Lions for Lambs

Lions for Lambs is the first film under Cruise's and Wagner's new venture with film studio United Artists.[15] MSNBC reported that Cruise was worried about how the film would perform, because of how the film industry would view him based on its success or failure at the box office.[15]

As of April 20, 2020, on Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 27%, based on 183 reviews. The site's consensus states: "Despite its powerhouse cast, Lions for Lambs feels like a disjointed series of lectures, rather than a sharp narrative, and ends up falling flat."[16] On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews.[17] Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade C on scale of A to F.[18]

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."[19] 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."[20] 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."[21] Reviewer Claudia Puig commented, "Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment."[21] 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."[22] 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."[23]

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."[24] 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."[25][26] The subtitle of the review in the Los Angeles Times was: "As a matter of policy, 'Lions for Lambs' doesn't play."[26] 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."[27] 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."[28] 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."[29] Ray Bennett of The Hollywood Reporter described Lions for Lambs as "a well-made movie that offers no answers but raises many important questions."[30]

The film took in USD6.7 million in its opening weekend and debuted at the number four spot.[31] This was one of Cruise's worst wide opener box office takes since The Color of Money, and Catherine Elsworth of The Daily Telegraph wrote that this result "puts it on course to be Cruise's lowest-grossing movie of all time."[31][32] The film also opened poorly in Europe, with Variety reporting: "Savage reviews dealt the talky political drama a big blow."[33] In the United Kingdom, Lions for Lambs took in $1.4 million and opened in sixth place.[33] The film debuted at the number six spot in Germany, and number five in Brazil.[34] Overall, the film pulled in a total of $10.3 million in markets in its opening weekend outside the United States, and Reuters noted "Tom Cruise's 'Lambs' got slaughtered at the worldwide box office."[13] By January 14, 2008, the film's domestic returns were just under $15 million.[35]

MSNBC reported that Cruise was concerned about the opening weekend results, and quoted a source: "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."[36] In response to the opening weekend results, a representative at United Artists stated: "We performed right at the pre-weekend predictions and are glad to have done that. Given the modest production and marketing budgets we do not need to be a blockbuster hit. Everyone at United Artists are very proud of the film and could not have had a more perfect filmmaker to have made our first film."[37]

International experts said that the film did not attract its core audience, and that the box office results were due to a failure of the film to cross over to the general public.[34] On November 28, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that "Lions for Lambs has performed so poorly that it may not make back its $35 million investment."[38] On December 3, 2007, the New York Post reported that the film was "assessed to blow as much as $25 mil", and a report in Variety made the same assessment.[39][40] Multiple sources have referred to the film as a "box office bomb", including the San Francisco Chronicle,[41] U.S. News & World Report,[42] Orlando Sentinel,[43] the New York Post,[40] and New York magazine.[44] New York magazine called the film "a critical flop and a box-office bomb", and a report by NewsMax Media characterized it among "miserable box-office flops".[44][45] An article in The Daily Telegraph discussed the film among a "slew of new movies" that "have flopped at the box office".[32] The Associated Press called the film a "box-office clunker".[46] The film ultimately grossed $63 million worldwide, which included $15 million for its domestic gross and $48 million internationally.[3]