Lawrence.com

Walking away from the theater, I was completely dumbfounded by what I had just seen-did I just watch a movie or an 88-minute civics lecture?

No, I hadn't just seen "An Inconvenient Truth." What I saw was Robert Redford's bold new polemic "Lions For Lambs," starring Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep.

"Lions" points out the hypocrisy, short-sightedness and general lack of historical perspective when it comes to our country's recent war policy. But that's not what makes it a bold film. It's bold because it stubbornly shoehorns in every possible talking point about western civilization and our penchant for war-with nary a nod to pacing, believable dialogue, compelling plot, visual storytelling, or character.

Michael Moore makes subtler political films than this. This is beyond grandstanding. It's beyond blustery. It's blue in the face. "Lions" is exhibitionist cinema for the post-"Crash" era, yelling at us what we already know, as if doing so will somehow stir us out of our TV-addled apathy.

Yeah, I blame Paul Haggis."Crash"-his offensively puerile sledgehammer of a lecture on race-was awarded Best Picture in 2006. And since then, this brand of insulting preachiness has become more than merely acceptable. It is now, sadly, in vogue.

Like "Crash," Redford's "movie" props up false character types whose discourse is limited to one specific topic. Expectations are thrown aside in a contrived march to the "Lion's" didactic end.

The pawns in Redford's game are two college students (Michael Peña and Derek Luke) who are moved to "do something." So they volunteer for the war, much to the horror of their anti-war professor (Redford). Forget that most young people today who volunteer to serve don't join up out of idealistic duty-they're broke high-school grads who need to pay the rent.

The impetus for all the action (and inaction) in this talky film is as contrived as plot devices get. The former "future of the Republican party," Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise, using his charm for evil) has a bold new plan to take the control of the "war on terror"-namely by sending more U.S. troops after the Taliban. He invites ex-muckraker journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) into his chambers to give her an exclusive as it happens. Guess who will be sent to war?

But it gets worse: later in the movie, Redford lectures a bright but disaffected student (Andrew Garfield) about living up to his potential. Here the film's transparency reaches new levels of insanity. Redford the director is formulates his thesis while Redford the actor says it all out loud, and straight to the camera. Not one moment in this entire segment feels real, and it ends in a bizarre way, with some non-sequitur jabs at our culture's hollow celebrity obsession.

If "Lions" does indeed reflect a new trend filmmaking, it's regrettable. Think of all the nuanced, three-dimensional characters and depth in storytelling that goes out the window as filmmakers wear their hearts-not to mention their thesis statements-on their sleeves. If I wanted talking points and speeches, I'd watch a presidential debate.