The Post spots another anti-war bomb falling from the sky. Seems awfully premature considering that the film hasn’t opened domestically yet but the early reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are not promising, with even the raves tossing around words like “talky” and “stilted.” Leave it to Redford to turn a war movie into My Dinner With Andre II. First they came for Rendition…

The initial negative reception to “Lions for Lambs” – the first movie to come out under Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s resurrected United Artists label – could harm parent studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s own attempts to raise money for film productions.

MGM had enlisted Goldman Sachs to raise between $500 million and $1 billion before the credit markets crashed this summer, and several sources confirmed that while the credit markets are still tight, the investment bank is again making the rounds for MGM.

But with “Lions for Lambs” – which also stars Robert Redford and Meryl Streep – so far tracking the worst among audiences for any Cruise movie to date, the Nov. 9 release of the film is bound to dampen enthusiasm for MGM’s fund.

A spokesman for United Artists said “Lions for Lambs” was tracking where it should be given the amount of money the studio spent on marketing, with one-third of its core audience of males aged 25 and over claiming to be interested in seeing the film.

I’m trying to think of an anti-war flick that did well at the box office that was both depressing and boring. Platoon did well but wasn’t boring; Born on the Fourth of July did well but wasn’t (ultimately) depressing. The Deer Hunter was boring and depressing, but it also had those dynamite Russian roulette scenes with Christopher Walken to look forward to. How about Coming Home?

Update: All credit to Brain Droppings for catching this. A good marketer knows who his audience is.