Yes, I agree it was kind of boring, but I was watching it together with George (even though we live in different cities) and we were able to comment during the movie, so we had nice time :)

Steen and peacechicken (who wrote the previous two entries) are right. I have only this to add: Tom Cruise is at his slimy best in this flick. And by best I mean worst. His character was utterly loathsome.

I’m in agreement with Steen.. A few good points were made here and there by the characters of Streep and Redford, but overall it felt like a movie commissioned by the Bush Admin. to plant the seeds for an attack on Iran. You know—Americans aren’t that great at differentiating Hollywood from real life, so if Tom Cruise says Iran is a threat, well then it must be.

It was another war-glorifying film complete with numerous references to “The Enemy” and false statements that movie-goers may very easily take as facts.. i.e. it’s okay to be in Afghanistan because they attacked us on 9/11. Actually, 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the funding has been traced to Pakistan. And a nuclear Iran, are you kidding?

Save your money…

Although meant well, Lions for Lambs ends up being terribly boring and clichéd. Being far too moralizing and didactic, it ends up only preaching to the converted. And it doesn’t even dare take a true swipe at American aggression, instead opting for useless flag-waving in the end.