There’s a message behind Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford’s latest outing as a director. And my goodness don’t we know it by the end of a 94-minute hectoring that feels far, far longer. Three separate stories are woven together, each bringing a perspective on the war on terror, each linked by a tone of dull-witted self-importance.

Redford stars in one segment as a moth-eaten academic trying to reignite the passion for learning in a bright, disillusioned student (Andrew Garfield). To do this, he tells of two other students (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) who decided to make a difference by enlisting in the Army. Theirs is the second story – we follow a botched operation in which the pair are stranded on an unconvincing set that is meant to represent the badlands of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in Washington a hotshot young politician (Tom Cruise, by far the strongest performance in the film) spins the same military operation, which is manifestly failing, as the answer to the War on Terror. Meryl Streep is careworn as the journalist who has heard it all before.

Originally written for the stage, the screenplay doesn’t seem to have any faith in the visual language of cinema. Instead, unwieldy chunks of dialogue are placed in the mouths of the cast, to fall like lead weights into an already plodding narrative. It’s a well-meaning movie, but it’s hardly one that’s going to fire the kind of debate it clearly aspires to.

Lions for Lambs
15, 94mins

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of the Decade
• 70 facts you didn't know about Marvel
• The 50 Biggest Movies Of 2010