I was dreading watching Lions for Lambs, because of the poster featuring Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and Tom Cruise all looking intensely into the camera, and because of the IMDB plot summary about a teacher, a journalist, and a politician becoming entrenched in a political conspiracy. And because the opening frames of the movie, with Cruise and Redford pouring over statistics about the war on terror and an intense, drum-heavy minor score, made me roll my eyes in anticipation of a bunch of actors showing us all how the country should be run.

It’s weird, because my politics do line up with other liberal message movies like Game Change and Recount and Crash but I just don’t find those movies compelling. I don’t know if it’s that I don’t like to be preached to or that I feel that for a movie to be interesting it has to actually explore some controversy rather than assume it’s right about everything. But that’s what I assumed Lions for Lambs would be like.

I was wrong. Lions for Lambs is pretty good. It isn’t perfect, but it is thought provoking, nuanced, and fast-paced. It explores all-sides of a complicated issue. It applies 2007 current events in a way that gives the movie a shelf-life outside of our American 2007-era understanding of the war on terror. And it is one of Tom Cruise’s best performances.

The movie jumps between three scenes, each featuring two characters. One is an interview between journalist Meryl Streep and Senator Tom Cruise about a new US military strategy in Afghanistan. Another is a conversation between professor Robert Redford and student Andrew Garfield about said student’s willingness to participate in his studies. And the last features two injured US special forces troops waiting for rescue after being shot down over a mountain in Afghanistan. One of the soldiers is played by Michael Peña and the other is played by Derek Luke. This is an all-star cast and it’s kind of cool that there are two huge stars in the later stages of their careers and two stars in the early stages of their careers and then there’s Tom Cruise.

In the last review I wondered what a good way for an actor to age might be. It seems like there is a clear path for actresses because they are typically cast as sex symbols until they’re no longer beautiful and then they either get plastic surgery and fade into oblivion or they fade into oblivion in roles as elegant mothers (though Streep is an exception to that rule as she keeps getting starring roles which I guess is because she’s the best actress of all time). Men are a bit more complicated because Hollywood continues to need to cast them as masculine but they slowly lose sex appeal, so they either turn out as twisted gargoyles like Al Pacino or Sly Stallone or they start taking fewer roles as tortured anti-heroes like Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, and Redford.

Anyway, Cruise kind of dodges the aging star problem in this role because even though he’s starting to get old for a leading man, he’s young for a politician, and he’s cast as the villain in this one as an ambitious and charming Republican senator. I loved seeing his natural creepiness as a politician who doesn’t get redeemed or change as the movie progress – his character is greasy but brilliant. He’s Jerry Maguire at the beginning of Jerry Maguire. If that character never decided to change anything about his life, he’d be this guy.

The scene in Afghanistan is the movie’s weak point. Not because the performances are bad but because the actors aren’t given much to do besides groan and point their weapons at enemies they can’t see and the scene takes place entirely in the dark.

It’s clear that the movie is slanted and sympathizes with Streep as the intrepid and conscientious reporter, But it is quite fair. It acknowledges the media’s failure to cover our military accurately and clearly after 9/11 and we see that the situation is complex and difficult. The strategy proposed by Cruise’s character is flawed, but it is plausible, and it is something, and the problem is not that it exists but that it is not up for debate.

If the interview between Streep and Cruise is the conceit, and the scene in Afghanistan the result, then the conversation between Redford and Garfield is kind of a meta-commentary about progress and duty. What can a rich, smart, unmotivated kid really do? In the movie’s opinion: Try. Debate. Struggle. Fail. Don’t take it lying down.

I like Andrew Garfield but he’s still getting his sea legs in this movie and he seems a bit wooden, while Redford is a goddamn pro. It’s cool to see the ease with which he delivers his lines and makes me wish there was a movie where Cruise/Redford are more closely paired. Though on the other hand that’s a dangerous amount of charm for one movie. What is an appropriate way for a movie star to age? Here’s one example.

Anyway. This is a bit of an after school special. But in a good way. It’s under 90 minutes, it’s thought provoking, and it’s not the propaganda piece I expected. Neat.

Next: Tropic Thunder