lions for lambs

War is bad and politicians lie - like we haven 't heard that before “Lions for Lambs” treats audiences with yet another post-9/11 commentary on how the government, the media and the everyday citizen are to blame for America 's mess in the Middle East. This film directed by Robert Redford is an overtly leftist depiction of America 's War on Terror. The film is made up of three loosely related storylines that explore the political, philosophical and emotional sides of war that are only matched by the performances of the characters. Because the film is essentially stagnant, the majority of it taking place in someone’s office, the script relies on powerful performances and political seeds to keep the audience engaged. The first conversation takes place between Republican Senator Jasper Irving and veteran TV reporter Janine Roth. Irving invites the skeptical Roth to his office for a one-on-one interview to discuss a new stratagem in Afghanistan that he is positive will win the war on terror. Irving insists the maneuver, which entails sending small teams of soldiers out as bait, along with the military’s superior “intelligence” will reduce risk and increase reward, but the intelligence isn’t so accurate when the first copter team sent is shot down by a supposedly inactive machine gun. The fray renders the copter useless and strands two idealistic young soldiers, Arian Finch and Ernest Rodriguez. Irving and Roth have a realistic back and forth that probes deep into the flaws of the government and media without slandering either side.
Meanwhile on the campus of an elite California University, Dr. Stephen Malley, who has summoned an apathetic student, Todd Hayes, into his office for a metaphoric spanking. One of those bright young things who puts the “I” in Generation IPod, Todd has been dodging Malley’s class, opting to turn off and tune out even while agreeing to drop in for morning coffee. It’s not nearly as much fun to watch these two, largely because the