Read More @HJ Reviews: Interviews and Production Notes By David Bruce, Webmaster 2 Videos 3 Movie Clips By David Bruce, Webmaster 24 Photos with Comments By David Bruce, Webmaster Previews: 2 Trailers and Synopsis By David Bruce, Webmaster

Lions For Lambs longs to be a political thriller, and let's be clear: it's politically motivated. But there's little to thrill, much to groan at, and even more to wonder why an A-list of actors would agree to sign up for a political debate that's thinly veiled as fiction?

The movie itself can basically be broken up into three simultaneous conversations. The first occurs between Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and news reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep); the second occurs between Dr. Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and one of his students at a California university (Andrew Garfield); and third is the playing out of the war in Afghanistan with two of Malley's former students (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) serving in a covert mission.

I couldn't stand the interplay between Redford and Garfield, and I don't know if it was the dialogue itself or the chemistry between the two. There seemed to be some pointed things Redford wanted his character to say, and many of them have been said to college students for the last millennia, but they too often come out like clichès. "You're great with words," accuses Malley, "but you know what would be even better, if they had a heartbeat behind them." Ewww, ouch, low blow. Seriously, the conversations were worthwhile and challenging, but seemed to sink to expected repartee when they weren't directly dealing with the current situation.

Overall, in the past and present, for all six characters, the questions can be boiled down below political parties and their view of the war. How am I using the gifts that I have? Am I making a difference in my world today with the problems that I see and can address? Obviously, from the way the movie plot plays out, the producers see that different people are called to respond to problems differently: some advocate for the war, some protest it; some fight in the war, some form entities to stop it.

I would definitely have to say this was a "Democratic" movie. It didn't come out and say that, but there were definitely shots taken at war in general that were followed up by specific criticisms of the current administration. The interesting question that I found myself reflecting on at the end came thanks to Streep's character, who argues with her boss in the newsroom about the difference between reporting the news and perpetuating propaganda.

Which one do people of faith do? Do Christians live their lives for Christ, being real about their experiences, their motivations and their desires? Or do they hide behind a wall, see other people as checkmarks and "jewels in the crown?" It's the kind of jump I'm inclined to make, but I think it's fair in the process to remind myself that one wise man once said, "the truth will set you free."

So, how far will you go, to examine the truth, dissect it and maintain it? Would you be willing to fight for it, die for it, live it out? That's the kind of people lions were called to be.