Lions for Lambs (2007) User Reviews (325)

Dialogues of the Lambs

[janos451 · 7/10 · 29 October 2007]

Thumbs are of no use in talking about Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs." Sticking them up or down makes little sense. It's not that kind of movie. What kind is it? Pretty much without a category.

The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.

At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.)

While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.

Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.

Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.

Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.

A Cross Between a Lecture and a Political Rally

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 12 February 2021]

According to one of the characters in the film, a German general once described the British Army in the First World War as "lions led by lambs". This seems to be a distortion of a well-known story, albeit one for which there is no known historical evidence. What the German general (who can be either Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Hoffmann or Gallwitz depending on who is telling the story) is supposed to have said is that the British soldiers were "lions led by donkeys". Which makes a difference. The donkey is proverbially stupid, the lamb proverbially meek, and nobody ever accused Britain's wartime commanders of being meek and mild.

The film argues that American soldiers fighting the "War against Terror" were also "lions led by lambs", although in this case the "lambs", who are stupid but far from mild, are their political leaders rather than their senior officers. It combines three different stories. In one, two American soldiers, Arian and Ernest, are trapped in Afghanistan by Taliban insurgents. In another Janine Roth, a liberal TV journalist, interviews Senator Jasper Irving, a Republican politician who is announcing a new military strategy which he believes will enable the US Army to defeat the Taliban. In the third Dr. Malley, a professor at a West Coast university, has a discussion with Todd Hayes, an underachieving student.

Of the three plotlines, the most interesting was the one involving been Meryl Streep's journalist, which could have served as the basis of a complete film in its own right. Janine realises that she is being given exclusive rights to a story, but despite achieving a scoop is not happy. She realises that Senator Irving is hoping to use her channel as an instrument of government propaganda. She wants to run a story much more critical of government policy, but this plan is vetoed by her boss on commercial grounds. The channel for which she works is not particularly interested in either left-wing or right-wing politics but in making money, and her boss does not to alienate viewers or advertisers.

The plotline involving the two soldiers is never well developed, and that involving Dr Malley is confusing. Malley is trying to motivate Todd- an intelligent young man from a privileged background- to do something with his life rather than trying to drift through with the minimum of effort. We learn that Malley also taught Ernest and Arian before they joined the army, and he tells Todd their story in an attempt to inspire them. Yet we also learn that Malley is opposed to the war. So does he approve of his former students' decision to go and fight or not, and if he does not why is he using their story to motivate Todd? The implication is that he respects their decision as a positive effort to make a difference, even though it is not the one he would have made in their place. It is hardly surprising, however, that Todd remains unmoved, given that he is effectively being told that it is better to make a difference for the worse than it is to do nothing.

"Lions for Lambs" is an example of the "hyperlink" style of film-making popular in the 2000s and which made use of use of multiple, parallel story lines; other examples from the period include "Crash", "Babel", "The Hours", "Traffic" and "Syriana". This style can be an effective one; "Crash", "Babel" and "The Hours" are all excellent films. It is, however, a style which needs careful handling if the film is not to become over-complex and confusing, and "Syriana", which also deals with the War on Terror and with Middle Eastern politics in general, is a prime example of what can happen when it goes wrong.

"Lions for Lambs" is not quite as bad as "Syriana", which at times comes close to incomprehensibility, but it nevertheless shares one of that film's faults, that of being dull and solemn, preaching at its audience rather than entertaining them. Both films were the pet project of a major Hollywood star; George Clooney starred in and acted as executive producer of "Syriana" and here Robert Redford both directs and stars as Malley. In both cases I felt that they allowed their strongly held political views to run away with them. Redford is a gifted actor and has directed some excellent films, especially his first "Ordinary People", but here his gifts seem to desert him. Even with the assistance of two other major stars, Streep and Tom Cruise, there is little he can do to save "Lions for Lambs" from ending up as a cross between a lecture and an oration at a political rally. 5/10

Sounds like a preaching, but it has its good valid points

[gerardo_guzman · 7/10 · 7 November 2007]

I saw the movie last night as part of a free view/screen. I will say this much, I would pay 10 dollars to see it. If you are a conservative close minded individual who thinks George Bush is mistake free and he is the greatest mind of this century, then this movie is not for you. However, if you are an open minded person then this movie has its good points about our government, our country's policies, and the bravery of American soldiers that may make you think and start conversation with your family and friends about what you can different with this country.

I believe the movie is worth seeing. I will also say, that there is a character in the movie where I felt he was preaching to me as oppose to having a conversation with the other character in the movie. Again, I will say that the movie will make think about who you are as an American, and what you do for your country.

You should see it....

Engaging and thought-provoking piece that doesn't deserve the tags it has gotten

[bob the moo · 10 August 2008]

I came to this film with it already square in my mind what I was getting into. The media and the reviews here had already informed me that this is the liberal media having yet another dig at the Bush administration and the policies in Iraq etc. Knowing that, and sharing those views roughly, I decided to watch it but did hope that it would not be too clumsy as a fictional attack on a subject that is already covered everywhere you look. What I got though was not that but something much more interesting and something much more unexpected. What I got was a film that more or less pushed the political points to one side and challenged those on the bench of politics to get involved rather than just sitting there moaning. It took me by surprising but essentially this is the reason for the entire film – not to bash Bush, not to condemn Iraq, not to push Democrat policies but just to challenge the viewer.

