Movie Critics Got it Wrong on Lions for Lambs

"Lions for Lambs", is an intelligent conversation of the present situation in the "War on Terror". The movie converses through three phases of characters. First is a discussion between a young senator and a seasoned reporter, second is a professor of Political Science and a reluctant student whom shows signs of promise, third is two minority college students whom volunteer in the Army in order to fight what they believe in.

The movie starts out with the young Senator giving an exclusive interview to a seasoned reporter mainly because the reporter in the past wrote a piece proclaiming him in the same light as JFK. The senator is trying to prevent the reporter from writing a time-line piece of failures made by the government, by offering a new strategy report created by the young senator, himself. A move in which he is convince that will change the climate in the war and lead the United States to victory. A plan that was implement in by the senator with only six years of military background in intelligence during peace time. The Senator shows conviction and passion how his new plan will not fail. The reporter with forty years experience has seen many mistakes by the government over her spanned in the news industry. She is not so eager to jump on the bandwagon and fights him verbally every step of the way. She debates the language in which the Senator uses with ease. The reporter is cynical and believes that all reporters should fight to get to the truth of the story instead of writing everything the government says verbatim.

During the conversation, the second phase of the movie begins with the actual military operations for which the Senator's plan has already taken shape. The military commanders are discussing the new strategy with the same conviction as the young Senator back in Washington, D.C. The military leaders sell the new plan to the soldiers giving them the urgency to complete the task at hand. We as the audience are led to focus in on two soldiers in particular. The two likable characters shows signs of a deep friendship. As you watch the following scenes you began to appreciate their friendship, as they communicate with each other with such ease as two brothers would do, but they aren't related. The chemistry of the soldiers keeps your attention while situation reaches to a critical conclusion.

Now to phase three, the Professor and the student. The Professor has set up a early morning meeting with his student, because he is unclear why such a promising student has decided to rarely appear in his classroom. Even though in College, attendance is not mandatory, the Professor is curiosity because the student show so much promise in the beginning. It would seem, if the Professor was wondering, if it was the way he was teaching. The Professor begins the meeting by grilling the student with questions, trying to understand how the student lost his focus. The student response back to the Professor with sarcasm while under handing stroking the Professor's ego. The Professor is insulted with his student's tactics and gives him a ultimatum. The ultimatum he that he will just pass the student with a B average. If only, he promises to never take his class again or show up to any of his lectures. Even though, this seemed like an attractive offer to the student, he ponders on why this professor would even care?

Then we are connected to the soldiers once again, Apparently these soldiers were two promising students in the Professor"s (from phase three) class. The soliders were two scholarships athletes given a chance get a degree while providing the school with their athletic gifts. These soldiers were close friends before they join the military. They work together in school believing that fighting for a good life was important. This is the reason why they decided to leave college and join the fight against terrorism. This ideal was a sharp contrast to the belief of the student, who was sitting in the office of the Professor, discussing his future in school. As a matter of fact, this belief was even difficult to the Professor. The Professor had experience life in Vietnam as a solider. It was not something he was proud of and it definitely made him reluctant to join the political belief of continuing the "War on Terror". The Professor pleaded with the two potential soldiers before they were to enter in the Army, he ask them to think about their options. Why not fight here in America for change? instead of in a war that to the Professor had no end in sight. After much debate the Professor knew he had failed. The two students believed with the experience of fighting for their country, would out weight what they could learn in their junior year at college. They felt it was an Americans' right to join public service, for at least one year to provide a better and safer America. The Professor told the story about these two friends whom weren't as smart as this student, but instead showed more passion. The Professor express disagreement with their decisions, he did respect their choices. But what if the student with the greater promise of achievement could muster up the same admirable qualities as these two soldiers? This is the question that I feel is the underlined message.

Well this is my general take on this movie. I enjoy this political drama. I felt it showed similarities to our present situation, loosely as the facts made be. But this wasn't supposed to be taken word for word. It was the first time I saw soldiers as intelligent human beings. Someone, who thought that serving their government was an American responsibility. That public service is the responsibility to all, not to just individuals who aren't on the high income scale. Instead of just preaching about change, they was ready to die for it.

I feel as a veteran this is what most of the soldiers actually believe in. I didn't join the military just to be able to go out hurting people instead I want to help people. Help them to enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer and I also believe everyone in my family who is now serving believes the same ideology as I do. Maybe not everything as I, but the same principle.

No critic should tried to persuade people for not seeing this movie. These same critics would probaly praise other movies like the remake of Miami Vice, or Blades of Glory. This movie "Lions for Lambs" has substance and the characters are portrayed with perfection. You will not waste your eight dollars, who knows, you may take a minute or two to think about something important. Imagine if we all did, that would be a lot of thinking going on!