s prone to trends as fashion runways, Hollywood has latched on to a new theme du jour: the Middle Eastern Conflict. A host of war-tinged films (Redacted, the Kingdom, Charlie Wilson’s War) have/will hit theatres this autumn and Lions for Lambs hopes to emerge as the philosophical one. Regardless of commendable intentions, Lions amounts to little more than a star-heavy cinematic rehash of current liberal dogma. A Coles/Cliffs Notes distillation of prevailing leftist (i.e. largely correct) opinion on America’s latest international debacle, it summarizes without offering new insight. Centering on three inter-connected conversations, it imports a bevy of celebrity power, yet despite its pedigree, it fails to overcome its shallowness.

Rather than plot, the film is about rhetoric and, ostensibly, ideas. Book-ended by shots of television screens and heavily populated with glances at newspapers, textbooks, essays, and memos, it largely concerns itself with the fallibility, power, and danger of the media. Naturally, questions of responsibility and futility follow.

A Washington-based reporter quizzes an ascending senator as he implements a new military strategy. Across the world, two front-line soldiers – and instruments of said strategy – banter bravely while struggling to survive. Simultaneously, their former teacher debates the merits of participation – both in class and political debate - with a bright, floundering student.

The ensemble piece boasts stock characters aplenty, including the sage professor (Robert Redford, who also directs), philosopher/soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke), a beat-down though-noble journalist (Meryl Streep), a smarmy senator (Tom Cruise) and a rich kid with atrophying potential (Andrew Garfield). Unsurprisingly, the skilled performers do the best they can with the TV-movie material.