In this regard it works really well and it is hard to argue with the points about taking part in society rather than just focusing on one's self and I particularly liked the way that it did not condemn those who do that with a weapon, with politics, with reporting to help others be involved etc. I can understand why it has gotten this "liberal" tag because of who made it and because it is "intelligent" but it doesn't deserve this because it generally does keep the neutrality reasonably well. Of course though there is a slant to the left on what it is saying but not to the extent where ti does feel like you are being preached at – this is not a Michael Moore film here.

Nor is it a perfect film though. Those looking to be told a story and nothing more will find themselves disappointed because, although there is a narrative flow to it, this is not really what it is about. Instead it relies heavily on engaging the viewer's brain and making the audience think – that way, how the film ends is not all that important because you carrying on mulling over things for yourself as you leave the cinema. For me this happened but for others I can understand why the film would have come across boring, pointless and open-ended; I don't agree with you – but I can see how it happened.

The cast are all very good though because everyone understands the need to sell their characters. Cruise plays very well as the politician and the film treats him with respect as a character. He plays well with Streep, who is equally good and uses her performance to let the media have a kick that it does deserve. Redford and Garfield provide the meat of the piece and their simple discussion comes over natural and effective in presenting the challenge to the viewer. Peña and Luke have simpler characters but are engaging as students and soldiers. It is very much an ensemble piece and everyone does work well in their various twosomes, the support cast may have Berg, Dunn and other familiar faces but really it is about the three pairs, all of whom work well.

Lions for Lambs has been lumped in with anti-Bush and anti-Iraq films and will have been dismissed by many as just about piece of left-wing propaganda – and this is a shame because this is far from the truth. It is not a perfect film in some regards but it is not preaching but rather challenging all viewers, no matter what you think, to get involved, to take part, to question things, to think for one's self. It is thought-provoking and challenging and for that it is well worth seeing for yourself.

Interesting, thought-provoking film

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 18 March 2008]

Good directors always have a point of view, and Robert Redford is no exception. Once a gorgeous leading man, he has emerged in the past years as a fine director. What he's always been is a political and environmental activist. So "Lions for Lambs," coming from him, should be no surprise.

The film, which runs only 88 minutes, shows us three scenarios: a Senator (Tom Cruise) handing an intelligent reporter (Meryl Streep) a "new plan" for the war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a strategy from the Vietnam War that didn't work; a professor (Redford) prodding a lazy student (Andrew Garfield) about his beliefs and urging him to be an active, not passive participant in the world; and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) behind enemy lines in freezing Afghanistan. The reporter doesn't want to write the story given to her by the Senator because she feels it's false, but she needs her job; the hawk Senator is, after all, only doing his job, as is the professor; and the two soldiers are doing theirs.

This could have been a stunning film - as it is, it does hold interest despite being very talky. The stark picture of the soldiers juxtaposed with the Senator in his well-tailored suit ("says he in the air-conditioned room," Streep reminds him as he's talking about the war) is a sad reminder that for all the plans, the statistics and the estimates, soldiers are human beings, and young human beings at that, committed to what they're doing - and the professor's student could easily have been one of them, freezing in Afgahanistan instead of contemplating his life. In fact, the two soldiers were the professor's students.

Despite what others have said, there aren't any true good guys or bad guys in "Lions for Lambs." Talk is cheap (and there's plenty of it in this movie) - it's easy, detached from a set of circumstances, to intellectualize it or to work it like a chess set. It's easy to say you don't believe something and won't write it - when your job is threatened, you fold. What the film has is two heroes. Despite what everybody talks about in the movie, two people literally put their lives on the line. For what? Well, that's for you to decide.

Open your mind, open your eyes

[polar24 · 7/10 · 24 December 2007]

Before watching Lions For Lambs, leave your expectations at the door. Watch the film on it's own merits and open yourself to new ideas, themes and storytelling. I suspect that many reviewers felt disappointed by Lion For Lambs because is did not correspond they idea of what a film should be. I think that if the filmmaker is able to get his point across, keep it believable, and affecting they have done their job. If they manage to make to think, change your view on life, or try new things then even better.

Lion For Lambs represents a new way of thinking. It requires the audience to participate in the film, think about what they are seeing and then apply that thought to their everyday lives. In these times of conflict, people need to open their eyes to the world around them and how it affects them.

Matthew Michael Carnahan's script is a means to encourage discussion and I must I was more than influenced by the exceptional delivery from the three main leads. These three characters are not cardboard cut-outs, nor are they black and white sound-bites, they want to do what's best for who they represent their and yet each of them, like ourselves, face a moral dilemma. Streep's Janine Roth struggles between telling the truth or satisfying commercial and public ideals. Cruise's Jasper Irving remains out of touch with the public citizen in his brashness for foreign politics, but is blinded by an ideal and unachievable future, not dissimilar to the politicians of today. While Redford's Stephen Malley represents the left, the educated individual desensitised to the mindless ramblings of politicians and media phogies. In his young apprentice, he is forced to rethink his values and morals. But is it enough to affect change or is the damage already done?

Too say the film overreaches its scope, self-defeating in a ramble of didactics is presumptuous. I think it merely causes us to think about what is happens and maybe change our perspective and think about the other side of the argument instead of the bigoted morals spewed forth from political factions. Thus today people pay superfluous attention to the over zealous media.

