and I think Redford was very aware of Cruise's recently damaged likability rating at this point in time.

The second piece of the puzzle is two bright students who volunteered for the army to prove that they were pro-active citizens, against the urging of their professor. These characters are more likable in the flashback scenes because in the present day military conflict their foolishness (in the name of chivalry) stretches plot credibility a little thin.

The third story arc and the one which I found most compelling was between a college professor (the same college professor who discouraged his two former students in plot line #2 from entering the war) and his most promising student during a one-hour advising session. The student (Andrew Garfield) was once a catalyst for some of the class's most most interesting discussions and showed great intelligence, but lately he is becoming more interested in fraternity life and girls and doesn't believe politics are worth it because "they're all crooked." The student is the apotheoses of disengaged undergraduates today and credit goes not just to the actor (it would be easy for a young person to portray a stereotypical member of today's college youth) but to the 40 year old Matthew Carnahan for capturing his language reasonably well. Redford has the most presence on screen out of anyone of the film as the professor.

This is a good and bad thing because I can understand people seeing Redford's films as a blatantly transparent method of getting his political message across that Redford casts himself as the professor and provides the most intelligent source of discourse. This is likely to draw hostility from audiences and be seen as arrogant. I remember they responded that way when M. Night Shamylan cast himself as the writer who would later be the savior to humanity in Lady in the Water. One criticism I might agree with is that rather than making this film, Redford could just as easily go around the country making personal appearances and speaking about these issues (although the answer would be: that would be far more time consuming), but for a filmmaker who has something to say, I can't think of many films (except aMichael Moore documentary) that are so that are so effective at saying it. Redford's film speaks so directly to our generation and the current situation.

Cinematically, Lions for Lambs is not the best film out there. It feels less like a serious and concerted effort on Redford's part to make a good narrative film than it should. But at the same time, I think it says things that haven't been said before, and whether you agree or disagree with his finer points, it's surely an eye-opening experience. It' the larger theme about how this generation deals with the alienation from pointless wars and crooked politics that resonates.

Are stars obsolete?

I saw this article on time.com about how the movie star era is ending because reliable stars like Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise didn't gross a lot of money for Lions for Lambs and neither did Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721687,00.html

The article claims that since Charlie Wilson's War and Lions for Lambs did not do well that we are no longer in an age of stars and people gravitate towards story lines now. I disagree with Corliss' notion that anything has changed much at all. Take his examples: Lions for Lambs starred Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and Tom Cruise which I don't consider a good combination of star power to begin with for the time the picture was released.
-Cruise, although I don't say this with any sense of joy, was already going downhill in terms of reputation.
-Streep is in 3-4 films a year which dilutes her star power significantly. It's hard for the public to tell which of the many, many films she's in are worth going to whether it's Evening, Redacted, or Lions for Lambs. In 2004, Manchurian Candidate didn't do particularly well but Lemony Snicket did because Lemony Snicket was a better use of her star power.
-Redford hasn't really been a big star since the 1970's and early '80's. Today's teens and 20-year-olds are going to have to practically be film historians to remember the heyday of Robert Redford and get all worked up about it.

As for Charlie Wilson's War, that film didn't do particularly poorly. It grossed a respectable $66 million dollars and is enjoying a surprisingly long run at the theater. My local 8-theater complex is still playing Charlie Wilson's War all the way into March, and that's what's really important: For your film to still be accessible to the public months after release. Charlie Wilson's War debuted in an incredibly crowded weekend where Tom Hanks' star power competed head-to-head with Johnny Depp in "Sweeny Todd" and Nicholas Cage in "National Treasure 2 "anyway, so it's not like it was a battle of the best stories. As for the failure of Julia Roberts to secure box office clout, she's semi-retired and like Redford hasn't appeared in many films in the last few years to keep her name hot.

There's no doubt that star power still is the controlling factor in Hollywood. It's what makes Will Smith, the trio of Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp; and Nicholas Cage dominate the box office with mediocre material. More importantly, stars still capture the public attention. That's why in most Oscar pools, people are 10 times much more excited about the acting races than they are best screenwriting or best directing races. Whenever, I suggest a movie to my parents, the first question they ask is, "Who's in it?"

