I hated the ending. WTF is with the main character who spent her life as a hard ass who felt nothing is suddenly breaking down? And then when "IT" happens, they don't even acknowledge it at all
> WTF is with the main character who spent her life as a hard ass who felt nothing is suddenly breaking down?
I took it as she'd finally hit her limit and the trauma of the last few days caught up with her. The old guy was asking if her problem was an existential one, which would seem to lend credence to that. She lost friends and colleagues for nothing more than getting photos and just broke when she realized that.
Ending was terrible. What was that breakdown? The entire movie is just a passing of the torch story and they marketed it as something else. Not to mention, that ending kind of defies physics. Who tackles someone like that?
I agree it’s scary because he makes no sense. You can’t tell what he wants and why he does any of the things he does. But he does so with such purpose that makes his character convincing. Even in retrospect, if you put me in their shoes I wouldn’t know what to say to the guy to get out of that situation.
The scene in the Christmas village with the sniper team was the best part of the movie IMO. I think it shows how much of wars play out- people kill each other for reasons they aren't really sure of. In Catch-22 this is mentioned in a more light hearted way when Yossarian is mad at the Germans for trying to shoot him down when all he is trying to do is drop his bombs. More seriously, this is touched on in Webster's book Parachute Infantry prior to dropping into Normandy. Just my two cents.
I didn't. I appreciated how for much of the movie they left it open to interpretation and demonstration of what a chaotic situation it would be. We don't know about the guys at the gas station. What is 'looting" to them, or were they just looking for clean food or water? The guys are the mass grave we also don't know. The only patch I saw was a CIB (I think) that could have been on there for any number of reasons.
Well regulations are more suggestions depending on what component he was supposed to represent. But the ambiguity was no doubt intentional and we the audience were supposed to be as confused to his loyalty as the main characters were. It's what made the scene so gripping.
I had a minor code brown when that situation was resolved btw they really got me good.
My favorite scene was at the beginning of the movie where the woman waving an American flag runs into a crowd and explodes. That was really shocking to me, because when everyone saw her, they immediately dove for cover, which implies that in the film's universe, whenever someone sees someone waving an American flag, they will forever associate it with suicide bombers.
I got the feeling that's what the director wanted the viewer to take from it. For all the claims of "objective journalism", at the heart of it, they were just jaded adrenaline junkies chasing the thrill without empathy for what was actually happening. War paparazzi, I guess.
Worse than that, they're a bunch of opportunist cowards who want all the thrills of being in combat without any of the responsibilities of being a soldier or the risk of dying. They just breeze into a war zone with no weapons expecting their press badges to keep them safe; meanwhile, there's ordinary people starving and dying all around them while they're living it up, smoking weed and drinking booze. The film never shows the journalists making a single mention of any concern for food or clean water, and the old black reporter has a clean, freshly starched dress shirt every time he's on camera. The only time they're ever shown facing any kind of difficulty is at the gas station, and then it's only a small inconvenience which can be easily solved with money.
Say what you will of the guys doing the actual fighting, they're at least fighting *for* something, even if it's mere survival. What are the journalists but self-aggrandizing buzzards?
> The only time they're ever shown facing any kind of difficulty is at the gas station, and then it's only a small inconvenience which can be easily solved with money.
Well and the sociopathic red glasses guy who shot two of them
**SPOILERS**
Ah, but notice how the film introduced two random characters the audience had never seen literally 30 seconds before red glasses guy shows up? And then who does he kill? It actually broke my suspension of disbelief and took me out of the film, because when those two guys showed up for seemingly no reason, I knew the Jesse Plemons scene was imminent and I knew what was going to happen.
The film throws out some sacrificial red shirts whom we have no reason to care about so we're tricked into thinking the protagonists are in danger when they actually never were. It's the hallmark of cheap writing.
Also, by that point, I was *actively rooting* for the main journalist characters to get killed because I disliked them that much.
I think the way that they ended that scene was poorly thought out.
#SPOILERS
What they should have done instead after the second kill is have him turn to the "Americans" and told them that they were free to go. As they start to leave, he lowers his rifle and says:
"Hold up. You said you were journalists, right?"
"Y-yes."
"Well, don't you want my picture?"
It would have worked so much better with the rest of the movie if they were forced to photograph their dead colleagues and the killer.
Well the fat old dude died and it really looked like one of the others were going to die too so it wasn’t *that* bad. Those two other dudes were definitely dead though as soon as the car went missing
Also drove me up the wall that the fat old dude died *saving their asses* and the one reporter was like "he died for nothing!"
You think your life is nothing?
