Watch Lamb For Free

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Prologue, deplete once read... or not.Dear kind, intelligent, and beautiful *YOU*, (the editor now reading this),I suppose I must apologize for attempting to contact YOU.., though quite likely you've experienced a "shift change", and the ONE I technically seek, the ONE who read and approved my review of Lamb late last night, is likely dragging INTO bed with a strong cup of vodka and a mild sedative.But, since you be, as I've noted, kind, intelligent, and beautiful, I implore you to read this and act upon my bitter ruminations accordingly (and we ALL know you're right now visualizing the "waste basket".My first bitter rumination bitterly questions the choice of IMDb to display all reviews with very wide lines of SMALL text, making them painful to read, if not impossible on a smaller device.My second and last bitter rumination is possibly less bitter and more actually curious, but with a hefty side of cynical. That is, I do not understand your/IMDb's method for selecting the placement of new reviews. I've understood when a website places one's post at the front or back of the cue on the basis of chronology. It makes sense. BUT!, I discovered that my review of Lamb, officially approved by THE ONE zoonself, had been mysteriously hidden away in the middle of the second page (of 3). So I ask: Do you editors give each review a rating, and the reviews then arrange themselves accordingly? Or perhaps (and this is the cynicism talking) I was banished to the seldom- read middle of the pack because I confessed my Christianity, a status currently well below pedophile or Donald Trump.??I am reachable via email or landline, which I unflinchingly offer (figuratively) as a daring adventure, because I am an "idealist"; and I'm currently seeking an edgy, progressive, poetic, transcendental, and romantic cross-generational relationship with a 10, 20, or 30-something zoon (who tends to be female), who is wildly intellectual and has a broad aesthetic paradigm, willing to settle down on my wooded acreage with zoonself's Tantric partner slash gender- fluid MK-Ultra handler, shortly after slitting my throat and burying me behind the goat barn.Cordially, Scarlet Pumpernickel Author of.. "Everyone Usually But Not Necessarily Always Poops".cheers!!😇-------------------------------------------July 20, 2017I think I can safely say this film is Art for Art's sake; and I guess that's OK. There are indeed an infinite number of provocative, trendy, YouTube-eligible topics that one could make a movie about, but of which it would be imho pointless to do so. And at the end of Lamb, I was simply left asking myself, now what the hell am I suppose to do with THAT? I suppose I could write a pointless review that almost no one will read, and rhapsodize about how cool and edgy and transcendent it was.But in the end, in reality, this daringly whatever film takes you nowhere. Perhaps it rationalizes itself, as other reviewers have noted, as a creative adventure in idealizing love, imagining perhaps that in some enlightened society, we might be free to accept love where we find it - this mystical force that floats in the ether and descends willy-nilly upon its hapless victims, who apparently have no will or reason with which to resist.The comment that made me decide to write this was: "The real strength of the movie is that it pushes and breaks boundaries, which most of us adhere to." So, in the realm of reality where we like to think that boundaries have value, the only function this film can serve is to plant the seed of doubt, perhaps making it just a little bit easier for yet one more budding, albeit "idealistic" pedophile to cross the line, but with the best of intentions, I'm sure. So, OK, I admit it -- I'm one of those born- again Christians, whose life prior to becoming brainwashed however was filled with aesthetic adventures, pursuing ideals and stretching boundaries which Christianity would only have clucked at me for. Like most people, I had to learn the hard way. In the end, while it's easy to aspire to and imagine ideal relationships, and even easier to write about them, etc., the human mind or soul, if you will, has a way of turning good intentions and lofty ideals and beautiful aspirations into sludge. And thus, as I would often say to my wife after a film like this, "That's why the Amish don't go to movies."My preference, knowing what I know, is to believe that I'll just have to be content to wait for Heaven, the next life that awaits, where all relationships will be ideal, as well as absent the potential for turning sour or landing me in jail. As for this life here and now, if one craves a deep relationship with an eleven year old girl, I think I'd just have to recommend becoming a parent.Along the lines of what "Gary" says to Tommie near the end, just think of it as an "expensive" relationship. And as a parent, that way... it really will be (expensive); and your quest for an idealized cross-generational relationship can then legitimately be (more or less) guilt free. Like I say, one can theoretically appreciate Art for its own sake, but at least couldn't the artist once in a while make art without having to achieve it by simply breaking yet another taboo? This well-worn gimmick does not make for an "expensive" film.., and nobody's leaving me a farm in their will. I want my money back.COME ON, PEOPLE!! Let's DO something truly, actually worth while; and help me bring back the semicolon!!

