Lions for Lambs is a 2007 American drama film about the connection between a platoon of United States soldiers in Afghanistan, a U.S. senator, a reporter, and a California college professor. It stars Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford. It was the first Cruise/Wagner Productions film since the company joined with United Artists subsequent to Cruise's falling out with Paramount Pictures in 2006.[2]
With a title that alludes to incompetent leaders sending brave soldiers into the slaughter of battle, the film takes aim at the U.S. government's prosecution of the wars in the Middle East, showing three different simultaneous stories: a congressman who launches a new military strategy and details it to a journalist, two soldiers involved in said operation, and their college teacher trying to re-engage a promising student. The film was written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, and directed by Redford. It was released in North America on Friday, November 9, 2007, to mixed but mostly negative reviews and disappointing box office receipts.
The film was partly based on Operation Red Wing, an unsucessful SEAL operation in Afghanistan.
Plot
Two determined students at a West Coast university, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña), at the urging of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Redford), attempt to do something important with their lives. They make the bold decision to accept commissions as U.S. Army Officers to join the war in Afghanistan.
Dr. Malley also attempts to reach talented and privileged, but disaffected, student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) who is not at all like Arian and Ernest. He is naturally bright, comes from a privileged background, but has apparently slipped into apathy upon being disillusioned at the present state of affairs. Now he devotes most of his time to his girlfriend and to his role as president of his fraternity. Malley tests him by offering a choice between a respectable grade of 'B' in the class with no additional work required, or a final opportunity to re-engage with the material of the class and "do something."
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., a charismatic Republican presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), has invited TV journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to announce a new war strategy in Afghanistan: the use of small units to seize strategic positions in the mountains ("forward operating points") before the Taliban can occupy them. The senator hopes that Roth's positive coverage will help convince the public that the plan is sound.
Roth has her doubts and does not wish to become an instrument of government propaganda. Near the end of the film, she confronts her commercially-minded boss for selling out. Ultimately Irving's version of the story is run without the critical interaction and re-interpretation Roth wanted to see. It is not clear whether Roth gave in and toed the company policy or if she quit her job.
A helicopter carrying Arian and Ernest is hit. Ernest falls out and Arian jumps after him. Ernest's leg is badly wounded and he cannot move as the Taliban arrive. After a gunfight, the U.S. soldiers run out of ammunition. Rather than getting captured, Arian helps Ernest stand up, facing the enemies and turning their empty weapons against them. Rescue plans had been set in motion, but the "lambs" calling the shots proved too slow and inept to save the downed soldiers.
Hayes is then seen watching television with a friend. A reporter is discussing a singer's private life, while below runs a strip announcing Senator Irving's new military plan for Afghanistan. He suddenly falls quiet, contemplating the choices his teacher had left him with.
Selected cast
Production
Matthew Michael Carnahan was inspired to write the script when, while channel surfing trying to find a USC Trojans football game, he saw a news report about a Humvee that had flipped into a Iraqi river, drowning about five U.S. soldiers. Carnahan considered it an awful way to die, and "couldn’t get past it fast enough", considering he was too indifferent, "talking so much and not doing a damn thing", [3] and "the same hypocrite that I so can’t stand in our country, the kind of people that will flip right past the news to get to Access Hollywood".[4] He first considered turning it into a stage play, but the military scenes, in particular the helicopter ones, made him turn it into a film screenplay.[5] The character of Todd Hayes was inspired by Carnahan himself during college.[5]
When Robert Redford read the script, he got very interested, considering it smart as opposed to Hollywood's many "straight-out entertainment" projects, and also tricky due to the three stories "that seem to be disparate but are connected and have to come together in a vortex at the end", and that needed to be represented in a way the movie "wouldn't be categorized as a lefty film". [6] Redford considered that the movie's focus was for audiences "to be entertained in a way that made them think."[4]
The name of the film is derived from a remark made by a German officer during World War I, comparing British soldiers' bravery with the calculated criminality of their commanders.[7] While several reviewers in the UK have criticized the film for misquoting the commonly used phrase of "lions led by donkeys",[8][9][10] in an article on the origin of the title, The Times wrote without attribution:
