Mediocre. Garland has no balls and also lacks a visceral quality to his direction that would make the film work, on an emotional level, as a general statement about the "hectic horrors of a civil war".
The journalism as extreme sport and psychopatic thrill seeking is an interesting perspective tho, and made the film mostly engaging. Plus, while the direction fails at really capturing horror, it's still Garland, so it's well shot and has a recognizable and nice looking overall visual style.
I wonder if the film being more of a road-movie thriller rather than an action movie it was marketed as will hurt the box-office long term. Probably not, it didn't cost much and is already close to making the budget back, and that's without much of the international market being counted currently. I bet it made decent money in Russia in it's opening.
I think he did a good job creating tension in a lot of the scenes. Fatt Damon especially and the gay sniper duel especially.
I think you're spot on about the journos, it's definitely not outright pro-journo. The first shots we see of them just standing there snapping photos as people are beaten and then blown up to me set the tone that the movie at the very least raises questions if not outright challenges their motivations and apparent lack of empathy
I also think it had potential as an anti-war movie. Taking imagery of war but putting it in familiar American setting will make it hit home for burgers more, Americans have the idea that America exists in an invincible bubble and there's such an abstraction surrounding the wars elsewhere in the world. Whenever something pierces that bubble they piss and shit incessantly (pearl harbour, 9/11), so maybe imagery of modern conflict in Americana is a good way to get the "war bad" idea through to burgers. I think that's probably what he's going for anyway, given the relatively apolitical stance.
>Americans have the idea that America exists in an invincible bubble
This is what i was most excited for the film to tackle.
The people i know that larp about revolution or civil war seem to think it'll be like a protest/march with guns.
They don't consider apartment buildings full of people coming down, or the fact that they don't get to go home at night to sleep in their bed
A story I've always found interesting is how the fall of the US embassy during the tet offensive (combined with the fact the vietnam war was one of the first to have reports televised) was such a big catalyst in shifting general consensus on the war. The embassy was quickly recaptured and was never of any strategic value anyway, but something about seeing an AMERICAN building with AMERICAN flags on (technically) AMERICAN soil fall was what finally got the point across to the people of the US that their own men were fighting and dying over there.
As a bong I think we don't fall into the same trap to quite that extent (maybe because the troubles are still recent enough in the cultural memory, or because Europe as a whole is just more used to terrorist attacks occurring here, idk). We're fore sure guilty of abstracting war to some extent, as is everyone really, but the degree to which burgers seem to believe they live in an impenetrable bubble, and that whatever happens outside that bubble on the other side of the world in the jungle or the desert is of no consequence whatsoever, has always been a bit mad to me
>The first shots we see of them just standing there snapping photos as people are beaten and then blown up to me set the tone that the movie at the very least raises questions if not outright challenges their motivations and apparent lack of empathy
i mean he did show two bloodied guys hanging after torture and still alive, plus the scene where the girl falls into a pit with corpses
the whole film feels modeled after Come And See which Garland said is one of his favourite films
my gf literally cried after the movie and said we have to stop trump
if the movie wasn’t visceral to you you need to stop using the internet you sociopath
Cailee Spaeny with mouth open
Google Maps
nearest papa johns
Cailee Spaeny exercise instagram
Cailee Spaeny butt pics
Screenshot online free
Cailee Spaeny movies
Cailee Spaeny panties shot
Cailee Spaeny feet
who is Cailee Spaeny married to
Cailee Spaeny lesbian
Cailee Spaeny ass worship
Cailee Spaeny facesitting
Cailee Spaeny fart porn
Cailee Spaeny deepfake
Cailee Spaeny ass
Cailee Spaeny butthole
Cailee Spaeny ass pics
Cailee Spaeny how old
Cailee Spaeny ho old
Cailee Spaeny civil war clips
Cailee Spaeny civil war
Civil War cast
lots of people saying it has no balls here. that confirms for me I wont see it
So we don't see people being hanged, tortured and shit? What kind of "war" is that?
Let me guess, the main character and his family get out fine
Two of the four main characters die. One of the earliest scenes has two people strung up having been tortured. Hanging bodies are shown. He doesn't really shy away from the gory/violent/whatever side of war. People are saying it has no balls either because they're so desensitised they need an uncut 15 minute video of a cartel carving someone up with a chainsaw to get off, or because they wanted it to make more of a statement with regard to modern politics and they're mad it didn't shit on whichever candidate makes them foam at the mouth
It’s not that I particularly WANTED it to make a political statement. If anything I was pleasantly surprised at how even-handed it was about real-world politics.
It’s more that, at least to me, the movie felt like it wanted to make a political statement but pussied away at the last minute. Not sure if that was unintentional or was a result of bits being left on the cutting room floor.
>It’s more that, at least to me, the movie felt like it wanted to make a political statement but pussied away at the last minute. Not sure if that was unintentional or was a result of bits being left on the cutting room floor.