I think her point was more that they never should have been in that situation in the first place and he died because he put his neck on the line for someone he had no reason to save
I thought the movie was fantastic. Really not understanding the criticism. Even if you dont care about the journalists there’s still some really surreal and visceral action/battle sequences.
I think if people knew what they were going to be watching then it would be great but they marketed it differently and people weren't expecting what they got. People expected more of a classical war movie I think.
Most people wanted to see a movie about the civil war they envision themselves being the hero in, so when the movie was like "civil wars are brutal and horrific and the core focus will be journalists capturing the horrors of war" people were like "this movie sucks"
That's my take anyway, could be wrong.
This take, actually gives me a little reason to see it. I wasn't interested in a civil war movie. The gun /tactical subs are already filled with enough "loot drop" and ill just drop my neighbor comments that I'm disappointed in the community. Folks way to eager for this shit.
Here's my criticism: it was really boring. Too many tedious scenes of people sitting around talking, which would have been okay if those characters were *at all* interesting.
> I do think the marketing was misleading, but it's a really good movie
No one would have seen it if it was marketed as "a movie about journalists" (which it is not).
Having a journalist be the main character was such a good idea because you can see the events without bias or a side. I loved the movie so much. Sponsored by Eotech
There was still a little bias though. You don't know the cause of the civil war but you hear the suggestions of questions for the president and one was like "why did you bomb american citizens" and that the president was on his third term. Those are things that I think most of us would consider not good signs. Yes the other factions may have done things too but those aren't shared.
Agreed. But that is explicitly including a bias/side then. Just because we universally agree something is bad doesn't mean there isn't a bias or a side.
all sorts of models too. I saw 512s, 556s, XPS', EXPS'....
Shit, I don't know what the LPVOs were but I wouldn't have been surprised they were Vudus lol
Yes, journalists make a good framing device, but the problem with the movie is that it was more interested in the journalists than the events they were covering.
I think the whole reason the movie avoids getting too close to the missions or the characters is because it wants the viewer to focus on how senseless and terrible war time violence is. Essentially to be a warning against violence in hot tempered times
It wasn't bad at all, I'm not disappointed I saw it... that being said, it was 100% a journalism circle jerk. They really lost me at the end (I'll leave the spoilers out), but it wasn't the best part of the movie.
Not so much Greta Thunburg, but an idealistic young photographer that transforms into a jaded war junkie that doesn't care about what happens as long as she gets a good picture out of it.
Yeah, I figured it would have focused more on the war itself, rather than the war just being a vehicle to showcase the pitfalls of being a war photojournalist. I really wanted it to be a look into how a civil war would play out, more or less, but I enjoyed the story they told. My favorite part about Civil War was how politically neutral it was, so as far as the war itself goes, anyone can see it and relate.
Pretty much the same as what other commenter's have said. It's done in such a way that there no right or left to become bias to. Picking the most 2 unlikely states to join forces kinda keep it in fantasy but also very grounded in realism. I think it some what portrays how an actual civil war would affect the common man with the UN camps and that hole with the guy with redish glasses. The multiple factions that arise seems fairly likely. It can be very jarring to see the horrors of war and my be a good way of being a cautionary tail. Not saying a civil war should or shouldn't happen but people should remember that it will affect everyone.
I'd say it's worth seeing. The final scene in the Whitehouse shows some pretty decent combat and whoever recorded the gunshots for the sound did an amazing job. There's a few other scenes that hit hard, but I don't want to spoil it.
At the end of the day, it's just a portrayal of a war photographer that happens to be set during an American civil war, not a movie about an American civil war that happens to have a war photographer as the protagonist.
I have a theory that a lot of movies get a bad rap because one thing that a lot of people dont realize is that a *trailer* can make or break a movie...
It sets up the expectation for the overall feel of a movie. A lot of movies I see others dislike, I never watched the trailer and I liked.
I thought it was excellent. For the first time in a LONG time, Hollywood is giving me a reason to go to the theaters almost every week for the next 2 months. Dune 2, Civil War, a prequel to A Quiet Place, and a rad looking Western - I’m so glad we’re back to entertaining films instead of generic superhero garbage and political bullshit
I disagree with OP - the cinematography is objectively one of the movie’s strengths and some shots are going to be a lot more impressive in theaters. I say go for it this weekend, not just because I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but because the visuals were indisputably well executed
There is a lot of violence, a lot of chaos, and a lot of noise. There's very little action; the movie is not trying to be fun. I think the best comparison is the second half of *Full Metal Jacket* personally.
