User Score
5.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 92 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 45 out of 92
  2. Negative: 36 out of 92
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. AmselJ.
    Feb 27, 2008
    3
    This movie is good for a laugh, especially for a non-American. regards from Spain (but I am not Spanish!)
  2. JimM.
    Oct 30, 2007
    0
    Boring!
  3. ChrisC.
    Nov 10, 2007
    0
    This movie was a preachy suckfest.
  4. GuyM.
    Nov 10, 2007
    4
    I thought it ended too soon. The scenes with Robert Redford were the most appealing to me. Tom Cruises' debut was one scene cut many times and felt like it was filmed just over two days. Was it?
  5. JoshuaR.
    Nov 9, 2007
    0
    Not only is this movie boring but it seems to think that most of its viewers are idiots who can't follow the simpliest of plot lines. If this did not had Robert Redford directing it never would have been made.
  6. BobW.
    Nov 9, 2007
    1
    The worst thing a movie can do when trying to get people involved is be BORING. The media is by nature exciting. What happened to Redford on the way to making a movie. What a waste of talent
  7. MarkS
    Nov 9, 2007
    2
    There are much better movies out there. Save your money and enjoy them, instead.
  8. Jonathan
    Mar 28, 2008
    1
    This was surely the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. Actually, it isn't a movie, it is a long winded political advertisement. Long highblown speeches and every cliche in the book. Pure bollocks.
  9. RichR.
    Apr 30, 2008
    0
    Are you kidding me? Seeing Meryl Streep struggling, and I mean STRUGGLING to act like she is taking Tom Cruise seriously is most painful. She is one of our greatest actors; he is one of the worst. Why are they in the same movie??? And Robert Redford? Poor guy looks like an old woman. This is pure bilge.
  10. [Anonymous]
    Nov 10, 2007
    0
    A lot of talk about nothing in particular. Worthless.
  11. TimM.
    Nov 12, 2007
    1
    Devoid of plot of characterization, but full to brimming with baby boomers getting old and crotchety and wagging their fingers at everyone under 60. Barely a film at all; more like a weekly column in the newsletter of a Santa Barbara retirement home.
  12. MarcMarc
    Nov 14, 2007
    0
    Easily worst film I have seen in several years. All talk, sounding like a 3rd grade debate. Awful arguments from the far right and awful arguments from the far left about Iraq- made me feel both sides were dumb, overbearing and selfrighteous to the extreme. Just awful. A root canal in a theater.
  13. MarkC.
    Nov 17, 2007
    0
    This was so boring a real waste of time, I want my 2 hours back...and Billy S. I don't give a rats behind what Robert Redford thoughts on this war are... I wanted to be entertained not lectured too.
  14. ParksterW.
    Nov 29, 2007
    2
    Aside from the "Do Something" message of Dr. Malley, I found this to be nothing more than an anti-war movie. I pay for entertainment and I get angry when I get someone else's personal messages regarding politics, government, and foreign policy.
  15. LouD.
    Dec 2, 2007
    3
    A film has to have a story in addition to a good cast, good production, etc. There is no story here, but is really a vanity-type production for Robert Redford, who is didactic throughout the film. Skip this.
  16. BetsyM
    Nov 12, 2007
    1
    I would have given this movie a zero, but it was so bad that it was almost entertaining. The preachiness was terrible, and directed at a 3 year old child. In the war scenes, the effects were so awful that I couldn't decide whether the helicopter was real or animated. And wasn't it cute that the rich kid being lectured (stupidly) by Redford was white while the poor kids who I would have given this movie a zero, but it was so bad that it was almost entertaining. The preachiness was terrible, and directed at a 3 year old child. In the war scenes, the effects were so awful that I couldn't decide whether the helicopter was real or animated. And wasn't it cute that the rich kid being lectured (stupidly) by Redford was white while the poor kids who joined the Army were Hispanic and African-American. I really felt bad for Meryl Streep, she is such a good actress but overplayed her part trying to get something, anything, out of it. The close-ups showing her facial expressions (like in acting class - act shocked here) were sad. I don't particularly like Tom Cruise, but in this sorry excuse for a movie, he was better than the others. Collapse
  17. Lefim
    Nov 12, 2007
    0
    Isn't there supposed to be a difference between a movie and a classroom lecture? If a movie is going to have actors and "dialogue," shouldn't it also have a story? Shouldn't it be at least as much fun as a visit to a dentitst?
  18. ScottM.
    Nov 14, 2007
    1
    I didn't know Tom Cruise went by "Charles H". This movie was pure ccrrapp
  19. FrankS.
    Nov 8, 2007
    1
    Thisis the first time this has every happened to me while in the theatre...I FEEL ASLEEP 40 MINS IN!!!
  20. MichaelM
    Nov 9, 2007
    0
    It's worse than simple leftist Hollyweird propaganda... It's enormously brain dead and boring leftist Hollyweird propaganda. This box office disaster couldn't happen to more deserving, self important jerks.
  21. jeffb.
    Nov 11, 2007
    1
    It ended for no reason just when it should have started getting good, I feel as if I have just been robbed, they all should be ashamed of themselves for making such a film. I have seen some bad movies before but never left the theatre feeling like I did. It had all the elements to be one of the geat ones and then they just rolled the credits. No wonder it opened everywhere on the same day It ended for no reason just when it should have started getting good, I feel as if I have just been robbed, they all should be ashamed of themselves for making such a film. I have seen some bad movies before but never left the theatre feeling like I did. It had all the elements to be one of the geat ones and then they just rolled the credits. No wonder it opened everywhere on the same day because as word of mouth spread it would have been a dead duck in a week. This feels like a money grab, big names promising story line, and that is all you get. What a Rip Off. a waste of time and money. A first class sham. Expand
  22. YevgenS.v
    Nov 12, 2007
    0
    Is the choir from Hollywood going to make a movie that is out of tune with the Hollywood/Entertainment elite? Of course not! This film was so predictable: Republicans have evil agendas, they do not care if innocents are hurt, etc. I hate to think what would have happened if Hollywood types like Mr. Redford had been in charge in the 1940s. Hitler would have been seeking only to secure his Is the choir from Hollywood going to make a movie that is out of tune with the Hollywood/Entertainment elite? Of course not! This film was so predictable: Republicans have evil agendas, they do not care if innocents are hurt, etc. I hate to think what would have happened if Hollywood types like Mr. Redford had been in charge in the 1940s. Hitler would have been seeking only to secure his own borders and the French Resistance would've been terrorists. Expand
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 36
  2. Negative: 4 out of 36
  1. Robert 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.
  2. Politicians, 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.
  3. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    40
    Amounts to a giant cry of "Americans, get engaged!" wrapped in a star-heavy discourse that uses a lot of words to say nothing new.