Art and film can communicate ideas in ways that really impinge upon the audience.

"Lions for Lambs" will make most who watch it feel validated, energized, oriented and a bit more educated. It'll bring them up to point where they really want to do something about it. The media conglomerates who employ these "critics", no doubt feel a bit criticized and threatened by the content of the film. If you understand the control the media wields upon public opinion, you'll realize why this is a film they'd rather the public not see at all.

All the more reason for everyone to see it don't you think?

The numbers on Tommy Boy's new movie are so bad, he may need to start taking antidepressants to recover. Hee heee.

Rotten Tomatoes has it at 27%.

Better than Congress. Just as boring.

Since the estimated income for this movie already predicts a loss, it is a clear indication that Tom Cruise is not the most bankable actor in Hollywood anymore. People who went to see the movie probably did so for Meryl Streep and Robert Redford. I am thinking they liked the topic of the film, and agreed to it.

Meryl Streep did say at one point in time that she chooses to do some commercial movies so that she can have the financial freedom to spend more time in art and independent films.

The couch incident seemed like a desperate attempt for Tom to show the intensity of his love but to me it appeared overdone. Along with his Paris engagement, a cliched romance, it felt insincere and staged to me. To me it looked like Tom was trying very hard to convince the world that he is definitely straight by going over the top. I still wonder how Suri came about.

Many of these comments here affirm the importance of this movie.

I can't overstate how brilliant and necessary this movie is to our world today. In the movie theater I was at, nearly the audience didn't leave until far into the credits. Believe me, the movie will leave you a better and wiser person. It's not just about politics or war or the media it's about you also. People who are trying to keep you away from the film by saying things like it's a boring or insignificant, or politically biased film or whatever they say, you'd be wise to question their agendas.

This is a film that will change things and you for the better and some people would rather not have that happen.

Tom Cruise has always been a "B" actor. He always plays a similar, stiff character. He got where he is today because he used to be "hot" and women noticed.

However, I think the man is nuts and arrogant beyond belief - a bit removed from reality (well, our reality, not his).

I agree with the person who said which religion is made up? They all are - why do you think you have literally thousands of versions of different religions to pick from? They all are a form of mind control for the masses.

Tom has lost a lot of respect and if that's what his religion does to him - that's what he deserves - no respect.

I'm no fan of Tom Cruise but I'd have to concede he has put in some remarkable performances over the years: As the cowardly, crappy dad in War of the Worlds, the smarmy self-help guru in Magnolia, the sociopathic assassin in Collateral, the Nam vet in 4th of July etc. He's also been a better-than-average & very bankable action hero. He's occaisionally been dreadful too (Interview With A Vampire, Vanilla Sky, Eyes Wide Shut, Days of Thunder etc.) but overall, the guy can act & has shown genuine growth & range over the years. As a public personality I'd agree with most of the posters here that he comes across as an overbearing phony & pedantic twat, but since personal likeability has no real bearing on acting skill I can completely understand why Redford & Streep would agree to work with Cruise while declining to socialise with him.

Lions for Lambs was a fantastic film!

Redford is brilliant, the acting is brilliant, and the message is brilliant.

This is the type of movie that changes things and some people are irrationally threatened by that.

I can't stand Tom Cruise or his scumbag religion, but Risky Business was a fabulous movie. True, it was his best movie and it's been all downhill since, but Risky Business really rocked.

good character actor (Cruise). Not a bad action star at all, MI I II and III were actually quite good. War of the Worlds, now - that just doesn't hold up to the earlier version at all.

You people need to get a life. Tom had his Howard Dean "whhoooooeeeeee" moment. He tried to show emotion and just looked silly...

Come on, Risky Business was damn funny, fun to watch even now.

Don't blame them wouldn't want to be in Cruise's company without getting paid!!!!

This is a "paid for by Tom Cruise" movie people and it is sure to bomb despite the fact that he connected two great actors, Steep and Redford, into appearing in it. Amazed that they would agree to appear in the same film with Cruise - one of America's worst actors - and yet they did. Must have been lotsa bucks that lured them and since Cruise owns this picture, lock, stock and barrel I can easily believe he threw millions upon millions to Streep and Redford. Here's hoping the damn thing bombs big time. I know I won't see or recommend it.

Vote Hillary '08

Thye should have had Bobcat Goldthwait play the part. He did such a fine acting job in the Police Academy movies.

When I noted that the Lions for Lambs stars were absent, an insider very close to the scene told me. "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."

Its a Redford movie and if he disliked Clamboy so much, why was he hired to be in the movie? Not defending the closet clam but the premise of the article seems to be bullshit.

The reviews are out. *1/2