While it may lack the decorated production values, score and sets of a typical Hollywood film, the focus remains rightly so on the story and characters. The actors merely tell the story and the viewer is invited to participate in the discussion for change. In fact, I would rather think for myself than rather that sit back and be told what to think.

I think people wrongly see this as an attack on their morals and ideals. Viewers need to stop taking things at face value and be more assertive about what they see – instead of complaining, respond. Write a letter to your politicians! I'm tired of being lectured to and I whole heartedly accept Mr Redford's invitation to participate in a discussion with an open mind.

Food for Thought

[callie-36 · 7/10 · 12 November 2007]

Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY? Or are you one of those who always supports the status quo with no thought for the consequences? Lions for Lambs is getting a drubbing from the press for no reason whatsoever apart from the rather obsequious fact that 99% of the press in the UK and the USA supported the gung-ho 'war on terror' and are now rather embarrassed that their attempts to sell newspapers/TV stories by engendering hatred and fear has resulted in the death of thousands of soldiers and nigh on a million Iraqis...not to mention Afghanis -- AND that's where the war on terror was supposed to be centred, not on eye-raq as the Americans pronounce it. Note to politicians...if you are going to invade a country at least learn how to pronounce it!

Although the film isn't as taut as one might like and is more 'talkier' than a stage play (as their 'argument' demands) the performances of a stellar cast are worth the ticket price alone and, hey, you might just leave the theatre thinking...now wouldn't that be a change. And to the guy that said it's just Streep and Cruise alone in a room...perhaps you should have paid attention and that would have given you a license to criticise: there are three stories with a common thread and SIX central characters not to mention the off-stage, unseen, but well known 'hawks' to whom Cruise's character reports and a terrific, under pressure TV news boss played by Kevin Dunn. And the point of the scenes with Streep and Cruise is that politicians persuasive rhetoric which remains unchecked by lazy journalists costs lives of OUR families and never theirs.

Robert Redford you are a genius AND a very brave and honourable man to stick two fingers up to the Bush 'administration'...Tom Cruise, forgotten you could be this good obviously you are being motivated by the same forces that drove your amazing performance in Born on Fourth July. Most unfortunately, the public don't like to be reminded that they are political amoebas so you may not do good 'business' but at least you made an exceptionally engaging film with 'meaning' which in itself is nothing short of a miracle in today's vapid film business.

As a foreigner I found this movie to be incredibly biased

[rstrzal-1 · 2/10 · 1 November 2007]

Before you go any further let me tell you that I'm not American, so I'm not writing this to support any particular view or political party. I'm Polish, studying in US I appreciate good cinema and by this I mean intelligent movies that do more than just trick you/cheat you into having a particular crafted/staged emotion. My comment was reported as abuse for reasons I don't understand. I have seen this movie, I didn't like it and I didn't write this as a political rant. Quite honestly, as culture gets more and more "dumbed down" and bubble gum like so do the so-called thought provoking movies. Compare this with any of the communism-period Wajda work, and you will see real multilayer movie-making . This week I was able to get into the sneak preview of Tom Cruise's latest movie "Lions for lambs". Now, I can enjoy a good anti-war movie even if I don't agree with its' message. But this wasn't "Platoon" or the "Deer hunter", It didn't even have one tenth of the complexity of "Munich". This movie felt like pure propaganda, not provoking you to think but telling the viewer what to think. It didn't really bother with much of a plot and in my opinion was really insulting viewer's intelligence with how much it felt to spell out "war is bad" and "Republicans lie". Running approx. 1:20 minutes it even conformed to the format of shock value propaganda movie. If anything it felt like those Donald Duck anti-Nazi cartoons Disney put out in the 1940's. It's not that I think a movie can't criticize this government I support the war in Iraq but I see and understand that someone might have a different view. This movie's only point is that no rationally thinking person would ever support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan and people do so only because they're duped by silver tongued Republicans. Tom Cruise plays the GOP spin doctor, trying to sell the new Afghan strategy to a CNN caliber reporter, Meryl Streep. This is the movie's weakest point. The characters mostly talk- we have a reporter and a republican, engaged professor and a lazy student trying to get him to care about things surrounding him, and we have a story about young, promising students who decide to enroll, go to war and die. People with opposing views talk about patriotism and conservative characters are either exposed as liars or naive and dismissed. There is nothing wrong with talking but this picture I found to be very preachy. This movie can't seem to comprehend that there is no right and wrong in politics. We already know what people's opinions are anyway so there's nothing new to discover. The movie's only point is that: Republicans lie and they know they are lying, the Democrtats are on the side and good and light but are too lazy and preoccupied with making news about over the top celebrities(as movie hints with ending with shots of the entertainment headlines on a news network and a question: what will you do? to call opponents' bluff and talk about how we're losing in Iraq. The producers believe that no reasonable person can think otherwise.

