According to the post, the Robert Redford directed flick cost about $35 million to make. Lions for Lambs was also produced by Cruise's United Artists studio. He set this up after Paramount dropped him last year due to his scandalous behavior. Oh, Scientology! The film, which follows three seemingly separate story lines between a college professor, a presidential hopeful and a journalist, whose stories all inter link over an unjust and speculative war. Unfortunately, Lions for Lambs only made a low $6.7 million this past weekend.
A source told MSNBC.com:
"Tom wanted to really hit a home run with his first United Artists movie. It was more about how the industry was going to view him than the movie going public that Tom was worried about."I think this movie looks very good. I am also very persuaded by advertisements on television and pretty much want to see everything. However, the rating on IMDB is a 6/10. Not horrible, but also not great for what seems to look like a potential Oscar nominee (we're talking Robert Redford here!). The New York Times gave the film a very good review and said that it is a film very much of the era we are in now and that Redford did a good job at presenting such a cinematic endeavor as something we should pay attention to if we haven't already.
"[Redford] echoes the prevailing wisdom that you should support the troops even if you don’t support the wars. The problem isn’t whether this assertion is true; the problem is the film reflexively embraces it, much as it does every single other cliché, without inquiry, challenge or a single ounce of real risk. It tells us everything most of us know already, including the fact that politicians lie, journalists fail and youth flounders. Mostly it tells us that Mr. Redford feels really bad about the state of things. Welcome to the club."
Maybe it will do better once the Golden Globe nods come out.