Lions for Lambs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
You can assist by editing it now. A how-to guide is available. (November 2007)
Lions for Lambs

Lions for Lambs poster
Directed by Robert Redford
Produced by Robert Redford
Matthew Michael Carnahan
Tracy Falco
Andrew Hauptman
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan
Starring Robert Redford
Meryl Streep
Tom Cruise
Music by Mark Isham
Cinematography Philippe Rousselot
Editing by Joe Hutshing
Distributed by MGM/United Artists
Release date(s) Hongkong:
November 8, 2007
United States:
November 9, 2007
Running time 88 minutes
Country United States
Language English
Budget USD$35 million[1]
Allmovie profile
IMDb profile

Lions for Lambs is a 2007 film about 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.

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. 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.

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]

Contents

[edit] 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 enlist in the US Army to join the war in Afghanistan.

Dr. Malley also attempts to reach privileged but disaffected student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) who is not at all like Arian and Ernest. He is bright but not working very hard, devoting most of his time to his girlfriend and to his role as president of his fraternity. Malley puts him to the test by offering him a respectable grade of B without doing any work to earn it.

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. It is to use 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 of the plan's soundness.

Roth has her doubts and does not wish to become an instrument of government propaganda. Ultimately she quits her job. She drives by a military cemetery and breaks into tears. However, her commercial-minded boss is happy to go with the story.

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 low on ammunition. Rather than die lying down, Arian helps Ernest stand up, facing the enemies and turning their empty weapons against them. A rescue helicopter arrives moments too late.

Hayes is 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.

[edit] Selected cast

Actor Role
Robert Redford Dr. Stephen Malley, professor
Andrew Garfield Todd Hayes, student
Tom Cruise Senator Jasper Irving
Meryl Streep Janine Roth, journalist
Peter Berg Lt. Col. Falco
Michael Peña Ernest Rodriguez, student and soldier
Derek Luke Arian Finch, student and soldier

[edit] Production

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.[3] While several reviewers in the UK have criticized the film for misquoting the commonly used phrase of "lions led by donkeys",[4][5][6] 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.'[7]

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."[8] Filming began on January 29, 2007.[9]

[edit] Promotion

Lions for Lambs is the first film under Cruise's and Wagner's new venture with film studio United Artists.[10] MSNBC reported that Cruise was worried about how the film would perform, because of how the film industry will view him based on its success or failure at the box office.[10] During promotion of the film, Cruise invited representatives from the Church of Scientology to a private screening.[11] Streep and Redford were also in attendance at the private screening in New York City, but their guests were mostly friends and family.[11] Cruise's guests at the screening included Rev. John Carmichael and Lori Alpers, president of the New York chapter of the Church of Scientology.[11] All of the Scientologists at the screening wore identifying gold pins in their lapels.[11] 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.[12] 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."[12] However, a supporter of the film countered: "That’s mean. They’re great friends. Just look at their interview on 'Good Morning America.'"[12] 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.[11]

[edit] Critical reception

Lions for Lambs received generally negative to mixed reviews from critics. As of December 3, 2007 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has received a "rotten" rating of 25%, based on 146 reviews.[13] On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews.[14]

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."[15] 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."[16] 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."[17] Reviewer Claudia Puig commented, "Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment."[17] 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."[18] 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."[19]

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."[20] 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."[21][22] The subtitle of the review in the Los Angeles Times was: "As a matter of policy, 'Lions for Lambs' doesn't play."[22] 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."[23] Writing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reviewer William Arnold wrote positively of the segments of the film involving Robert Redford's character.[24] 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."[24] 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."[25] Ray Bennett of The Hollywood Reporter described Lions for Lambs as ". . . a well-made movie that offers no answers but raises many important questions."[26] Ted Casablanca of E! Online wrote "Tom Cruise—you may have heard of him, Katie Holmes’ hubby?—has not been making the best movie choices, as of late. See Lions for Lambs? Yeah, neither did anybody else."[27]

