"Lions for Lambs" (***)

The reviews for Robert Redford's new film, "Lions for Lambs," have been mixed. I understand because the movie is biased, political propaganda. The film does not necessarily preach its message, but the viewer clearly knows the director's view on the "War on Terror." I, however, agreed with what the film was trying to say.

"Lions for Lambs" follows one of the newest trends in Hollywood narrative, that of the interconnecting stories. Arian and Ernest are two college buddies who decided to fight in Afghanistan to do something important with their lives. Meanwhile, there is Dr. Malley, who taught the two soldiers, who is trying to motivate a bright but lazy student. He draws parallels between this kid and Arian and Ernest, but the difference is that this kid is naturally intuitive while Arian and Ernest really had to work for their grades. Then their is the story of Senator Jasper Irving who is giving a journalist the exclusive story on a new strategy that is going to be implemented in Iraq (as they speak), which happens to be the mission that Arian and Ernest are a part of.

The story is pretty straightforward and easy to follow. There is a lot of dialogue also, but the discussion is all very interesting. The script raises some very thought-provoking questions. What are we doing in Iraq? When is the war going to end? How are we helping Iraq? Exactly how good is the media in America? Why do soldiers fight? How free is the media? This film clearly has an opinion, which may rub some people the wrong way.

The performances in the film are good. Meryl Streep is always good; she plays the journalist who does not completely buy the senator's story. She seems like the last journalist with the last bit of integrity in her, the last one who wants to actually report an honest story. Tom Cruise is also good as the politician who will do what it takes to become president. Finally, Robert Redford gives a good, fiery performance as the no-shit-taking professor. The actors are not the important part of the film; the script is the film's greatest asset.

The major problem I had with the film is it was very by-the-books. It seemed like a director's first feature. The editing was predictable. When the mission in Afghanistan goes wrong, the commanding officer says that he wants to speak with the bastard (except this word started with an f) who said the area would be clear. It then cuts to Tom Cruise's character, who came up with the plan. This is just one of the examples of how the structure of the film is predictable. It does nothing to defy the conventions of film. This is a good film; it just could have been one of the best of the year if constructed more originally.