Lions For Lambs - Critical Reception

Critical Reception

Lions for Lambs received generally negative reviews from critics. As of 5 November 2011 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has received a "rotten" rating of 27%, based on 177 reviews. On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews.

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." 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: "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."