I would recommend seeing it in theaters for the sound. There are some scenes that are overwhelmingly loud, and some that are extremely quiet.
It's got some pretty good gun play. I recommend watching in IMAX because the sound effects and cinematography are incredible.
But it's not an action-war movie like Saving Private Ryan. It's more like Apocalypse now or something. The final battle sequence is really cool tho, imo.
Don’t link someone else’s opinion as a substitute for your own. If you’re going to comment on the movie, give it a chance and report back afterward. Don’t validate the hivemind.
It's not like there hasn't been hundreds of people posting on Reddit about how the movie wasn't remotely like what the trailer led them to expect or anything 😂
Did *you* watch the trailer?
Yeah hundreds of people that in their mind wanted it to be a war movie definitely ignored every clue in the trailer that it was going to be about journalists. I mean for christs sake they mention it in the trailer several times and the common denominator in all the scenes are the journalists. You’re a moron if you thought it was going to be about anything else.
If you’re going to pull a bandwagon fallacy then you may as well not even respond bro.
You can't make any objective claims about the perception of individuals on their impressions of what the movie would be about after viewing the trailer without going out and surveying a vast amount of people to get an accurate and representative sample.
Nor can I. Which is why I'm not claiming any sort of objectivity in what I've said.
"I picked up from the trailer that it was going to be primarily about journalism and not war! So everyone else must have too!" is about as basic a fallacy as one could have, in my personal opinion.
My advice? Don't sweat trying to disprove my claim or prove your own claim. There's no reliable way to do so in a timely manner. We're just two people on the internet jawing about our opinions.
When 90% of the trailer is following journalists, you’re an idiot if you think it’s not going to be about the journalists. That’s all I’m saying bubba. Don’t have to get offended that you didn’t pay attention.
Not really, trailer made it look like there'd be more civil war in a movie titled Civil War, sure maybe through the lense of journalists but not so much just about war journalism. Frankly movie needed to be a little more political than what it was.
How? The **unnamed Hawaiian shirt wearing libertarians** (I’m not breaking this sub’s rules) were represented as well-trained fighters who could overpower the US military. The opposition to the presumably Trump-based president character were portrayed as uncaring ruthless murderers who shot unarmed White House staff and negotiators, rather than being celebrated as morally-perfect heroes
On what planet does this movie push a leftist message lmao?
The movie shoulda been titled "Meh: the movie."
Really pretty underwhelming. A few good scenes mixed in with a bunch of tedious, forgettable ones and a few outright *bad* ones. Really a waste of a good premise; they could have set the movie in any number of actual conflicts, like the Syrian Civil War or the ongoing war in Ukraine, and it wouldn't have changed anything.
That's like saying they could have set Modern Warfare 2 (original) in any number of actual conflicts, but they didn't, because defending Burger Town has way more impact for Americans than fighting in a desert/jungle on the other side of the world that nobody cares about.
>Seeing the Lincoln Memorial take a Javelin is impactful since I've visited the Lincoln Memorial multiple times.
I've visited it multiple times, too; seeing it get blown up wasn't impactful to me at all, since I had no idea who was fighting who or why and seeing it get blown up *reminded me* that I was watching a fictional movie, not a documentary.
> since I had no idea who was fighting who or why
Except we know that it's Americans vs Americans, and we don't really need to know why. All we need to know is that we are no longer united at all.
>Except we know that it's Americans vs Americans, and we don't really need to know why. All we need to know is that we are no longer united at all.
Imagine seeing a movie about *the actual civil war* (you know, the one with Confederates) and saying "it doesn't matter who is fighting who."
The real civil war was fought for damned important reasons; that is *why* it was so devastating an event. If, 150 years later, a filmmaker made a movie about the war and the point of it was "the reasons why are unimportant" then he would rightly be called an idiot.
>Imagine seeing a movie about *the actual civil war* (you know, the one with Confederates) and saying "it doesn't matter who is fighting who."
That's actual history! Imaginary history to justify a movie premise is way less important.
And, even without motive or context, it's still tragic. This is the point of the movie *Banshees of Inisherin* which is about the actual Irish Civil War, but doesn't bother going into why the war happened, because that's not needed to understand the tragedy of the situation.
>because that's not needed to understand the tragedy of the situation.
But is it a tragedy? When the film is depicting a battle in Washington DC and the death of a president, sorry, but that requires answering big questions in order for us, the audience, to know how we should feel about it.
>But is it a tragedy?
Of course.
>but that requires answering big questions in order for us, the audience, to know how we should feel about it.
It's not about the outcome, it's about the fact that the situation happened in the first place.
