The airport scene was alright I guess, but at the end of the day it's just the regular CGI-fest which is exacerbated by the fact you know none of those superheroes are gonna kill each other
They even stop the whole fight when one of them gets hurt, which makes you wonder why they were even fighting at all
the action and cinematography is good. the movie is intellectually daft and not that compelling.
Alex garland is a BRIT homosexual, that probably cut out a bunch of shit that made it more political. because the movie IS political, and can't help but undermine itself.
No. They show up later when the danger is gone like a sane person and photographs the scenes after or during cleanup. Why risk losing your footage and hearing or getting yourself killed
Russian soldiers have been shooting journalist and Israel doesn't seem to care about dropping bombs on journalist either. I mean Jane Fonda was able sit down and have tea with the north vietnamese.
Unironically a cool twist on a gunfight scene
Pity it's undermined by how silly it is >the girls are shown using the cameras the same way the men use guns
This is, one suspects, supposed to be deep
There's about 3 action scenes:
1. A squad of guys in Hawaiian shirts and cabellas caps are in a firefight with camo guys in a parking garage.
2. A sniper "duel" between a guy out in an abandoned christmas decoration field shooting at a guy in a building 200 or 300 yards away. You never see the guy in the building or even a gunshot.
3. Oorah as California marines fight a block or two up the street to get to the White House and dome the president who is found pissing and shitting himself underneath his desk in the oval office. Who scene feels like a level from CoD MW2 with the baddies all dressed like Men in Black wearing suits, sunglasses, and earpieces even though it's middle of the night.
In general, each action scene goes as follows:
1. Complete silence
2. *BOOM*
3. *riiiiiiiiiiiiiing*
4. *BANG BANG BANG BANG*
5. *Fade into a folk song as everything else gets muted*
The action was pretty good but definitely held up by 10/10 sound design. So unless you have good headphones or speakers at home you probably want to see it in theaters.
The jump from them smoking a joint to the Hawaiian shirt guys fighting scared the living crap out of me. Unlike a lot of movies combat actually is scary in this movie because of the sounds. IDK maybe im just autistic and have sensory issues?
I was not lucky enough to see it in IMAX. An IMAX theater near me is apparently doing a screening with a QnA after. I think I will try to go if I can get tickets to see it again. This is probably the best movie to come out in the 2020s so far I think.
>The ending sequence was worth the price for imax >worth the price for imax
The climax was already in the trailer, hell, the entire plot from start to finish was. Utterly disappointing.
True but I didn't know the role the president played. I thought it was interesting seeing the sequences in context. It made my stomach sink to see an american president treated like Ghadaffi or Saddam. I enjoyed it more for the context of it.
The movie didn't provide any context for the ongoing civil war, while all I was interested at was the context. They actually showed the entire movie in the trailer.
sounds like the movie was poorly written then. Let me guess, just like every other modern movie they completely skip character development and expect you to instantly be invested in whoever is on the screen without even knowing their name?
Did you expect a hero's journey? Its about war and violence as it really is: mostly senseless. There's no ideological debate on a battlefield, not really. Just "he's trying to kill me, so I'm going to kill him".
https://i.imgur.com/0qGx8T6.jpg
is the trailer misleading or are there some thrilling action scenes in this movie
My tinfoil hat take is that the movie is a psyop for the sake of quelling the rising tensions on the right. The trailers are edited to lure in the kinds of morons that have been itching to see a real American civil war because they think they'd be the one who frees all the kids in cages (but not the ones the other side is always talking about), then getting bait n' switched with an A24 artsy fartsy film that doesn't fit their standard "movie must have xyz" checklist. Now any time some 72 IQ chud thinks about a civil war, their first thought will be "that movie was so fricking gay. No way I'd fight alongside commiefornia. Then the revolution would be WOKE and they'd probably let a black woman kill the guy in charge".
Frick, when the movie was over everyone left and an obvious rightoid chud asked me "man that movie sucked huh?" on his way out. He definitely came expecting an action flick on how cool a boogaloo would be and instead he got artsy out of focus camera work when the main character had vaguementalhealth.jpg going on. Guarantee you his thoughts of a civil war are tainted now. 10/10 that guy made my night, would recommend. Great sound design too.