One such composition included the observation, 'Nowhere have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.' While the exact provenance of this quotation has been lost to history, most experts agree it was written during the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest clashes in modern warfare. While some military archivists credit the author as an anonymous infantryman, others argue that the source was none other than General Max von Gallwitz, Supreme Commander of the German forces. In either case, it is generally accepted to be a derivation of Alexander the Great’s proclamation, 'I am never afraid of an army of Lions led into battle by a Lamb. I fear more the army of Lambs who have a Lion to lead them.'[11]
Though Lions for Lambs was the first United Artists venture since Cruise and Paula Wagner attained control, executives billed the film as a "Robert Redford vehicle."[12] Filming began on January 29, 2007, [13] and Redford considered the movie "the tightest schedule I’ve ever worked with," with barely a year between announcement and release.[4]
Promotion
Lions for Lambs is the first film under Cruise's and Wagner's new venture with film studio United Artists.[14] MSNBC reported that Cruise was worried about how the film would perform, because of how the film industry would view him based on its success or failure at the box office.[14] During promotion of the film, Cruise invited representatives from the Church of Scientology to a private screening.[15] Streep and Redford were also in attendance at the private screening in New York City, but their guests were mostly friends and family.[15] Cruise's guests at the screening included Rev. John Carmichael and Lori Alpers, president of the New York chapter of the Church of Scientology.[15] All of the Scientologists at the screening wore identifying gold pins in their lapels.[15] In November 2007, when Cruise was honored at an event at the American Museum of the Moving Image, co-stars Streep and Redford were not in attendance.[16] FOX News quoted a source which asserted: "Meryl and Bob can’t stand Tom. In London, Tom kept trying to push himself into interviews. Bob said, 'No.' Tom wouldn’t listen. Meryl has done almost nothing for the movie. She wants nothing to do with him."[16] However, a supporter of the film countered: "That’s mean. They’re great friends. Just look at their interview on 'Good Morning America.'"[16] A spokesman for Redford stated that he had a prior engagement with the Sundance Institute, but neither Streep nor Redford sent video testimonials to the American Museum of the Moving Image event.[15]
Critical reception
Lions for Lambs received generally negative to mixed reviews from critics. As of July 8, 2008 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has received a "rotten" rating of 28%, based on 168 reviews.[17] On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews.[18]
Film critic Roger Ebert gave it two and a half stars, noting that at the beginning of the film the viewer is "under the delusion that it's going somewhere." As the film progresses, Ebert wrote that interest is lost, noting, "When we begin to suspect it's going in circles, our interest flags."[19] Matt Pais of the Chicago Tribune also gave the film two and a half stars, and wrote in summation: "Redford and Streep give it their all, but Cruise is Cruise, and the go-nowhere "Lions" is more of an imitation of life than a reflection on it."[20] A USA Today review gave the film two and a half stars as well, in a negative review titled: "As entertainment, 'Lions' whimpers rather than roars."[21] Reviewer Claudia Puig commented, "Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment."[21] The New York Post gave the film one and a half stars, and did not recommend it, writing: "...if you want to be bored by pompous-assery, 'Meet the Press' is free."[22] The Guardian was more critical, giving the film only one star, and calling it, "...a muddled and pompous film about America's war on terror."[23]
Derek Elley of Variety wrote that though the film was "star-heavy", it felt like "the movie equivalent of an Off Broadway play," and "uses a lot of words to say nothing new." [24] The New York Times also mentioned the amount of dialogue in the film, writing: "It’s a long conversation, more soporific than Socratic, and brimming with parental chiding, generational conflict and invocations of Vietnam," and the Los Angeles Times described the lecturing in the film as "dull and self-satisfied."[25][26] The subtitle of the review in the Los Angeles Times was: "As a matter of policy, 'Lions for Lambs' doesn't play."[26] In a review entitled "Political drama feels more like a lecture" in The Boston Globe, Wesley Morris wrote: "It does not feel good to report that a movie with Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise makes the eyelids droop. But that's what "Lions for Lambs" does."[27] Writing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reviewer William Arnold wrote positively of the segments of the film involving Robert Redford's character.[28] Arnold wrote of Redford's character: "His character, who hopes to save America one slacker at a time, rings true; and his real-life conviction and his fears for democracy come through."[28] Amy Biancolli of the Houston Chronicle highlighted Redford's direction of the film, commenting that it was not his best film, but it was "his bravest."[29] Ray Bennett of The Hollywood Reporter described Lions for Lambs as "...a well-made movie that offers no answers but raises many important questions."[30]
Box office results
The film took in USD$6.7 million in its opening weekend and debuted at the number four spot.[31] This was one of Cruise's worst wide opener box office takes since The Color of Money, and Cathering Elsworth of The Daily Telegraph wrote that this result "puts it on course to be Cruise's lowest-grossing movie of all time."[31][32] The film also opened poorly in Europe, with Variety reporting: "Savage reviews dealt the talky political drama a big blow."[33] In the United Kingdom, Lions for Lambs took in $1.4 million and opened in sixth place.[33] The film debuted at the number six spot in Germany, and number five in Brazil.[34] Overall, the film pulled in a total of $10.3 million in markets in its opening weekend outside the United States, and Reuters noted "Tom Cruise's "Lambs" got slaughtered at the worldwide box office."[12] By January 14, 2008, the film's domestic returns were just under $15 million.[35]