There is not a single notion that this may come from fundamentally different views on the world and that people may have conflicting opinions and that's not unpatriotic or unjustified.The film claims to offer a fair view. It brings up some facts and views but quickly dismisses them if it doesn't fit the major premise. Republicans bad, Democrats good. The movie also tries to manipulate by showing Streep driving down DC and seeing graves and the Memorial Monument from the car at the end. There is something really odd about her performance and very theatrical face expressions that felt like she's saying "I'm Meryl Streep and I'm acting", while the jelly Tom Cruise character looked as if he was about to jump on his sofa prosing his love for Katie Holmes. This is a very political movie, but not in a way that's smart and witty. It's blunt and emotionally void,but

Reality

[rnt82 · 8/10 · 7 January 2008]

So many negative comments about this movie. But I think we should take a moment to assess what the movie is about. Starting from the title to the credits, the movie is not about a heroic battle or an indelible mistake by a over zealous, self absorbed government. It is about understanding a mindset. If any of you have ever read Francis Fukuyama... its about history repeating itself. Its about the common man being a pawn, about how life really is not a 'great equalizer'. Redford does a brilliant job looking at showing the dynamic impact numerous aspects/events and individuals who impact our lives truly have. The self serving ego of one senator, or the inability of a teacher to persuade a student, or a reporter having to turn a blind eye to conscience because of a need to put a meal on the table the next day. It is nice to finally watch a Hollywood war related film without a heroic massacre. Or a rescue from the jaws of death, or the pity of a sympathetic enemy. Indegenes (French film about WWII) was the last movie that actually attempted to understand the core of the individual, the motivation of an action. Redford captures the same...a stellar film maker!

A talk show and debate style film that hears different views on strong issues, and it tries to let the viewer decide to make their own choice decision.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 10 November 2007]

I must say "Lions for Lambs" is clearly a film that's interesting, and it gets your attention when you hear the Iraqi war and terrorism mentioned, a subject that's so common to everyone. Though the film feels like a talk show or debate style forum it's still well done for the fact that it shows the viewpoints of both sides as the differences in the discussions between characters are tense and direct just like a political debate. And the viewer gets to hear the side of the right, so you can't say director Robert Redford though liberal is preaching to the left. Also the film jogs around three segments yet all are connected by the key issue of Iraq, and Afghanistan and the war on terror. First it starts up in the nations capital as Janine Roth(Meryl Streep) a reporter for a TV station that's critical and frustrated and upset at republicans and the current administration for the war. She gets to hammer away in an interview with the new rising young conservative star U.S. Senator Jasper Irving(Tom Cruise) both veterans are direct and do a good job, neither gives in always defending their points of view making their segment highly good. Later shifting to the college campus somewhere in California with Redford as a liberal ex vet professor of political science who starts to advise a cynical student(Andrew Garfield)to make choices and try no matter how much bull or corrupt way of life the world seems, yet memories of two students before who's lives were taken in Afghanistan haunt him. The film is short and stays mostly to the point of a debate style weighing the pros and cons of war, terror, and freedom of independence. Ending on a note that leaves the viewer to think more about the strong issues and feel the need that everyone must make their own choices and stand strong on these strong ever lasting issues of our culture.

tedious at best and mind numbing at worst

[Harrismh · 1/10 · 25 October 2007]

Lions For Lambs is a dialog, a debate really, about the "affairs of state" in Washington D.C. and the "state of affairs" in the Persian Gulf region. It's 10 AM D.C. time and Janine, a local newspaper (read Washington Post) reporter, steps into the office of GOP Senator Irving for a one-on-one and on-the-record discussion about a plan to win the war in Afghanistan (read Iraq). The conversation starts, with the senator representing the conservative right and the media lady representing the liberal left. The scene changes to a West Coast university (read UC Berkley); it's an early 7 AM and Todd arrives in the office of Dr. Malley for a career focused discussion---Todd has been skipping class. The conversation starts with the professor, advocating high ideals he encourages Todd to stand for something, make a commitment and take action. Todd, disengaged, turned off and disaffected with the world pushes back at the good professor saying he's not going to get involved in this mess--read average U.S. citizen. It's midnight, or thereabouts, in Afghanistan and a team of airborne troops are to occupy a frozen hilltop; Ernst and Arian run into trouble and spend the night alone. Back to Washington.

Lions For Lambs is tedious at best and mind numbing at worst, unless you've just arrived from another planet and never tuned in the American media circus. This film is the political equivalent of Groundhog Day (1992) where newscaster Bill Murray is forced to live the same day over and over again covering this minor holiday in Punxsutawney PA. In this film, the water torture (repetition) is the replay of all the Sunday morning political talk show babble (pro and con) from the last 4-years. Just in cast you think your side wins this one don't bet on it, there are no winners here. A partisan in front of me clapped and hooted when the conservative took it in the shorts the first time, only to fine his liberal view was skewered next, before he could catch his breath. And so the conversation goes.

Lions For Lambs is being highly touted by the press, who don't want to blow a ticket to the Academy Awards next year. The tragedy here is that we've got three fine actors without a story; it's neither good entertainment nor serious political science. Each player reads his / her lines (literally yesterday's newscast), there's no story line and no emotion to engage viewers. The closest thing to artistic technique is the scene continually rotates between D.C., California and the mountaintop. I'm thinking this may be as good (read bad) as The Blair Witch Project (1999), and win my 2007 Stinker award.