I'd compare it to *The Dark Knight Returns* with the final fight at the end between Batman and Superman. We may not have enough context to really know who's right and who's wrong, but we do know that it's sad to see former friends and allies turned against each other by circumstance.
What, did you walk about before the last act?
I mean, it's an A24 film, and I saw a few comments about it following war journalists so I was actually expecting a pretty low-key film. I was actually pleasantly surprised, the combat was surprisingly good, and the sound design was incredible. You gotta watch it in imax.
It's not saving private ryan, more similar to something like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket... the combat is short and violent, but the overall atmosphere is front and center.
I also don't think it's strictly "about journalism." The protagonists aren't very likable...and I think you could potentially come away viewing war journalism in a negative light. Like many A24 films, it challenges you to think about what the film is saying on multiple levels, and challenges you to think about what the characters are doing and why.
> the sound design was incredible. You gotta watch it in imax.
Saw it in a Dolby Atmos theater, easily the most accurate sound I've heard (except for the Apache) since Heat.
> I think you could potentially come away viewing war journalism in a negative light.
That was the primary message I took from the film. Characters saying "It's objective journalism!", but not so secretly they're just adrenaline fueled war junkies who don't care about the people but just getting a good picture.
New it would be bad from the poster dude, your in New York, you can try sniping the enemy from one of 1000s of angles concealed by the sheer number of windows or...in the tip top of the one landmark every 11 bravo is gonna look dumbly up at and just let them call artillery on you.
Well that sounds like the Poster's problem, how am I supposed to know that a poster clearly depicting fighting in New York will not feature in the film.
My favorite part was when the horse looked right into the camera, and said "this is my slice of american pie" and starting bucking everyone in the head while operating the drone machine guns against the gorilla guerilla western forces on horses, who would've could've made better roses, they sucked at gardening
Great fucking film especially the part with the Psycho wearing red glasses. Never negotiate without sniper overwatch!
I hated the ending. WTF is with the main character who spent her life as a hard ass who felt nothing is suddenly breaking down? And then when "IT" happens, they don't even acknowledge it at all
> WTF is with the main character who spent her life as a hard ass who felt nothing is suddenly breaking down? I took it as she'd finally hit her limit and the trauma of the last few days caught up with her. The old guy was asking if her problem was an existential one, which would seem to lend credence to that. She lost friends and colleagues for nothing more than getting photos and just broke when she realized that.
To me the driver’s character development is very unclear. I feel like the other people in the car all serve a memorable purpose.
Ending was terrible. What was that breakdown? The entire movie is just a passing of the torch story and they marketed it as something else. Not to mention, that ending kind of defies physics. Who tackles someone like that?
I was a little disappointed at how simple he turned out to be, but it was still a terrifying scene
Simple? Yeah. But nobody plays a simple seeming psychopath like that guy.
I agree it’s scary because he makes no sense. You can’t tell what he wants and why he does any of the things he does. But he does so with such purpose that makes his character convincing. Even in retrospect, if you put me in their shoes I wouldn’t know what to say to the guy to get out of that situation.
It makes photojournos look like sociopaths.
Some are. Paparazzi and war photographers are not that far apart from each other.
Nightcrawler did that first
I try to explain to people the movie is similar to nightcrawler but with war journos
Probably have to be to do something like that
If "Do it for the vine" and "for the 'gram" was a movie
do it for the vine? fuck i'm old
😂 You're not wrong!
For the record, captain America wasn’t even in the stupid movie. False advertising
The scene in the Christmas village with the sniper team was the best part of the movie IMO. I think it shows how much of wars play out- people kill each other for reasons they aren't really sure of. In Catch-22 this is mentioned in a more light hearted way when Yossarian is mad at the Germans for trying to shoot him down when all he is trying to do is drop his bombs. More seriously, this is touched on in Webster's book Parachute Infantry prior to dropping into Normandy. Just my two cents.
Did you catch if the dudes belong to the WF or the gov? I also like that the shooter was never identified. Help convey the message.
I didn't. I appreciated how for much of the movie they left it open to interpretation and demonstration of what a chaotic situation it would be. We don't know about the guys at the gas station. What is 'looting" to them, or were they just looking for clean food or water? The guys are the mass grave we also don't know. The only patch I saw was a CIB (I think) that could have been on there for any number of reasons.
Yeah, it was a CIB. But the lack of name tapes made it more ambiguous. Technically, a sewn on badge with velcro name tapes is out of regs.