Ross Partridge directs and stars in "Lamb," a 2015 film following David Lamb (played by Ross Partridge), a man in his late forties who is quickly becoming aware of his disintegrating goodness. He encounters a girl named Tommie (played by Oona Lawrence). Though she's only eleven years old, David is aware that she is in danger of becoming just as defeated by life as he is. The two connect, and a friendship grows. In an effort to save Tommie from becoming just like him, David invites Tommie away from the city and into the country heartland he grew up in. What follows is a journey of self- discovery for both David and Tommie, culminating in an emotional bond that neither of them could have predicted.The main character's choice to befriend an eleven year old girl is at the center of the film's controversy. The film pays a price for having a protagonist who crosses social sanctioned boundaries in trying to do the right thing, scaring off potential viewers. Partridge was very aware of this controversy, and the ethics of their relationship is one of the continuing topics within the film: Is David going to get in trouble for his behavior? Does he deserve to get in trouble? For the sake of not trying to force my perception of their relationship, I won't try too hard to persuade you one way or another. It is important, however, to note that while Tommie and David are constantly thrown into circumstances that force them to confront the delicacy of their situation, their relationship never approaches a sexual nature. You needn't worry about David peeking at Tommie in the bathroom, or anything similar.Ross Partridge and Oona Lawrence embody their characters so naturally. What they do here should barely be called acting. More like being. Partridge is given the complex task of having to convey deep confusion to the audience, but confidence when he's with his costar. Fortunately, he's able to pull this off and articulate David's personal journey at every stage with perfection. Despite her young age, Lawrence demonstrates remarkable acting in such a demanding role, conveying innocence and intelligence simultaneously. More impressive than the acting ability of either individual is the chemistry between the two leads. They aren't the only actors in the film, but still carry the film mostly between the two of them. Fortunately, they carry it just fine.One element of the film that really surprised me was the cinematography, specifically the number of landscape shots. Even images of the city, which is supposed to represent a metaphorical prison for both characters, look tranquil. This form is consistent throughout the film as the background changes to hotel lobbies to the roadside to the country. These landscape shots were amplified by the music underscoring each scene.The recurring piano score endowed the film with a sort of innocence, a hopefulness that neither of the protagonists have a surplus of. It's especially helpful early on as Tommie and David's relationship starts to bud. Probably the single best tool the film used to alleviate the uncertainty we feel toward David at the beginning.Assuming he'd prefer viewers to not be drowned by David's unconventional behavior, I'd suggest to Partridge that he give increased cognizance of Tommie's sad home life to David. The easiest argument against David having ill intentions is that he was trying to save Tommie from wasting away in neglect, and even an unconventional intervention is better than no intervention at all. While we see that David is aware of Tommie's situation, further enunciating that Tommie would be worse off without him would make his actions much more understandable. This would have been much more helpful, not to mention economic, than David or Tommie intermittently commenting, "This is weird. He, he." Lamb is bold in a way many films claim to be but seldom are. Not everyone is going to accept Partridge's direction, which is understandable. Lamb may be aggressive in how it breaks social norms, but in the wake of Partridge's loud experiment is a delicately crafted film. The liberation afforded to this movie allows for a very honest exploration of good intentions, redemption, and the nature of love, in the process creating a relationship that manages to be both powerful and tender. I'm not sure I've seen anything like it anywhere else in the film world. The closest I can think of would be Leon: The Professional. One thing is for sure, much like David and Tommie are changed by their adventure, you will never be the same after watching this film.

David(Ross Partridge) is a forty seven year old man who has just lost his father and divorced his wife and seems on the verge of a nervous break down. After burying his father, he meets an eleven year old girl, Tommie(Oona Laurence) at a parking lot, where, somehow, they connect. Thus begins a strange journey, where the two relate on an emotional level. David takes Tommie on a road trip to a desolate cabin in the mountains while searching for some meaning to his life. Tommie is an outcast with indifferent parents. The writer of the novel, Lamb, Bonnie Nadzam, claims to never have read Lolita, which was also adapted for the screen in 1962 by Stanley Kubrick. The themes are similar, but Lolita's protagonist, played by the precocious and self assured fifteen year old Sue Lyon, is a million miles apart from the innocent eleven year old Oona Laurence. Though at times unsettling, Lamb never veers into Lolita's explicitly sexual territory. Partridge and Laurence are riveting together and I look forward to see what the young actress does next. Lamb is a solid 8/10.

Wow! How can one even begin to describe or rate this movie? It's like watching a train wreck but you just can't look away.Both Ross Partridge and Oona Laurence are terrific in their starring roles here. Partridge also directed and wrote the screenplay, based on the novel by Bonnie Nadzam. Partridge portrays the very strange 47-year- old David Lamb, who's in the throes of a divorce, his father has just passed away, and he's been asked by his boss to take some time off to get himself together. Also, he's in the midst of an office romance with a woman (Jess Weixler), who seems to care very much for him, but he's only capable of wanting a sexual dalliance at this point. David is also a rather vile manipulator and prevaricator, which he uses to gets what he wants.Laurence is simply amazing as the 11-year-old Tommie, who spends most of her time on the streets with her so-called friends, and who comes from a most neglectful and miserable home life. After watching her performance in this film, I can't see how Laurence cannot have the brightest future on the silver screen.Thus, when David and Tommie cross paths in a strip mall parking lot, it will mark the beginning of a most creepy and bizarre "bonding' between the two that will culminate in David taking Tommie on a several day's trip to his late father's isolated cabin. Although Tommie will get to experience things she never has before, she's manipulated every step of the way by David. Through his subtle promptings, he will convince her not to notify her mother where she's gone. Although there are no overt sexual advances on his part, David ends up placing Tommie in emotional situations no 11-year-old should be. Things will just get creepier and more bizarre as the movie progresses, but as mentioned, I was just totally engrossed, as painful as it was to witness.Overall, this was a most unsettling film, to say the least, with terrific performances from Partridge and Laurence, and with its most gut wrenching ending its impact will stay with me for some time to come.