Though heavy handed, remarkably fair

[Legendary_Badass · 8/10 · 23 October 2007]

Lions for Lambs is a current issue film that deals with several relevant topics. The central plot revolves around essentially three settings that don't directly affect each other through action. They do however affect each other through course of action presented in debate. Cruise plays Jasper Irving, a GOP senator with a new plan of action for the war on terror. Streep is a veteran reporter who is interviewing him. Simultaneously, Redford is a college professor who has called a student into his office. A conflict in Afghanistan is taking place which is linked to the aforementioned plot lines.

Lions for Lambs surprised me with it's balance. I'm an open Republican, and felt that this movie was not a cliché attack against the power that be. The Cruise character could have been given irrefutable hatred material. He could have been caught in a scandal. He could have alienated others with religious furor. Instead he is real and forms educated arguments. He seems rational, and passionate; he can also make a turn to present himself to the public. I don't see this as an attack, but one of the many skills politicians need to succeed. With all they go through and the decisions they have, they don't want the mocking that crying before the camera would carry. The left is represented by Redford's professor and Streep's reporter. Both are treated with rationale conviction. Neither has a clear anti-GOP agenda. Both of these characters even go as far as to acknowledge the error in the ways of their side. If there is a message to the film, it is that we are being sheltered from reality. It was clear to this viewer that Redford is stating that we are placing focus on the minuscule while matters of true importance are treated as second rate. Surely this is something we all can agree on in Lions for Lambs and this comes into fruition as the film evolves.

Aside from the political commentary, which it makes no dance around, this a dialog heavy film. Characters are pinned against their situations which cause them to restrain from a course of action both physically and metaphorically. The conversations are engaging, but it would be arguably more favorable to allow the characters interaction. A few additional technical merits could have gone a long way. For example, the CGI of the Chinook helicopter was not up to par; a memorable score and unique cinematography are also absent. The screenplay is inherently foiled by remarkable coincidence; but there was no way around that. At a scant 88 minutes, Lions for Lambs is quick to get to the point but it is over too fast. These miscues keep it from perfection. Served as they are, Lions for Lambs is thinking person's film that comes highly recommended.

If Lions for Lambs

[jaredmobarak · 7/10 · 11 November 2007]

If you are not partial to a film with non-stop talking, don't even attempt to see this. What little action you may think is included during the battle scenes does not exist. Our army men are either in camp discussing their mission or injured and unable to move on the front lines, the action in those moments come from the words spoken. As far as the liberal slant, there are multiple instances of ranting and agenda pushing. However, while not agreeing with the content, I have to admit it is all well written and entertaining to listen to both it and the retorts thrown back. Carnahan has, if nothing else, crafted a story that weaves together three different vignettes and environments to become one cohesive tale of politics and war. I was enthralled throughout, minus one scene that completely did not work for me. All actors involved get plenty of face time and do a nice job with it.

The shining third is, without question, the battle section. Both Derek Luke and Michael Peña are fantastic as old friends who have gone through the rough neighborhoods of city life to the tough work ethic of college to volunteering in the army so that they can be involved in the biggest issue happening. These two gentlemen do not want to be on the sidelines just talking about what is going on in the world. Rather than stay in the shadows at school, debating what is occurring far, far away, they take it upon themselves to step up and try and do something about it. By spending their time in the service they will be able to go to graduate school on the government's dime. When we become privy to a flashback of their class project, I must say I was blown away. It is easy to say for me from where I am sitting, but their idea of forgoing a year of high school in order to enlist kids in a year program either with the ROTC or inner city help is something that really got me thinking. Our country is full of kids who just coast through life without the necessity to do anything. Their ability to steer clear of conflict only helps politicians mold their minds into thinking what they want. Rather than become involved, our society has been given allowance to go home, make money, and let everyone else worry about what is going on. You can't be allowed to speak out against the government or the army if you yourself aren't willing to become educated to the issues and go in to try and change it. Words are one thing; action is totally different. The back and forth between the two students and the rest of the class is great, and when they shut them up it is a stunning piece of cinema—a moment that is surprisingly one-upped by their story's conclusion.

As fir the rest, I enjoyed Robert Redford's attempt to let a fire under his prize student who has decided to become a lamb rather than keep the lion's instinct as he had at the beginning of the semester. It is an interesting outlook on the subject, very liberal, but also intuitive to the reasons behind a decision and not just the decision itself. While he disapproved of his former star students' enrolling in the army for a fight that is unwarranted in his mind, he can still see the merit in why they chose to go that way. Redford's is a complex character that works well as the lynchpin between two of the three stories. The third, on the other hand, is the least integral to the film. While the back and forth between senator and reporter, Cruise and Meryl Streep respectively, has some great moments of debate, it is a tad misleading. I thought Cruise was great as the fast-talking Republican getting his agenda to the media and calling out the liberal reporter. He shuts her up a couple times with his mention of how the media is what sold the war in the first place and that they have the luxury of hindsight while he does not. If you are in the position he is, one can't wait for retribution and risk a second attack by appearing weak. There is no Monday morning quarterbacking when the lives of your country are on the line.

