- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
80A smart, accessible, surprisingly balanced look at our dysfunctional world. Compelling stuff.
-
78Despite its flaws, which become more evident as time elapses, Lions for Lambs is worth seeing for no other reason that you’ve never seen anything like it before.
-
75This is responsive, engaged filmmaking, the kind of movie they say Americans don't make.
-
75The tiny scale and armchair talkiness mark the movie as a bit of a folly, an act of idealistic hubris in today's commercial marketplace, yet that's its (minor) fascination too.
-
70This is a weird movie hybrid, both a tasteful picture and an angry one.
-
70Intelligent, deadly serious, made in a spirit of patriotism and protest, Redford's movie is more civics lesson than drama and doesn't pretend otherwise. It is what it is: a call to action.
-
67All the good intentions in the world and solid performances from three of the biggest and most respected movie stars of our time cannot disguise the fact that Lions for Lambs is resting on a talky, disjointed and not-very-well-thought-out script.
-
63There is a long stretch toward the beginning of the film when we're interested, under the delusion that it's going somewhere. When we begin to suspect it's going in circles, our interest flags, and at the end, while rousing music plays, I would have preferred the Peggy Lee version of "Is That All There Is?"
-
63And unlike other recent dramas such as "Rendition," the film never feels like it's preaching. Instead, it just urges: Whatever you believe, do something.
-
63Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment.
-
63All true, but not new -- and not especially compelling.
-
50Politicians, the media, educators, military commanders and a docile public all come under fire in a well-made movie that offers no answers but raises many important questions.
-
50This is the sort of film where a character says “Here we are, having a high-minded debate ...” and you wonder if countless moviegoers will be rolling their eyes in unison.
-
50This tactic, and the film's valid but familiar arguments, might have been fleshed out with better results onstage.
-
50Dull plod.
-
50In the end, it all remains a dramatically inert set of talking points, and not even the high-caliber cast can make much more out of it.
-
50It 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.
-
50One of those movies in which the principals talk a lot but don't say much.
-
50Lambs feels five years too late.
-
50Lions for Lambs appears to have taken its inspiration from Al Gore's stolid "An Inconvenient Truth," using the stage lecture and Power Point presentation in lieu of dramatic momentum.
-
50Fortunately for Redford, Lions for Lambs is a less ham-handed effort than Sayles’ “Silver City,” but it’s a near thing.
-
50The problem with Lions for Lambs isn't its political engagement but its cinematic disengagement. Robert Redford directs and stars in this ambitious talkathon, which would have been more effective as a radio play.
-
The movie is awful--and also oddly touching, even adorable in its dogged sense of responsibility, its stubborn refusal of style.
-
50It tells us everything most of us know already, including the fact that politicians lie, journalists fail and youth flounders. Mostly it tells us that Mr. Redford feels really bad about the state of things. Welcome to the club.
-
50The movie is compelling now but unlikely to survive its moment.
-
50Like many a Hollywood political drama, Lions for Lambs carries a full head of steam that is indistinguishable from a lot of hot air.
-
42Talky, didactic and essentially free of any real narrative, it views Iraq through the lens of Vietnam, which is fair enough, but ends up making the whole polemic seem like a condescending effort from aging baby boomers to get the younger generation to step up to the plate.
-
40Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs is the clunkiest, windiest, and roughest of the lot. Most of it is dead on the screen. But its earnestness is so naked that it exerts a strange pull. You have to admire a director who works so diligently to help us rise above all the bad karma.
-
40Redford and Carnahan would like us to ponder our role in their fate. And maybe we would, if the lecture weren't so dull and self-satisfied.
-
40Amounts to a giant cry of "Americans, get engaged!" wrapped in a star-heavy discourse that uses a lot of words to say nothing new.
-
40But for all its passion and topical currency, the movie plays too often like a college colloquium. And it ends on an unsatisfying note, with each character's choice, whether fateful or fatal, hanging in a confounding limbo of indeterminacy.
-
40It winces with liberal self-chastisement: Redford is surely smart enough to realize, as the professor turns his ire on those who merely chatter while Rome burns, that his movie is itself no better, or more morally effective, than high-concept Hollywood fiddling.
-
38I went to a wartime thriller, but then a Poli Sci 101 seminar broke out.
-
30Ought to have been called "Slugs for Snails," so leisurely does it creep toward its predictably bombastic conclusion.
-
25All talk and zero characterization, it doesn't even feel like a real movie.
-
20You could make a case for this as a feature-film version of the FCC's fairness doctrine, but it feels more like a blandness doctrine, a pulling and hauling of the tone-deaf script, which is credited to Matthew Michael Carnahan, to the point of perfect vacuousness.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 24 out of 49
-
Mixed: 4 out of 49
-
Negative: 21 out of 49
-
Paul10A truly intelligent film, will have you thinking long after the film has finished.
-
BillH.10