“Lions for Lambs,” the newest project of movie star-turned-director-turned-movie star and director Robert Redford, is an evocative and thought-provoking film that deals with war, politics and engagement in America’s youth. But then about 600 of you out there in Stanfordland already know that, as you packed Cubberley Auditorium to the gills to watch a special early screening by the Stanford Film Society on October 30. Since you are presumably not interested in reading about things you already know, I invite those select few to skip ahead to the interview with Robert Redford. The rest of you, sit back and listen to what I have to say, damnit.

I tend not to like movies. When I watch movies, my default setting is one I would describe as “spiteful disdain”: I paid $10 to see you, so you’d better give me my money’s worth, you bastard. Few movies are able to lift my darkened brow and turn my frown upside-down. “Lions for Lambs” was one of those few.

The film deals with three interconnecting stories: in one, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) tells reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) about a new plan for the destruction of the Taliban and the completion of the war in Afghanistan. In another, best friends Ernest (Michael Peña) and Arian (Derek Luke) lead a troop of Marines into battle to execute Irving’s plan. In the third, Ernest and Arian’s former political science professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), tells bright but cynical Todd Hayes (newcomer Andrew Garfield) the story of his former students.

Ernest and Arian, more than any other characters in “Lions for Lambs,” drive the plot forward and keep the film from stagnating. Their storyline has by far the most action, starting when their mission is botched and the two of them are stranded on an Afghani mountaintop teeming with Taliban guerrillas. In addition, their lives are central to the other two stories, both as individuals (in the story of Professor Malley and Todd Hayes) and as representatives of the U.S. military (in the interview between Senator Irving and Janine Roth).

As the two best friends try to survive against progressively worsening odds, we learn through Professor Malley’s story and flashbacks how they got to Afghanistan in the first place. Their tale is one of engagement, of two young Americans eager to get involved in their country and its governmental process, even if that meant going to war.

Engagement, ultimately, is what “Lions for Lambs” is about and is the reason that Redford and the film’s producers have pushed so hard to get it screened on college campuses. The movie is meant to prompt open dialogue about the state of American politics and the war on terror, and as an exhortation to America’s youth to educate itself and take part in our government. In this capacity, I believe, it succeeds.

The film treats the war issue fairly: it does not flinch from indicting the government for its failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor does it take the Michael Moore, George-Bush-is-responsible-for-all-the-evil-in-the-world stance. In an effort to present all sides, the film probably does not go in-depth enough on any one issue, but it does accomplish its goal of presenting the audience with information and letting them decide.

As a method of inciting youthful involvement in politics, it remains to be seen how “Lions for Lambs” will function. I don’t have high hopes of great success; I certainly don’t see this film becoming the movie that revolutionized the way America’s youth thinks about politics and sparked a wave of young adult enthusiasm, but I think it’s a useful movie for the teenage apathetic to see, merely as a reminder that America is his country too and that it deserves his respect and his effort.