[edit] Box office results

The film took in USD$ 6.7 million in its opening weekend and debuted at the number four spot.[28] 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."[29][28] The film also opened poorly in Europe, with Variety reporting: "Savage reviews dealt the talky political drama a big blow."[30] In the United Kingdom, Lions for Lambs took in USD$1.4 million and opened in sixth place.[30] The film debuted at the number six spot in Germany, and number five in Brazil.[31] Overall, the film pulled in a total of USD$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."[8] By January 14, 2008, the film's domestic returns were just under $15 million.[32]

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."[33] 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."[34]

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.[31] 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."[35] 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.[36][37] Multiple sources have referred to the film as a "Box office bomb", including the San Francisco Chronicle,[38] U.S. News & World Report,[39] Orlando Sentinel,[40] the New York Post,[37] and New York Magazine.[41] 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."[41][42] An article in The Daily Telegraph discussed the film among a "slew of new movies" that "have flopped at the box office."[29] The Associated Press called the film a "box-office clunker."[43]

The film ultimately grossed $57 million worldwide, which included $15 million for its domestic gross and $42 million internationally.[44] According to The New York Times, reported estimates have placed the film's total losses at $50 million.[45]

[edit] See also

Film Portal
Politics Portal
War Portal

[edit] References

  1. ^ Vivarelli, Nick. "'Lions' star roars at Rome: Cruise leaves it to Redford to lash out", Variety, October 23, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  2. ^ Hayes, Dade. "Cruise rolls out 'Lions for Lambs': Film puts stars on frontlines of political debate", Variety, October 21, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  3. ^ Lynch, Donal; Padraic McKiernan, Constance Harris, Madeleine Keane. "Trouble with their lions", Irish Independent, November 11, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-11. 
  4. ^ Tookey, Christopher. "Redford's anti-war lecture Lions For Lambs is missing in action", Daily Mail, November 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  5. ^ Bradshaw, Peter. "Lions for Lambs", The Guardian, November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  6. ^ Lister, David. "The Week in Arts: Redford's sheepish response", The Independent, November 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  7. ^ Times Online. "What's the significance of the title 'Lions for Lambs'?", Times, October 16, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-13. 
  8. ^ a b Staff; The Hollywood Reporter. "Cruise film "Lions" a lamb at foreign box office", Reuters, Reuters/Hollywood Reporter, November 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  9. ^ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (February 21, 2007). "United Artists' "Lions for Lambs" to Be Released Worldwide by MGM". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-11-10.
  10. ^ a b Hazlett, Courtney. "Tom Cruise ‘extremely worried’ about ‘Lions’", MSNBC, November 8, 2007. 
  11. ^ a b c d e Friedman, Roger. "Tom Cruise Rewards Scientology Honchos", FOX News, FOX News Network, LLC., November 6, 2007, pp. FOX 411: Entertainment. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  12. ^ a b c Friedman, Roger. "'Lions' Redford and Streep Not Fond of 'Lamb' Cruise?", FOX News, FOX News Network, LLC, November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  13. ^ Lions for Lambs - Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved on 2007-12-03.
  14. ^ Lions for Lambs (2007): Reviews. Metacritic. Retrieved on 2007-11-14.
  15. ^ Ebert, Rogert. "Lions for Lambs", Chicago Sun-Times, November 8, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. 
  16. ^ Pais, Matt. "Lions for Lambs: Finally, someone is having a basic conversation about American foreign policy!", Chicago Tribune, November 7, 2007, pp. Metromix Chicago Movies. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  17. ^ a b Puig, Claudia. "As entertainment, 'Lions' whimpers rather than roars", USA Today, USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc., November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  18. ^ Smith, Kyle. "Sheep Shots", New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  19. ^ Bradshaw, Peter. "Reviews: Lions for Lambs", The Guardian, November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  20. ^ Elley, Derek. "Lions for Lambs Review", Variety, October 22, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-10. 
