What will you stand for? This such a pertinent question in our post-9/11 world that this fall many films are overtly pressing it. One example is the new film directed by Robert Redford, “Lions for Lambs.”

The story is composed of three simultaneous storylines tied to the War on Terror. In one, a journalist, Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), interviews Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) about a new strategy in Afghanistan. Another storyline is about a political science professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), who is meeting with apathetic student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) about his sporadic grades and attendance.

The third storyline follows two Army rangers, Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriquez (Michael Pena), two former students of Malley, who are now soldiers involved in the new Afghanistan strategy. As these stories move forward, Roth questions the war as Irving tries to justify it, while Malley tries to motivate Todd to see his full political potential, and Arian and Ernest fight for their lives in Afghanistan.

This film is not without faults, but is still an interesting work. The acting is especially excellent. Cruise is great as a determined Republican senator, proving that despite his personal and religious controversies, he is still a fine actor who can play dynamic dramatic roles. Streep is on top of her game, playing a troubled journalist, struggling with her decision not to question post-9/11 foreign policy enough.

Redford gives one of his finest performances in recent years as a beaten-down, yet hopeful professor. It is the perfect part for Redford at this point in his career, and he plays it with great skill. The rest of the supporting players give solid performances, especially Luke, Pena and Peter Berg. The only major drawback is Garfield, who could have played the part with more depth and charisma, but still doesn’t hurt the film too much.

Screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan delivers a strong script with dialogue that is sharp, smart and solid, but the film is very dialogue-driven and politically minded, which could turn some audiences off. Also, while the directing is above average, Redford proves to be a much better actor than director, playing with distracting camera angles and editing choices. Still, the film is more about story and character than technical aspects. Even with these issues as well as a very short running time, “Lions for Lambs” raises many questions, leaves the audience to reflect and draw their own conclusions, and is, overall, an intriguing story.

“Lions for Lambs” is rated R for some war violence and language.