It's official: Redford's film sucks...

But don't just take my word for it (and you shouldn't since I won't go see that pile of crap):

Tom Cruise did Lions For Lambs for "virtually nothing" to help kick-start his revival of United Artists. Without that, the R-rated movie starring Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed, never would have gotten off the ground. Maybe that would have been kinder. Because even with a very moderate budget of $35 million, the political polemic was killed by moviegoers and reviewers alike this weekend, opening to a paltry $6.5 million from 2,215 theaters with an anemic per screen average as well. Even with only a 92-minute running time, the pic even fell far short of the studio's rock-bottom expectations of $8 million.

Tom Cruise ponders the demise of his career

Maybe someone can photoshop me a new movie poster or ad including the following "bon mots":

From the LA Times: Dull and Self-Satisfied!

From the Minneapolis Star-Review: A Waffling Yak-fest!

From the Guardian (UK): Muddled and Pompous!

Cruise explains to Meryl Streep Redford's plan to bore us all to death

Finally, David Elliott of the San Diego UT gives us several great lines:

The movie is like a totem pole for earnest Hollywood liberals still trying to impress their professor – just put your own head on top.

How is it possible that a serious, thoughtful progressive for 40 years, a big star whose directing has shown strength with actors (“Ordinary People,” “Quiz Show”) and nature (“A River Runs Through It”), can offer this canned cram of debate notes? The cross-cuts are a virtual spoof of montage, and the edit even suggests that Arlington National Cemetery is right near the White House.

This jabbering, photographed pamphlet might spark some discussion, but as a movie it suffocates on gas. The modest success is Streep. Her silences outgun the verbiage, and her fidgeting with a thermostat seems a creative highlight.

A free dinner at Rubios for anyone who comes up with that photoshop for me...