movie review lions for lambs

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, talking in circles.

Now streaming on:

Useful new things to be said about the debacle in Iraq are in very short supply. I'm not sure that's what "Lions for Lambs" intends to demonstrate, but it does, exhaustingly. Essentially, if I have this right, we should never have invaded Iraq, but now that we're there, (1) we can't very well leave, and (2) we can't very well stay, so (3) the answer is, stay while in the process of leaving.

The movie is a talkathon with a certain amount of military action. It could be presented about as well as a radio play. Directed by Robert Redford , it uses an all-star cast which focuses attention away from the dialogue and toward the performances. Since I doubt that's what Redford intended, it doesn't speak well for the screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan . When a third of a movie involves a verbal duel between Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep , what are we supposed to do, not notice who's talking?

The movie follows three storylines, plus flashbacks linking all of them. In Washington, a veteran journalist (Streep) sits down for an exclusive interview with a Republican senator (Cruise) who has presidential ambitions. In Los Angeles, a political science professor (Redford) sits down to discuss the purposes of life with a brilliant but disappointing student ( Andrew Garfield ). And in Afghanistan, two of the professor's former pupils ( Michael Pena and Derek Luke ) are involved in a firefight on a snowy mountain peak.

As it happens, they are involved in the very military strategy that the senator is touting to the journalist. It involves seizing the high ground in Afghanistan earlier in the season than the Taliban can get there, to control mountain passes and therefore prevent Taliban troop movements. The Cruise character presents this as a strategic breakthrough on a level with, I dunno, Nelson's rout of Napoleon.

In Los Angeles, the promising student has just stopped caring, and the talk with his professor is designed to reignite his passion. He should get involved in his nation's politics -- take an interest, take a stand. A flashback sequence shows the two soldiers winning a classroom debate by calling the other side's bluff: They have enlisted in the military.

The movie is anti-Bush's war, I guess. The journalist makes better points than the senator, anyway. What the professor and his student think is hard to say, although they are very articulate in muddying the waters. As for the two enlistees, it is safe to assume that at the end of the film, they are wondering whether their debate strategy was the right one.

There 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?"

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

The Synanon Fix

Brian tallerico.

The People's Joker

Clint worthington.

Unsung Hero

Christy lemire.

Dusk for a Hitman

Robert daniels.

Wicked Little Letters

Sheila o'malley.

Matt Zoller Seitz

Film credits.

Lions for Lambs (2007)

Rated R for some war violence and language

Michael Pena as Ernest Rodriguez

Derek Luke as Arian Finch

Tom Cruise as Sen. Jasper Irving

Andrew Garfield as Todd Hayes

Peter Berg as Lt. Col. Falco

Kevin Dunn as Howard

Robert Redford as Prof. Malley

Meryl Streep as Janine Roth

Directed by

• Robert Redford
• Matthew Michael Carnahan

Latest blog posts

Initially Promising Dark Matter Sinks Under Weight of Prestige TV Bloat

Tomorrow There Will Be Fine Weather: A Preview of NYC's Upcoming Hiroshi Shimizu Retrospective

AMC's Interview with the Vampire Has a Different Flavor in Season Two

Female Filmmakers in Focus: Marija Kavtaradzė on Slow

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Movie Review | 'Lions for Lambs'

Hearts and Minds: Senator Meets Reporter, Selling a New, Improved War

By Manohla Dargis

• Nov. 9, 2007

Career Politicians, the Fourth Estate and Disaffected Youth all earn a stern knuckle rapping in “Lions for Lambs,” Robert Redford’s big-screen lecture about civic responsibility and its absence in the Age of Iraq. Those who remain shocked, shocked that elected officials, certain journalists and cosseted college students sat idly by, huffing Hummer fumes and nodding out on 24/7 infotainment (all Britney, all the time), while the administration led the charge, first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, may find much to embrace here. Everyone else will continue to nod out or resume banging their heads against the wall in bloody frustration.

I suppose there’s something commendable about Mr. Redford fighting the good fight, or at least one civilized version of it. Movie critics often flog directors for not engaging with urgent contemporary matters, like the current wars, but when they do engage, as several have tried to this year (“In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition”), we complain that they’re not saying much of anything. Consider “Lions for Lambs” exhibit R in this open case: It names the wars, presents a handful of fictionalized main players from politicians to soldiers, and drops words like “the people” and “Al Qaeda” and “propaganda.” It flashes photographs of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, if without overtly naming names.

What else do we learn from “Lions for Lambs”? That America is no longer only the land of the free, home of the brave, but also of the opportunistic and the compromised. Among the most conniving, or most true-believing of these new Americans are politicians like Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), a Republican senator with his eye on the White House. Among the most compromised among us, or the most exhausted, or timorous — or something — are journalists like Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), whom Irving has summoned to his office so he can pitch her a shiny new war plan. Mistakes were made, he says, but that was then, this is now. From their framed photographs, President Bush, Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice silently keep watch.

Nothing if not on party message, the senator has taken aim at Iran, which, he tells Roth, is allowing Iraqi terrorists to cross its borders on their way to Afghanistan, where they will fight alongside Al Qaeda. As Roth leans forward, you can almost see the thought bubble above her: Howzthatagain? But Roth is also vain; she’s a journalist, after all, and rubbing shoulders, and who knows what else, with movers and shakers has blunted her senses, clouded her vision. Power is an aphrodisiac, as well as addictive. And power begets power, as Mr. Redford reminds us when he shows Roth looking at a Time magazine cover story she wrote about Irving. She helped make the senator and he did much the same for her in turn.

It’s fun to watch this acting odd couple spar even in such a visually inert context. Mr. Cruise pours on his characteristic intensity and lights up the board with alternating flashes of charm, sincerity, gravity, indignation and outrage. Every mood feels phony, a total put-on, which works well for a character delivering a self-conscious, constructed performance. As his audience of one, Ms. Streep’s journalist must do a lot of listening, which the actress does with one of her vibrant, entertaining, gestural performances. Every twitch, blink, shrug, head bob and seat shift speaks softly at first and then with increasing volume, giving physical form to the inner voice we actually hear only later. Mr. Redford’s camera pays her close, appreciative heed, as do we.

Alas, there’s more — namely two other story threads, the dreariest of which involves yet another two speakers locked in one claustrophobic space: a history professor, Dr. Stephen Malley (Mr. Redford), who has summoned an apathetic student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), into his office for a metaphoric spanking. One of those bright young things who puts the “i” in Generation iPod, Todd has been dodging Malley’s class, opting to turn off and tune out even while agreeing to drop in for morning coffee. It’s not nearly as much fun to watch these two, largely because the screenwriter, Matthew Michael Carnahan, has stacked the deck so much in Malley’s favor you know the end of the conversation as soon as it gets going.

It’s a long conversation, more soporific than Socratic, and brimming with parental chiding, generational conflict and invocations of Vietnam. You see, back in the day, Malley fought in that war after being drafted. He didn’t want to fight, didn’t agree with its aims, but he did nonetheless, which leads to another story fragment and two more of his students: a Latino, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña), and an African-American, Arian Finch (Derek Luke). After absorbing Malley’s lessons about responsibility, Ernest and Arian joined the army. These lion cubs don’t believe the current wars are righteous, but they believe they can effect change from the inside, which is how they land in an Afghan misadventure more unbelievable, both in thematic and visual terms, than Senator Irving’s military strategy.