>The trailers are edited to lure in the kinds of morons that have been itching to see a real American civil war because they think they'd be the one who frees all the kids in cages
Weird take.
The trailer included all of the plot and about 80% of the money shots, its only intention was to fill seats and it did so at the expense of viewer enjoyment. Even the Meth Damon scene was largely spoiled by it.
I'll take it as a weird take, but I'm standing by it. Its anecdotal but that dude that buzzed me at the end of the movie is all the proof I need.
You and I know how trailers are edited, but we're fairly media literate (I'm assuming by the nature of being on this board). Most people don't have the ability to break down what they see and what they can realistically expect.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The trailers are edited to lure in the kinds of morons that have been itching to see a real American civil war because they think they'd be the one who frees all the kids in cages
Weird take.
The trailer included all of the plot and about 80% of the money shots, its only intention was to fill seats and it did so at the expense of viewer enjoyment. Even the Meth Damon scene was largely spoiled by it.
I also had a similar experience exiting the theatre, some dude was talking to his GF and he was like "I thought that was going to be like the purge, I didn't expect it to be artistic and about journalists"
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I thought that was going to be like the purge
kek, that's hilarious. Could you keep yourself from laughing?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I let a little more air out my nose as I walked past.
I love how triggering the films is just because it is apolitical, you go on letterboxd and there's a ton of crybabies giving it 1 star or half a star for not making a statement and not pushing their agenda.
Was a very oddly hollow film. I was expecting something that was way more introspective.
I knew that the civil war title was a red herring and the movie would be about journalism, but I was expecting it to have more to say than "Look how desensitized these guys are to war, they see people's lives as only subjects to arrange in a frame".
Then having the twist at the end where the main character herself ends up being objectified this way.
In that sense the movie feels oddly like something out of the 00s or 90s because of how it tries to make such an obvious observation seem so much more profound than it is.
Also the fact that this is a movie about news media and warfare which doesn't include social media or the internet at all is another thing that blows my mind.
It's like Garland had a script from 1998 lying around and just now got around to filming it.
The concept of a Civil War Film where the particular politics of the war itself didn't really matter and were an abstract backdrop for a story told through the perspectives of photojournalists seemed really interesting to me, but this movie doesn't do anything cool with that premise.
Yeah I'm seeing it from both sides, funny that the response to the film is more interesting than the film itself.
a lot of people are saying that the war was just a backdrop table setting to tell the story of these war journalists, and I think it's the other way around. I found the most enjoyment of the film in watching what a civil war might look like in america. I just cared about the logistics of what it would be like. That's what I came to see, and I got a vision of it. Granted, reality would be far worse than this, but this is about the closest depiction you will ever get in a rated R film. I think people aren't giving enough credit for that, and instead focusing on the 7/10 story or the politics or cailees fat ass or plemons 5 minute scene. The cinematography was awesome, flat out.
>cailees fat ass
Man that shit was so noticeable, it took me out the movie for a second.
if I wanted "war is... LE BAD" slop I would have watched Godmino kino. at least that's entertaining.
I don't even think this is a "war is bad" type of film. It seems to want to be more than that, but it's just very dumb.
>Then having the twist at the end where the main character herself ends up being objectified this way.
For a twist it sure lacked impact, wasn't very surprising either. To me the movie was mostly about the corruption of muh hipster citizen journalist, very superficial and indeed hollow
a lot of people are saying that the war was just a backdrop table setting to tell the story of these war journalists, and I think it's the other way around. I found the most enjoyment of the film in watching what a civil war might look like in america. I just cared about the logistics of what it would be like. That's what I came to see, and I got a vision of it. Granted, reality would be far worse than this, but this is about the closest depiction you will ever get in a rated R film. I think people aren't giving enough credit for that, and instead focusing on the 7/10 story or the politics or cailees fat ass or plemons 5 minute scene. The cinematography was awesome, flat out.
>cailees fat ass
Highlight of the movie, who would have guessed after Devs. (Which surprisingly had a much, much better plot than this.)
What the hell happened to Garland after Devs? His last two movies were quite disappointing..
