Good directors always have a point of view, and Robert Redford is no exception. Once a gorgeous leading man, he has emerged in the past years as a fine director. What he's always been is a political and environmental activist. So "Lions for Lambs," coming from him, should be no surprise.

The film, which runs only 88 minutes, shows us three scenarios: a Senator (Tom Cruise) handing an intelligent reporter (Meryl Streep) a "new plan" for the war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a strategy from the Vietnam War that didn't work; a professor (Redford) prodding a lazy student (Andrew Garfield) about his beliefs and urging him to be an active, not passive participant in the world; and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) behind enemy lines in freezing Afghanistan. The reporter doesn't want to write the story given to her by the Senator because she feels it's false, but she needs her job; the hawk Senator is, after all, only doing his job, as is the professor; and the two soldiers are doing theirs.

This could have been a stunning film - as it is, it does hold interest despite being very talky. The stark picture of the soldiers juxtaposed with the Senator in his well-tailored suit ("says he in the air-conditioned room," Streep reminds him as he's talking about the war) is a sad reminder that for all the plans, the statistics and the estimates, soldiers are human beings, and young human beings at that, committed to what they're doing - and the professor's student could easily have been one of them, freezing in Afgahanistan instead of contemplating his life. In fact, the two soldiers were the professor's students.

Despite what others have said, there aren't any true good guys or bad guys in "Lions for Lambs." Talk is cheap (and there's plenty of it in this movie) - it's easy, detached from a set of circumstances, to intellectualize it or to work it like a chess set. It's easy to say you don't believe something and won't write it - when your job is threatened, you fold. What the film has is two heroes. Despite what everybody talks about in the movie, two people literally put their lives on the line. For what? Well, that's for you to decide.

According to one of the characters in the film, a German general once described the British Army in the First World War as "lions led by lambs". This seems to be a distortion of a well-known story, albeit one for which there is no known historical evidence. What the German general (who can be either Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Hoffmann or Gallwitz depending on who is telling the story) is supposed to have said is that the British soldiers were "lions led by donkeys". Which makes a difference. The donkey is proverbially stupid, the lamb proverbially meek, and nobody ever accused Britain's wartime commanders of being meek and mild.

The film argues that American soldiers fighting the "War against Terror" were also "lions led by lambs", although in this case the "lambs", who are stupid but far from mild, are their political leaders rather than their senior officers. It combines three different stories. In one, two American soldiers, Arian and Ernest, are trapped in Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. In another Janine Roth, a liberal TV journalist, interviews Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican politician who is announcing a new military strategy which he believes will enable the US Army to defeat the Taliban. In the third Dr. Malley, a professor at a West Coast university, has a discussion with Todd Hayes, an underachieving student.

Of the three plotlines, the most interesting was the one involving been Meryl Streep's journalist, which could have served as the basis of a complete film in its own right. Janine realises that she is being given exclusive rights to a story, but despite achieving a scoop is not happy. She realises that Senator Irving is hoping to use her channel as an instrument of government propaganda. She wants to run a story much more critical of government policy, but this plan is vetoed by her boss on commercial grounds. The channel for which she works is not particularly interested in either left-wing or right-wing politics but in making money, and her boss does not to alienate viewers or advertisers.

The plotline involving the two soldiers is never well developed, and that involving Dr Malley is confusing. Malley is trying to motivate Todd- an intelligent young man from a privileged background- to do something with his life rather than trying to drift through with the minimum of effort. We learn that Malley also taught Ernest and Arian before they joined the army, and he tells Todd their story in an attempt to inspire them. Yet we also learn that Malley is opposed to the war. So does he approve of his former students' decision to go and fight or not, and if he does not why is he using their story to motivate Todd? The implication is that he respects their decision as a positive effort to make a difference, even though it is not the one he would have made in their place. It is hardly surprising, however, that Todd remains unmoved, given that he is effectively being told that it is better to make a difference for the worse than it is to do nothing.

"Lions for Lambs" is an example of the "hyperlink" style of film-making popular in the 2000s and which made use of use of multiple, parallel story lines; other examples from the period include "Crash", "Babel", "The Hours", "Traffic" and "Syriana". This style can be an effective one; "Crash", "Babel" and "The Hours" are all excellent films. It is, however, a style which needs careful handling if the film is not to become over-complex and confusing, and "Syriana", which also deals with the War on Terror and with Middle Eastern politics in general, is a prime example of what can happen when it goes wrong.

"Lions for Lambs" is not quite as bad as "Syriana", which at times comes close to incomprehensibility, but it nevertheless shares one of that film's faults, that of being dull and solemn, preaching at its audience rather than entertaining them. Both films were the pet project of a major Hollywood star; George Clooney starred in and acted as executive producer of "Syriana" and here Robert Redford both directs and stars as Malley. In both cases I felt that they allowed their strongly held political views to run away with them. Redford is a gifted actor and has directed some excellent films, especially his first "Ordinary People", but here his gifts seem to desert him. Even with the assistance of two other major stars, Streep and Tom Cruise, there is little he can do to save "Lions for Lambs" from ending up as a cross between a lecture and an oration at a political rally. 5/10

I saw the movie last night as part of a free view/screen. I will say this much, I would pay 10 dollars to see it. If you are a conservative close minded individual who thinks George Bush is mistake free and he is the greatest mind of this century, then this movie is not for you. However, if you are an open minded person then this movie has its good points about our government, our country's policies, and the bravery of American soldiers that may make you think and start conversation with your family and friends about what you can different with this country.

I believe the movie is worth seeing. I will also say, that there is a character in the movie where I felt he was preaching to me as oppose to having a conversation with the other character in the movie. Again, I will say that the movie will make think about who you are as an American, and what you do for your country.

You should see it....