IMDb >
Lions for Lambs (2007)
Watch It
Buy it at Amazon
Rent it at Blockbuster.com
Discuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
BETA
Discuss in Boards More at IMDb Pro Add to My Movies Update Data
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditstv scheduleAwards & Reviews
user commentsexternal reviewsnewsgroup reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guiderecommendationsmessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsAmazon.com summarymemorable quotesFun Stuff
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
merchandising linksbox office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specslaserdisc detailsDVD detailsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsLions for Lambs (2007) More at IMDbPro »
| Photos (see all 73 | slideshow) | Videos (see all 9) |
          |
|
Overview
User Rating:
Director:
Writer (WGA):
Matthew Michael Carnahan (written by)
Release Date:
9 November 2007 (USA)
more
Tagline:
If you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything more
Plot:
Injuries sustained by two Army ranger behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor. full summary | full synopsis
Plot Keywords:
Afghanistan
|
Professor
|
Decision
|
California
|
Reporter
more
NewsDesk:
(46 articles)
Celebrate Veteran’s Day with a War Movie Overload
(From FilmSchoolRejects. 11 November 2009, 2:33 PM, PST)
Miss Saigon movie moving ahead
(From Corona's Coming Attractions. 21 October 2009, 1:01 AM, PDT)
(From FilmSchoolRejects. 11 November 2009, 2:33 PM, PST)
Miss Saigon movie moving ahead
(From Corona's Coming Attractions. 21 October 2009, 1:01 AM, PDT)
User Comments:
I may agree, but that doesn't excuse poor film-making.
more (269 total)
US TV Schedule:
Cast
(Cast overview, first billed only) | Robert Redford | ... | Professor Stephen Malley |
 | Meryl Streep | ... | Janine Roth |
 | Tom Cruise | ... | Senator Jasper Irving |
 | Michael Peña | ... | Ernest Rodriguez |
 | Andrew Garfield | ... | Todd Hayes |
 | Peter Berg | ... | Lt. Col. Falco |
 | Kevin Dunn | ... | ANX Editor |
 | Derek Luke | ... | Arian Finch |
 | Larry Bates | ... | Soldier |
 | Christopher May | ... | Soldier |
 | David Pease | ... | Soldier |
| Heidi Janson | ... | Soldier |
 | Christopher Carley | ... | Sniper |
 | George Back | ... | Student |
| Kristy Wu | ... | Student |
Additional Details
MPAA:
Rated R for some war violence and language.
Parents Guide:
Runtime:
92 min
Country:
Language:
Color:
Aspect Ratio:
2.35 : 1 more
Sound Mix:
Certification:
UK:15 |
South Korea:15 |
Ireland:12A |
Netherlands:16 |
Singapore:NC-16 |
Australia:M |
Finland:K-11 |
Hong Kong:IIB |
Taiwan:R-18 |
Malaysia:U |
Philippines:PG-13 |
South Africa:10M |
Norway:11 |
Sweden:11 |
Denmark:11 |
Germany:12 |
Canada:14A (Alberta/Manitoba/Ontario) |
Canada:G (Quebec) |
Canada:PG (British Columbia) |
USA:R (certificate #43901) |
Argentina:13 |
Argentina:16 |
Switzerland:10 (canton of Vaud) |
Switzerland:10 (canton of Geneva) |
Brazil:12 |
New Zealand:M |
Singapore:M18 (DVD rating) |
Norway:10 (TV rating)
Filming Locations:
Company:
Fun Stuff
Trivia:
In an interview to the Variety magazine, Tom Cruise said he had made the film out of deep respect for Robert Redford's body of work, which he said had inspired him since Ordinary People (1980).
more
Goofs:
Continuity: When Senator Irving returns to his office after receiving a phone call, there is a lamp positioned slightly in front of the framed article (about him) that was written by Janine. When Janine was looking at the article previously, there was no such obstruction.
more
Quotes:
Todd Hayes:
Who never says anything even though he never stops talking.
more
Movie Connections:
Featured in "Siskel & Ebert & the Movies: (2007-11-10)" (2007)
more
Soundtrack:
Won't Get Fooled Again
more
FAQ
What aspect of the plot is taken from a book about real life events in Afganistan, and what was the name of the book?more
more (269 total)
Message Boards
Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for Lions for Lambs (2007) moreRecommendations
If you enjoyed this title, our database also recommends:
Show more recommendations
|
|
|
|
|
| Across the Universe | The Black Widow | Iron Man | The Aviator | The Life of David Gale |
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
IMDb User Rating:
|
Related Links
| Full cast and crew | Company credits | External reviews |
| News articles | IMDb Drama section | IMDb USA section |
| Add this title to MyMovies |
I have seen a number of truly horrible films that are supposedly provocative or tackling the hard issues recently. I watched "The Kingdom" the other day, for example. As it turns out, it was written by the same writer of "Lions for Lambs", Matthew Michael Carnahan. I'm suspecting a trend.
Why I didn't like it: 1. Bad performances from good actors. Dare I say it? Meryl Streep was terrible. I see better acting day-to-day in the intermediate acting class I teach. When you give a good actress a bad part, she will fail in it. Her only real contribution to the role was the slightly humorous line she appeared to have coached-improvised in the TV station. Robert Redford was as dreary and predictable as his part was written. Perhaps he was too tired from directing this terrible personal politics statement to make nuanced decisions. Instead, he played this with the nuance and expertise of a young Schwarzenegger. The only solid performance was by Tom Cruise, who had the best part in the film. Why is this? Because the writer didn't have to write anything. Carnahan could just Google up some right-wing rhetoric and slap it on the page with minor adjustments that my playwriting 103 students could do in two days.
2. The writing was cheesy and ill-advised. What I thought was going to be a provoking political thriller was actually a sad pseudo-film, pseudo-historical fiction docudrama with very little to say that everyone, not just the learned, has heard before. Some scenes read as smoothly as a 60s recruitment video or an after-school special. The whole film had definite elements of it in that it was blatant in its moral statements to the point of Robert Redford walking up to me and saying, "Don't trust the right wing. War is bad." I agree with that statement, but the film the message is conveyed in must be good or at least passable. When the writing seemed so pushed into pseudo-realism that I'm sure the studio demanded, it created an unfortunate choice for me as an audience member: Should I suspend my disbelief so far as to demean myself or should I just be put off that I'm not getting my ten dollars back?
3. There is no emotion in the film. The wealthy college student shows apathy, the two poor kids show misguided courage and determination, the college professor is like a dull version of Olmos in "Stand and Deliver", but for political science. The young gun Republican is evil, the reporter rediscovers her integrity, her boss cares about ratings, wash-rinse-repeat for 88 minutes. The problem is, all of these characters are so stock; we encounter these people over and over again in films and in real life. This was such a student film. It'll hopefully get put away on the unreachable top shelf of the local store.
4. Disproportionate praise of the troops. Redford obviously wants to support the troops by bringing them home. In the film, Americans are heroes who overcome incredible odds and are willing to fight for the freedom and the blah blah blah. I wholeheartedly believe in care and emotional support for troops, but the film just drooled over them like gods.
Why I liked the film: Summer Hernandez Kowalski when you see her on-screen. That's it.