  21. ^ Dargis, Manohla. "Movie Review: Lions for Lambs", The New York Times, The New York Times Company, November 9, 2007. 
  22. ^ a b Chocano, Carina. "MOVIE REVIEW, 'Lions for Lambs': As a matter of policy, 'Lions for Lambs' doesn't play", Los Angeles Times, November 9, 2007. 
  23. ^ Morris, Wesley. "Lions for Lambs Movie Review: Political drama feels more like a lecture", The Boston Globe, November 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. 
  24. ^ a b Arnold, William. "Disjointed plots butcher the powerful potential in 'Lions for Lambs'", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Hearst Newspapers, November 8, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-15. 
  25. ^ Biancolli, Amy. "Not Redford's best, but his bravest", Houston Chronicle, November 8, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-15. 
  26. ^ Bennett, Ray. "Bottom Line: An honest but a bit dry attempt at a serious discussion on the merits of current U.S. military strategies.", The Hollywood Reporter, October 23, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-15. 
  27. ^ Casablanca, Ted. "Stick to Couch Jumping", E! Online, January 29, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-30. 
  28. ^ a b Rich, Joshua. "Box Office Report:Bee Movie: Swarm Alert! Jerry Seinfeld's animated comedy flew into first place on its second weekend, Fred Claus performed way under expectations, and the latest Cruise missile misfired", Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc., November 11, 2007. 
  29. ^ a b Elsworth, Cathering. "Hollywood misreads response to war on terror: Hollywood has misjudged the public's appetite for films about Iraq and the war on terror, Cathering Elsworth says, as a slew of new movies have flopped at the box office.", The Daily Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group Limited, November 12, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  30. ^ a b Thomas, Archie. "'Lions' meek after Euro mauling: Fox pic finds solace in Spanish returns", Variety, Reed Elsevier Inc., November 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-13. 
  31. ^ a b Hollinger, Hy; Leo Cendrowicz, Mark Russell. "'Lions' a lamb in overseas bow: Two films from India dominate weekend int'l box office", The Hollywood Reporter, Nielsen Business Media, Inc., November 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  32. ^ Ryan, Joal. "Driving Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Freeman", E! Online: News, E! Entertainment Television, Inc, January 14, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  33. ^ Staff. "Cruise concerned about 'flop' movie", Ireland Online, Thomas Crosbie Media, November 13, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  34. ^ Hazlett, Courtney. "Tom Cruise’s disappointing weekend", MSNBC, November 12, 2007, pp. The Scoop. Retrieved on 2007-11-14. 
  35. ^ "Hollywood Bombs", The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2007, pp. A22. Retrieved on 2007-11-29. 
  36. ^ Degrandpre, Andrew (Army Times). "Today's war films miss the target at box office", The Indianapolis Star, Gannett Co. Inc., December 24, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  37. ^ a b Adams, Cindy. "He's Not Known For Watching His Tongue", New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., December 3, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  38. ^ Garofoli, Joe. "War Is a Box Office Bomb", San Francisco Chronicle, November 23, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  39. ^ Tolson, Jay. "War: the Box Office Bomb: Americans shun new films", U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, L.P. (Alternate site, CBS News), November 16, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  40. ^ Staff. "Is Tom Cruise REALLY Toast...this time?", Orlando Sentinel, January 17, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  41. ^ a b Kois, Dan; Lane Brown. "Oscar Futures: A Big Week for ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly’", New York Magazine, New York Magazine Holdings LLC., November 16, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  42. ^ Hirsen, James. "Another Anti-war Flick Bombs at the Box-Office", Newsmax.com, NewsMax Media, November 27, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-03. 
  43. ^ Staff. "Survey: Depp Remains No. 1 at Box Office", Associated Press, January 3, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-01-19. 
  44. ^ Lions for Lambs (2007)
  45. ^ Cieply, Michael (April 23, 2008). The Nazi Plot That Threatens Tom Cruise and United Artists. The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved on 2008-04-29.

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Films directed by Robert Redford

Ordinary People (1980) • The Milagro Beanfield War (1988) • A River Runs Through It (1992) • Quiz Show (1994) • The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000) • Lions for Lambs (2007)