MSNBC reported that Cruise was concerned about the opening weekend results, and quoted a source: "Tom wanted to really hit a home run with his first United Artists movie. It was more about how the industry was going to view him than the movie going public that Tom was worried about."[36] In response to the opening weekend results, a representative at United Artists stated: "We performed right at the pre-weekend predictions and are glad to have done that. Given the modest production and marketing budgets we do not need to be a blockbuster hit. Everyone at United Artists are very proud of the film and could not have had a more perfect filmmaker to have made our first film."[37]
International experts said that the film did not attract its core audience, and that the box office results were due to a failure of the film to cross over to the general public.[34] On November 28, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that "Lions for Lambs has performed so poorly that it may not make back its $35 million investment."[38] On December 3, 2007, the New York Post reported that the film was "assessed to blow as much as $25 mil," and a report in Variety made the same assessment.[39][40] Multiple sources have referred to the film as a "Box office bomb", including the San Francisco Chronicle,[41] U.S. News & World Report,[42] Orlando Sentinel,[43] the New York Post,[40] and New York Magazine.[44] New York Magazine called the film "a critical flop and a box-office bomb," and a report by NewsMax Media characterized it among "miserable box-office flops."[44][45] An article in The Daily Telegraph discussed the film among a "slew of new movies" that "have flopped at the box office."[32] The Associated Press called the film a "box-office clunker."[46]
The film ultimately grossed $63 million worldwide, which included $15 million for its domestic gross and $48 million internationally.[47] In April 2008, The New York Times cited "reported estimates" which placed the film's total losses as high as $50 million.[48]
Some critics have observed [49][50] that Lions for Lambs's poor performance at the box office reflects the general American public lack of interest in all Hollywood films concerned with the War on Terror, and the Iraq War. Similar 2007 movies such as Rendition, Redacted and In the Valley of Elah and 2008's Stop-Loss made even less money worldwide.
Hide
Pages: [54] 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 … 1 »
Lions ForLambs Okay But Not The Greatest
Lions for Lambs is an okay movie but not the greatest from
tburke85 from United States - 8 June 2009director/actor Robert Redford who continues to show his talent in this
one but unfortunately it's flaws weigh the film down. Redford stars
alongside Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise who are all admirable in their
roles but aren't given much to do accept debate over and over and over
again. There is a lot of talking in this movie so action fans probably
aren't going to like this one. The rest of the cast including Michael
Pena, Derek Luke, and Peter Berg are good in their roles too but they
lack screen time. The few action sequences in the movie are realistic
and well executed but it's the scenes in between that hurt the film as
a whole. There's a lot of conversations about war and the difference
between right and wrong but they become dull after a little while. The
debating between the characters gets to be a bit boring but fortunately
Redford kept the running time down to 92 minutes. Lions For Lambs isn't
that bad with solid acting by the cast but the film could have been
better with more character development, less debating, more action, and
some humor. The ending for the film wasn't the greatest either but it
tries to tell audiences a message about the sacrifices soldiers make
for their loved ones and country. Overall Lions For Lambs is a so-so
movie thats flawed but it's worth seeing once because of the
performances by the lead actors.
Interesting Political Battle Through Dialogue
Redford's 'Lions For Lambs' is divided into three segments. One segment
The_Discolored_Chameleon from Fraggle Rock - 30 May 2009is a conversation piece between a veteran journalist and a middle-aged
senator, the second is also conversation piece between a professor and
a student who 'lost his way'. The third takes place in Iran where two
wounded soldiers are left stranded in the snowy mountains (where
terrorists lurk) and this segment is the link between the first two. I
found the conversation pieces most interesting. It touches on heavy
contemporary issues of politics as a result of which some would approve
and others would disapprove this film. The arguments are well
constructed through dialogue. Whether the movie's politically biased or
not depends how one understands it. For me, it was a bit one-sided but
the points are well made. Where acting is concerned, it's Meryl Streep
who is outstanding. Robert Redford does a superb job too and Tom Cruise
is very good. Redford's direction is commendable as he brings his point
forward. Many would argue that this movie forces people (especially
those who disagree) to think about the political dilemmas presented
while others find it thought-provoking (those who agree). Thus it's a
matter of interpretation but I found it to be worth a watch.
Pages: [54] 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 … 1 »
Leave your Impressions!