The buzz on the blogs today is the flop that is Robert Redford's anti-war movie, Lions for Lambs, starring everyone's favorite Scientologist, Tom Cruise. The basic plotline is that a presidential-hopeful/Republican senator (Cruise) pushes a policy in Afghanistan that results in putting American soldiers in harm's way--and nobody, neither politicians nor military officers nor journalist Meryl Streep, can do anything to stop it. Read John Podhoretz's review in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD for all you need to know.

Of course, Hollywood leftists thought this film would, in Redford's words, "make you think," and would be a huge success despite the recent progress in Iraq. As the Guardian reported Friday, "With its unflinching critique of the US Administration's war in Afghanistan and a high-powered cast of Cruise, Redford and Meryl Streep, Lions For Lambs was expected to be one of the most prestigious films of the awards season." (We thought Afghanistan was the "good war"??)

The film's advertisements ask, "What do you stand for?" and it received a glowing review from none other than the Daily Kos (hat tip to Little Green Footballs).

But today, it's official: The movie flopped. Wait, you mean the American public doesn't want to see a movie that the Daily Kos called "Extraordinary"?

No, says Jules Crittenden: "Hollywood anti-war Bush-bash surge tanks at the box office." Even Bee Movie and Fred Claus did better by millions than this "warmed-over Bush lied people died."

More commentary from Gateway Pundit.

So why did it flop? Bloggers provide a few reasons. Via Instapundit, DrewM at Ace of Spades gives wise advice to filmmakers: "Memo to Hollywood…we don’t hate America as much as you do. Want to make some money? Make a movie where Americans are the good guys and the terrorists are the bad guys."

Matthew Sheffield at NewsBusters gives three reasons, the most important that "[t]he American public is not nearly as angry and delirious about Iraq as the far left."

And John Tabin at the American Spectator blog notes that it's not that America isn't interested in films about the war on terror. One example: "Well, it's not a movie and it's not about Iraq per se…but there is a War on Terror-theme television show, made by Hollywood non-liberal Joel Surnow, called 24. It seems to have done alright."

What's the difference between 24 and Redford's latest? For starters, not all the bad guys in 24 are Republicans.