In truth Ernest and Arian are less lions than sacrificial lambs that exist solely so the film can wave the flag (and race and poverty) along with index fingers. Malley regrets but respects the students’ decision to enlist, which echoes the prevailing wisdom that you should support the troops even if you don’t support the wars. The problem isn’t whether this assertion is true; the problem is the film reflexively embraces it, much as it does every single other cliché, without inquiry, challenge or a single ounce of real risk. It 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.

“Lions for Lambs” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Some bloody combat scenes, gun violence and tough language.

LIONS FOR LAMBS

Opens today nationwide.

Directed by Robert Redford; written by Matthew Michael Carnahan; director of photography, Philippe Rousselot; edited by Joe Hutshing; music by Mark Isham; production designer, Jan Roelfs; produced by Mr. Redford, Mr. Carnahan, Andrew Hauptman and Tracy Falco; released by United Artists/Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Running time: 90 minutes.

WITH: Robert Redford (Prof. Stephen Malley), Meryl Streep (Janine Roth), Tom Cruise (Senator Jasper Irving), Michael Peña (Ernest Rodriguez), Andrew Garfield (Todd Hayes), Peter Berg (Lieutenant Colonel Falco), Kevin Dunn (ANX Editor) and Derek Luke (Arian Finch).

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Lions for lambs, common sense media reviewers.

Intense war thriller offers food for thought.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

To a certain extent, everyone in the film displays

A fair amount of realistic war violence. There are

Language includes "bulls--t" and "damn."

Not too many brands, though many mentions of Repub

Parents need to know that this political drama/thriller is too intense for tweens and younger teens. A frank (and somewhat didactic) examination of the cost of war both at home and on the battlefield, its arguments are both complicated and hard to digest. Plus, there's a fair amount of war violence -- including some…

Positive Messages

To a certain extent, everyone in the film displays curiosity and intellectual rigor, which drives them to seek out answers. A professor makes an impassioned plea for youth to be more interested and involved in society. Two men give up their lives for their country, while back home a jaded journalist redevelops a sense of justice.

Violence & Scariness

A fair amount of realistic war violence. There are battles, and gunshots are fired; during a skirmish, a soldier incurs a nasty compound fracture, which is shown in close-up. Lots of verbal sparring.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

Not too many brands, though many mentions of Republicans and Democrats and newspapers and TV channels.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that this political drama/thriller is too intense for tweens and younger teens. A frank (and somewhat didactic) examination of the cost of war both at home and on the battlefield, its arguments are both complicated and hard to digest. Plus, there's a fair amount of war violence -- including some realistic battle scenes and a nasty wound shown up close -- and some strong violence. But it's not gratuitously bloody, and most of the content is age-appropriate for older high schoolers, who might find plenty to think about based on the discussions between the professor and his student. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (2)
• Kids say (1)

Based on 2 parent reviews

A movie that really makes us think

I luv me sum lammz, what's the story.

Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan and directed by Robert Redford , LIONS FOR LAMBS follows three intertwined storylines that all happen simultaneously. In the first, political science professor Stephen Malley (Redford) attempts to resuscitate social activism in Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), a student who once displayed promise. But Todd is now jaded, nearly convinced that making money is more important than making his country better. Meanwhile, two of Malley's former students, Ernest Rodriguez ( Michael Pena ) and Arian Finch ( Derek Luke ), fight for their lives while stranded in the mountains of Afghanistan, where they're part of a covert military operation. And back in Washington, hawkish, ambitious Senator Jasper Irving ( Tom Cruise ) tries to sell a new-but-dangerous strategy to a cynical reporter, Janine Roth ( Meryl Streep ).

Is It Any Good?

Watching Lions for Lambs feels a lot like taking your medicine: It may be good for you, but it doesn't go down smoothly. In this case, the ailment is the malaise that sets in when a country -- here, the United States -- sends its young men and women to fight a war that goes on indefinitely. The storylines seem like the recipe for a thoughtful, provoking piece of cinema. Which it is, on some levels. The push-pull dynamic between the journalist and the senator is fascinating and, it seems, fairly on the money. But Lions for Lambs is also didactic and dogmatic. Viewers are often told what to think instead of being given the chance to discover the truths the movie aims to convey. Actually, it all feels a lot like a poli-sci lecture, albeit one with great actors.

Cruise is brilliant here, subduing his usual manic tendencies and exhibiting an almost menacing penchant for control that serves his character very well. He goes toe to toe with Streep, who's superb as usual. Of the movie's three sections, Redford's storyline suffers most from inertia. Yes, he holds the camera's gaze, but the conversation between him and his "student" feels curiously dispassionate -- ironic, considering that he's trying to light a fire under the kid. And while it's certainly moving, the soldiers' section is predictable. Too bad you can't say the same thing about resolving war and other conflicts.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the statement the movie is making about war. What messages does it send about the toll that war exacts on both soldiers and those at home? Do politicians consider the personal cost of war? What is the role of diplomacy? And what is society's responsibility in regards to the country's political and social problems? Families can also discuss why war is a theme in so many movies. What about it both fascinates and horrifies us? Can movies (and other media) help make sense of war? Why or why not?

Movie Details

• In theaters : November 8, 2007
• On DVD or streaming : April 7, 2008
• Cast : Meryl Streep , Robert Redford , Tom Cruise
• Director : Robert Redford
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : United Artists
• Genre : Thriller
• Run time : 88 minutes
• MPAA rating : R
• MPAA explanation : some war violence and language.
• Last updated : June 20, 2023

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

A Few Good Men

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• The Fall Guy Link to The Fall Guy
• I Saw the TV Glow Link to I Saw the TV Glow
• The Idea of You Link to The Idea of You

New TV Tonight

• Hacks: Season 3
• The Tattooist of Auschwitz: Season 1
• Shardlake: Season 1
• A Man in Full: Season 1
• The Veil: Season 1
• Star Wars: Tales of the Empire: Season 1
• Acapulco: Season 3
• Welcome to Wrexham: Season 3
• John Mulaney Presents: Everybody's in LA: Season 1
• My Next Guest Needs No Introduction With David Letterman: Season 4.2

Most Popular TV on RT

• Fallout: Season 1
• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• Them: Season 2
• Shōgun: Season 1
• X-Men '97: Season 1
• Under the Bridge: Season 1
• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Hacks: Season 3 Link to Hacks: Season 3
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

100 Essential Criterion Collection Films

100 Best Free Movies on YouTube (May 2024)

Asian-American Pacific Islander Heritage

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

6 TV and Streaming Shows You Should Binge-Watch in May

5 Most Anticipated Movies of May 2024

• Trending on RT
• The Fall Guy
• The Idea of You
• Best Movies of All Time
• Play Movie Trivia

Lions for Lambs Reviews

Strong acting and sharply scripted characters are unable to disguise Redford's opinionated brand of current events, which often teeters dangerously close to Army recruitment.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/10 | Nov 26, 2020

Easily one of Oscar season's more disappointing entries.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.0/4.0 | Sep 14, 2020

Lions for Lambs, hits hard, hits home but doesn't quite hit it out of the park.

Full Review | Nov 14, 2019

A powerfully realized, sharply written think-piece.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/4 | Jun 5, 2019

A film about engagement that fails utterly to engage? This may, in itself, be some kind of achievement, but who gives a stuff. I may now be even less engaged than I've ever been.