The only difference between today and yesteryear? The public just has short-term memory. The Oscar races and the special edition end-of-the-year reviews that appear in most newspapers and magazines covering pop culture are eager to crown the stars of today and leave the stars of yesterday behind. How hot are the names Joaquin Pheonix, David Strathain, Reese Whitherspoon, Felicity Huffman, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman right now? How excited do you get about a film when you hear that one of those names is in it? Those were the leading contenders in the best actor and actress races at the 2006 Oscars, just two years ago. Two years ago, the public might have been far more excited about them which just goes to show how fast the trends move.

Not to worry, success can be achieved by catering to this trend. Case in point: Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, and Jonah Hill not only had the good fortune of being involved in the summer's surprise hit "Knocked Up," but since their next film came out before the summer even ended, they benefited even more from being fresh in the minds of moviegoers. The result: Not only was Superbad a surprise hit as well, but Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill have become stars big enough to attract invites to host Saturday Night Live, and Judd Apatow was named the smartest man in Hollywood by Entertainment Weekly. Shia LeBouf, arguably the year's breakout star has benefited from a double-dose of audience exposure as well, slowly building his familiarity with the movie going public with Disturbia before officially breaking out in Transformers and this strategy has been going on for years. Would "Ray" have enjoyed the same level of hype if Jamie Foxx didn't start getting attention for "Collateral" earlier that summer? Of course being too prolific like Jude Law (the butt of an infamous Chris Rock joke during the Oscars), Will Ferrell, and Ben Stiller can tend to backfire.

So the trends have changed but the same formulas are still there. As long as people ask "Who's in it?" before they ask "What's the storyline?," stars will be the tools that drive the star system.

Themes of various 2007 films

In film classes, whenever we were presenting on films, we usually had to talk about the themes behind each film. Here are themes of 2007 films. I will keep working on this as I go:



Charlie Wilson's War:

-Salvation through Professional Dedication
It's a recurring character point that the film from Charlie Wilson to Gust to Mike (the weapons expert) that none of the man might look the part that they are assigned to do and in the case of Charlie, highly immoral in every which way, but they are all 100% committed to what they're doing, they judge each other by their ability to get the job done and the film expects the audience to like Charlie and Gust based on that as well. The film never even addresses Wilson's ammoral ways because Wilson, himself (or the version of him shown on screen), never was introspective about it, and from what is shown of him at the beginning, you would think that he only cares about the perks of being a Senator but he does end up fighting tooth and nail for something and it's somewhat forced upon us the idea that his immoral ways mean nothing compared to his accomplishments. This is often a theme of Sorkin's work (which is kind of annoying) where every single character on screen happens to be 100% dedicated to their job and no lackadaisical people or slackers were ever born into the Aaron Sorkin universe.

-History repeating itself
A fairly obvious point of the film was showing that this conflict would surface again. People like Rudy Guiliani and Senator Murtha in the Charlie Wilson Story resurface in the present day as major figures and they're included in the story as a reminder of that. Also, people like Crystal, the naked girl in the hot tub, and Amy Adams' character asking "Afghanistan, where's that?" echoed the fact that when Afghanistan entered the forefront of current events after 9/11, a lot of people had a similar reaction in not knowing anything about the country of Afghanistan.

-Good vs Beuracracy
As opposed to good vs evil, beuracracy is the main enemy that Charlie Wilson battles against to reach his goal is the hurdles of beuracracy. The "evil" force, which is the Soviets is not really much of a main character in the story, and the conflict doesn't stop when the Soviets are defeated: Hammered into the quote from Charlie Wilson's book "We fucked up the endgame," is the implication that inneficient beurecrats in Washington are what messed up Afghanistan by not signing a small bill for education. Wilson's power also stems from his ability to make deals and bring people together which is what Washington is about at its best and worst.


No Country for Old Men:

-Inevitability of evil
This is a fairly obvious one. Javier's character presents a sense of inescapable dread. The idea that Tommy Lee Jones knows his time will come is somewhat of an odd one.

-Fate determined by chance
The coin flip mechanism says it all, but it's echoed by a few other developments in the film, and it seems as though Javier Bardem is a force that lives by those developments in chance and believes in enforcing them. He has no logical reason to kill Kelly McDonald's character.







