Lions for Lambs - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Lions for Lambs Reviews

Page 1 of 452
March 5, 2018
Well, I guess it's a movie about political games and shows that politics is not an easy subject.

"Lions for Lambs" probably comes from the idea that politicians who never risked their lives (lambs) command soldiers who risk their lives every day (lions). But on the other hand (in my opinion) of course politicians have moral pressure.

Regarding political games - for example, sometimes politicians need to make decisions which might be good for the country, but might not be supported by most people and thus they need media to help them show good side of their decisions.

Well, it is a known fact that rich politicians can push their better more and that media is extremely powerful tool for that. Just look at propaganda in Russian-Ukrainian war in Donbass, like two nations became even worse enemies, especially the amount of propaganda in Russia, that totally changes the way people think there. If you look in Russia in Ukraine - most TV channels are owned by politicians. . Coincidence? Not really. It is a powerful tool. Soon maybe most news websites will also be owned by politicians? Interesting, how in Ukraine some TV channels never wanted to show people like Saakashvili, because they were owned by corrupt politicians.

Also, this movie had interesting idea, that people who were born poor and in bad areas when they grow up they join the army and want to fight for the country who didn't really care about them. While kids who had everything in their life, like me, don't want to join the army and die for the country, even if we are really patriotic.

Well, this movie has really a lot of dialogues, the whole movie basically dialogues between several people, which is unusual for movies. Simply speaking there are ~6 main characters and Tom Cruise is one of them. He looks really nice here, he's adult and handsome and has that Ethan Hunt look. The dialogues are really fast, so I didn't follow everything really, but if I would watch it again and would follow every line then maybe I would understand this movie better.
January 12, 2018
Actually enjoyed it. Good performances although loquacious dialogues may be getting away from the actors at times. Certainly thought provoking.
½ September 8, 2017
I?ve seen plenty of movies that try to push a particular agenda, but few are so blatant and downright preachy like Lions for Lambs. This movie is broken up into 3 separate stories that it cuts between all related to the ?War on Terror.? Here?s each one spelled out:

1. The most aggressive in its politicizing is between a cocky Republican politician (Tom Cruise) and the liberal reporter who is interviewing him (Meryl Streep.) These 2 light up the screen with their charismatic performances, but largely get nowhere other than telling us what we should be thinking. It?s like watching any political debate on TV, as they simply volley back and forth with their views. Most of these arguments are the same ones you could hear (and probably have heard) countless times before and on any news network every day of the week.

2. Next there is the story of two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) who are good friends and are part of an assault on the enemy in Afghanistan. This story almost has no point other than to add some action sequences, and to add stakes to what everyone else in the film is talking about. These guys are likable and of course it?s always tough to see a depiction of American troops being asked to risk their lives for something they might not believe in, I just wish this was part of a better film (instead of being used as a tool to make a point.)

3. Finally there is a college student with promise who has lost his drive (Andrew Garfield) and his professor who wants him to be something better (Robert Redford.) It?s a whole lot more speechifying just like the first pair, and is also well-acted. Again, in a better film, the elements we see here could have been amazing. I think this story is meant as the moral we?re supposed to take home. It?s basically telling us, if we have a problem with our country and the way it?s being run, we need to stop being apathetic and get involved.

There?s nothing particularly wrong with what Lions for Lambs is trying to say, and if you are a liberal it might be nice to watch a movie that so proudly says it. However, the way it is presented feels so hamfisted that I was just bored instead of invested in it. A smart movie in this genre would show you things that make you question your own views, but this movie practically screams in your face what your view should be and why. They aren?t changing anybody?s opinion with that technique, that?s for sure.
September 2, 2017
It really wasn't that interesting. It was a little aimless and boring, which is such a shame given the great cast.
½ August 9, 2017
On pourrait reprocher à Redford et Carnahan leur non-objectivité sur ce Lions & Agneaux, mais ils en seraient sûrement heureux. Dans ce qui tangue parfois vers la conférence que vers le cinéma en tant que tel, Robert Redford aligne tous ses arguments contre la gestion de la guerre en Irak et ses solutions. Michael Peña et Derek Luke sont excellents, Tom Cruise et Meryl Streep en font juste ce qu'il faut pour ne pas alourdir leur conversation. C'est cependant sur l'arc académique de Robert Redford et Andrew Garfield que Lions & Agneaux atteint ses sommets d'intérêt. Le montage est remarquable, la musique pas trop envahissante, les quelques seconds rôles au diapason. Lions & Agneaux n'est pas pour tous les goûts, mais une franche réussite.
March 7, 2017
Dry, preachy, drama-less drivel over-focused on why we shouldnt be in the Iraq War.
Its exasperatingly dull, as you wait for something to happen.
Nothing does.

Big name actors attempt to liven up a basic poli-sci research paper.
Just plain terrible.

Instead of using an actual plot, script or ANY drama, they use overly serious glances and barely-revelatory dialogue to quickly cram their points down your throat.

Irritating, over-baked, and eternally boring, even if you agree w their reasoning.
I hope they wasted a lot of their own money to learn the hard lesson of preaching an uninspired message.
Distasteful, obvious yuk.

