Lions for Lambs (2007)

One look at the poster of Lions for Lambs, you smell magic dollars, critical accolades, and a cornucopia of acting awards. Sadly, it received none of these - and for good reason too.

The film is essentially a potpourri of scenes from three "stories" intercut at will. The rather compelling drama of two soldiers stranded on a high plateau in Afghanistan, surrounded by the Taliban forces is predictable, yet still heart-pounding. However, the two slices of stale bread that sandwich this story are two political conversations, whose messages are loud and clear - and very commonplace. Even the mise-en-scene is similar. In one, you have Tom Cruise's ever-so-charming-and-conniving senator giving an exclusive interview to Meryl Streep's liberal news reporter. The acting in this particular story is actually passable, thank to Cruise's white teeth. In the other section, you have Robert Redford's liberal political science professor "lecturing" a once bright student of his. In both scenes, there is somebody behind a deskt5alking and someone sitting across ignoring and negating the interlocutor.

There is of course a connection between the three parts, but we have become so accustomed to this that it doesn't have a 'wow' effect anymore. I'm not saying that it has been done "better" elsewhere, but it has been done before. Another thing that is working against this film - among so many others - is that the message is delivered very loudly. As viewers, whatever political ideology we might possess, we know what is involved in this situation - it is nothing new. And it actually belittles the liberal point of view, by showing Meryl Streep (spoiler here!!!!) "giving up" in the end. And that's sad.

However, the major issue with Lions for Lambs is the lack of a dramatic tension. The war scenes are repetitive and, like I said before, predictable. Two heads talking to each other could be dramatic and entertaining (take Dr. Strangelove (1964) for instance), but here it is just two people talking about stuff we already know and hear in the news and talk shows.

I can't say it is a sadly-missed opportunity as there are so many other films from recent years that do this kind of stuff better. But, I would have preferred the war scenes as the centerpiece and not just an afterthought.

Alexander (2004)

The truth is Alexander is not that bad of a movie the critics made it out to be when it came out. I haven't had the chance to watch the theatrical version, so I am not familiar with the abysmal qualities of that 3-hour-long film. I have, however, recently viewed the slightly shorter (two hours and forty minutes) "director's cut" version. With a cameo by Mr. Stone himself - I doubt he featured himself in the original version.

The doe-eyed Colin Farrell - a talented actor - is an unfortunate choice for the lead role, as his face and voice is too familiar and - dare I say it? - child-like, which makes it harder for a convincing performance as one of the greatest military commanders of the ancient world. The remaining cast, with varying accents, make their way through a mess of blood, slo-mo prancing horses, a soaring soundtrack, and a handful of encouraging battle-speak. However, it all adds up to a film too aware of its glorious subject matter.

There is a lot to like about it - the costumes are immaculate and so are some of the scenery. My favourite was the Alexander vs. elephant image. Yet, it feels so empty. The supporting characters, including Angelina Jolie and her snakes, really do not make any impression on us and, with the exception of Ms Jolie, they are criminally underplayed and underrepresented. When Alexander's closest allies fall, the tears he sheds go wasted. We simply don't care. I think there is a wealth of material in this story worthy of a trilogy. And had it been handled that way, then Alexander could have rivalled some of the other famous trilogies. Sadly, it is an exercise in mediocrity - director's cut or not.

Mean Creek (2004)

Let's get the white elephant in the room out of the way: yes, it has similarities to Stand by Me (1986), Deliverance (1972) and a little dose of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. However, Mean Creek manages to stand well on its own despite the obvious comparisons.

Set in the idyllic Oregon countryside, the film is about a prank-going-wrong after a group of kids decide to have their revenge on a school bully. After luring the said boy on a boating trip, some of the kids begin to take a liking for him and change their minds. The 'leader' of the gang, Marty, is adamant to continue. And when George, the bully, spews his venomous tirade on each and every one of them, it takes an accidental shove to change the lives of everyone involved.

The performances are great all around and like Stand by Me (I couldn't resist), the adults are only pawns in the background and are always tragically late. There is great chemistry between these kids and the individual background stories are very well communicated before the main action begins. Only Millie, the sole girl in the group, feels short-changed, but it's her character that we get more drawn to at the end.

It is a very smart film that is beautifully shot and executed. Although, it stalls about two-thirds into the story, it picks up where it left off shortly. The ending is more dreary than melancholy. And here it feels more like Deliverance. But a lack of a reasonable outcome leaves you - ironically - with a sense of closure. It is a very satisfying experience for that.