Though the ultra -liberal politics of Robert Redford's LIONS FOR LAMBS will probably be the talking point for most audiences, it's not always the most interesting thing about this film.
Despite it being a politically-charged drama about THE hotbed issue of our time, and commendably structured so that left-wing ranting, social responsibility of the press and political agendas are all questioned and given fair coverage, what really impacts is the risk movie mogul Tom Cruise was willing to take with his first film for his re-energised United Artists.
My thinking goes like this... Studio head Cruise needs to make a BIG splash with his first film. It has to be both a commercial success and seen to be a critical hit and a declaration of the type of movies he is going to be favouring when he and Paula Wagner choose scripts.
He bravely picks an all-angles drama about the most contentious issue on the domestic socio-political landscape - US military and political incursion and manipulation of the Middle East.
Problem is such an issue already divides the nation. Coastal liberal enclaves will probably rah-rah at the films call-to-arms against the war in Iraq; the Bible-belt will see it as typical of LA/NY smart-alecky Bush-bashing.
So Tom The Mogul finds himself with a problem - how to ensure a film, whose subject matter splits the populations opinion, will play to all corners of the nation and be the big hit his newly-acquired studio needs to affirm its Phoenix-like resurgence.
Big stars help, so he casts himself, and reteams Meryl and Bob for the first time since Out Of Africa. Clever casting, too - Cruise is very good, arguably a career best, as Jasper Irving, the ambitious young senator with a military vision and the manipulative marketing savvy to sell it. It's not impossible to imagine that this is what has become of Maverick, 20 years after flight school, on the fast-track to the White House.
Meryl and Bob aren't so well-cast. As a journalist of 40 years experience, Meryl is just a little to wide-eyed and easily-swayed by the cocky senator, betraying the scripts positioning of her role as the most obvious message-driven construct in the film. Redford still commands the screen, but his rants and convoluted back-story become a little too clichéd and 'movie-ish'.
But all three look terrific on the poster and the trailer screams 'important, event film'. And it largely comes across as such. Yeah, its wordy and preachy (it could make a great three act play), but its also pretty entertaining. It will divide audiences - my partner hated its heavy-hand and imbalanced presentation of its left-wing agenda ('Rambo for the Latte sippers' was one post-screening comment) but at least it inspired debate and conversation.
Will it be the hit Cruise's UA needs? If it connects as a 'water-cooler' film, probably. It wont travel at all - international audiences wont tolerate such homeland navel-gazing. It'll be admired more than liked, spoken of more than watched. But points to the Cruiser for getting serious after a few too many sci-fi spectacles and impossible missions.
Despite it being a politically-charged drama about THE hotbed issue of our time, and commendably structured so that left-wing ranting, social responsibility of the press and political agendas are all questioned and given fair coverage, what really impacts is the risk movie mogul Tom Cruise was willing to take with his first film for his re-energised United Artists.
My thinking goes like this... Studio head Cruise needs to make a BIG splash with his first film. It has to be both a commercial success and seen to be a critical hit and a declaration of the type of movies he is going to be favouring when he and Paula Wagner choose scripts.
He bravely picks an all-angles drama about the most contentious issue on the domestic socio-political landscape - US military and political incursion and manipulation of the Middle East.
Problem is such an issue already divides the nation. Coastal liberal enclaves will probably rah-rah at the films call-to-arms against the war in Iraq; the Bible-belt will see it as typical of LA/NY smart-alecky Bush-bashing.
So Tom The Mogul finds himself with a problem - how to ensure a film, whose subject matter splits the populations opinion, will play to all corners of the nation and be the big hit his newly-acquired studio needs to affirm its Phoenix-like resurgence.
Big stars help, so he casts himself, and reteams Meryl and Bob for the first time since Out Of Africa. Clever casting, too - Cruise is very good, arguably a career best, as Jasper Irving, the ambitious young senator with a military vision and the manipulative marketing savvy to sell it. It's not impossible to imagine that this is what has become of Maverick, 20 years after flight school, on the fast-track to the White House.
Meryl and Bob aren't so well-cast. As a journalist of 40 years experience, Meryl is just a little to wide-eyed and easily-swayed by the cocky senator, betraying the scripts positioning of her role as the most obvious message-driven construct in the film. Redford still commands the screen, but his rants and convoluted back-story become a little too clichéd and 'movie-ish'.
But all three look terrific on the poster and the trailer screams 'important, event film'. And it largely comes across as such. Yeah, its wordy and preachy (it could make a great three act play), but its also pretty entertaining. It will divide audiences - my partner hated its heavy-hand and imbalanced presentation of its left-wing agenda ('Rambo for the Latte sippers' was one post-screening comment) but at least it inspired debate and conversation.
Will it be the hit Cruise's UA needs? If it connects as a 'water-cooler' film, probably. It wont travel at all - international audiences wont tolerate such homeland navel-gazing. It'll be admired more than liked, spoken of more than watched. But points to the Cruiser for getting serious after a few too many sci-fi spectacles and impossible missions.