I just saw it last night. IMO the movie tried so hard to not be about contemporary politics so as to not alienate either side that it lacks any coherent narrative beyond "war photographers do an essential task and should be respected." The movie I guess is arguing that the press is without bias, and should be respected. I don't think anyone really thinks war photographers are bad people, even the people who hate the media. The point of the people hating the media is that it is decidedly not without bias, and this bias is obvious. No one who is saying "frick journo scum" is talking about the guys who take photographs in warzones. They're talking about the shitheel fricking pampered homosexuals in DC and NYC writing opinion pieces. So the movie fails in that regard if it's meant to be about "don't villainize the press"
It's not like when James Foley got beheaded the Tea Partiers were laughing about it. THey recognized it as a tragedy. People who hate the press don't mean literally every single person contributing to a newspaper, they mean the columnists trying to sway public opinion
also needed more Jesse Plemons, he was the only interesting character
>No one who is saying "frick journo scum" is talking about the guys who take photographs in warzones.
No, they definitely say that. Like you forgot or are intentionally leaving out the "white helmets" controversy in Syria and pretty much everything about Ukraine from both sides.
I don't think it's an anti war movie. For what it's worth, Garland has said that the president was a fascist who refused to step down after his term limit was up (though this might just be one side of the story for all we know). Anti war would imply that actually, the people should have just stuck it through as the fighting is worse than uncomfortable peace. I'm not saying it was pro war, just "let me show you what a war looks like" and make up your own mind; which is exactly what the job of a journalist is (supposed to) be.
The movie seems to believe in absolutely nothing outside of humanity being a bit shit when it is angry, upset and has nothing to loose. Which I think is the most honest thing the movie can show; and it shows it well.
There's this scene in rambo 4 where the Burmese army bayonets a baby and throws it in a flaming building. To this day I am still shocked by how violent the humans are depicted in that movie. Kinda wish this movie was that graphic. Hotel rwanda also has a good depiction of a civil war and how savage humans are.
This movie had cailee spaeny looking cute for 90 mins.
a lot of people are saying that the war was just a backdrop table setting to tell the story of these war journalists, and I think it's the other way around. I found the most enjoyment of the film in watching what a civil war might look like in america. I just cared about the logistics of what it would be like. That's what I came to see, and I got a vision of it. Granted, reality would be far worse than this, but this is about the closest depiction you will ever get in a rated R film. I think people aren't giving enough credit for that, and instead focusing on the 7/10 story or the politics or cailees fat ass or plemons 5 minute scene. The cinematography was awesome, flat out.
Being apolitical was the worst decision they could make. They should have been more like the movie the Hunt. Make the journalist interview people on the left and right but give them cartoony over the top viewpoints about the other side while the main character is a moderate of some kind. The Hunt was such a great movie and it pissed people off because it shit on Republicans AND Democrats and the left can't handle that so they tanked it in reviews.
I like garland, seen everything except for annihilation and MEN, the latter which I have no interest in. He and Penis Villinuve are the only ones even trying hard sci-fi.
Wouldn't these journalist all be deaf. Earlier in the movie they're hiding next to a heli which literally sounds death screaming through their ears. They must have some bad tinnitus.
This movie was pretty mediocre honestly. I thought it was a movie about a civil war... hence the title... But it's not, it's a movie about war journalists... Fricking dogshit tbh.
Being apolitical was the worst decision they could make. They should have been more like the movie the Hunt. Make the journalist interview people on the left and right but give them cartoony over the top viewpoints about the other side while the main character is a moderate of some kind. The Hunt was such a great movie and it pissed people off because it shit on Republicans AND Democrats and the left can't handle that so they tanked it in reviews.
Loved The Hunt, even the strong woman main character which was surprisingly done very right but it was quite cartoonish which Garland clearly didn't go for with this movie and personally I would have liked it even less if he had.
The airport scene was alright I guess, but at the end of the day it's just the regular CGI-fest which is exacerbated by the fact you know none of those superheroes are gonna kill each other
They even stop the whole fight when one of them gets hurt, which makes you wonder why they were even fighting at all
haha!
the action and cinematography is good. the movie is intellectually daft and not that compelling.
