Saw it Sunday. I thought it was well done and I didn't leave thinking it was propaganda for either side. I thought It just showed how awful a civil war will be in our country. I thought the ruthlessness each side showed each other was well done and thought provoking.
Several times the entire audience would be pin drop silent because how crazy it was.
Overall I would see it again and encourage others too.
I saw the flick Friday night. Not overly impressed as it seemed to be a testimonial for combat reporting. At the end, a certain somebody gets drilled very deliberately. The next day, I read a movie review that insinuated that said drilled individual represented DT. I laughed out loud, as I had interpreted the drillee as JB. Personally, I'd wait for the streaming cheap version.
Originally Posted by Oldherkpilot
I think the director did it form that perspective in an attempt to keep politics out of it. If he would have done it from.anyone else's position it would be percieved as overwhelmingly biased.
There's a bipartisan misconception that Our Side would like TOTALLY have an advantage over Their Side should it come to teh Boogaloo, and would totally win super easy. The Right thinks that the Left is only soy bois and easily triggered Millennials. The Left thinks that the Right is only fat old Boomers. And to be fair, both are sorta correct, but also wildly incorrect.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
The movie does not delve into the politics of what caused the civil war in America. It tries not to take sides because it follows the journey of 4 journalists as they travel the long way from NYC to DC to record what they expect to be the downfall of the United States. Spoilers ahead.
The film is a critique of American Exceptionalism. Bad things do happen here as they do in "developing nations." For instance, open mass graves (Bosnia), soldiers posing with their fallen target (Libya), and settling personal scores under the guise of revolution (Iran). The guy that dissed you in high school? He is fair game now.
The film is also about the ethics of journalism. Lee, the 40-something photojournalist, tells her acolyte Jessie, who is 20 years younger, that it is okay for photojournalists to stand by and take pictures of atrocities as they happen because their job is not to judge but to record so that others can judge later. The price that is paid for this impartiality or the lapse of it is on display at the end of the film.
I throughout it was well done and quite relevant to our times. It exceeded my expectations. It's a clear example of how the good guy veneer Americans cover themselves with is simply that, just a veneer. It will serve as a good career boost to young Cailee Spaeny. The most chilling moment is when Jesse Plemmons asks the question, "What kind of American?" He's married to Kirstin Dunst and apparently took on the role a day before shooting when the original actor suddenly became unavailable. If anyone, I thought POTUS most resembled Bill Clinton, with the Slick Willie comb back.
Last edited by Trooper224; 04-18-2024 at 03:36 PM.
Jesse is one hell of an actor. That was by far the best scene and you could hear a pin drop in the theater.
Agreed. The sequence with Jesse Plemmons was definitely the highlight of the movie. That’s when things became much more real and personal to the more experienced journalists who had all become so used to war that it didn’t seem to bother them anymore. I enjoyed it. There were a few things that made me roll my eyes, primarily that both sides wore identical multicam uniforms. I get that multicam is the uniform of the Army and Air Force so it’s plentiful and that eases movie making logistics, but that would sure make differentiating friend from foe quite difficult. The ending was also pretty easy to see coming. I don’t agree with the critics saying that not delving into the background of the war took away from the storyline. That wasn’t the point of the movie. It doesn’t matter how the war started with regards to telling the story of the journalists.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
I haven't seen it; sounds possibly interesting, but I only turn on my TV about twice a month, so...
Regarding this, I'm curious: whom do they depict as doing the fighting? State Guard troops? Ordinary folks?
It's more a thing you'll see on social media or comments sections, especially with the more radical elements of society.
For the Radicals & Tankies, it's the ancient idea is that the forces of the Proletariat will rise up against the Bourgeoise.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Reply With Quote