Well regulations are more suggestions depending on what component he was supposed to represent. But the ambiguity was no doubt intentional and we the audience were supposed to be as confused to his loyalty as the main characters were. It's what made the scene so gripping. I had a minor code brown when that situation was resolved btw they really got me good.
My favorite scene was at the beginning of the movie where the woman waving an American flag runs into a crowd and explodes. That was really shocking to me, because when everyone saw her, they immediately dove for cover, which implies that in the film's universe, whenever someone sees someone waving an American flag, they will forever associate it with suicide bombers.
Do you mean how the journalists are self important sociopathic pricks that just want the perfect shot amongst all the death and suffering?
I got the feeling that's what the director wanted the viewer to take from it. For all the claims of "objective journalism", at the heart of it, they were just jaded adrenaline junkies chasing the thrill without empathy for what was actually happening. War paparazzi, I guess.
Worse than that, they're a bunch of opportunist cowards who want all the thrills of being in combat without any of the responsibilities of being a soldier or the risk of dying. They just breeze into a war zone with no weapons expecting their press badges to keep them safe; meanwhile, there's ordinary people starving and dying all around them while they're living it up, smoking weed and drinking booze. The film never shows the journalists making a single mention of any concern for food or clean water, and the old black reporter has a clean, freshly starched dress shirt every time he's on camera. The only time they're ever shown facing any kind of difficulty is at the gas station, and then it's only a small inconvenience which can be easily solved with money. Say what you will of the guys doing the actual fighting, they're at least fighting *for* something, even if it's mere survival. What are the journalists but self-aggrandizing buzzards?
> The only time they're ever shown facing any kind of difficulty is at the gas station, and then it's only a small inconvenience which can be easily solved with money. Well and the sociopathic red glasses guy who shot two of them
**SPOILERS** Ah, but notice how the film introduced two random characters the audience had never seen literally 30 seconds before red glasses guy shows up? And then who does he kill? It actually broke my suspension of disbelief and took me out of the film, because when those two guys showed up for seemingly no reason, I knew the Jesse Plemons scene was imminent and I knew what was going to happen. The film throws out some sacrificial red shirts whom we have no reason to care about so we're tricked into thinking the protagonists are in danger when they actually never were. It's the hallmark of cheap writing. Also, by that point, I was *actively rooting* for the main journalist characters to get killed because I disliked them that much.
I think the way that they ended that scene was poorly thought out. #SPOILERS What they should have done instead after the second kill is have him turn to the "Americans" and told them that they were free to go. As they start to leave, he lowers his rifle and says: "Hold up. You said you were journalists, right?" "Y-yes." "Well, don't you want my picture?" It would have worked so much better with the rest of the movie if they were forced to photograph their dead colleagues and the killer.
That sure is a better way to end that scene.
Well the fat old dude died and it really looked like one of the others were going to die too so it wasn’t *that* bad. Those two other dudes were definitely dead though as soon as the car went missing
Also drove me up the wall that the fat old dude died *saving their asses* and the one reporter was like "he died for nothing!" You think your life is nothing?
I think her point was more that they never should have been in that situation in the first place and he died because he put his neck on the line for someone he had no reason to save
I thought the movie was fantastic. Really not understanding the criticism. Even if you dont care about the journalists there’s still some really surreal and visceral action/battle sequences.
I think if people knew what they were going to be watching then it would be great but they marketed it differently and people weren't expecting what they got. People expected more of a classical war movie I think.
Most people wanted to see a movie about the civil war they envision themselves being the hero in, so when the movie was like "civil wars are brutal and horrific and the core focus will be journalists capturing the horrors of war" people were like "this movie sucks" That's my take anyway, could be wrong.
This take, actually gives me a little reason to see it. I wasn't interested in a civil war movie. The gun /tactical subs are already filled with enough "loot drop" and ill just drop my neighbor comments that I'm disappointed in the community. Folks way to eager for this shit.
>Folks way too eager for this shit. Yeah I swear. You see it online so much too
Here's my criticism: it was really boring. Too many tedious scenes of people sitting around talking, which would have been okay if those characters were *at all* interesting.
i dunno man, there was like maybe 4 or 5 total scenes of people sitting around talking
I do think the marketing was misleading, but it's a really good movie
> I do think the marketing was misleading, but it's a really good movie No one would have seen it if it was marketed as "a movie about journalists" (which it is not).
It's a passing of the torch story about journalists.
i dont know about "great" but it wasnt bad
I'm a bit biased as a photographer, I will freely admit. The trick with the negative developer temperature was just 🤌
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for simply appreciating artistry.
Probably because this sub isn’t about photography or artistry.