Alex garland is a BRIT homosexual, that probably cut out a bunch of shit that made it more political. because the movie IS political, and can't help but undermine itself.
Lol
What's wrong with this again?
Are you moronic?
Is this really how war journalism is? These morons shoving a camera in the soldiers' faces while they're shooting and running?
No. They show up later when the danger is gone like a sane person and photographs the scenes after or during cleanup. Why risk losing your footage and hearing or getting yourself killed
during vietnam yeah, I dont know about now since russians and israelites will just shoot journalists.
Not that different, bunch of them in Ukraine for example. Dunno about Gaza/Israel, but probably there as well.
Russian soldiers have been shooting journalist and Israel doesn't seem to care about dropping bombs on journalist either. I mean Jane Fonda was able sit down and have tea with the north vietnamese.
It's more likely the journalist would do something to get a soldier killed
ex machinima really was a fluke. This Black person awful.
Sunshine is better.
sunshine is great until it turns into a shitty slasher
I will never watch a movie that glorifies the press.
Unironically a cool twist on a gunfight scene
Pity it's undermined by how silly it is
>the girls are shown using the cameras the same way the men use guns
This is, one suspects, supposed to be deep
Well that's fricking moronic. Talk about false advertising.
>supposed to be about a 2nd civil war
>actually just about how Noble and Brave journalists are
>anime tier action sequences
>noble and brave
You mean selfish and reckless?
Congrats, you're media illiterate. The movie was about a civil war.
Yup I will never pay to watch anything that makes the media look positive. Fricking demons
Yuck
There's about 3 action scenes:
1. A squad of guys in Hawaiian shirts and cabellas caps are in a firefight with camo guys in a parking garage.
2. A sniper "duel" between a guy out in an abandoned christmas decoration field shooting at a guy in a building 200 or 300 yards away. You never see the guy in the building or even a gunshot.
3. Oorah as California marines fight a block or two up the street to get to the White House and dome the president who is found pissing and shitting himself underneath his desk in the oval office. Who scene feels like a level from CoD MW2 with the baddies all dressed like Men in Black wearing suits, sunglasses, and earpieces even though it's middle of the night.
In general, each action scene goes as follows:
1. Complete silence
2. *BOOM*
3. *riiiiiiiiiiiiiing*
4. *BANG BANG BANG BANG*
5. *Fade into a folk song as everything else gets muted*
Does it seem like a movie where the storyboards were all pre-generated by AI and then had a script written after the fact?
The Christmas Decoration field sounds like an AI "accident" they liked the look of if there's no underlying theme unfolding.
Basically, does that scene feel like a "War on Christmas" joke or random color?
Your pic is the best scene in the film by far
Very meh overall though
The action was pretty good but definitely held up by 10/10 sound design. So unless you have good headphones or speakers at home you probably want to see it in theaters.
The thumping helicopter blades as they took off for DC was so kino in the cinema
The jump from them smoking a joint to the Hawaiian shirt guys fighting scared the living crap out of me. Unlike a lot of movies combat actually is scary in this movie because of the sounds. IDK maybe im just autistic and have sensory issues?
Seeing it in imax sounded like I was in a gun range. Especially the scene with Boogaloo boys. The gunfire was spectacular in that scene
I was not lucky enough to see it in IMAX. An IMAX theater near me is apparently doing a screening with a QnA after. I think I will try to go if I can get tickets to see it again. This is probably the best movie to come out in the 2020s so far I think.
Do it. The ending sequence was worth the price for imax
>The ending sequence was worth the price for imax
>worth the price for imax
The climax was already in the trailer, hell, the entire plot from start to finish was. Utterly disappointing.
True but I didn't know the role the president played. I thought it was interesting seeing the sequences in context. It made my stomach sink to see an american president treated like Ghadaffi or Saddam. I enjoyed it more for the context of it.
The movie didn't provide any context for the ongoing civil war, while all I was interested at was the context. They actually showed the entire movie in the trailer.
The purpose of the film wasn't to provide context. It was was to show different scenarios that you could encounter in a civil war.
sounds like the movie was poorly written then. Let me guess, just like every other modern movie they completely skip character development and expect you to instantly be invested in whoever is on the screen without even knowing their name?