What makes you think that?
There's violence and people die (main characters are a group of journalists, not a family), there's some decent violence. He doesn't have balls in a sense that it doesn't work as satire. He comes up with a completely fictional scenario, doesn't provide much context on the political background of the conflict, abstains from mentioning almost all current politics (aside from a brief Antifa mention). This is in fact the point, proven by a scene where a character makes fun of journalists for asking them which side they're on and saying something akin "they're shooting at us, we're shooting at them". But because Garland's visual direction is too glossy, and the scale doesn't really feel that large, the film doesn't manage to function well as a general commentary. It doesn't feel like we're being shown terrifying chaos, but rather that we're just being denied context.
Men was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Just boring weird slop.
Majority of the film is pretty bad. Garland can shoot nicely, but his staging in that movie is very awkward. Especially with that grass guy stalking the MC, it was unintentionally funny. But the last ~40 minutes I thought were cool, when the surreal shit really kicks off. Also it didn't boil down to men le bad, but rather her overcoming a fear of men an understanding that the problem was her husband. That was kinda refreshing, this is a relevant theme because of so many deranged femenists who were molested as children and now straight up hate men. But 40 minutes out of like a 2 hour movie, that can only salvage a film so much.
Some of that awkward direction makes it into Civil War too. The "car swap" scene felt really fricking stupid, and a death of one of the characters at the very end of the film was also really poorly staged.
THeres a fair amount of violence, but they never say why the two sides are fighting and what the politics of it all are.
It's just 'war is bad, mkay? and photogs are adrenaline junkies'
you were unsure if it was pure kino or not until the credits started rolling and the victory photo was slowly developing and that's when you realized it was absolutely pure kino.
you thought it was woke bullshit
oh my god shut the frick up
Baskin Roberts
Mediocre. Garland has no balls and also lacks a visceral quality to his direction that would make the film work, on an emotional level, as a general statement about the "hectic horrors of a civil war".
The journalism as extreme sport and psychopatic thrill seeking is an interesting perspective tho, and made the film mostly engaging. Plus, while the direction fails at really capturing horror, it's still Garland, so it's well shot and has a recognizable and nice looking overall visual style.
I wonder if the film being more of a road-movie thriller rather than an action movie it was marketed as will hurt the box-office long term. Probably not, it didn't cost much and is already close to making the budget back, and that's without much of the international market being counted currently. I bet it made decent money in Russia in it's opening.
I think he did a good job creating tension in a lot of the scenes. Fatt Damon especially and the gay sniper duel especially.
I think you're spot on about the journos, it's definitely not outright pro-journo. The first shots we see of them just standing there snapping photos as people are beaten and then blown up to me set the tone that the movie at the very least raises questions if not outright challenges their motivations and apparent lack of empathy
I also think it had potential as an anti-war movie. Taking imagery of war but putting it in familiar American setting will make it hit home for burgers more, Americans have the idea that America exists in an invincible bubble and there's such an abstraction surrounding the wars elsewhere in the world. Whenever something pierces that bubble they piss and shit incessantly (pearl harbour, 9/11), so maybe imagery of modern conflict in Americana is a good way to get the "war bad" idea through to burgers. I think that's probably what he's going for anyway, given the relatively apolitical stance.
I liked it
>Americans have the idea that America exists in an invincible bubble
This is what i was most excited for the film to tackle.
The people i know that larp about revolution or civil war seem to think it'll be like a protest/march with guns.
They don't consider apartment buildings full of people coming down, or the fact that they don't get to go home at night to sleep in their bed
A story I've always found interesting is how the fall of the US embassy during the tet offensive (combined with the fact the vietnam war was one of the first to have reports televised) was such a big catalyst in shifting general consensus on the war. The embassy was quickly recaptured and was never of any strategic value anyway, but something about seeing an AMERICAN building with AMERICAN flags on (technically) AMERICAN soil fall was what finally got the point across to the people of the US that their own men were fighting and dying over there.
As a bong I think we don't fall into the same trap to quite that extent (maybe because the troubles are still recent enough in the cultural memory, or because Europe as a whole is just more used to terrorist attacks occurring here, idk). We're fore sure guilty of abstracting war to some extent, as is everyone really, but the degree to which burgers seem to believe they live in an impenetrable bubble, and that whatever happens outside that bubble on the other side of the world in the jungle or the desert is of no consequence whatsoever, has always been a bit mad to me
>The first shots we see of them just standing there snapping photos as people are beaten and then blown up to me set the tone that the movie at the very least raises questions if not outright challenges their motivations and apparent lack of empathy
there weren't even any real horrors, just a few burning buildings in the outskirts
the movie was sterile as frick
i mean he did show two bloodied guys hanging after torture and still alive, plus the scene where the girl falls into a pit with corpses
the whole film feels modeled after Come And See which Garland said is one of his favourite films
meh, just a regular tuesday in detroit
my gf literally cried after the movie and said we have to stop trump
if the movie wasn’t visceral to you you need to stop using the internet you sociopath
I think if that was your girlfriends takeaway her case of TDS is terminal
it's garland's best film
nah
Dredd > Ex-Machina > Annihilation > Devs > Civil War > Men
Men was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Just boring weird slop.
