Good intentions don't necessarily make good movies, and that seems to be the situation with Lions for Lambs. Director Robert Redford's conscience-raising effort seems heartfelt and sincere, but, simply put, the movie feels like a rushed public service announcement. Ever wonder what it might look like to have big stars acting for a student film project? Well, here you are.

Although homeliness sometimes has its charms, I believe Redford was aiming for a bigger impact than the one his movie lands. It's broken up into three parallel parts. The first features liberal journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) interviewing Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), who wants to use the opportunity to sell a new U.S. strike strategy in Afganistan to the public. The second depicts that strike in action, with two soldier friends Ernest (Michael Peña) and Arian (Derek Luke) at the forefront. The third section involves Prof. Malley (Redford) holding an office session with Todd (Andrew Garfield), a student he feels shows much potential. All three parts intertwine as the film progresses.

And none of the three parts offers any real punch. Streep and Cruise's section is dialogue-driven, but it's familiar talk, with Streep's liberal journalist looking for the reasons why we are where we are in the Iraq War, and Cruise's senator trying to shift the focus to being able to do something from this point forward. It essentially repeats the conversation we hear everyday from frustrated Democrats vs. frustrated Republicans. Redford's section also appears talk-heavy, and it wears a thin veil to disguise its intentions as a passive-aggressive lecture. The student is a prototypical Will Hunting know-it-all, and the professor realizes this, so he tries to dance his way around the kid's ego to make him understand that he shouldn't waste his potential. Sometimes such a set-up can be riveting; this time it's not. 

Meanwhile, it becomes apparent that the action section is a ploy used to illustrate the professor's points. Aside from being somewhat manipulative, it suffers from what ails the movie as a whole, which is its obvious low-budget feel. Having such big actors in some of these parts only serves to make the rest of the film seem smaller, and while Redford may be going for an intimate feel with the resources he has, his message was meant for a bigger stage and could have been more convincing with grander gestures. Otherwise, it's akin to a small voice in a small room.

Lions for Lambs wants to tell Americans to get involved -- that, if you have the smarts, then you can do your part to make things better by not sitting back and resting on your personal laurels. It's not a bad idea, but the delivery shouldn't remind one of being back in high school, watching a didactic film in class. Maybe the film was meant to be helpful to someone of college age, like the kid Redford directs his attention to -- but if that's the target audience, then the feeling of being talked down to is inescapable. It's only one step away from Redford turning towards the camera, pointing his finger, and asking, "what will you do?"

(Released by United Artists/MGM and rated "R" for war violence and language.)

Review also posted at www.windowtothemovies.com.