It’s nice to be surprised. Judging from the trailers in which a stern faced Tom Cruise asks: “do you want to win the war on terror; yes or no?” I had expected a big dumb film which glorified the giant clusterfuck which is America’s war on terror. The opening moments seemed to assert this idea. It begins with a series of extreme close ups of documents (including graphs showing ‘confidence on winning the war on terror’), Tom Cruise as a preachy, warmongering senator and a ridiculous musical score full of pounding notes of doom. But then it changes, subverts your initial expectations and becomes something else. Lions for Lambs is actually a smart film which debates the present state of the war, making clever use of simultaneous story threads to create a thought provoking hour and a half. So instead of slagging it, I now get to discuss intelligently discuss and evaluate this highly political film.

There are three stories running in parallel in this film. There’s Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) who is meeting with reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) for an hour to present the latest plan that aims to end the war on terror. Then there’s Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford; also the producer and director), who teaches political science and is meeting with a disillusioned student by the name of Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) for an hour. Lastly, there is Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke); two soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. The film centres around what goes in that hour for the three pairs. Because of this, the film has a slow pace as time ticks by in (almost, but not quite) real time. Think 24, but without the multiple camera angles in one shot and sans the obnoxious clock buffering ad breaks. It works surprisingly well. As it cuts from one story thread to the next, then to the next and back again, nothing much has advanced in that time. But instead of being tiresome, it actually adds interest, as the audience must endure the entirety of events alongside the characters.

Credits must also be given to the editing for keeping a good sense of temporal continuity. It’s nicely held together by glances at the clock and having dialogue and audio from the next scene coming in before the visuals. This technique not only smoothes transitions and maintains a sense of a continuing timeline, but also enhances the contrast between the three story threads. I should note that there is also a flashback which breaks the chronological structure, but it’s such a good scene that we can overlook the inconsistency.

The reason I’m putting so much emphasis on the film’s structure is that it has major impact on the presentation the political ideas. Lions for Lambs is not the politically biased film you would expect, but actually has characters of contrasting political leanings. But that’s not to say there’s no political agenda behind this film.

The meeting between Senator Irving and reporter Janine Roth is by far the most politically charged, as you have a complete contrast between the characters viewpoints on the war. The senator is big talker, waxing lyrical about implementations of the new strategy and could well be a character in a novel by Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell). Then you have the reporter who is astutely aware of the many flaws and fallacies of the war and the way the American government has handled it. The casting here is impeccable and it actually makes good use of the public perception of Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep. Generally, the way an actor is in the real world and the way they are as characters in a film are kept as separate notions. But here, a preconceived idea of what Cruise and Streep are like as people actually helps the film. Meryl Streep is usually seen as being quite smart while Cruise is an AMOG. The contrasting pair work brilliantly together and the thinly veiled power struggle between the two makes for some very interesting watching.

Meanwhile you have a different kind of relationship going on between Professor Malley and his student, Todd Hayes. The professor trying to reach out to his politically cynical student and the different and contrasting ideas that get brought up in their discussions really resonate when you reflect on the conversations that Irving and Roth have together. And capping it off you have the two soldiers, Arian and Ernest, whose steadfast friendship provides a nice alternative to the debates happening in the other scenes. Ironically, their friendships and displays of loyalty to one another take place behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. It’s the mix of relationships going on here that keeps this film interesting ties everything together quite well.

Between these three pairs, a great deal of territory is covered and the never ending political complexities manage to be (for the most part) a well argued and provoking debate. But this brings me to a sticking point about this film. It’s not really a film built for entertainment, but a vessel containing triple theat Robert Redford’s and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan’s own politically messages. Given the ending of the film (which I won’t give away) and the marketing and trailers, I get the sense that they were trying to get a teenage audience who were in a similar state of mind as that of character Todd Hayes. Not to mention that there’s a little bit of product placement that just shouldn’t be in a film that’s trying to convey a serious message.

This film is really more of an opinion piece than a movie. It is well constructed and well argued opinion, but your enjoyment of this film may well come down to where you sit on the issue. But of course, that’s like saying conservatives might not like Brokeback Mountain. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you need to acknowledge that this isn’t a film telling a story, but a film intended to spark ideas, discussion and action. It’s well worth a look and is a good launching pad for conversation, but you’ll have decide for yourself if the ideas brought up in Lions for Lambs resonate.