The long dialogues are not the issue here. First of all this is an American movie only for Americans, especially young ones. That college boy was annoying and used as "message carrier" doll. I don't know if the movie is one-sided but all the sides it takes are patriotic anyways. And the same, lame and hypocrite message as other Hollywood films: American soldiers are good but Afghan or Iraqi are bad because we were just trying to give their country freedom and democracy. Hell yeah!

One of the most interesting war/political films I have seen, at least in its first hour. Although it has stories in it, the film is less a storytelling and more a debate of various ideas. The ending is rather weak, but I guess the point of the film is that after seeing it, like the character of Todd, you are now consciously thinking about the situation and what your next move might be. Could have scored higher if the consequences of the characters' actions had been explored in a bit more depth.

Best of Robert Redford-definitely, but that's not hard. It wasn't satisfying or inspirational in the end. It had a great set up and a realistic approach.

Lions for Lambs mops the floor with the misbegotten Rendition, smashing its post-Saw preposterousness about the head with diction and dialogue one might buy. But isn't this just hot air? Redford's glossy, talk-heavy enterprise engages but it barely moves, suggesting, in its lowliest moments, the criminally over-praised Ron Howard - that old master of filmic farts in the wind.

Redford has been around long enough, worked with enough fine directors, made enough exemplary films of his own, that you'd think he'd be more adept at disguising his op-ed pieces as drama. Instead, he expresses some clear anger at the state of the nation with a three-tiered exercise in leaden didacticism. In particular, the storyline with Streep and Cruise is such a cascade of implausibilities that it borders on farce.

The dialogue writing and acting is top notch, but the film as a whole really stumbles under the unsupported weight of its message. The various stories, while connected thematically, don't really mesh together well and ultimately the only thing to get out of the film is "you should think critically about politics and life." It's a good message but one that anyone watching this already knows and the film brings little insight or inspiration to the subject.

Long, circuitous wank. Redford strives to be so profound he never gets to the point.

boring, fuck you.

Not nearly as smart as it thinks it is. "Here we are having a high minded debate ... " Riiight. For a movie that is apparently advocating critical thinking and serious discussion, its 'best and brightest' characters sure spout a lot of logical fallacies. L4L Drinking Game: take a drink every time someone uses a tu quoque argument. Please instead watch that other political Tom Cruise war film, Born on the Fourth of July.

Far more engaging than I had expected. Especially Redford's own scenes are very thought provoking.

Message-movie in the vein of Traffic and Syriana. But where they had a certain visual flair that made me disregard the two dimensional shittyness of poorly written characters only conceived to fill in blanks in the preachy narrative, this is simply too bland and conservatively filmed to be anything other than a reminder that a solid director, fine actors and the heart in the right place alone can still mound up to nothing.

"Lions for Lambs is, to put it mildly, beyond stagey." - Nick Schager

In the best directing of his auteur career, Redford turns Carnahan's original script into a modern-day version of what Sergei Eisenstein called 'Intellectual Montage.'

Passes the time.