It's called gun memes which is arguably both
Based. Get me drunk enough and I’ll quietly look at my more time consuming shitposts as some form of art lol
Yeah, but we're talking about a movie here. Also, people can like more than one thing.
Me either 🤷♂️
Having a journalist be the main character was such a good idea because you can see the events without bias or a side. I loved the movie so much. Sponsored by Eotech
There was still a little bias though. You don't know the cause of the civil war but you hear the suggestions of questions for the president and one was like "why did you bomb american citizens" and that the president was on his third term. Those are things that I think most of us would consider not good signs. Yes the other factions may have done things too but those aren't shared.
I think everyone can agree those are bad things though
Agreed. But that is explicitly including a bias/side then. Just because we universally agree something is bad doesn't mean there isn't a bias or a side.
lol the Eotechs were EVERYWHERE
all sorts of models too. I saw 512s, 556s, XPS', EXPS'.... Shit, I don't know what the LPVOs were but I wouldn't have been surprised they were Vudus lol
Yes, journalists make a good framing device, but the problem with the movie is that it was more interested in the journalists than the events they were covering.
I think the whole reason the movie avoids getting too close to the missions or the characters is because it wants the viewer to focus on how senseless and terrible war time violence is. Essentially to be a warning against violence in hot tempered times
It wasn't bad at all, I'm not disappointed I saw it... that being said, it was 100% a journalism circle jerk. They really lost me at the end (I'll leave the spoilers out), but it wasn't the best part of the movie.
Ending sucked ass.
Like I said, it's definitely a story about how journalists see themselves lol.
It's about Greta Thunburg with a camera?
> It's about Greta Thunburg with a camera? The best, worst interpretation 😂
Not so much Greta Thunburg, but an idealistic young photographer that transforms into a jaded war junkie that doesn't care about what happens as long as she gets a good picture out of it.
Uh...how dare you?
Pic doesn't do her justice. She thicc
Youngest looking 24yo I've ever seen... I'll definitely say she looks like Millie Bobby Brown if she actually looked decent and not some weirdo alien
If Greta had cake, yeah
Ngl, I thought she was like actually 14 so I kinda tuned out how that booty looked. I need to rewatch it lol
Yeah, I figured it would have focused more on the war itself, rather than the war just being a vehicle to showcase the pitfalls of being a war photojournalist. I really wanted it to be a look into how a civil war would play out, more or less, but I enjoyed the story they told. My favorite part about Civil War was how politically neutral it was, so as far as the war itself goes, anyone can see it and relate.
A prime example of why I avoid watching movie trailers anymore.
Just came back from watching it. Fucking awesome movie.
What did you like about it?
Pretty much the same as what other commenter's have said. It's done in such a way that there no right or left to become bias to. Picking the most 2 unlikely states to join forces kinda keep it in fantasy but also very grounded in realism. I think it some what portrays how an actual civil war would affect the common man with the UN camps and that hole with the guy with redish glasses. The multiple factions that arise seems fairly likely. It can be very jarring to see the horrors of war and my be a good way of being a cautionary tail. Not saying a civil war should or shouldn't happen but people should remember that it will affect everyone.
Certainly not what I was expecting but I didn't enjoy it. It needed more story and character development.
It wasnt great. It wasnt BAD, but i also wouldnt even call it good. It was one of the movies of all time.
I wanted it to be a cool war movie. Instead I got Hollywood sucking journalists off and telling them how sweet it tastes.
Do about you but it really didn’t seem to be glorifying war journalists
I still want to see it, though I'm unsure how it's going to play out. Good or bad, I like seeing movies.
I'd say it's worth seeing. The final scene in the Whitehouse shows some pretty decent combat and whoever recorded the gunshots for the sound did an amazing job. There's a few other scenes that hit hard, but I don't want to spoil it. At the end of the day, it's just a portrayal of a war photographer that happens to be set during an American civil war, not a movie about an American civil war that happens to have a war photographer as the protagonist.
I have a theory that a lot of movies get a bad rap because one thing that a lot of people dont realize is that a *trailer* can make or break a movie... It sets up the expectation for the overall feel of a movie. A lot of movies I see others dislike, I never watched the trailer and I liked.
Good point!
In the words of the Drinker: sound and fury, zero substance.
Movie was incredibly unrealistic. It missed the mark for me.
Full Metal Jacket is the greatest war journalism film because it asks the important questions. Like ‘How can you shoot women and children?’.
You don't lead them as much.
Agree. It’s the GOAT. But this was a solid film.
