Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Best movie ever!

Absolutely Fantastic

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The wars in Iraq & Afghanistan were perhaps the most controversial topics in American during the late 2000s for any number of reasons. What "Lions for Lambs" does, under the solid direction of Robert Redford, is examine the War on Terror from a number of different perspectives, keeping the dialogue fair for everyone involved. While the film can get a little over- the-top dramatic at times, ti ends up being a very thought-provoking piece on the nature of politics and war in America.For a basic plot summary, "Lions for Lambs" focuses on three distinct scenarios:1. Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), very much a hawk in terms of political orientation, being interviewed by journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) over a new battle initiative in Afghanistan. 2. College Professor Stephen Malley (Redford) having an office-hours meeting with student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) about motivation towards the future. 3. Two Marines, Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke), who once were members of Malley's class, now on a dangerous mission deep in the Middle East.What I really like about this film is that it is very much a "thinking piece". It will really get the brain churning about all the different issues surrounding things like terrorism, American imperialism, and the nature/role of the press. During my lifetime I've been on both sides of the "war on terror" conversation, and there were moments in this film where I could identify with both sides of the dialogue.I have to give a lot of credit to Redford for having this all come together as well as it did. It would have been so, so easy to make this an "agenda" film, but that is not what happens in the least. From what I recall, I haven't seen a film quite this balanced when dealing with such heavy political and human issues. Each and every character is nuanced and thinks about something in a different way over the course of the movie.So, I truly give high, high marks for "Lions for Lambs", especially if you are the kind of movie- watcher who enjoys a good "thinking piece" about political/war issues.

This is a movie that had great potential, great actors, a decent concept, (however you feel about the topic of the Bush initiated wars). My problem with the movie is that it seemed to end halfway through the story. Just when you start to get engaged in the characters story the movie ends with no conclusion as to why any thing you've been watching has happened. (spoiler may be ahead) We have an anti-war college professor (Robert Redford), engaging a bright student who hasn't been coming to class about his potential and the reasons why he seems to have dropped out of life. To do this he relates a story of his two students (one Latino, the other Black) who against his advice joined the military to get money to go to grad school. He tells this student that he admires them for their willingness to engage in life even though he thinks they made the wrong decision.Next we have a reporter (Meryl Streep) talking to a Republican senator (Tom Cruise) about a new government initiative to do anything necessary to win the "War on Terror". The report challenges the Republican parties lies that got the US into the war in the 1st place, and questions the new senator about publishing this latest escalation initiative. He retorts back that basically it was the compliance of the press that allow them to get away with it, and she agree's to her paper's part in all of that. Saying news is no longer about investigating facts it's about ratings, and she's not responsible for that. Through their talking, you get to feel that the new senator wants to run for President soon, and he want's the media to view him as a warrior who will end this "War on Terror" war by "Doing whatever it takes" (Bomb civilians, torture innocent people, kill more soldiers).Then we see glimpses of the two soldiers on a frozen mountain (one wounded) fighting off a brigade of Taliban soldiers with the mighty American military sitting behind a drone screen debating how to rescue them. They drop bombs that don't kill the Taliban soldiers but make them angry enough to advance the attack. The bombing run does however convince the two American soldiers (who just happen to be the college students the professor was talking about) to commit suicide by standing up and firing at this whole brigade of angry Taliban soldiers knowing they can not win. Only to be killed minutes before another drone strike, and a helicopter can reach them. OK, now that you're engaged in the 3 story-lines, what happens? How do they all connect? Well actually they don't. The story ends with the reporter going back to her paper saying she doesn't want to publish the exclusive story she just was offered by the senator and her boss threaten her job if she chooses not to. (Does she or doesn't she, we never find out). How about the professor's student, does he now engage in life after hearing this story (well, we just hope so, but it ends before we know if he comes to the next class or not.) The two students who joined the military are dead. Does the professor know this and is this part of a campaign to dissuade others from joining the military to get into grad school (well, we just don't know). Does the senator run for president are more lies published (well, we just don't know)..The movie ends and you have no story connections to the 3 story-lines, no conclusions (other than the 2 dead soldiers).This is a movie that needs an ending... How the script writers, director and actors all missed that is beyond me.Yes, I get the moral implication and statements being made here: The young (minority) men with potential who are dying in a war that was built on a lie just to get money to go to graduate school. Other wealthy white students that do not engage with politics and the world around them, but exist for their own pleasure. An American press that is no longer investigating and reporting news but rather is run by big business interested only in money and ratings. And crazy dangerous (mostly Republican) politicians who do not care about people, especially those being killed in the wars they started.But really does this make for a good movie? Well perhaps, if it had a decent script and story-line that was somehow connected, however this movie does not! This is not a reflection on the actors, who all did their part; This is a reflection on the script writers, producers, and directors who all should of known how to make a better movie about this subject.

When this movie came out, it was panned by the right as being "too anti-Bush" and anti-war. Well, what could we expect from Hollywood other than that? Now, 7 years later, the story line seems eerily prophetic. Senator Irving (Cruise), responding to the journalist's (Streep) question "Why not just pull out?", says (paraphrasing here), "One, Iraq goes back to being a third world country in ruins, two, Iran will have nuclear capability, and three, Afghanistan will continue to be the crap-hole it is, with a strengthened Taliban as a result." Funny, this is exactly what Barack Obama has accomplished. His pulling out of Iraq has destroyed what was a budding democracy, his weakness in dealing with Iran has them on the verge of having a bomb, and his pending promised pull-out from Afghanistan will have made 10 years of war there all for nothing, at the cost of an indeterminable amount of "blood and treasure". And hundreds of young men and women walking around on aluminum "legs", trying to make do with plastic arms, or dead.... or worse. And yes, Virginia, the Taliban (and al-qaeda) are indeed strengthened, despite the Obama claim that they were "decimated". All told, a good movie. Great performances by Cruise (very believable as the either idealistic or phony (depending on your political point of view) "rising star" senator, Redford as your typical overpaid anti-war ideologue, and Streep as the reporter who thinks it's more important to report the news as she sees it as opposed to simply reporting the news. A great "message" movie, whether you take it from the point of view of the right or the left.

Very few movies make your gray matter active and provoke a thought in your head, start the ball rolling, and this is one such movie. Lions for lambs is a movie surely worth your watch. The plot is flat, with things happening at different places within about same time period but it is infused with profound subtlety that provides the film with a rich texture, with the superb background score helping a lot. Meryl Strep is fabulous and so is every other actor in the film. Each role is justified with the right amount of screen time. This film is tough, of a sort that would have a different reaction if you are watching it in different situations and will also depend on how much you support the war in Afghanistan. This is not a popcorn movie, it is like a lecture by a wise a person from whom you can learn a lot, only if you want to. So watch it only if such things inspire and interest you, then you shall like it.