Hollywood writers, producers, and directors usually sugarcoat their messages or bury them by distracting the viewer with action, romance, or humor, but Lions for Lambs wears its heart on its sleeve, loudly proclaiming "agenda" without apology. This film’s screenwriter, Matthew Michael Carnahan, believes that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the current US administration is a total disaster, and that the American people bear a great deal of responsibility for turning away from and not participating in the political process.

The script interweaves three stories. Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), a young Republican senator climbing the political ladder, invites newspaper woman Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to interview him, hoping that she will condone, or even promote, his latest ploy for the war in Afghanistan: a vision of taking the high ground at key geographical locations. While the two talk, the second story unfolds: A mission to take one of those positions has gone awry, and two soldiers (Michael Peña and Derek Luke) are stranded before a large number of advancing insurgents.

The third story finds political-science professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) questioning Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) about his motives. Hayes, formerly a top student, has suddenly become a slacker, no longer attending classes or otherwise participating in his own education. As the film goes on, we discover that the two soldiers trapped in Afghanistan are also former prize students of Malley’s, and had been so energized by the urge to engage that they signed up for the armed services.

Roth’s interview of Irving becomes a battle in itself, as each tosses verbal grenades here and there. No voices are raised, no emotions are overtly displayed -- it’s just talk. The same can be said of the discussions between Malley and his student. Questions that might make any one of us bristle are countered with acceptance or further questions.

Indeed, for all the action it generates, Lions for Lambs might as well be a play -- even the scenes with the two soldiers stuck out on a limb seem thoroughly "staged." The dialogue is intelligent, but blunt instead of witty, and not conversational. No one really talks like this. It’s op-ed at the movies.

The actors do superb work with what they’ve been given. Streep and Cruise are wonderful together, she with her earnest, probing questions, he countering with obscure and seemingly rehearsed rhetoric. Redford is thoroughly believable as the teacher, and the rest of the cast is more than adequate. But that’s the problem: The script plays like a documentary, but the audience is totally distracted by the presence of big names. It’s as if a segment of 60 Minutes has been scripted for and re-enacted by professional actors.

I give Lions for Lambs three stars because it is fascinating, and worth the ticket price, to watch Streep and Cruise, and because its message deserves to be heard. It’s one that many of us have heard all too often of late, but Carnahan seems to say that it has fallen on deaf ears and so should be heard again. Each viewer will get something different from this movie, depending on what he or she brings to it. Audiences may be divided as to which side they support, but the filmmakers are clearly to the left. After seeing the movie, you’ll have to decide where you stand.

• Go Back