1 out of 5
March 2, 2017
Two has-beens and Cruise , do not waste your time
½ January 12, 2017
Compact, enthralling piece that delves into war from political, academic, media and military (as well as personal) perspectives. A lot for 1.5 hours! Redford's best directorial effort since his Oscar-wimming Ordinary People. So many things revealed in this treatment, things often not mentioned in public. After viewing the movie, we have a better idea of why. (I wished they'd mentioned the military/industrial conglomerates that obviously profit from war.)
As usual, Meryl Streep is fascinating go watch. Not so Redford's character, who comes across as too smug.
September 18, 2016
The pretentious tagline for Robert Redford's new political thriller reads, "If you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything." I love movies, but I won't stand, or fall, for pompous, conceited trash that thinks it can rake in an audience by addressing the "War on Terror" (a recurring, progressively dull subject) and tossing up a cast full of previous Oscar-contenders -- and that's exactly what 'Lions for Lambs' is...and nothing more.
½ May 20, 2016
Robert Redford has good intentions. To be sure, he is one of "those", the Hollywood liberals that just won't quit no matter what in trying to make films, from time to time, that try and change things. More power to him. But Lions for Lambs wont change anything, except maybe how some fans going into it will view Tom Cruise, if they've only seen his more action-movie heavy stuff. It's a work where the theme of "Iraq war, bad, Afghanistan-war, questionable" is pounded away like a solider's drum. While there is an interesting inter-play quality to the structure- and interplay in the sense of multiple short plays interwoven into a semi-cohesive whole- it never completely works because of the ups and downs that are working here. There is some of the most interesting dialog in a movie this year in Lions for Lambs, and as well some of the worst directing and just storytelling I've seen this year as well. It's a vicious kind of cycle. And, of course, it preaches to the choir.

The Iraq war was a mistake- even Senator Jasper Irving admits this, albeit with his blame (rightfully, not so oddly enough) stretching to the media sitting across his desk in the form of a report. This is the bedrock that could've made a better film- or at least a better single play- that has Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep playing off each other for the better part of a third of the film. Watching Cruise play a GOP senator who believes sincerely everything he says, even as he smiles through his double-played teeth, is revelatory; it's arguably one of his best performances, if almost too easy. Who would've thought that he could move over some of the characteristics that critics have chided him for for years (jerky acting, a BS entitlement) and made it work splendidly for such a crazy neo-con? Meanwhile, Streep makes this another cake-walk, with her best moments when she's alone in the taxi leaving the interview with the senator, her reactions telling just as much, if not more so, than during (and enduring) it. The power-play between corrupt, power-hungry politician and the veteran reporter caught in over her head thanks to mass media is captivating.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is hit or miss, mostly the latter; Redford plays a political science professor who tries to sway a smart-Aleck student who could be in danger of failing to the side of good by telling him about two students of him who were with enough conviction to enlist, and went to Afghanistan to fight despite the professor's protests. This conversation in the professor's office isn't half-bad, but when it switches to the actual battle scenes - which is mostly the two soldiers with broken legs embedded in a snowy Afghan mountain awaiting their doom - it's awful, the kind of 2nd rate World Trade Center maudlin soldier tripe that wouldn't make it past the studio heads had Redford not been at the helm (in fact, the ending, which might not be a shock to those who have seen their share of "valiant soldier" pictures, is especially offensive in how it is shot and edited, in a manner that is of the utmost exploitation of the audience).

Ultimately, despite the interest that is there and the fine acting, there ends up being, between the three story lines, too much obvious proselytizing, nothing urgent that SHOULD be brought to the discussion; anyone who might be swayed (i.e., not to be stereotypical, conservatives who will only see the lame-brained Cruise action movie vehicles) won't want to see a movie where Cruise just sits in one room, in a suit, with no guns or action that he participates in. And anyone who's already on a liberal side could potentially see this as not merely the obvious stated again (that Bush sucks and Republicans can be really crazy) but propaganda. It's not badly made at all, and it is a writer's movie above all. I just wish it were better written, for the sake of the top-notch cast and the aspirations of the filmmaker- as earnest as he genuinely is in a time of perpetual cynicism- to make a difference.
January 12, 2016
Just saw this (1/11/16) finding it in the library and being impressed with the cast. I never heard of it and wondered why as I am an avid movie follower. I gave it 4 stars due to the ingenious interweaving plot construction and depth of acting of all involved. I thought it might be new and was shocked that it was made 8 years ago when I researched it on Rotten Tomatoes! Perhaps it was before its time as I
appreciated the portrayal of social conscience and the lack thereof.
December 31, 2015
Robert Redford is a good director (a bit overrated if you ask me but still good) and this looks like a solid cast. It's about time for Cruise to bring his A game to a movie (it seems he does so about twice a decade and has yet to do so this one). This has a fine line to walk between being a clever critique of the war and being a preachy piece of drivel, hopefully they stay on the right side ...
December 5, 2015
Better than reviews would suggest but it does dare question military thinking :0
Super Reviewer
½ October 25, 2015
This film is so bullshit, and in hindsight, is completely wrong on a lot of points...things that have actually been proven over time. I just don't like how this film thinks it's the greatest...this film is so fucking narcissistic, so pretentious, it's hard to even watch at times. I've never seen a film that's so fucking in love with itself. This movie has about as much subtlety as Starship Troopers, but it thinks it's being Citizen Kane with the messages it sends. Fuck this movie. It could've been so much better, but instead it's just a pile of shit.
½ June 21, 2015
Robert Redford and his stellar cast raises interesting questions but it's overall very heavy handed in it's political messages
June 1, 2015
I think this gets a bad rap. It's a perfectly acceptable and thought provoking piece of entertainment. The performances are good, especially Meryl who is awesome and sweet.
½ April 25, 2015
It is a disappointment with such class.
½ March 23, 2015
Intersting movie, cause the main is in the ideas, not the action itself. But i was expecting more...
January 31, 2015
well the first brave
January 20, 2015
Fallida pelicula sobre las opiniones del sr Redford sobre la guerra de su pais , por momentos llega a aburrir.
Page 1 of 452