 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. 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 Robert Redford. It stars Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, and Tom Cruise. The film 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.
Plot
The story begins after two determined students at a West Coast university, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña), follow the inspiration of their idealistic professor, Dr. Malley (Redford), and attempt to do something important with their lives. But when the two make the bold decision to enlist in the US Army to join the war in Afghanistan, Malley is both moved and distraught. In flashback we see Arian and Ernest in class, giving a presentation.
In California, an anguished Dr. Malley attempts to reach privileged but disaffected student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) who is the very opposite of Arian and Ernest. He is bright but not working very hard; he says this is because of the time he spends with his girlfriend, and as president of his fraternity. Malley puts him to the test by offering him a B without doing anything. This puzzles Hayes.
Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C. the charismatic, Republican, presidential hopeful, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), has invited TV journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to announce a new war strategy in Afghanistan. Already underway, the strategy is to occupy by small units, strategic points in the mountains ("forward operating points") before the Taliban occupy them. He hopes that Roth's positive coverage will convince the public of the plan's soundness. Roth has her doubts and does not want to become an instrument of propaganda. However, her commercial-minded boss is happy to publish the story.
A helicopter carrying Arian and Ernest is hit, Ernest falls out of the helicopter, and Arian jumps after him. Ernest's leg is badly wounded and he cannot move; Arian stays with him. After some time the Taliban arrive. After a gun fight they run out of ammunition and, rather than die lying down, Arian helps Ernest stand up and face the Taliban, knowing the rescue chopper won't arrive on time, Arian raises his rifle and both are killed in a hail of gunfire whilst scenes from their past lives are flashed on screen. The film ends with Hayes watching the News with a friend, the reporter is talking about a singer's private life, while below runs a strip announcing Irving's new Military plan for Afghanistan.
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. While several reviewers in the UK have criticized the film for misquoting the commonly used phrase of "lions led by donkeys", 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.'
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." Filming began on January 29, 2007.
Promotion
Lions for Lambs is the first film under Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner's new venture with film studio United Artists. 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. During promotion of the film, Cruise invited representatives from the Church of Scientology to a private screening. Meryl Streep and Robert Redford were also in attendance at the private screening in New York City, but their guests were mostly friends and family. Tom Cruise's guests at the screening included Rev. John Carmichael and Lori Alpers, president of the New York chapter of the Church of Scientology. All of the Scientologists at the screening wore identifying gold pins in their lapels. In November 2007, when Tom Cruise was honored at an event at the American Museum of the Moving Image, his co-stars Meryl Streep and Robert Redford were not in attendance. 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." However, a supporter of the film countered: "That’s mean. They’re great friends. Just look at their interview on 'Good Morning America.'" 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.
Critical reception
The film received generally negative to mixed reviews from critics. As of November 15, 2007 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 26% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 146 reviews. On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews.
The film received a review from film critic Roger Ebert, who gave it two and a half stars. Ebert noted that at the beginning of the film, when initially interested, the viewer is "under the delusion that it's going somewhere." As the film progresses further, Ebert wrote that interest is lost, noting: "When we begin to suspect it's going in circles, our interest flags.." 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." 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." Reviewer Claudia Puig commented: "Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment." 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." 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."
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." 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." The subtitle of the review in the Los Angeles Times was: "As a matter of policy, 'Lions for Lambs' doesn't play." 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." Writing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reviewer William Arnold wrote positively of the segments of the film involving Robert Redford's character. 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." 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." Ray Bennett of The Hollywood Reporter described Lions for Lambs as "..a well-made movie that offers no answers but raises many important questions."
Box office results
The film took in USD$6.7 million in its opening weekend, and debuted at the number four spot. This was one of Tom Cruise's worst wide opener box office takes since The Color of Money. The film also opened poorly in Europe, with Variety reporting: "Savage reviews dealt the talky political drama a big blow." In the United Kingdom, Lions for Lambs took in USD$1.4 million and opened in sixth place. The film debuted at the number six spot in Germany, and number five in Brazil. Overall, the film pulled in a total of USD$10.3 million in markets outside the United States, and Reuters noted "Tom Cruise's "Lambs" got slaughtered at the worldwide box office."
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." 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. |