By showing both sides of the conflict's political barometer and glorifying the soldiers as heroic, I left the film thinking it was somewhat even-keeled. Maybe this is because Meryl Streep is so horrible acting-wise, but I felt they almost used the liberalism as a mock of itself, but that could be her mistake. She is called out in Cruise's office for being the cause and yet still has the gall to scream about how he is going to try and start a nuclear war in front of her editor, the one scene that did not work for me at all. She is so over-the-top that I thought it was a shot at the liberal detractors who use their own paranoia to blow things out of proportion. However, there are many moments showing the "incompetence" and two-face mentality of the conservatives too. Cruise's declaration of "let me make this as loud as possible, I will not run for President" was just too convenient a mirror to a statement earlier in the film. While as a whole it entertained me, Lions still had many moments of agenda forcing—from both sides of the coin—that took me away from what worked.

Worst film seen lately

[criticism · 1/10 · 15 November 2007]

I like political thrillers but this one was the worst disappointment. The plot is awful: a typical bad imperialist US senator (Tom Cruise) with the mandatory Hollywood white teeth shares his obviously doomed to failure plans for the war in Afganistan with a borderline neurotic journalist (Meryll Streep) whose guilt complexes bordering on tears we struggle to understand. At the same time on a bucolic university campus an over the hill sociology (or is it history ?) professor (Robert Redford) tries to instill civic feelings in an a Bermuda wearing youngster with an IQ of 70 and a vocabulary of 1000 words (including: y'now and yeah?)who is supposed to represent the brightest among the brightest students (God help us if this is true). And at the same time again two misguided US commando troopers fight to save their asses against the baddies (Talibans). The acting is incredibly bad as well since not even the big names can save a script for the mentally challenged. And above everything else, it is booooring! Do yourselves a favour and avoid seeing it.

Like Being Hit Over the Head with a Brick

[isabelle1955 · 16 November 2007]

I'm quite reluctant to criticize this movie because I basically agree with every sentiment it expresses. I just wish it could express them with more grace, style and subtlety. The movie makes some very valid points about the American political system, patriotism, the so called War on Terror, the lack of engagement of youth and the comatose subordination of the American media. Most of which I agree with. And yet it left me utterly cold and disengaged.

To summarise briefly, the movie consists of essentially 3 scenes; a senator's office in DC (representing the establishment), a college professor's office in California (representing the liberal element) and a mountain top in Afghanistan (representing active engagement). In Afghanistan, two unfortunate, brave recruits are lying injured and waiting for rescue. The scenes take place in real time; in other words, it's all supposed to be happening in parallel.

The senator, Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), in his impressive office, is disclosing an exclusive on a new Afghan military "Push", to a veteran reporter (Meryl Streep), the college professor Malley (Robert Redford as a political scientist) is trying to engage the interest of a cynical, bright young student who has given up studying because it's all so pointless, and the two buddy soldiers have just fallen - or jumped - from a damaged helicopter which came under attack in the Afghan mountains, as it took part in the "Push". The senator is trying to justify the military action, mostly to promote his own career, while Streep's reporter is wrestling with her conscience. She is supposed to meekly lap up this scoop she is being given and report it uncritically, as a good patriotic American – and one whose career is on the downhill run, coasting towards oblivion in a world obsessed with triviality and junk. When, she wonders, did the media roll over and become the poodle of the government?

In the meantime in California, Professor Malley engages in a battle of words with his clever, cynical and privileged student Todd, telling him of two equally bright but financially challenged minority students who left college the previous year to join the army, so as to experience for themselves the sharp end of the War on Terror. The movie is at pains to question the War on Terror and the people who facilitate it, without dissing the poor grunts on the ground. It makes the point – and it's a valid one - that many of the people who protested the Vietnam War a generation before, had actually fought in it because they were forced to by the Draft. With no universal draft to dodge, why should the 21st century's self-obsessed kids be interested in a war being fought a dozen time zones away, especially when they are fed a constant diet of escapist pap by the media? At least the two buddies now dying in Afghanistan were trying to actively engage with the issue.

It certainly wasn't the performances which were at fault. They were mostly excellent. I especially loved Tom Cruise as the senator; he was so perfectly insincerely sincere. It's easy to forget what a good actor he actually is, when so much of what we see of him is…..well…….escapist media pap. I will never tire of watching Meryl Streep, whom I have worshipped for 30 years, Robert Redford was Robert Redford, does he ever play anyone else? The guys who played the two soldiers were convincing and as for Andrew Garfield who played Todd, I see dozens of him every day here in California, he had the character to a T.

So why do I feel so negative about this movie? Because it's really not a movie at all. This is stage play looking for a theatre. I am certain if I'd seen this at my local Rep., with a good cast and some inventive and lively direction, I'd have walked out of the theatre feeling I'd seen something excellent and thought provoking. I can see the set in my head, the stage divided into 3 zones, lit in turn as we cut from scene to scene, the trapped soldiers at the very front, close to the audience, where we can see their agony as they wait for death. It would make riveting and tense theatre in the right hands and could be very moving. And in the context of live performance, it would be much more politically relevant, and could even seem quite daring.

But as a movie it just turned me off, I felt battered to insensibility, there wasn't an ounce of subtlety to it, far too wordy, worthy and preachy. And if Redford as director is trying to get his message over to the youth of America, this is not the way to do it. This is preaching to the converted. Disengaged kids are not going to turn out in droves to see Meryl Streep and Robert Redford on a Friday night. I'm sorry, but they are just not.

And as for the Afghan mountain set, with its atrocious lighting, fake snow, lame pyrotechnics and polystyrene boulders, it reminded me of early Star Trek episodes, where the rocks bounced off the actors. You can get away with minimalist, representational sets in the theatre. In fact, they are positively encouraged, so we can concentrate on the performances. But live theatre and a movie are two different animals, and here it just had me groaning at the cheapness.