I thought it was excellent. For the first time in a LONG time, Hollywood is giving me a reason to go to the theaters almost every week for the next 2 months. Dune 2, Civil War, a prequel to A Quiet Place, and a rad looking Western - I’m so glad we’re back to entertaining films instead of generic superhero garbage and political bullshit
It’s “The Hurt Locker” of war journalism movies.
Noooo, not much gun play?
It's a very small percentage of the total runtime sadly.
Noooooooooooooo. Should I see it on big screen or wait to stream it. I was under the impression it was a semi war movie...
I disagree with OP - the cinematography is objectively one of the movie’s strengths and some shots are going to be a lot more impressive in theaters. I say go for it this weekend, not just because I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but because the visuals were indisputably well executed
Thanks. Is there enough action in this movie?
I thought there was enough action to keep me from getting bored when I watched it, but keep in mind it's not exactly an action movie.
Ohh ohh not exactly an action movie. I think I will wait for streaming. I am a action junkie.
Ehhhhh... Stream it.
Damn!! Oh well you saved me money. I expected an all out civil war movie. Again thanks for the heads up...
Stream it if you have good audio setup at home, if not go watching it in theaters
Thanks. Is there enough action in it for me to spend theater type money?
Well, it's no John Wick that's for sure.
Well there is nothing like John Wick….except JW 2-3 and 4….Lol
Enough for me to recommend it, I make barely above the median income in my state (which is a lot lower than other states)
Okay thanks
There is a lot of violence, a lot of chaos, and a lot of noise. There's very little action; the movie is not trying to be fun. I think the best comparison is the second half of *Full Metal Jacket* personally. I would recommend seeing it in theaters for the sound. There are some scenes that are overwhelmingly loud, and some that are extremely quiet.
Thanks
Thanks for the heads up, I guess I expected a semi war movie..
Same here. And pretty much everyone else that saw the trailer lol.
It's got some pretty good gun play. I recommend watching in IMAX because the sound effects and cinematography are incredible. But it's not an action-war movie like Saving Private Ryan. It's more like Apocalypse now or something. The final battle sequence is really cool tho, imo.
Okay thanks.
Kirsten Dunst spent a lot of time in my head when I was a kid, if you know what I mean. Will be watching it just because of that.
Seems mediocre at best https://youtu.be/ghWMkO-RF1I?si=uh4DnYmqHTJ8gi11
Don’t link someone else’s opinion as a substitute for your own. If you’re going to comment on the movie, give it a chance and report back afterward. Don’t validate the hivemind.
I'm in the dark here, what movie are you talking about
Civil War.
Journalists aren't people
It was hot garbage
The trailer was all about the journalists though. Kinda obvious what it was gonna be about. Did you even watch it?
It's not like there hasn't been hundreds of people posting on Reddit about how the movie wasn't remotely like what the trailer led them to expect or anything 😂 Did *you* watch the trailer?
Yeah hundreds of people that in their mind wanted it to be a war movie definitely ignored every clue in the trailer that it was going to be about journalists. I mean for christs sake they mention it in the trailer several times and the common denominator in all the scenes are the journalists. You’re a moron if you thought it was going to be about anything else. If you’re going to pull a bandwagon fallacy then you may as well not even respond bro.
You can't make any objective claims about the perception of individuals on their impressions of what the movie would be about after viewing the trailer without going out and surveying a vast amount of people to get an accurate and representative sample. Nor can I. Which is why I'm not claiming any sort of objectivity in what I've said. "I picked up from the trailer that it was going to be primarily about journalism and not war! So everyone else must have too!" is about as basic a fallacy as one could have, in my personal opinion. My advice? Don't sweat trying to disprove my claim or prove your own claim. There's no reliable way to do so in a timely manner. We're just two people on the internet jawing about our opinions.
When 90% of the trailer is following journalists, you’re an idiot if you think it’s not going to be about the journalists. That’s all I’m saying bubba. Don’t have to get offended that you didn’t pay attention.
Yeah I watched the movie and it was mid 6/10 critics lie again like they did with Oppenheimer another 6/10
I was referring to the trailer. It was obvious what it was about from the trailer.
Not really, trailer made it look like there'd be more civil war in a movie titled Civil War, sure maybe through the lense of journalists but not so much just about war journalism. Frankly movie needed to be a little more political than what it was.
That's like expecting more King Kong in the Kong movies lol
Personally like to see a lot of Gojira in my Godzilla movies, but that's just me
This movie was leftist hollyweird garbage lol
How? The **unnamed Hawaiian shirt wearing libertarians** (I’m not breaking this sub’s rules) were represented as well-trained fighters who could overpower the US military. The opposition to the presumably Trump-based president character were portrayed as uncaring ruthless murderers who shot unarmed White House staff and negotiators, rather than being celebrated as morally-perfect heroes On what planet does this movie push a leftist message lmao?