Did you expect a hero's journey? Its about war and violence as it really is: mostly senseless. There's no ideological debate on a battlefield, not really. Just "he's trying to kill me, so I'm going to kill him".
My tinfoil hat take is that the movie is a psyop for the sake of quelling the rising tensions on the right. The trailers are edited to lure in the kinds of morons that have been itching to see a real American civil war because they think they'd be the one who frees all the kids in cages (but not the ones the other side is always talking about), then getting bait n' switched with an A24 artsy fartsy film that doesn't fit their standard "movie must have xyz" checklist. Now any time some 72 IQ chud thinks about a civil war, their first thought will be "that movie was so fricking gay. No way I'd fight alongside commiefornia. Then the revolution would be WOKE and they'd probably let a black woman kill the guy in charge".
Frick, when the movie was over everyone left and an obvious rightoid chud asked me "man that movie sucked huh?" on his way out. He definitely came expecting an action flick on how cool a boogaloo would be and instead he got artsy out of focus camera work when the main character had vaguementalhealth.jpg going on. Guarantee you his thoughts of a civil war are tainted now. 10/10 that guy made my night, would recommend. Great sound design too.
>The trailers are edited to lure in the kinds of morons that have been itching to see a real American civil war because they think they'd be the one who frees all the kids in cages
Weird take.
The trailer included all of the plot and about 80% of the money shots, its only intention was to fill seats and it did so at the expense of viewer enjoyment. Even the Meth Damon scene was largely spoiled by it.
I'll take it as a weird take, but I'm standing by it. Its anecdotal but that dude that buzzed me at the end of the movie is all the proof I need.
You and I know how trailers are edited, but we're fairly media literate (I'm assuming by the nature of being on this board). Most people don't have the ability to break down what they see and what they can realistically expect.
I also had a similar experience exiting the theatre, some dude was talking to his GF and he was like "I thought that was going to be like the purge, I didn't expect it to be artistic and about journalists"
>I thought that was going to be like the purge
kek, that's hilarious. Could you keep yourself from laughing?
I let a little more air out my nose as I walked past.
Very interesting, anon. I share a somewhat similar view.
I love how triggering the films is just because it is apolitical, you go on letterboxd and there's a ton of crybabies giving it 1 star or half a star for not making a statement and not pushing their agenda.
I really wanted to like this.
Was a very oddly hollow film. I was expecting something that was way more introspective.
I knew that the civil war title was a red herring and the movie would be about journalism, but I was expecting it to have more to say than "Look how desensitized these guys are to war, they see people's lives as only subjects to arrange in a frame".
Then having the twist at the end where the main character herself ends up being objectified this way.
In that sense the movie feels oddly like something out of the 00s or 90s because of how it tries to make such an obvious observation seem so much more profound than it is.
Also the fact that this is a movie about news media and warfare which doesn't include social media or the internet at all is another thing that blows my mind.
It's like Garland had a script from 1998 lying around and just now got around to filming it.
The concept of a Civil War Film where the particular politics of the war itself didn't really matter and were an abstract backdrop for a story told through the perspectives of photojournalists seemed really interesting to me, but this movie doesn't do anything cool with that premise.
Yeah I'm seeing it from both sides, funny that the response to the film is more interesting than the film itself.
>cailees fat ass
Man that shit was so noticeable, it took me out the movie for a second.
I don't even think this is a "war is bad" type of film. It seems to want to be more than that, but it's just very dumb.
>Then having the twist at the end where the main character herself ends up being objectified this way.
For a twist it sure lacked impact, wasn't very surprising either. To me the movie was mostly about the corruption of muh hipster citizen journalist, very superficial and indeed hollow
>cailees fat ass
Highlight of the movie, who would have guessed after Devs. (Which surprisingly had a much, much better plot than this.)
What the hell happened to Garland after Devs? His last two movies were quite disappointing..
So why was Elton John so worked up about what type of American they were?
because he was standing guard over a mass grave and was concerned about how the media would portray the existence of said mass grave.... or something
it is loud as frick in IMAX, every gun shot resonates and you feel it like you're the shooter or the receiving end.
No, just moronic ones. Such as apaches flying a story above the ground in a city and getting to within bayonet distance before opening fire.