Full Review | Aug 23, 2018

Full Review | Original Score: C | Feb 18, 2012

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Nov 18, 2011

Pitched with utter sincerity and rigorously filmed sans complexity, energy, life

Full Review | Aug 27, 2009

Lions for Lambs is movie mutton.

Full Review | Original Score: 1.0/5 | Feb 2, 2009

The film's points are made obvious the first minute and then monotonously drilled ad nauseum the remaining 87.

Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4 | Dec 27, 2008

Slowly, you suffer the creeping realization that nothing is going to happen. Nothing.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/10 | Aug 25, 2008

for the rest of us who think that a piece of cinema should be more than that, Lions for Lambs leaves us feeling empty rather than sparked by the zeitgeist the film attempts to capture.

Full Review | Jul 31, 2008

The absence of activists in the streets protesting the war in Iraq continues to confound; the empty seats at theaters showing Lions for Lambs will be somewhat easier to explain.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | May 1, 2008

Lions for Lambs reminds us of what Hollywood does best, when it wants to.

Full Review | Original Score: B | Apr 26, 2008

It attempts to conquer social, political and military all in the same film, but it doesn't knock any of them out of the park.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/10 | Mar 4, 2008

For all of its good intentions and clear-eyed idealism, Lions for Lambs is not a movie, it is a political science lecture.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/10 | Feb 28, 2008

It doesn't take a genius to know who is going to be sacrificed in this weak morality tale.

Full Review | Original Score: C+ | Jan 21, 2008

Full Review | Original Score: 3/6 | Jan 18, 2008

Redford is to be commended for making a film that dares to navigate the "theater of ideas," despite its flaws.

Full Review | Original Score: B+ | Jan 2, 2008

Less a war drama than a set of dueling position papers.

Full Review | Jan 2, 2008

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

Lions for lambs.

In sober and unemotional fashion, director Robert Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan set out the arguments for and against America's military incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving it for the audience to ponder a response.

By Ray Bennett , The Associated Press October 22, 2007 9:00pm

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter
• Share this article on Flipboard
• Share this article on Email
• Show additional share options
• Share this article on Linkedin
• Share this article on Pinit
• Share this article on Reddit
• Share this article on Tumblr
• Share this article on Whatsapp
• Share this article on Print
• Share this article on Comment

This review was written for the theatrical release of “Lions for Lambs.”  

LONDON — The title of Robert Redford’s “Lions for Lambs” comes from a comment made by a German officer in World War I about the bravery of British soldiers compared to the criminal stupidity of their commanders. The film, which had its world premiere Monday at the London Film Festival, makes clear that Redford feels the same way about the current political leadership of the U.S. and the men and women fighting and dying in the name of their country.

In sober and unemotional fashion, Redford and writer Matthew Michael Carnahan set out the arguments for and against America’s military incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving it for the audience to ponder a response. They leave no doubt, however, where they stand.

Related Stories

Janelle monáe joins universal musical from michel gondry, pharrell williams, live nation cites "strong" demand for concerts as potential doj lawsuit looms.

Boxoffice response to films dealing with the U.S. government’s strategies in the Middle East so far suggests that the public is not eager to grapple with the topic onscreen. Redford’s film will appeal to those who feel that today’s military sacrifices are being made on false premises, but its responsible tone could draw a more widely appreciative audience.

Clocking in at 90 minutes, the film has three settings, two of which involve discussions on the merits of commitment to activism and politics far removed from the field of battle. The third shows two Special Forces volunteers trapped on a snowy mountain in Afghanistan and surrounded by the enemy.

Redford plays Dr. Stephen Malley, a lecturer at an unnamed California university who is attempting to convince a bright but undisciplined student named Todd (Andrew Garfield) that he should apply his talents to help solving the problems of the day.

Meryl Streep is Janine Roth, a veteran television reporter whose skills include taking shorthand and the ability to land an exclusive interview with hotshot Sen. Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). Irving has his eye on the White House, and what he has to reveal is a new strategy that involves sending small Special Forces teams deep into mountainous territory to prevent Sunni and Shia insurgents from uniting.

In fact, that strategy already has been launched. When a Chinook helicopter attempts a landing in a dangerous area, it comes under fire and two soldiers are pitched out into harm’s way. Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena), both from deprived communities but believers in the American dream, are exactly the kind of youngsters that Malley lionizes.

The film cuts back and forth between the three scenarios as the senator tries to convince the reporter that his way is right, the professor does the same with the student and the two grunts try to stay alive.

The debate between the politician and the journalist comes off best as both actors get under the skin of their characters, with Cruise snapping out details with charming efficiency and Streep showing the reporter’s increasing skepticism with typical subtlety.

Pena and Luke are fine in a classroom sequence that reveals their selfless idealism, and they do what’s required in combat scenes made uglier by also being viewed via satellite.

Redford wears his heart on his sleeve in the scenes between the professor and the effortlessly smart kid. Garfield is also fine, but the encounter suffers from being polemical and as a result lacks drama.

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.

LIONS FOR LAMBS MGM/United Artists Wildwood Enterprises, Brat Na Pont, Andell Entertainment Credits: Director: Robert Redford Screenwriter: Matthew Michael Carnahan Producers: Robert Redford, Matthew Michael Carnahan, Andrew Hauptman, Tracy Falco Executive producers: Tom Cruise, Daniel Lupi, Paula Wagner Director of photography: Philippe Rousselot; Production designer: Jan Roelfs Music: Mark Isham Costume designer: Mary Zophres Editor: Joe Hutshing Cast: Dr. Stephen Malley: Robert Redford Janine Roth: Meryl Streep Sen. Jasper Irving: Tom Cruise Wirey Pink: Peter Berg Ernest Rodriguez: Michael Pena Arian Finch: Derek Luke Todd: Andrew Garfield Entourage: Tracy Dali Miss M: Louise Linton Student: Rustee Rutherford Running time — 90 minutes MPAA rating: R

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Far east film festival: mitsuhiro mihara’s family drama ‘takano tofu’ wins top prize, ryan gosling would like to redo ‘la la land’ scene because of his “la la hand” on the movie poster, ‘unfrosted’ review: melissa mccarthy in jerry seinfeld’s lightweight but satisfying pop-tarts origin story, naomi osaka shares her own tennis moves set to ‘challengers’ score, alfred molina fights tears recalling his father rejecting his acting career: “i did disappoint my dad”, ryan gosling on why he doesn’t take on “dark” roles anymore: “family in mind first”.

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

• DVD & Streaming

Lions for Lambs

• Drama , War

Content Caution

In Theaters

• Robert Redford as Dr. Stephen Malley; Meryl Streep as Janine Roth; Tom Cruise as Senator Jasper Irving; Michael Peña as Ernest Rodriguez; Derek Luke as Arian Finch; Andrew Garfield as Todd Hayes

Home Release Date

• Robert Redford

Distributor

Movie review.

Three thousand, five hundred fifty-five soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the war began.

That statistic, delivered by a news reporter’s voice in the opening moments of Lions for Lambs , serves as the thematic focal point for Robert Redford’s first directorial outing in seven years. It’s a dramatic—and didactic—examination of politics and war that interweaves three separate-but-connected stories taking place simultaneously in real time.

