there are three main reasons "Lions for Lambs" has been both a critical and commercial failure. They are Message, Execution and Marketing.
The movie has unleashed a rare tirade of negativity from yahoo users, who gave it an average rating of "D". The critics didn't think much more of it, their average rating was "C".
Message: the message is ultra-left, liberal, anti-American. Neither Americans nor people in other countries embrace anti-american themes. The film does not present a balanced account, and is largely seen for what it is, a propaganda piece.
Execution: Even discarding the offensive message, the film itself is not well done. "Boring" seems to be the consensus among critics and the public. It has VERY little action, and is mostly long lectures, qualifying as a "talking head" movie. The symbolism is so heavy handed it's embarrassing, with two central characters named "Earnest" as in honest, and "Arian"...yes, as in Aryan nation.
Marketing...this is what really ticked off the public. The makers duped the public into believing that it was an action/political thriller, when it was anything but. There's almost no action in this movie.
In summary, Redford directed/starred in/made this movie out of anger. Nothing done out of anger has merit. If Redford wanted to make positive changes, he could have accepted the Cabinet position he was offered to head environmental affairs. But that's not his real concern. It's more likely to take a supremacist attitude to the public.


