It's rare that a film makes me angry, but this one did it. I found nothing in this film to be shocking, apart from how little I cared for the characters. I don't need them to be likable. I just need to find them at least somewhat interesting. I found basically all of the characters to be lifeless avatars. Also, the needle drops were incredibly distracting and sometimes actually made me laugh. The burning forest sequence was absurd. The moment could have been so much more powerful in complete silence. It reminded me of some of what I hate about certain Spielberg tendencies -- that finger on the dial ratcheting up the music and saying to the audience, "Come on, can't you FEEL this?!" Oh yeah, and I accidentally laughed at how Dunst's death was staged as well. So heavy-handed. I can't believe this shit came from the same guy who gave us Annihilation.
Maybe like 50% chance I go see this, but only after I've watched Abigail and First Omen. Takes on here have been very mixed
I think the "Antifa massacre" line kind of sums up what irritates me about this movie. Garland's points are so fucking oblique that he isn't even clear if Antifa committed the massacre or they themselves were massacred. What's his point? It's a movie about passing the torch. Cool. Why a civil war in the US? Just to blow up some recognizable landmarks? Just give me another dumb Will Smith movie doing that. Damn, what I wouldn't give for an alternate timeline where Stanley Kubrick made this movie. He would have made a pitch black comedy that would have actually taken some risks and made some real points.
it seems quite obvious to me that the uncertainty is literally the point lol idk maybe just my read but it doesn’t seem that opaque as you’re trying to make it out to be
Absolutely. And I do believe this movie that lays out the sides and what happened etc is a bad movie. I’m just not sure this one is good either. Still sitting with it though.
That just sounds like you’re explaining away bad screenwriting. The film makes an absurd premise like CA and TX have allied to wage war with zero explanation.
I like ambiguity in art. However, I don’t believe ambiguity serves this film well at all. It feels like it’s just trying to be provocative just for the sake of being provocative. This film was just as edifying as Independence Day, which is a proudly stupid blockbuster.
I don’t think the explanation matters. I believe these choices are purposeful, I’m still trying to figure out what Garland is trying to say exactly and if it’s effective. I’m not sure. I do know the movie that does explain all that stuff is probably really bad. This is going more for a fog of war. Info withheld. Who is fighting who doesn’t really matter, there’s like 6 different factions and sometimes it’s hard to tell who is who, all by design.
he has explained the reasoning publicly. again, as i said previously, i wish he didn’t as it’s unnecessary. but his point that you should ask yourself why it’s so far fetched to believe california and texas would set aside differences to unite against a common enemy if you believe that is a salient one
Again, I haven't seen this, but I think at a certain point being apolitocal is potentially gonna do more harm than good. Maybe it works within the context of the film itself idk, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum
The best argument I’ve seen for it is that it is another model of apocalypse, something Garland does imo really well.
One thing that is undeniable is that Dunst and Plemons are one of the greatest acting couples of all time. They both crush in this.
The worst part of democracy is when stupid people hold dangerous beliefs we are forced delicately dance around their emotions. Ban cats