Story 1: Senator Jasper Irving is a rising star in the Republican Party. As a West Point grad and former intelligence specialist, he’s the chief architect for a new military strategy intended to give America the upper hand against resurgent Muslim militants in rugged Afghanistan. It’s a plan he’s determined to sell to veteran TV reporter Janine Roth, who cut her journalistic teeth during the Vietnam War. She doesn’t trust a word he says—and, in fact, rebuts most of them. But he’s willing to give her the scoop on the new assault in return for sympathetic coverage. “When does it begin?” she asks. “About 10 minutes ago,” Irving replies after looking at his watch.

Story 2: A helicopter full of Army Special Forces threads its way through the Afghan mountains en route to a tactically crucial 8,000 ft. peak they’re ordered to occupy. But even as Irving tries to dazzle Roth with the glory of small, specialized teams like this one, the copter comes under unexpected attack. One soldier, Ernest Rodriguez falls to the landing zone below. And his best friend, Arian Finch, jumps out to stay with him until rescuers can arrive … and to help him fend off rebels bent on killing them.

Story 3: At the behest of political science professor Dr. Stephen Mallery, a junior named Todd Hayes at “a California university” shows up for a little heart-to-heart about his bad attitude toward the class. When Mallery questions why Hayes has gone from model student to apathetic malcontent, Hayes unleashes a cynical monologue about the sorry state of American politics—and why girls, frat life and video games now mean more to him than his political passion once did. For the next hour, Mallery challenges the lad’s self-absorption, provoking him especially with the unlikely story of two former minority students who were determined to make a difference: Rodriquez and Finch.

Lions for Lambs is built upon election-year-style speeches exchanged between the senator and the reporter, and between the professor and his student—even as Rodriquez’s and Finch’s lives hang in the balance, their willingness to serve their country at times illustrating and at times refuting the very points their countrymen are arguing about back home.

Positive Elements

As they argue for and against the war, both Irving and Roth challenge one another with valid arguments about the possible consequences of each person’s point of view. Back at the office, Roth’s editor leans on her hard to do a straight retelling of the basic information Irving has given her; but she believes there’s more complexity to the story that needs to be reported. Whether or not you agree with her political position, she’s shown to be a person of integrity who resists compromising her personal code of ethics for the sake of giving the government and her employer what they want. It’s implied that she’s willing to risk her job taking this stand rather than compromise her stance to do what’s easy instead of what’s right.

In a similar vein, Dr. Mallery labors to convince a deeply cynical student that he can still make a difference. Hayes is mouthy, profane and convinced that the only thing that matters is personal success because significantly influencing society is impossible. Mallery counters by telling him the story of Rodriguez and Finch: two average, underprivileged students who worked hard for their degrees and eventually decided that the best way to make a difference was to enlist in the Army. Even though Dr. Mallery (a hard-bitten Vietnam vet) doesn’t agree with their decision, he respects the fact that they were willing to take a risk to do what they believed mattered most. In this sense, the film has a strong anti-war message, but it honors those who’ve chosen to serve and sacrifice for their country.

Near the film’s end, Dr. Mallery scolds comfortable Americans for retreating into the safety of their wealth while, as he says, “Rome is burning.” He points out that it’s often those without privilege or influence who choose to take up arms in defense of the nation, and he encourages Hayes to ponder how he might use his gifts to serve his country instead of just serving himself and his own selfish appetites. As Hayes later watches the news of the new military initiative on TV, I inferred that he is considering signing up.

Finally, the courage to make a difference is powerfully illustrated by Rodriguez and Finch, two soldiers who put their lives on the line to defend America. Especially courageous is Finch, who literally jumps out of a helicopter to make sure his comrade isn’t alone in enemy territory. [ Spoiler Warning ] Given the film’s setup, it’s no surprise that Rodriguez and Finch pay the ultimate price in the service of the Stars and Stripes. Their sacrifice and commitment to one another is deeply inspiring.

Spiritual Elements

Sen. Irving says, “As God knows, it breaks my heart to ask our men and women to risk their lives.” He also describes America as “a force of righteousness.”

Sexual Content

As he lists reasons for his cynicism regarding contemporary politics, Hayes refers to politicians receiving “oral sex under the table” from congressional pages.

Violent Content

Rodriguez and Finch suffer badly broken legs and fingers (we glimpse the bone and blood of Rodriguez’s compound leg fracture) after their helicopter is attacked, and the two soldiers’ faces are bloodied as well. The snow around each of them is visibly red. As they await rescue, they are attacked again. The Americans shoot several enemy combatants. A number of others are destroyed by precision bombing runs. (We see the explosions, but not the bodies.) [ Spoiler Warning ] Determined to die bravely, the two men help each other stand up before they’re finally gunned down.

Crude or Profane Language

Language is the primary reason for this film’s R rating. The s-word gets used the most frequently, around 20 times. Characters utter the f-word about 10 times (including one paired with “mother”), and take Jesus’ or God’s names in vain about a dozen times (including four uses of “g–d–n”). About a half-dozen milder vulgarities are used as well, and a middle finger is raised.

Drug and Alcohol Content

Mallery, Rodriquez and Finch are shown drinking beer at a restaurant. A debate between students in the professor’s class focuses on whether it’s right or wrong for a community clinic to provide clean needles for drug addicts.

Here’s the thing about Lions for Lambs : There’s a lot of talking. Irving and Roth spar from beginning to end. Irving is depicted as a true believer for whom retreat and defeat are unthinkable; Roth’s challenges to party-line politics are equally sharp. Both characters are drawn as slightly exaggerated caricatures of conservative and liberal stereotypes as they express arguments for and against the war—arguments that will sound wearily familiar to anyone who’s watched Meet the Press , Hardball or The O’Reilly Factor more than once in the last half-decade. Likewise, Mallery and Hayes go round and round until Hayes begins to see that maybe his professor has a point.

At times, I found myself pondering this person’s argument, then the other person’s. But as the film wore on, even though it has some genuinely positive themes, it just grew increasingly tiresome. The conversations kept lapsing into sermon-like speeches, making preachy the word that best captures the film’s lawyer-like tone.

Of course, anyone familiar with director Robert Redford’s strident criticism of the war effort won’t be surprised to hear that his film takes the current administration’s defense of the war to task—even as his character also chastises rich, lazy and apathetic Americans for ignoring the noble sacrifices made by men and women in uniform who are often much less well off.

It’s worth noting that Lions ‘ screenwriter penned this year’s The Kingdom as well. Variety reviewer Derek Elley says of that connection, “ Lions for Lambs plays like all the serious footnotes scripter du jour Matthew Michael Carnahan left out of The Kingdom .” Anthony Lane of The New Yorker adds, “How can you explore the policy debate over Afghanistan, say, without having your movie sound like a policy debate? To judge by Lions for Lambs , the answer is: You can’t.”

Adam R. Holz

After serving as an associate editor at NavPress’ Discipleship Journal and consulting editor for Current Thoughts and Trends, Adam now oversees the editing and publishing of Plugged In’s reviews as the site’s director. He and his wife, Jennifer, have three children. In their free time, the Holzes enjoy playing games, a variety of musical instruments, swimming and … watching movies.