I just saw it last night. IMO the movie tried so hard to not be about contemporary politics so as to not alienate either side that it lacks any coherent narrative beyond "war photographers do an essential task and should be respected." The movie I guess is arguing that the press is without bias, and should be respected. I don't think anyone really thinks war photographers are bad people, even the people who hate the media. The point of the people hating the media is that it is decidedly not without bias, and this bias is obvious. No one who is saying "frick journo scum" is talking about the guys who take photographs in warzones. They're talking about the shitheel fricking pampered homosexuals in DC and NYC writing opinion pieces. So the movie fails in that regard if it's meant to be about "don't villainize the press"
It's not like when James Foley got beheaded the Tea Partiers were laughing about it. THey recognized it as a tragedy. People who hate the press don't mean literally every single person contributing to a newspaper, they mean the columnists trying to sway public opinion
also needed more Jesse Plemons, he was the only interesting character
>No one who is saying "frick journo scum" is talking about the guys who take photographs in warzones.
No, they definitely say that. Like you forgot or are intentionally leaving out the "white helmets" controversy in Syria and pretty much everything about Ukraine from both sides.
>"white helmets"
Weren't they supposed to be some sort of civil rescue organization but in actuality part of al nusra?
>Make anti war movie
>Have action packed Michael bay transformers style battle at the end
I don't think it's an anti war movie. For what it's worth, Garland has said that the president was a fascist who refused to step down after his term limit was up (though this might just be one side of the story for all we know). Anti war would imply that actually, the people should have just stuck it through as the fighting is worse than uncomfortable peace. I'm not saying it was pro war, just "let me show you what a war looks like" and make up your own mind; which is exactly what the job of a journalist is (supposed to) be.
The movie seems to believe in absolutely nothing outside of humanity being a bit shit when it is angry, upset and has nothing to loose. Which I think is the most honest thing the movie can show; and it shows it well.
There's this scene in rambo 4 where the Burmese army bayonets a baby and throws it in a flaming building. To this day I am still shocked by how violent the humans are depicted in that movie. Kinda wish this movie was that graphic. Hotel rwanda also has a good depiction of a civil war and how savage humans are.
This movie had cailee spaeny looking cute for 90 mins.
a lot of people are saying that the war was just a backdrop table setting to tell the story of these war journalists, and I think it's the other way around. I found the most enjoyment of the film in watching what a civil war might look like in america. I just cared about the logistics of what it would be like. That's what I came to see, and I got a vision of it. Granted, reality would be far worse than this, but this is about the closest depiction you will ever get in a rated R film. I think people aren't giving enough credit for that, and instead focusing on the 7/10 story or the politics or cailees fat ass or plemons 5 minute scene. The cinematography was awesome, flat out.
You need to watch the Mexican film New Order. That's really what a civil war or revolution would look like.
Got any more recommendations?
I know, right?
I like garland, seen everything except for annihilation and MEN, the latter which I have no interest in. He and Penis Villinuve are the only ones even trying hard sci-fi.
It’s really, really fricking good.
if I wanted "war is... LE BAD" slop I would have watched Godmino kino. at least that's entertaining.
Is CGI really that bad?
I was sad when Thufir died even though I’m an intense racist.
I don't believe he would have a 16 in barrel instead of 14.5, immersion: broken
Wouldn't these journalist all be deaf. Earlier in the movie they're hiding next to a heli which literally sounds death screaming through their ears. They must have some bad tinnitus.
This movie was pretty mediocre honestly. I thought it was a movie about a civil war... hence the title... But it's not, it's a movie about war journalists... Fricking dogshit tbh.
Being apolitical was the worst decision they could make. They should have been more like the movie the Hunt. Make the journalist interview people on the left and right but give them cartoony over the top viewpoints about the other side while the main character is a moderate of some kind. The Hunt was such a great movie and it pissed people off because it shit on Republicans AND Democrats and the left can't handle that so they tanked it in reviews.
>Damon Lindelof
frick off
Loved The Hunt, even the strong woman main character which was surprisingly done very right but it was quite cartoonish which Garland clearly didn't go for with this movie and personally I would have liked it even less if he had.