My husband loved it. Hmmmm.

So-so *I don't think it's as bad as some people make it to be*

[thisisnothere-1 · 6/10 · 15 June 2008]

Overall, it's a decent movie. Could have stood more action, more texture. It becomes a little boring after the endless cuts between three different settings where each new shot is quite similar to the last one in the respective setting. But, the dialouge between Redford and the student is interesting. Lots of people are saying its "patronizing"...I didn't really feel that. Apparently that would make me stupid according to some that have commented on this film. But, I didn't really feel that was the intent, feel of it. It's more of a "set back and look at YOUR life and ask yourself if you're really doing all you could be" type of film. I only give it six stars because of the ending and because I feel the film lacks enough texture and becomes a little dry throughout.

Dialogue for today

[gerardripley · 6/10 · 31 January 2022]

Go back and watch this film. Especially the dialogue starting at about 26:30. This conversation just happened for real. What if we just leave? The answers to that question was spot on.

Would make a great stage play

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 4 May 2020]

It's easy to imagine the 2007 drama Lions for Lambs performed on the stage, since the story is so dialogue-driven and only three simple sets-or merely four chairs, if a modern take was adopted-would be necessary. Three stories are all related, each including a dialogue between two characters, in a time-sensitive story during the current (depending on when you rent this movie) war in the Middle East. In one, a powerful Republican senator, Tom Cruise, tries to persuade a liberal journalist, Meryl Streep, to write a favorable piece on his efforts for the war. In another, a California university professor, Robert Redford, tries to get an apathetic student, Andrew Garfield, to care about current events. In the third, two soldiers and friends, Michael Pena and Derek Luke, find themselves isolated and fighting for their lives during a mission gone wrong.

If you're hooked already, like I was, you're going to want to rent this one. Plus, it's Robert Redford's baby (meaning, he directed it) so you know it's going to be well-made and full of top-notch acting. If this ever does get turned into a stage play, I think it'll be a great success. Many theatergoers will enjoy the witty dialogue and agree with the message. A word of warning, though: if you find yourself agreeing with Tom Cruise as the movie starts, you might not enjoy the rest of it. I wouldn't exactly classify this film as a "message movie," but it definitely has a theme. If you're a Republican, there's a chance you might not like it.

Vague dialogue, poor directing, and less-than believable characters.

[jrbitics · 1/10 · 5 April 2008]

I remember seeing the previews for this movie and thinking it would be pretty horrible. I was right. For some reason, perhaps a momentary lapse in reason, I decided to watch this movie. The entire hour and a half of film time is set in 3 different scenes, all disconnected from each other. The characters are generic and weak. The story line (any one of the 3) is ironic, somewhat sappy, and filled to capacity with entirely unbelievable dialogue. Everything about this movie was poor, from directing, to casting, to costume designer, to script, was very poorly done. The movie pretends to carry with it some sort of profound ideology, but between all the vague and seemingly pointless banter, this ideology is not detectable. I don't think this movie could have been made any worse.

An Actor's Film Of Reflection

[giorgiosurbani · 8/10 · 11 January 2008]

Not true! Robert Redford didn't take to the pulpit to give us a pet talk. He's far too subtle, honest and compassionate to pull a stunt like that. The film is about questions not about answers and we're all grateful for that. I left the theater with a weight on my chest because I believe in the validity of the questions and the individual responsibility of finding the fair way to the answers. Important to remember, at least it was for me, that this is a film delivered to us by three icons. Robert Redford, a symbol of consistency and independence, Meryl Streep, an actress who defined the last two decades of film acting with characters that went straight to the center of something and Tom Cruise, the box office champion who's become a controversial figure despite of his undeniable humanity. I will take a stand here and advise you to go and see this film. You will come up with new questions and a potential road map for the answers.

The Politics of War

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 26 May 2021]

"Lions for Lambs" follows three interconnected storylines that all revolve around politics. More narrowly they revolve around the politics of war, and more specifically still: the war in Afghanistan. At the time of the release of this movie the U. S. had been in Afghanistan for about five years and only now, roughly twenty years after storming Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for their role in 9/11, has the U. S. decided to bring their last troops home.

The three storylines "Lambs" followed were 1.) Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and one of his students (Andrew Garfield) at a university somewhere in California. 2.) Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) who were also students of Prof. Malley's before deciding to enlist in the army. 3.) Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) who were ardently discussing the U. S.'s new strategy for ending the war for good which just so happen to involve Rodriguez and Finch.

There you have it. You have American politics, with fighting being a part of it, being discussed in broader more philosophical terms in the professor's office. You have an actual politician discussing how to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan. And you have actual soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. It all made for some interesting and even somewhat passionate arguments, but that's where it stopped. "Lambs" seems to have been made to make its viewers think and come to their own conclusion about who or what was right and wrong. I can appreciate that even if I wasn't the biggest fan of the topic.