Latest Reviews

The Fall Guy

The Idea of You

We Grown Now

The Long Game

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

Lions For Lambs Review

09 Nov 2007

NaN minutes

Lions For Lambs

Robert Redford’s rep as a Hollywood liberal may sink this film, right out of the gate. Sight unseen, US pundits are accusing it of an anti-Bush bias, and with audiences avoiding Iraq and Afghanistan films in droves, a movie that not only discusses the War On Terror but does very little else is never going to beat Titanic at the box office. But this is more balanced than pre-reviews would have you believe, and more about asking questions than offering trite answers.

The three-stranded plot is simple. A senator (Tom Cruise) announces a new war strategy for Afghanistan to a veteran reporter (Meryl Streep). Two soldiers (Michael Peña and Derek Luke) implement those new orders and land in serious peril. And a professor of political science (Robert Redford) tries to motivate a young student (Andrew Garfield) to engage in classes. Two thirds of the film, therefore, is pure talk - Redford’s professor barely stirs from his chair; Streep’s reporter and Cruise’s Senator Jasper Irving have a sit-down interview. Even the soldiers are pinned in one spot. It could almost be a stage play.

But Michael Matthew Carnahan’s script and Redford’s assured direction have the smarts to make the static seem kinetic. The back-and-forth between Cruise and Streep, in particular, is electric; this will, if there’s any justice, see Cruise finally win an Oscar. Perhaps spurred on by working opposite the screen’s most accomplished actress, the world’s biggest star is on Magnolia form, bringing that almost creepy charisma to bear as a highly influential senator.

There is a clear critique of modern politics - Cruise makes assertions on a par with Blair’s 45-minute claim without offering proof, vaguely acknowledges past mistakes while repeating them, and displays fury at the adversaries who refuse to play by his rules. But Streep’s character isn’t blameless either, compromised by the media’s early cheerleading for the Iraq War and her inability to effectively question the party line.

More surprising is how well newcomer Andrew Garfield matches Redford, the novice convincing as a feckless student whose surfer dude mannerisms conceal a keen mind. Redford’s don, worn down but not out by apathetic students, tries to galvanise Garfield’s Todd into action by telling him about soldiers Ernest and Arian, now serving in Afghanistan.

If there’s any part of the film that’s unbalanced, it’s the portrayal of these two paragons - hard-working scholarship boys who go off to war because they want to do good. There’s been a tendency in recent years to lionise the common soldier which, while properly laying the blame on the political management, risks offering an unrealistic look at the experience of war: it’s hard to imagine Platoon, say, being made in the current climate. But Peña and Luke bring enough chemistry to their roles to add an emotional edge while avoiding being mere ciphers. Ultimately, they are scared kids lost in a foreign country, a reminder of the human life put at risk by high ideals and political mistakes. The moral seems to be that, whichever side of the political divide you’re on, you owe it to people like these to make the right choices.

Related Articles

Movies | 12 11 2007

Movies | 09 07 2007

Movies | 21 02 2007

Movies | 18 01 2007

Movies | 15 11 2006

• Become a Critical Movie Critic
• Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: Lions for Lambs (2007)

• General Disdain
• Movie Reviews
• 6 responses
• --> November 11, 2007

I went into seeing Lions for Lambs ready for a hearty dose of left-wing propaganda. Statements like “George W. Bush is a terrible president”, “we must find an exit strategy in Iraq since the war is going so poorly” and “the entire Republican party is a bunch of crooks and miscreants” were swirling through my head. What I wasn’t ready for was the story to told in such an unexpected manner (the trailers were a bit misleading).

Lions for Lambs is an intertwined tale of three equally compelling story lines. In one, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) is verbally sparring with a reporter, Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). He’s a polished Republican with firm convictions on how the world should be shaped and how the United States must shape it. To meet his goal of world order, he has architected a new plan of attack on the war on terror, starting with a renewed offensive in Afghanistan. She is a weathered reporter who refuses to eat his talking points. Both characters stand strong in their beliefs and as one might expect, Roth’s anti-Bush stance carries more weight than the stay the course rhetoric being mouthed by Irving.

In another thread, university professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) is challenging Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), a student who has lost his focus on school, to get reinvigorated in his studies. But that’s not the only reason to he’s speaking to him. Malley is trying to court Hayes into becoming a political activist and to pick a side for the battle of America. They counter back and forth without, unfortunately, coming to any real conclusions. The problem with this part, was instead of making me critically think about the political climate of the country (as the movie wants you to do), I simply shut their banter out of my head. Personally, I can’t stand listening to haughty individuals rationalize and try to one-up each other. Those types of people can all piss up a rope as far as I’m concerned.

And in the final path, two of Malley’s former students, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban in Irving’s masterminded offensive. Things aren’t going well for them – the intelligence reports are once again fouled – and both solders find themselves stranded in very hostile territory. Their commander Lt. Col. Falco (Peter Berg) is deeply troubled by the situation and tries everything in his power to rescue them. The abandoned men, while waiting for help, take the time to remember how they got in this situation and ultimately realize that they’ve got to rely on their own abilities if they are to survive. You can’t count on the government for anything. And while this was meant as a way to tie together the pieces of the movie into a nice bundle, it all seemed strangely staged. More displeasing to me was the use of this segment as a launching pad to find fault with our military.

Obviously, from a conservative standpoint, I would have liked to see more equal representation for the right. Irving tries to make his case, but writer Matthew Michael Carnahan, ends up making him into a war monger. I especially liked the added touch of having a plaque on his wall that read: If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness. However, Lions for Lambs does raise a few thought provoking questions while reiterating the tried and true Bush bashing that we’ve been privy to for the past few years. No matter the agenda, it’s worth a view and a subsequent talk around the water cooler at the job. I’m sure that’s music to the ears of the political forces that helped shape and release this movie.

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.

Movie Review: Ghosted (2023) Movie Review: Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) Movie Review: Fantasy Island (2020) Movie Review: Snatched (2017) Movie Review: Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) Movie Review: ABCs of Death 2 (2014) Movie Review: Life After Beth (2014)

'Movie Review: Lions for Lambs (2007)' have 6 comments

November 11, 2007 @ 7:06 pm mullah cimoc

mullah cimoc say ameriki need google: mighty wurltizer +cia

then to asking why usa control media try to suppress attendance of anti war movie. A: so the other creator persons not to make the anti war movie too.

this all part of mighty wurlitzer operation. now so sad to see ameriki, him woman the lesbian hate the man, him daughter the slut take the LBT (low back tattoo)and him son the gay homosexual of aid sick.

Log in to Reply

November 14, 2007 @ 4:23 pm blogcabins

Interesting comment above mine. Anyway…

Though I’m totally biased as well (naturally), I saw this less as a left vs. right “you suck/no you do” diatribe than as a call to action by Redford for the silent masses (us) to do something, anything, when we’re pissed about what’s going on and/or want to contribute to society.

In that regard, I saw it as a powerful, important film, no matter how lacking it was in plot or character or objectivity.

November 14, 2007 @ 11:19 pm General Disdain

Very interesting post, mullah cimoc. I get the distinct feeling you’re not so happy with American foreign policy . . .

November 16, 2007 @ 9:02 pm Heath

Aside from the field scenes, this movie could have been adapted for the radio. It was so monotonous and boring, I nearly fell asleep. Not a good comeback for Cruise.

