Watch a Democratic presidential debate, and you’ll see it’s common for campaigners to malign George W. Bush. Turn on the TV, and you’ll find shows (like Comedy Central‘s Lil’ Bush) that revel in poking fun at the White House. But that doesn’t necessarily mean America is ready to tackle tricky issues when they’re enjoying a night at the movies.

Robert Redford’s ambitious Lions for Lambs features a star-studded cast and the prestige of his own name, but handles sticky subject matter. Viewers will be treated to arguments both for and against America’s military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the film makes it clear where the makers, themselves, stand. Movies that deal with America’s political problems haven’t performed well at the box office in the past…will Lions be different?

Only an hour and a half long, Lions for Lambs is told in three settings. Only one of these scenes will show actual battling, told from the point of view of two Special Forces volunteers trapped in snowy mountains. Redford plays Dr. Stephen Malley, an inspiring lecturer who tries to push a young student (Andrew Garfield) into applying himself to the world’s troubles.

Meryl Streep plays Janine Roth, the TV reporter who snags an interview with Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). These two Hollywood heavyweights provide delightful scenes, as the Senator tries to convince the reporter his way is the only way - while keeping his eye on the prize of the White House. Could this be a little tongue-in-cheek reference to the current political struggles and competitive free-for-all the presidential race has become?

Together, these three scenarios make up the settings which hold Lions for Lambs together. The film’s title comes from WWII reference which extols the virtues of the soldiers in the field, but not so much their commanders.

And the final conclusions and opinions? Wisely, the filmmakers leave that part to the viewers, prompting them to think on their own answers…or perhaps even ask their own questions.