Lions for Lambs is a thought provoking look at the war in the Middle East told from several different view points. In one scenario, an idealistic college professor Stephen Malley (played by the film's director, Robert Redford) has a discussion about the situation in the Middle East, with a one-time star pupil who doesn't like to show up to class anymore. In another, Meryl Streep is Janine Roth, a liberal reporter who's invited by republican senator Jasper Irving (played by Tom Cruise) to have a discussion about a secret covert operation that's about to take place in the Afghanistan.

The final scenario revolves around two young soldiers (terrific turns by Derek Luke and Michael Pena), former students of Professor Malley's, who get caught behind enemy lines after their helicopter is shot down. Lions For Lambs hasn't performed very well at the box office, and it's easy to see why. It's not exactly what one might call entertainment. But what this film was designed to do, it does very well. This is an issue movie. It's goal is to spark debate, and that's exactly what it does. Robert Redford is a bleeding heart liberal, and he easily could have fashioned a one-sided view about the conflict in the Middle East, but that's not what he ultimately does.

Lions For Lambs is liberal minded, particularly where one of the scenarios is concerned. The fate that awaits a couple of the film's key characters is painfully obvious. Still, Redford works hard to show several vantage points in equal measure. The strongest portions of the film come out of the heated conversation between Streep and Cruise. This story line is really the core of the movie, and these great performers play the confrontation beautifully. It is during this discussion that several interesting points are made. There are certainly stabs at politicians, but some blame is even pointed at the press. Some might argue that Senator Jasper Irving is nothing but a hard core conservative stereotype. A shrill, macho politician who thinks actions speak louder than words. I didn't feel that at all. If anything, Irving makes plenty of strong arguments. Arguments that Janine Roth has a hard time denying. But the conversation goes both ways. Janine also has valid points to make. In the end, Roth has strong feelings about the piece her editor plans on running following the interview. Further still, she doesn't necessarily believe Irving, a Senator she once defended years earlier, has good intentions.

Who's right and who's wrong? Well, that's the rub of Lions and Lambs and that's one of the things I so admire about this movie. Redford allows the viewer to form their own opinion. Lions For Lambs doesn't move like a bullet train. It's a conversational piece, and for a mere ninety minute movie, it covers a lot of ground. What surprised me most about it though, is it's low key nature. You'd expect a film like this to be extremely heavy handed. Like March it goes out like a lamb.