"Lions For Lambs," yet another Iraq war (or more accurately, anti-Iraq war) film opened this weekend to terrible reviews and tepid boxoffice. The film has a stellar cast of Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed. Despite the superstar cast, the only audience "Lions For Lambs" will draw are insomniacs searching for something to put them to sleep. Like its Iraq war predecessors, "The Kingdom," "Rendition," and "The Valley of Elah," this Tom Cruise vehicle fails to find an audience for its liberal agitprop. Critics and the media attribute the failure of these films to the war weariness of filmgoers. And it is a legitimate claim. You cannot turn on the TV or radio, or open a newspaper or news magazine without confronting the violence and bloodshed in the Middle East. Audiences apparently want diversion from the war when they buy a movie ticket--and who can blame them? The great Viet Nam war films like "Apocalypse Now," "Platoon," and "Full Metal Jacket" were released five to ten years after the war ended.
There is another factor for the failure of these Iraq war films that no movie pundit has cared to address. Maybe the producers of these films and the liberal media refuse to accept the fact that a majority of Americans support the war, our military and George Bush. The last thing they are going to spend their money on is a movie that attacks and demeans everything they believe in. The polls keep telling us how unpopular the Iraq war is, but people are also voting with their wallets. What they are saying to the Hollywood leftist elite is "We're not wasting our hard earned money on your anti-military, anti-American propaganda posing as entertainemnt."
Hollywood, in its self-absorbed culture, believes that most Americans think exactly like they do. Their cinematic jihad is hemmoraging red ink, proving that Robert Redford and his ilk are the film business eqivalent of suicide bombers.