November 26, 2007 @ 8:52 am gracchi

I disagree with one of your earlier commenters- I think Tom Cruise was actually very good in this. However I do think the film failed and for similar reasons to you, the ultimate issue with the film was that the other two segments weren’t as good as the Cruise streep bits. That’s a pity. It would have been better had it been all Cruise Streep and you are right had that been done with more complexity- a sort of political version of Interview.

March 20, 2008 @ 10:09 am RRRRyan

I’ll just say BAD. Tom Cruise’s character was a ridiculous caricature while Streep’s was virtually omniscient. I actually hadn’t checked who the screenwriter was but I had guessed Streep had written herself in as the queen of wisdom in this propaganda. If Cruise accurately represents the liberal perspective on conservatives it is no wonder so many are so angry. I, on the other hand, am quite proud to be an American.

Privacy Policy | About Us

 |  Log in

The Movie Review: 'Lions for Lambs'

A promising but junior GOP Senator ( not the president) is announcing the nation's bold new military strategy in the war on terrorism. He does so in an exclusive interview with a reporter ( not in a televised address or press conference). And the reporter to whom he grants the interview is ideologically hostile to him ( not a useful propagandist). We're a few scant minutes into Lions for Lambs and already it's offered up more inanity than any politically "serious" movie should ever contemplate.

It is, of course, only just getting started. The interview itself, between Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and TV reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) isn't really an interview at all, but rather a debate between the former's pious warmongering and the latter's jaded skepticism. The problem is that the arguments made by both sides are consistently idiotic. Given that the target audience of the film is educated Americans, anyone likely to see it is also likely to see through it. I don't believe I was the only one in the theater to shudder slightly when Irving tells Roth that he can talk to her until eleven o'clock and she replies enthusiastically "The whole hour?" (Don't worry: In reality, the Irving-Roth jawfest takes up a mere thirty minutes or so of screen time.)

The senator tells Roth that the U.S. government, which he seems somehow to be running, is responding to an incursion of Sunni militants from Iraq into Afghanistan via Iran (and no, the film doesn't explain why militants leaving Iraq is a bad thing) by putting a number of small combat units into Afghanistan to root them out. Irving's case for the new mission consists mostly of stereotypical pro-war blather about "getting it right" and "fighting to win." What's odd is that Roth's anti-war case, which the film is intended to promote, is even less persuasive, consisting of simple-minded sloganeering--"So, it's basically kill people to help people"--and a point-scoring obsession with recounting past mistakes: "Why did it take us three years to armor up our Humvees?" "Didn't we also arm Saddam in the 1980s?" "It really reminds me of Abrams in '68."

As a break from the astonishing cinematic inertia of Cruise and Streep yakking, Lions for Lambs intercuts their debate with ... another scene of people arguing back and forth across a desk. Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford, who also directed) has summoned a student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), into his office. Todd, you see, is an immensely gifted kid, but Malley thinks that he's not applying himself enough in school, that he needs to be more engaged with the world. The resulting lecture seems designed primarily to make us yearn to switch back to the Cruise-Streep Model Congress, and it very nearly succeeds. Suffice it to say that the former bears as close a resemblance to real-life academia as the latter does to real-life journalism.

There's another storyline as well in which-- mirabile dictu! --the participants actually get out of their chairs, though the filmmakers demonstrate their political integrity by giving it the least screen time of the three. Two former students of Malley's, Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke), took his mandate to engage with the world at face value and, to his distress, enlisted in the Army. The two are (of course) part of the new Afghanistan offensive, which (of course) goes badly for them, leaving the pair stranded alone in the snowy Afghan mountains, waiting for the arrival of Army rescuers or bloodthirsty militants, whichever come first.

Unfortunately, Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan don't quite know what to think of poor Ernest and Arian. On the one hand, they radically overvalue the young soldiers, implicitly arguing that if these two G.I.s die it will mean the entire new strategy in Afghanistan is a failure. (The filmmakers don't offer any other evidence that this is, in fact, the case.) On the other hand, there's something more than a tad condescending about the symbolic victimhood of these two men, one Hispanic and one black, and neither considered quite important enough to be played by a star remotely comparable to Streep or Redford or Cruise. They're not exactly the Likeable Minority Cop Partner With A Beautiful Family Who's Set To Retire In A Week, but they're not far off.

But Lions for Lambs is not merely a silly, shallow movie about the war: Its ambitions are broader and more scattered. Not content to stay focused on its central issue, it dabbles and babbles hither and yon, tossing off sophomore term-paper opinions on such topics as Americorps, consumerism, student loans, and corporate ownership of the media.

Late in the movie, Roth, fresh from her interview, has an anguished discussion with her editor. Should they run the story the senator has given them? Did their early, credulous reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war make them just as culpable as its planners? Should they have quit their jobs when their network was bought by a soap company in the 1990s? Have they (gasp) sold out?

It's an odd, awkward scene, and I confess that it wasn't until this point that it struck me that, on a certain level, Lions to Lambs isn't really about the war on terrorism at all; it's about the boomers. The movie's backward focus, its lectures on peripheral issues, even the inclusion of the otherwise unnecessary professor-student storyline, are all hints that this may be less a political document than a cultural one.

When Roth complains to her editor that the government hawks are engaged in "Vietnam-era thinking," it rings truer as a self-critique; she is, after all, the one who keeps bringing up Vietnam and the 1960s. Indeed, if you tug on the emotional threads of the film, they all lead straight back to that crucible of generational consciousness: the fiftysomething journalists worry that they've been co-opted by the system that they started out fighting against; the liberal professor is disappointed that his students lack the passion and fervor of his own youth. It's on this last point that Redford is at his most patronizing. When, repeatedly, the film criticizes today's kids for being more interested in making money than in making a difference, one is tempted to reply: Yes, Mr. Redford, what a lucky thing it is for all of us that when you were young you eschewed fame and fortune.

The screening of the film I attended also hosted a sizable contingent of students from American University, who came with their professor. It seemed apt. Lions for Lambs is a movie no one should bother seeing unless they're getting credit for it.

This post originally appeared at TNR.com.

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

Lions for Lambs

• Injuries sustained by two Army rangers behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor.
• Three stories told simultaneous in ninety minutes of real time: a Republican Senator who's a presidential hopeful gives an hour-long interview to a skeptical television reporter, detailing a strategy for victory in Afghanistan; two special forces ambushed on an Afghani ridge await rescue as Taliban forces close in; a poli-sci professor at a California college invites a promising student to re-engage. Decisions press upon the reporter, the student, and the soldiers. — <[email protected]>
• The American government is taking a beating in the public opinion polls for losing the war on terror, despite the President earlier having made the statement that that war had been won, and for its earlier decisions to wage war on Iraq based on "faulty" intelligence while almost totally disregarding the upsurge of an enemy regime in Afghanistan. Reporter Janine Roth, who works for an organization which used to be a true news organization but that was bought out by corporate interests whose financial bottom line is paramount, is planning on using this premise as the core of her upcoming hour long exclusive interview with Republican Senator and Presidential hopeful Jasper Irving. Irving convinces Roth to change the focus of her story to one of breaking news: that the government is taking a new offensive in Afghanistan based on enemy regimes in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan banding together against American forces. This strategy is of Irving's design, as is the want to have Roth be his pro-strategy conduit to the American public. As Roth conducts her interview with Irving, which is more of a debate on the issues, the offensive to which Irving refers has just begun. Two American soldiers, Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch, who were friends in university before their enlistment, are caught in a precarious and tenuous situation concerning this offensive. Meanwhile, political science professor Dr. Stephen Malley, who used to teach Rodriguez and Finch, is having an early morning meeting with one of his current students, Todd Hayes. Hayes is a naturally bright student, but has fallen into a state of political social apathy as witnessed by his class attendance record. Malley, using Rodriguez and Finch's situation in his class and following their tenure as students, tries to convince Hayes that he should do something meaningful with his life. — Huggo
• Lions for Lambs begins after two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian and Ernest, follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley, and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged but disaffected student who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. the charismatic Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving, is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist that may affect Arian and Ernest's fates. — Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
• Two determined students at a West Coast University, Arian and Ernest, follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley, and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to join the battle in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. Now, as Arian and Ernest fight for survival in the field, they become the string that binds together two disparate stories on opposite sides of America. In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach a privileged but disaffected student, who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C. the charismatic Presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving, is about to give a bombshell story to a probing TV journalist that may affect Arian and Ernest's fates. As arguments, memories and bullets fly, the three stories are woven ever more tightly together, revealing how each of these Americans has a profound impact on each other--and the world.