So Much Less Than We Deserve

[michael-connelly3 · 2/10 · 9 November 2007]

Awful is too harsh a word for this unappetizing mess, but it is certainly a train wreck of a movie. Other adjectives come to mind-- "didactic" will be used in about half of professional reviews. "Unfortunate" is another, which is a kind way of saying "bad". The film would have us believe that everything we're seeing, in three different locations, is taking place at the same time, and pretty much in real time. That would be clever if plausible, but in this cause the conceit seems simply contrived. The claustrophobic nature of the movie-- maybe half the film has two people on camera at once-- makes it seem as though it were a play, and a badly written one at that. There is a certain something to the fx, and it's not a good thing-- it seems as though several parts were shot in video and then spliced on to the rest. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it were intended, but I don't think it is, and it's jarring. There are some other implausible parts of the film which I can't mention here, but in a film that tries to be tight, having the audience go "Whoa, how did *that* happen!" is not a good thing. Redford is great on camera-- we like to look at him, he has a great voice, and his eyes still have that remarkable, defining quality that makes this guy The Robert Redford-- not just another actor. But Cruise is on autopilot, which seems to be all he has left anyway. For him, it's all smoke and mirrors and there is no there there any more, if there ever was. Streep is fine, though I don't think she wears this role very well. For those expecting another Devil Wears Prada sort of performance, you'll have to wait. This is not that. It's too bad. I don't think this movie will persuade anyone, and make no mistake, this movie was intended to Sway Public Opinion. But if that's the case, the people who imagined this film got it wrong from the outset, because the people who would be drawn to seeing this movie are much smarter than the authors think they are, and you can't talk down to people more clever than you.

An unusual, great movie

[chartang · 9/10 · 29 December 2007]

I went to see this movie with contrasting feelings, because I read a few reviews in advance. Many of them blamed it for being too didactic, thus lacking the basic qualities a movie should have. Many others praised it in a very ideological way, thus raising in me the fear it was a piece of propaganda. Well, after I spent the 80 minutes watching the movie I thought not even 60 had elapsed, and my attention and empathy didn't ever fail for a single minute. There is no doubt that a movie so extensively based upon dialog is very unusual: but this turns out to be one of its most valuable asset and proves the great value of the script. It is not an action movie in any of the conventional ways: yet I followed it with the attention, the suspense and expectations feelings that usually an action movie raises. I think that indeed it is a sort of intelligence action movie - as such it stands out over the best stuff that visual media performances are usually producing today. The second point I most appreciated has been its ability in portraying the main characters' different viewpoints in a very complex way, as it must be: there were no all round villains nor all round heroes. Doubtless there is a very much defined view and attitude, but it is not supported in a mere ideological way. In fact, it has no clearcut, simple answers to offer to a damningly complex situation full of contradictions as it actually is. It is full of subtleties, in dialog not less than in body languages and settings. It is often moving without ever slipping into cheap rhetoric. It's a movie that in a way "should" be seen and re-seen and reflected and discussed upon to wake up people from all sorts of addictive indifference as well as of addictive "I'm right, they're wrong" self complacency. Last but not least, in my opinion this movie is a good instance of what is needed to roll back anti-American feelings that have been spread out due to the American government policies and behavior in the last decade. May I offer my apologies for my English to the readers that will have had the patience to go through my comment.

First Order Change.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 28 April 2018]

In any adversarial exchange, socioloi hv foun more thn on possible response with a likeihood of good pay off -- whether the exchag donsists of mritl spat or global warfare. The first -- and usually the simplest and dumbest -- is first order change.

Fight fire with fire. He insuts you? You insut him right back, more viciously than before. At it's most extreme, we find it in movies like "The Untouchables," in which Sean Connery advises Keven Costner"He brings fists ita tha fight, you bring a knife. He brings a knife, you brig a gun. He brings a gun you put one of his in the morgue."

That's pretty much what the movie is about. Tom Cruise is a grease-up go getting Washingtonian with his eye on th presidency. Meryl Streep is a star reporter who hisensto Crruise's bombas in a state of puzzlement. Redford is a professsor who is tryingto turn his better stents onto the fat tht there is more to life thn]n hypothetical imperatves. And as the fim cuts back nd forth between the enlightned and soullessly crepy, two men of a special forces unit are trapped on hillpot in Afghanistn and must be rescued within minutes. To go means escalation. To hesitate means a loss. And what do the Amrican people want? They want a WIN! Yes --life as football game.

dThat's Cruise's argument. Maybe hes right. A survey of students at George Mason fiund they have difficulty in ietifyingpivtus f Jo Bn an Ronald Regan but had less trouble wtih Km Kardshian. (The article -- in the Daily Caller -- blames all that ignorance on "the liberal left.")

I suppose Cruise's response would be a resrt to frst order change -- outlaw the liberal left media, That'll teach 'em. Nothng but fair and balanced from now on.

Save Your Money; This Movie Is Terribly Boring

[Unlimitedmovies · 1/10 · 10 November 2007]

Save your money and don't see this film. It is terribly boring. Meryl Streep does a pretty good job, as usual, with her acting but Tom Cruise truly flops with his characterization. I'm sure United Artists had good intentions with this film and usually I like controversial topics for plots but this movie is just plain boring. It drags and the dialogue is quite predictable. I just could not get into this movie at all. Sorry I can't give it more than one star. I wanted to like it but this movie isn't up to Robert Redford's previous efforts. I am disappointed that the plot and film seemed to drift and go nowhere. Hard to sit thru and a sad, boring political saga with no true message.