Lions for Lambs:


-Children are our future

-Price of political dissillusionment







Michael Clayton:

-Money vs Truth

-Character is determined by what we chose to do when the stakes are high

-Duality




3:10 to Yuma:

-Bravery isn't defined by societal values

- Honor among thieves

- Hero worship/Perception

- Honor is earned



Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium:



-Adulthood as a liability


-Summoning power from within and that power is imagination







Pirates of the Carribean:



-Always a second chance



-Can't escape our destiny

Hairspray:

-"You can't stop the beat"

-Self-awareness/Coming of Age = Moral awakening

Letting artists speak

I was looking at an imdb message board for Lions for Lambs and as expected I've seen people responding with a mix of people saying "this movie's crap...Robert Redford should just shut up" and then I see some people who are posting things like "Clearing Up Misconceptions/Wars on Iraq" where they might say things that i don't agree with, but at least they're laying out clear points and people are arguing it.

I think people in the former category who are thinking that Redford has no right to speak his mind and is guilty of spreading propaganda are not being very American. Propaganda is the dissemination of material presented as fact, when in fact Redford is well-aware that what he's providing is his own opinion. That's what artists do and society is better for allowing artists to do it. Furthermore, I think Redford is a well-educated citizen who has shown he's far smarter than the average American and he's aloud to say whatever he wants. You can not listen to it. You can listen to it, disagree with it, and voice why you disagree with it, but don't say that he has no right saying it.

Lions for Lambs review (2007)

Lions for Lambs is a cinematically sparse film, with so little effort toward presenting a polished cinematic package, that the viewer might find it a little jarring. Three parrallel stories occur over a period of one hour.

A journalist (Meryl Streep) conducts a one-on-one interview with Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) over his new initiative in Iraq. Irving, played with all the cockiness that some of us liken to the Tom Cruise persona (and mistakenly Tom Cruise himself) is forceful in trying to get Streep to see a certain point of view and borderline bullies her into accepting his line of thinking that this new strategy is going to work and is worth the human cost. If you replaced Matt Lauer with Meryl Streep, it would practically be a dramatic reenactment of Cruise's famous tirade on The Today Show arguing against prescription medicine. My point here is Cruise is perfectly cast, and I think Redford was very aware of Cruise's recently damaged likeability rating at this point in time.

The second piece of the puzzle is two bright students who volunteered for the army to prove that they were pro-active citizens, against the urging of their professor. These characters are more likeable in the flashback scenes because in the present day military conflict their foolishness (in the name of chivalry) stretches plot credibility a little thin.

The third story arc and the one which I found most compelling was between a college professor (the same college professor who discouraged his two former students in plotline #2 from enetring the war) and his most promising student during a one-hour advising session. The student (Andrew Garfield) was once a catalyst for some of the class's most most interesting discussions and showed great intelligence, but lately he is becoming more interested in fraternity life and girls and doesn't believe politics are worth it because "they're all crooked." The student is the apothyoses of disengaged undergraduates today and credit goes not just to the actor (it would be easy for a young person to portray a stereotypical member of today's college youth) but to the 40 year old Matthew Carnahan for capturing his language reasonably well. Redford has the most presence on screen out of anyone of the film as the professor.

This is a good and bad thing because I can understand people seeing Redfordt's a blatantly transparent method of getting his political message across that Redford casts himself as the professor and provides the most intelligent source of discourse. This is likely to draw hostility from audiences and be seen as arrogant. I remember they responded that way when M. Night Shamylan cast himself as the writer who would later be the savior to humanity in Lady in the Water. One criticism I might agree with is that rather than making this film, Redford could just as easily go around the country making personal appearances and speaking about these issues (although the answer would be: that would be far more time consuming), but for a filmmaker who has something to say, I can't think of many films (except a Michael Moore documentary) that are so that are so effective at saying it. Redford's film speaks so directly to our generation and the current situation.

Cinematically, Lions for Lambs is not the best film out there. It feels less like a serious and concerted effort on Redford's part to make a good narrative film than it should. But at the same
time, I think it says things that haven't been said before, and whether you agree or disagree with his finer points, it's surely an eye-opening experience. It' the larger theme about how this generation deals with the alienation from pointless wars and crooked politics that resonates.