Contribute to this page

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More from this title

More to explore.

Recently viewed

Lions for Lambs (United States, 2007)

Lions for Lambs is one of those movies in which the principals talk a lot but don't say much. The film is built not upon characters and plot but upon ideas. That would be fine if the ideas were revolutionary or interesting, but they're fairly commonplace. At its heart, this is an anti-war movie but, unlike other films existing in this growing genre, it doesn't pretend that the current situation is a series of black-and-white discrete instances. It acknowledges the grays. The problem is, aside from some okay performances by high-profile talent, there's nothing worth watching going on here. It's surprising that a director of Robert Redford's undeniable skill has made such a bland and somnambulant motion picture.

The movie follows three plot lines that have hooks into one another. In the first, injured soldiers Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) are caught in a firefight in the mountains of Afghanistan. Cut off from their unit, they are trapped in the icy wasteland with snow falling and the enemy closing in. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., the architect of the "new strategy" that has placed Rodriguez and Finch in their dire situation, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), is engaged in a one-on-one sitdown with journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). His goal is to use her to sell the plan and she's feeling cheaper than a two-bit whore. Finally, at a California university, Professor Stephen Malley (Redford), who counted Rodriguez and Finch among his most gifted students last year, is arguing life and responsibility with his latest "fine young mind": the cynical and unmotivated Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). So Cruise and Streep talk, Redford and Garfield argue, and Pena and Luke lie in the freezing snow trying not to get shot by the Taliban.

A movie like Lions for Lambs needs to do at least one of two things: get us to care about the characters or give us enough intellectually stimulating material that our identification with them is not necessary. It does neither. One wonders whether Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also penned The Kingdom ) thought they were making some telling points. But their "revelations," such as the mass media's collusion with the political establishment in selling the invasion of Iraq, are neither groundbreaking nor compelling.

The acting is fine, although there are no performances here that will shout out for Oscar nominations. Tom Cruise exudes charisma as a preacher of Republican pro-war slogans. The key here is that the character really believes what he's selling and that makes him a passionate spokesperson. Streep reaches into her bag of characters and pulls out a mousey one who would fit in nicely with all those middle-aged women who are on a first-name basis with the President at his press conferences. Robert Redford, the third member of the high profile trio, appears to be playing someone who's not all that different from the actor/director - a low-key liberal professor. I'm not convinced there's a lot of acting needed for this part.

The longer the movie runs (fortunately, it's shorter than the average Redford film or no one would be awake at the end), the more it seems that Lions for Lambs is trying to baffle us with b.s. One has to applaud the actors' ability to memorize lines, because there are a lot of them. The Afghanistan war sequences, which are intended to inject life into the otherwise wordy proceedings, are presented in such a lackluster manner that they seem more like filler than a crucial leg of the plot's tripod. Redford has never shown himself to be adept at action sequences, and this deficiency is evident here.

Maybe the problem with Lions for Lambs is that it's behind the curve. Perhaps three years ago, it might have seemed fresh and interesting, but information has come out and opposition to the war has grown. Now, the movie seems like it's re-hashing familiar territory rather than plowing new ground. Redford is known to be a slow, deliberate worker (his last movie as a director was seven years ago). In this instance, that trait may have hurt him. In many ways, Lions for Lambs may have more going for it than any of this era's crop of anti-war films but it ultimately fares no better than the least of them. Its pitfalls may be different but the result is the same: it's not entertaining, educational, or effective.

Comments Add Comment

• Cider House Rules, The (1999)
• Citizen Kane (1941)
• War Zone, The (1999)
• Hole in My Heart, A (2005)
• Neon Demon, The (2016)
• Showgirls (1995)
• Minority Report (2002)
• Jerry Maguire (1996)
• Last Samurai, The (2003)
• Firm, The (1993)
• Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)
• Mummy, The (2017)
• Doubt (2008)
• Sophie's Choice (1982)
• Manhattan (1979)
• Rendition (2007)
• Ant Bully, The (2006)
• Music of the Heart (1999)
• Horse Whisperer, The (1998)
• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
• Natural, The (1984)
• Walk in the Woods, A (2015)
• Old Man & the Gun, The (2018)
• (There are no more worst movies of Robert Redford)

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Lions for Lambs

P ure fence-sitting liberal agony is all that's on offer here, in a muddled and pompous film about America's war on terror, which seeks to counter neo-con belligerence with a mixture of injured sensitivity and a shrill, pre-emptive patriotism of its own. In fact, it gives liberalism such a bad name that on leaving the cinema, I felt like going out and getting a nude study of Norman Podhoretz tattooed on my inner thigh. How incredible that something as shallow and badly acted as this could be presented as a serious, even Oscar-worthy picture from Hollywood's finest.

Like many other films on this subject, it is in the ensemble-mosaic genre (Rendition, A Mighty Heart, Syriana), tensely intercutting between various scenes in various parts of the world, but here on a relatively unambitious scale, and with no characters from the Islamic world. Robert Redford directs, and plays a Californian political science professor, giving a gentle dressing-down to a student, Todd (Andrew Garfield), who has let his grades and his idealism slide.

Meanwhile, another earnestly talky, school-debate scene is unfolding in Washington DC. Tom Cruise plays the ambitious Republican senator Jasper Irving, who has deigned to give an interview to liberal TV journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep); he bullishly defends the WoT, yet graciously admits to "mistakes", and seductively offers Janine a top-secret exclusive on the government's latest plan to wrest back the initiative. And on the frozen and windswept field of battle in Afghanistan, we see two US special forces soldiers, Ernest (Michael Peña) and Arian (Derek Luke) encounter a desperate situation - and we learn how their fates are bound up with those of the other characters.

Until seeing this, I thought that the most condescending and toe-curling liberal response to 9/11 was the notorious special edition of TV's The West Wing, in which the characters self-importantly addressed a visiting group of schoolchildren on all the attendant issues - and effectively talked down to the audience in the same way. But Lions for Lambs is far worse: dull, inert, schoolteacherly, desperately self-conscious in its exposition of the issues - and with hogwhimperingly bad performances. Golden-haired Robert Redford, 71 years young, looks like some kind of animatronic model made out of wood, and whingey, snuffly Meryl Streep is supremely annoying. Tom Cruise , however, does deliver something like the right combination of sinister ideological commitment and flesh-pressing charm.