You thought it was enlightened centrist hackery and wonder if Alex is a Tyranny apologist or not.
That's not enlightened centrism that's a factually correct statement you fricking chud moron
>JUST VOTE OUT A DICTATOR MAN IT'S LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE
Okay. I'll vote with bullets.
we did it with trump tho
Trump hasn't gone full dictator yet. He's trying hard though.
I don't know, no one has told me what my opinion of it is
Shot well, good sound design but has the intellectual and emotional impact of Homefront 1 for the Xbox 360
I saw that antigays were triggered over this movie because it apparently used real world footage of them chimping out that was recorded by Andy Ngo.
Yea, they use the video of that one guy taking an AR away from some antigay at gunpoint
I recognized that video
Cailee Spaeny with mouth open
Google Maps
nearest papa johns
Cailee Spaeny exercise instagram
Cailee Spaeny butt pics
Screenshot online free
Cailee Spaeny movies
Cailee Spaeny panties shot
Cailee Spaeny feet
who is Cailee Spaeny married to
Cailee Spaeny lesbian
Cailee Spaeny ass worship
Cailee Spaeny facesitting
Cailee Spaeny fart porn
Cailee Spaeny deepfake
Cailee Spaeny ass
Cailee Spaeny butthole
Cailee Spaeny ass pics
Cailee Spaeny how old
Cailee Spaeny ho old
Cailee Spaeny civil war clips
Cailee Spaeny civil war
Civil War cast
Where was the nearest papa johns
it was cowardly
lots of people saying it has no balls here. that confirms for me I wont see it
So we don't see people being hanged, tortured and shit? What kind of "war" is that?
Let me guess, the main character and his family get out fine
Two of the four main characters die. One of the earliest scenes has two people strung up having been tortured. Hanging bodies are shown. He doesn't really shy away from the gory/violent/whatever side of war. People are saying it has no balls either because they're so desensitised they need an uncut 15 minute video of a cartel carving someone up with a chainsaw to get off, or because they wanted it to make more of a statement with regard to modern politics and they're mad it didn't shit on whichever candidate makes them foam at the mouth
It’s not that I particularly WANTED it to make a political statement. If anything I was pleasantly surprised at how even-handed it was about real-world politics.
It’s more that, at least to me, the movie felt like it wanted to make a political statement but pussied away at the last minute. Not sure if that was unintentional or was a result of bits being left on the cutting room floor.
>It’s more that, at least to me, the movie felt like it wanted to make a political statement but pussied away at the last minute. Not sure if that was unintentional or was a result of bits being left on the cutting room floor.
What makes you think that?
I can’t rightly say. There’s nothing concrete, just a feeling I had.
There's violence and people die (main characters are a group of journalists, not a family), there's some decent violence. He doesn't have balls in a sense that it doesn't work as satire. He comes up with a completely fictional scenario, doesn't provide much context on the political background of the conflict, abstains from mentioning almost all current politics (aside from a brief Antifa mention). This is in fact the point, proven by a scene where a character makes fun of journalists for asking them which side they're on and saying something akin "they're shooting at us, we're shooting at them". But because Garland's visual direction is too glossy, and the scale doesn't really feel that large, the film doesn't manage to function well as a general commentary. It doesn't feel like we're being shown terrifying chaos, but rather that we're just being denied context.
Majority of the film is pretty bad. Garland can shoot nicely, but his staging in that movie is very awkward. Especially with that grass guy stalking the MC, it was unintentionally funny. But the last ~40 minutes I thought were cool, when the surreal shit really kicks off. Also it didn't boil down to men le bad, but rather her overcoming a fear of men an understanding that the problem was her husband. That was kinda refreshing, this is a relevant theme because of so many deranged femenists who were molested as children and now straight up hate men. But 40 minutes out of like a 2 hour movie, that can only salvage a film so much.
Some of that awkward direction makes it into Civil War too. The "car swap" scene felt really fricking stupid, and a death of one of the characters at the very end of the film was also really poorly staged.
>they're shooting at us, we're shooting at them
Isn't this the case for people on the ground in war though?
THeres a fair amount of violence, but they never say why the two sides are fighting and what the politics of it all are.
It's just 'war is bad, mkay? and photogs are adrenaline junkies'
you were unsure if it was pure kino or not until the credits started rolling and the victory photo was slowly developing and that's when you realized it was absolutely pure kino.