"Lions for Lambs" follows three interconnected storylines that all revolve around politics. More narrowly they revolve around the politics of war, and more specifically still: the war in Afghanistan. At the time of the release of this movie the U. S. had been in Afghanistan for about five years and only now, roughly twenty years after storming Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for their role in 9/11, has the U. S. decided to bring their last troops home.

The three storylines "Lambs" followed were 1.) Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and one of his students (Andrew Garfield) at a university somewhere in California. 2.) Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) who were also students of Prof. Malley's before deciding to enlist in the army. 3.) Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) who were ardently discussing the U. S.'s new strategy for ending the war for good which just so happen to involve Rodriguez and Finch.

There you have it. You have American politics, with fighting being a part of it, being discussed in broader more philosophical terms in the professor's office. You have an actual politician discussing how to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan. And you have actual soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. It all made for some interesting and even somewhat passionate arguments, but that's where it stopped. "Lambs" seems to have been made to make its viewers think and come to their own conclusion about who or what was right and wrong. I can appreciate that even if I wasn't the biggest fan of the topic.

LIONS FOR LAMBS is a very intelligent and timely film that addresses what we are doing in Afghanistan and our American policy in handling the issues of the Middle East played out via tremendous performances from Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise and Robert Redford, with a strong cast of supporting actors. Watching Meryl Streep as a Journalist interact with Tom Cruise on the screen and the strong dialog that plays between them is a wonderful piece of writing from Matthew Michael Carnahan as they discuss the issues of winning the war in Afghanistan. And, as I am reading THE RACE from Richard North Patterson, seeing the Tom Cruise character play to a Journalist to get his story out is another act of political positioning.

Robert Redford as the Professor and his student, Mr. SC frat boy, discuss what he should do with his life, and hearing about the story of his two students who came before him, plays out perfectly with what is important to accomplish in America today as a young man and woman. The last scene in the film with the young man really questioning his career path is a great one. LIONS FOR LAMBS deserves a large audience, but it may play out as just another political story dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq, and it really deserves the attention and the lessons which the film delivers. As we approach Veterans Day 2007, I will remember the scenes in the Afghan mountains and think of our men and women in uniform attempt to win a war of justice...or, in the end, will they be just LAMBS FOR LIONS?

This is three separate movies rolled into one. It is a great idea that puts out a lot of interesting ideas about the war on terror and how the press and government have really messed things up. College professor Robert Redford is seen lecturing a student (Andrew Garfield) who has missed most of his classes, while investigative reporter Meryl Streep interviews promising senator Tom Cruise who seems to want to change the way news about the war is being delivered to the press. Is he manipulating Streep for some reason? Of course, he's not planning on running for president, an interesting notion as one of Redford's students points out (in a flashback) that how many people claiming they're not running for president actually do? In the meantime, two of Redford's former students (Michael Peña and Derek Luke) are involved in a secret mission in a helicopter over Iran. Pena and Luke are seen fumbling around in a flashback preparing a presentation for Redford's class (one that Garfield did attend) that results in a serious discussion about the war and the politics involved.

This sounds like a great premise, but sadly it doesn't really go anywhere. Nothing is really resolved or revealed (probably because the war is still going on!),Garfield's character has to re-focus his priorities, and Streep leaves Cruises' office (and later her employer's) with more questions than she had before. I really didn't care much for Cruise's performance as the Senator whom I wouldn't trust taking out my trash let alone voting for. He's playing the scheming charmer who thinks that his smile will win you over, but for me, it only made me wonder what he was up to. If the movie's motive was to get me thinking about all sorts of issues about the press and politicians in the war, OK, it served its purpose. I also really wasn't that much interested in Redford; I actually liked Garfield's performance in their scenes together more. Streep, of course, could recite every single national anthem from all over the world and make it sound fascinating, is incredible. She really gets my vote for the scene where she argues with her boss over her disgust by being manipulated by Cruise. Her frustration comes out so naturally it almost seemed to me as if she was actually the reporter living a real life frustration, and not some actress acting it out. I give this one "A" for effort, but "C" for conviction.