What is so infuriating is that Meryl Streep is playing a journalist - a journalist who apparently believes that the only respectable response to the Bush administration is impotent misery and career suicide. How indescribably pathetic of her. There were a dozen ways she could have got a critical story on the air, even on her cautious and conservative TV station. But this, perhaps, might mean Janine being exposed to criticism herself. The ending in Afghanistan has its own strange and unintentional gutlessness. The movie's title, incidentally, is taken from the apocryphal remark about first world war soldiers being incomparably finer than their incompetent commanding officers. According to Matthew Michael Carnahan's script, the phrase is "Lions led by lambs". The phrase is lions led by donkeys, surely? Donkeys are very much in charge here.

• Robert Redford
• Meryl Streep

Most viewed

Screen Rant

Mufasa's lion king prequel story will make you root for the wrong character.

Mufasa: The Lion King follows the origin story of Simba’s beloved father, Mufasa, but the prequel will also shed light on a previously bad character.

• Disney's upcoming film, Mufasa: The Lion King, will delve into the backstory of Mufasa and his complex relationship with his brother Scar.
• The prequel reveals that Scar, known as Taka, may have been justified in his hatred towards Mufasa for taking the throne from him.
• Scar's Swahili name, Taka, meaning "garbage," sheds light on his tragic upbringing and struggle for acceptance in Mufasa: The Lion King.

Disney is releasing a prequel to its 2019 live-action movie, The Lion King, and now that a teaser trailer has been released, audiences are getting more clarity about what Mufasa: The Lion King is really about, and in particular, which characters it is truly rooting for. Mufasa: The Lion King is a live-action film following the origin story of the King of the Pride Lands, Mufasa. Although Mufasa was notably and tragically killed in the original The Lion King, this new film will explore his youth, alongside his brother Scar. The 2019 Lion King cast will return.

While Disney's 1994 The Lion King was very clearly an adaptation of Shakespeare's Hamlet, there is no telling where Mufasa: The Lion King will go. Based on the teaser trailer, it seems that this prequel movie will not be an adaptation of anything, Shakespeare or otherwise, and in fact, it will be a completely original story . Audiences will finally get a peek at Mufasa's childhood, and how he became the king. However, Mufasa: The Lion King may not be as straightforward as that . It seems that along with Mufasa's backstory update , viewers will learn more about another character as well.

Mufasa Timeline: How Long Before The Lion King Does It Take Place?

Mufasa's lion king prequel story will make you feel sorry for scar, scar may be justified.

According to the teaser for Mufasa: The Lion King, audiences will not only learn more about Mufasa's origin story, but they will also see more of his brother Scar as well, whose name in this prequel film is Taka. Though the two start out as brothers with a good relationship, Mufasa: The Lion King will see the downfall of their bond. And, believe it or not, Scar may actually be justified in his hatred for Mufasa.

It seems that Mufasa takes the role of king out from under Scar despite having no blood claim to the throne.

This revelation seriously turns the tables on everything audiences thought they knew about The Lion King. In the original film, both in 1994 and 2019, Scar was undeniably the villain of the story, manipulating Mufasa and Simba in order to steal the throne. However, Mufasa: The Lion King reveals that Mufasa may have done something similar to Scar long before he became a villain . In this way, Scar will have a much different story in the prequel movie, to the point where he may even be a likable character and in the right.

The True Meaning Behind Scar's Real Name Will Make You Like Him Even More

Taka means garbage or waste.

Scar's new name in Mufasa: The Lion King is an even bigger sign of his newfound role. In the prequel, Scar is known as Taka , and in Swahili, Taka translates to "garbage." This hints that, since birth, Scar has been unloved by those who raised him. Therefore, it makes sense that he would eventually become evil. If anything, Scar's new name brands him as an underdog. Though everyone hates him, Scar wants to prove that he can do the job he was born to do. Unfortunately, Mufasa: The Lion King will see these hopes battered by Mufasa himself.

Young Scar is voiced by Kelvin Harrison Jr. in Mufasa: The Lion King.

Mufasa: The Lion King

‘Mufasa: The Lion King’ Trailer: Disney Prequel Follows Young Mufasa and Scar as Blue Ivy Carter Joins Voice Cast

Disney has released the first trailer for “ Mufasa: The Lion King ,” a prequel to the 2019 photorealistic remake of “ The Lion King ,” and revealed that Blue Ivy Carter has joined the voice cast.

From “Moonlight” director Barry Jenkins, “Mufasa” will explore the titular lion’s origin story, depicting his childhood with his brother Taka aka Scar, who becomes the main antagonist in “The Lion King.” Aaron Pierre and Kelvin Harrison Jr. will voice the younger versions of Mufasa and Scar, respectively. James Earl Jones voiced Mufasa in both the 1994 original film and 2019 remake. Jeremy Irons voiced Scar in 1994, while Chiwetel Ejiofor took over in 2019.

Popular on Variety

It was also revealed that Lin-Manuel Miranda is penning the film’s songs, produced by himself and Mark Mancina, with additional music and performances by Lebo M.

“Elton John. Tim Rice. Hans Zimmer. Lebo M. Mark Mancina. Beyoncé, Labrinth, Ilya Salmanzadeh. Beau Black, Ford Riley, the incredible music team on ‘The Lion Guard,’ and so many musical contributors over the years. ‘The Lion King’ has an incredible musical legacy with music from some of the greatest songwriters around, and I’m humbled and proud to be a part of it,” Miranda said in a statement. “It’s been a joy working alongside Barry Jenkins to bring Mufasa’s story to life, and we can’t wait for audiences to experience this film in theaters.”

New cast members include Tiffany Boone as Sarabi; Kagiso Lediga as Young Rafiki; Preston Nyman as Zazu; Mads Mikkelsen as Kiros, a formidable lion with big plans for his pride; Thandiwe Newton as Taka’s mother, Eshe; Lennie James as Taka’s father, Obasi; Anika Noni Rose as Mufasa’s mother, Afia; and Keith David as Mufasa’s father, Masego.

Considered one of Disney’s most successful properties, the original 1994 “Lion King” grossed $960 million worldwide, with the 2019 version grossing $1.6 billion at the global box office. The remake was also named one of Variety’s Critic’s Picks in 2019. In his review, chief film critic Peter Debruge wrote , “If you were never a fan of ‘The Lion King,’ then nothing here will win you over. On the other hand, for those too young ever to have seen it, this could be a life-changing experience, one that strives to create a kind of understanding between audiences and the animal kingdom that Disney once made a regular part of its mission, back in the era of films such as ‘The Legend of Lobo’ and ‘The Incredible Journey.'”

Watch the full trailer for “Mufasa: The Lion King” below. The film will premiere in theaters Dec. 20.

More From Our Brands

Hear king princess cover steely dan’s ‘dirty work’, meet the ferrari 12cilindri, the new 819 hp gt with a roaring v-12, jessi miley-dyer named world surf league commissioner, be tough on dirt but gentle on your body with the best soaps for sensitive skin, young sheldon’s georgie and mandy spinoff gets a surprising title — will new show undo big bang lore, verify it's you, please log in.