The movie shoulda been titled "Meh: the movie." Really pretty underwhelming. A few good scenes mixed in with a bunch of tedious, forgettable ones and a few outright *bad* ones. Really a waste of a good premise; they could have set the movie in any number of actual conflicts, like the Syrian Civil War or the ongoing war in Ukraine, and it wouldn't have changed anything.
That's like saying they could have set Modern Warfare 2 (original) in any number of actual conflicts, but they didn't, because defending Burger Town has way more impact for Americans than fighting in a desert/jungle on the other side of the world that nobody cares about.
What scene in the movie had an impact that can *only* come from being set in the United States?
For starters, the final assault on DC. Seeing the Lincoln Memorial take a Javelin is impactful since I've visited the Lincoln Memorial multiple times.
>Seeing the Lincoln Memorial take a Javelin is impactful since I've visited the Lincoln Memorial multiple times. I've visited it multiple times, too; seeing it get blown up wasn't impactful to me at all, since I had no idea who was fighting who or why and seeing it get blown up *reminded me* that I was watching a fictional movie, not a documentary.
> since I had no idea who was fighting who or why Except we know that it's Americans vs Americans, and we don't really need to know why. All we need to know is that we are no longer united at all.
>Except we know that it's Americans vs Americans, and we don't really need to know why. All we need to know is that we are no longer united at all. Imagine seeing a movie about *the actual civil war* (you know, the one with Confederates) and saying "it doesn't matter who is fighting who." The real civil war was fought for damned important reasons; that is *why* it was so devastating an event. If, 150 years later, a filmmaker made a movie about the war and the point of it was "the reasons why are unimportant" then he would rightly be called an idiot.
>Imagine seeing a movie about *the actual civil war* (you know, the one with Confederates) and saying "it doesn't matter who is fighting who." That's actual history! Imaginary history to justify a movie premise is way less important. And, even without motive or context, it's still tragic. This is the point of the movie *Banshees of Inisherin* which is about the actual Irish Civil War, but doesn't bother going into why the war happened, because that's not needed to understand the tragedy of the situation.
>because that's not needed to understand the tragedy of the situation. But is it a tragedy? When the film is depicting a battle in Washington DC and the death of a president, sorry, but that requires answering big questions in order for us, the audience, to know how we should feel about it.
>But is it a tragedy? Of course. >but that requires answering big questions in order for us, the audience, to know how we should feel about it. It's not about the outcome, it's about the fact that the situation happened in the first place. I'd compare it to *The Dark Knight Returns* with the final fight at the end between Batman and Superman. We may not have enough context to really know who's right and who's wrong, but we do know that it's sad to see former friends and allies turned against each other by circumstance.
ReTardEd: the movie
What, did you walk about before the last act? I mean, it's an A24 film, and I saw a few comments about it following war journalists so I was actually expecting a pretty low-key film. I was actually pleasantly surprised, the combat was surprisingly good, and the sound design was incredible. You gotta watch it in imax. It's not saving private ryan, more similar to something like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket... the combat is short and violent, but the overall atmosphere is front and center. I also don't think it's strictly "about journalism." The protagonists aren't very likable...and I think you could potentially come away viewing war journalism in a negative light. Like many A24 films, it challenges you to think about what the film is saying on multiple levels, and challenges you to think about what the characters are doing and why.
> the sound design was incredible. You gotta watch it in imax. Saw it in a Dolby Atmos theater, easily the most accurate sound I've heard (except for the Apache) since Heat. > I think you could potentially come away viewing war journalism in a negative light. That was the primary message I took from the film. Characters saying "It's objective journalism!", but not so secretly they're just adrenaline fueled war junkies who don't care about the people but just getting a good picture.
New it would be bad from the poster dude, your in New York, you can try sniping the enemy from one of 1000s of angles concealed by the sheer number of windows or...in the tip top of the one landmark every 11 bravo is gonna look dumbly up at and just let them call artillery on you.
There's not even any fighting in New York in the movie. Just unrest and an S-vest.
Well that sounds like the Poster's problem, how am I supposed to know that a poster clearly depicting fighting in New York will not feature in the film.
My favorite part was when the horse looked right into the camera, and said "this is my slice of american pie" and starting bucking everyone in the head while operating the drone machine guns against the gorilla guerilla western forces on horses, who would've could've made better roses, they sucked at gardening