Lions for Lambs (2007)

Director:

Robert Redford

Writer (WGA):

Matthew Michael Carnahan (written by)

Release Date:

9 November 2007 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | War

Tagline:

If you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything

Plot:

Injuries sustained by two Army ranger behind enemy lines in Afghanistan set off a sequence of events involving a congressman, a journalist and a professor.

Plot Keywords:

Afghanistan | Professor | Decision | California | Reporter

US TV Schedule:

Tue. Feb. 9	10:00 PM	TMC
Sat. Feb. 13	3:40 PM	TMC

Cast

  (Cast overview, first billed only)

Robert Redford	...	Professor Stephen Malley
Meryl Streep	...	Janine Roth
Tom Cruise	...	Senator Jasper Irving
Michael Peña	...	Ernest Rodriguez
Andrew Garfield	...	Todd Hayes
Peter Berg	...	Lt. Col. Falco
Kevin Dunn	...	ANX Editor
Derek Luke	...	Arian Finch
Larry Bates	...	Soldier
Christopher May	...	Soldier
David Pease	...	Soldier
Heidi Janson	...	Soldier
Christopher Carley	...	Sniper
George Back	...	Student
Kristy Wu	...	Student

Also Known As:

Lions et agneaux (Belgium: French title) (Canada: French title) (France) [fr]
Leones por Corderos (Argentina) (Spain) [es]
Arslani Kuzulara (Turkey: Turkish title) [tr]
Gyávák és hosök (Hungary) [hu]
Hrdinové a zbabelci (Czech Republic) [cs]
Jaganjci i lavovi (Croatia) [hr]
Kes liigutavad ettureid? (Estonia) [et]
Løver for lam (Norway) [no]
Leões e Cordeiros (Brazil) [pt]
Lejon och lamm (Sweden) [sv]
Leoni per agnelli (Italy) [it]
Leontes anti amnon (Greece) [el]
Peões em Jogo (Portugal) (original subtitled version) [pt]
Ukryta strategia (Poland) [pl]
Von Löwen und Lämmern (Germany) [de]

MPAA:

Rated R for some war violence and language.

Runtime:

92 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital | DTS | SDDS

Certification:

South Korea:15 | UK:15 | Ireland:12A | Netherlands:16 | Singapore:NC-16 | Australia:M | Finland:K-11 | Hong Kong:IIB | Taiwan:R-18 | Malaysia:U | Philippines:PG-13 | South Africa:10M | Norway:11 | Denmark:11 | Sweden:11 | Germany:12 | Canada:14A (Alberta/Manitoba/Ontario) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:PG (British Columbia) | USA:R (certificate #43901) | Argentina:13 | Argentina:16 | Switzerland:10 (canton of Vaud) | Switzerland:10 (canton of Geneva) | Brazil:12 | New Zealand:M | Singapore:M18 (DVD rating) | Norway:10 (TV rating)

Filming Locations:

Claremont, California, USA

Company:

Andell Entertainment

Trivia:

The photo that Jenine (Meryl Streep) observes on Senator Irving's (Tom Cruise) office wall of him dressed as a young cadet is a still photo from Cruise's role in the 1981 film Taps (1981).

Goofs:

Errors in geography: In the time between the 2 soldiers falling, the helicopter would have traveled several hundred yards; not the few feet separating their impact points in the snow.

Quotes:

Senator Jasper Irving: What I can say is that this strategy has patience and determination at its core. It ensures that it puts our fighting men in spots where they can face, and fight, and kill the enemy, so that we can then go on about rebuilding that country. And if it takes ten years, that's how long we stay, we do whatever it takes.
Janine Roth: [quoting the Senator] Whatever it takes.
Senator Jasper Irving: Whatever it takes.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in An American Carol (2008)

Soundtrack:

Yankee Doodle Dandy

An unusual, great movie

I went to see this movie with contrasting feelings, because I read a few reviews in advance. Many of them blamed it for being too didactic, thus lacking the basic qualities a movie should have. Many others praised it in a very ideological way, thus raising in me the fear it was a piece of propaganda. Well, after I spent the 80 minutes watching the movie I thought not even 60 had elapsed, and my attention and empathy didn't ever fail for a single minute. There is no doubt that a movie so extensively based upon dialog is very unusual: but this turns out to be one of its most valuable asset and proves the great value of the script. It is not an action movie in any of the conventional ways: yet I followed it with the attention, the suspense and expectations feelings that usually an action movie raises. I think that indeed it is a sort of intelligence action movie - as such it stands out over the best stuff that visual media performances are usually producing today. The second point I most appreciated has been its ability in portraying the main characters' different viewpoints in a very complex way, as it must be: there were no all round villains nor all round heroes. Doubtless there is a very much defined view and attitude, but it is not supported in a mere ideological way. In fact, it has no clearcut, simple answers to offer to a damningly complex situation full of contradictions as it actually is. It is full of subtleties, in dialog not less than in body languages and settings. It is often moving without ever slipping into cheap rhetoric. It's a movie that in a way "should" be seen and re-seen and reflected and discussed upon to wake up people from all sorts of addictive indifference as well as of addictive "I'm right, they're wrong" self complacency. Last but not least, in my opinion this movie is a good instance of what is needed to roll back anti-American feelings that have been spread out due to the American government policies and behavior in the last decade. May I offer my apologies for my English to the readers that will have had the patience to go through my comment.