No, unfortunately I decided to watch Stardust over that movie *lol*
But I know LFL have the greatest actors playing; Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford etc, but I never heard of it hitting the box office.
2007-12-20 04:53:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Heaven Hill 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lions for Lambs received generally negative to mixed reviews from critics. As of December 3, 2007 on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, The film has received a "rotten" rating of 25%, based on 146 reviews. On Metacritic, the film had an average score of 47 out of 100, based on 36 reviews. 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." 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." 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." Reviewer Claudia Puig commented, "Though characters make some strong points, the film feels preachy and falls flat as entertainment." 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. 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."
2007-12-19 20:19:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
sorry, didn't see that one. I've never even heard of it.
2007-12-19 23:23:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by replexgirl 6
·
0⤊
0⤋