With much anticipation, I awaited the screening of the feature film, "Lions for Lambs"; after all, the buzz prior to its slated release hinted that it would be the cinematic event of the year.
After elbowing my way through the crush of excited filmgoers at Mann's Chinese Theatre, I slipped into my seat anxious for the silver screen to light up.
Within the first ten minutes, my hopes plummeted.
The opening scenes were awkward, talky, and amateurish in style.
For starters - the story devices the producers facilitated to weave three tales - failed to conjure up any intrigue, drama, or thrills.
Political potboiler?
Pooh!
The scripted messages embedded in this high-budget fiasco failed to strike a chord, too.
Meryl Streep plays a journalist invited to a Senator's office (Tom Cruise) for a hush-hush meeting to discuss one-on-one a bold-faced strike on Afghanistan.
The aim of the military action, according to the polished politician (outfitted in a striking starched-white neatly-pressed dress shirt and well-fitting designer suit) is to alter the unsavory image of the political machine on watch in Washington - and ultimately - restore confidence and faith to the American people.
The scenes set in the Senator's office have been crafted - if you can call it that - to throw out arguments in support of the "war".
Frankly, the scenario is not plausible.
For example - Streep's character is invited to Irving's lair with the promise of an exclusive on looming strike-action hatched by the powers-that-be in Washington - which they surmise will give the military leverage, cure all ills, and put America back on track as a superpower.
In the process, Irving boldly asserts that the sagging image of the United States, will summarily be rehabilitated on the world stage.
In fact - Cruise's character laments at one juncture - that he'll do "whatever it takes" for the scheme to work.
For starters, it's highly unlikely that a journalist would be invited to a clandestine meeting of this nature, at a Senator's office. It further stretches one's credulity to imagine that any politician would ever confide in a reporter about such highly-sensitive military maneuvers.
More startling - the filmgoer is expected to believe a professional reporter would compromise their journalist ethics - and turn in a news item guided by the hand of a politician with unsavory motives.
Another problem at issue is Cruise.
In this movie, I imagine the script called for the Irving character to be something of a sleazy snake-oil-salesman, pitching tough sells, to be passed on to the unsuspecting American public through the media.
Cruise's acting - or lack of it - poses a dilemma.
He postures, struts, and leans over a desk - at one point the finnicky actor crisply stretches the suit jacket over the back of a chair - but all the mannerisms and affectations are at a loss to conceal the fact he lacks the acting chops and the depth and maturity to pull the characterization off.
In this role, he mirrors all his other shallow, on-camera stints.
When he's all bluster and externalized gestures - Cruise should be internalizing and emoting - from the inside out.
He's unconvincing.
A handful of actors on the A-roster list would have sunk their teeth into this role and turned out a multi-faceted performance worthy of mention come Oscar-time.
When Streep notes to her boss - "he's trying to lubricate his way into the white house" - it's a bold-faced reference to the character's slickness.
Well, there needs to be some spit and shove to make it happen.
By the way, the message the screenwriter has him spinning is lame and convoluted.
Someone's propaganda, but who's pointing fingers?
The speeches about Americans - the Iraq war and how it's perceived - fall flat.
What a puppet show.
The at-times cliche material has been well-travelled and rings hollow - and so - amounts to much ado about nothing in the final analysis.
In fact, when Streep responds in confusion - and hesitates at a loss for words in one scene - the filmgoer has to seriously wonder if that is her actual response for real.
Undoubtedly, Ms. Streep has a clue this drivel will not fly in the theatres.
When Streep steps outside to hail a cab there is a telling ironic moment.
The vehicle says "Yellow Cab" on the side-door; however, it's actually painted orange and black.
This one image says it all.
"Lions for Lambs" claims to be one thing, but is actually something else.
If you just open your eyes - and steer clear of the smoke and mirrors - you won't be fooled.
See "Lions for Lambs" for what it is - a vehicle for Redford to expound his political views - and play the wise old owl.
Yeah, the Oscar-winning Director is under the mistaken impression, that he's shedding light in dark corners where Americans have not boldly ventured before.
Does he think filmgoers are stupid?
In his role as a Professor of Political Science, his screen time amounts to about forty minutes of precious celluloid - boring, stagy moments - which intercut back and forth between other two plot lines.
During the duration, his character attempts to cast a spell on a young student, with the ultimate aim of convincing the foggy-headed lad to stick it out in his Political Science class.
Redford should have relaxed into this role like a comfortable old shoe.
The slow pacing of his dialogue, the exacting - and what I expect he believes are thoughtful, meaningful pauses - somehow don't work, however.
At one point, the student says, "if you can't do..."
Yeah, we know, teach!
All flawed stale moments.
Notwithstanding, the interaction between the characters is dumb, and pointless.
When Professor Malley finally gets up out of the chair he's been glued to and gestures to a photograph of himself among fellow classmates from a bygone era - it's glaringly obvious that the ghostly image has been pasted on.
Gosh, what a bad patch job.
It's the details that hint at what a push-over Redford thought the audience would be.
Just hit 'em with some fast talk about the war - throw in a couple of high-profile stars - and get 'em all stirred up with some thought-provoking promotional teasers.
Yeah, we'll get 'em into the theatres.
In sum, it's a weak, silly excuse for a feature film.
Redford's assumption that his musings were the best take on the war (worthy of a big-screen foray into the subject matter) was a a costly mistake - not only for him as a director at the helm - but for the studio who pumped millions into this piece of crap.
Curiously - due to his own inept staging of the scenes - the audience ends up scrutinizing his face more closely.
Then, it dawns on the ticket-holder, just how old Redford's gotten and how out-of-touch he is with the very idea of filmmaking.
How could this maverick who started up Sundance - and provided a dynamic forum for innovate young filmmakers on the leading edge of the cinema - end up so bogged down in his own indulgent excesses?
Granted - some of the military scenes in the third sub-plot are brimming with action and backed up with good acting, intense combat, and horrific special effects.
So, the trip to the theatre is not all lost.
Yeah, just settle back for the pyrotechnics and forget about the - er - message!
In these sequences, there is perverse entertainment value, if you like war movies.
Also, one scene in which Streep's character and her boss have it out - is a stand-out - theatrically-speaking.
Forget about the unreal dialogue their spouting, though; just focus on the amazing characterizations both are crafting before your eyes with professional ease.
There's something to marvel at.
Then - poof - the film abruptly ends without a solution!
Does Redford think it's a job well done?
In sum, I'd surmise he's under the mistaken impression that he's spun out some thought-provoking ideas, put out an ominous spin on the Iraq War worth fathoming - and in the process - effectively tossed into filmgoers' laps puzzle pieces to solidly snap together.
Got the message?
The promos say "Lions for Lambs" is a wake up call for America.
The audience needed one, they were falling asleep in the theatre.
"Lions for Lambs" didn't go out with a roar, it departed with a whimper!
