yeah the colors were kind of clear there . Even the fact that he got drunk and tried to seduce her. That being exposed and that love triangle showed he went from the mentor to the up and comer. I think him as a man in many ways reflects part of the themes of Men. I think that is very purposeful

100%. Garland is a very visual director so I wouldn’t put it passed him.

Nah I think her in on top of the dead bodies || Which is one of the coldest shots ever || Her in the shallow ditch was kind of a rebirth. When she escapes the scene she throws up and is I believe the only one to throw up

That’s basically what we’re saying lol. That’s why I said it’s like the fear was leaving her body as she was throwing up cus after she was fearless

Please dont say "there is a diriectors cut or alternate ending but you will never see it" I am so tired of that trend from directors because there are many elements I am curious on and I know he will never explain everything . I truly think the end of that interview where he addresses the press and press junkets makes even more sense

The fact that they tried to demonize him as apolitical is so much crazy irony that its baffling. The movie is VERY POLITICAL

It is not partisan but the politics are in what it means for our reality. How we view journalist. Journalism itself can be violence.

Was thinking of skipping this but your reactions have me intrigued.

It’s funny that people want the answer to why the war is happening, but do we ever really get the real honest truth about why wars happen in real life? I feel like the Christmas decor scene explained it all “they shot at us, so we’re shooting at them.” Sometimes it’s as simple as that

Very worthy of seeing in IMAX if you want to save money see a matinee but very worth IMAX. There are definitely some moments where its easy to wish it leaned more into its weirdness

That perfectly showed the perspective of soldiers who enlist. They often aren't given an whole reasoning. S\*\*\* some of them don't watch the news. Those that do watch the news often there is propaganda throughotu and what is propaganda but the same thing these journalist are doing? Framing of events. Framing of death where it looks poetic. It looks like there is so much information in a frame but its just that frames flashing on screen and pausing for a moment. I think the fact they are getting photos and not video like their competition is also kind of key to the point. Not wanting people to see the full picture.

How do journalist go from truth tellers or consumed with truth to propagandist? What gets them there no matter their beliefs? Propagandist for whomever is viewed as most powerful or violent. Do they always stand with the oppressed? Can they survive if they do.

If we know history is written by the winners always. Then why are we surprised the losers of history feel silenced?

I think again similar to us and just based on trailer no spoilers "what kind of American" is root of the movie

we want an explanation so bad for why a civil war yet we are fine with all the explanations for our world being in perpetual war because of the USA

A war we all participate in for better or worse via funding

Then spoiler wise Flip it to an Osama Bin Laden Saddam Hussein George Bush , head of ISIS, head of CIA or anyone of the viewed architects of the perpetual middle eastern war if they are executed what does a journalist ask them that justifies all the pain it took to get there. How far has a journalist come. They lied about weapons of mass destruction and so few journalist had the ability to question the American empire or what it was becoming. No one spent that long asking what weapons of mass destruction were when we have so many nukes. People followed the orders went and died. They shot at , tortured, starved, sanctioned a people they knew less than Americans know each other

I think this is why a lot of people take issue with it though. It refuses to pick a side when everything leading up to it, including some things said in it makes you believe it really wants to

I would say the side it picks is truth

Its not concerned with the lesser of evils. its concerned with the evil of lessors

Sure, that's a fine way of looking at it. Personally I'm not offended by the fact that Garland chose the "life for everyone during a civil war" focus rather than picking sides or making it a left vs. right thing, all I'm saying is that I understand where the detractors are coming from. I do think they have a point even if I don't personally agree with it

Where even those trying to remain neutral within the movie are like "no tents good luck"

Detractors that plan to not see a 13$ movie because Texas and California are aligned in a fictional movie aren't people I can take seriously for that long

Because they type or write or record reviews like Grace Randolph

Could be totally off base here but

He was really broken up about Sammy "dying for nothing" and he knew those WF soldiers were going to kill the president on sight, they made that abundantly clear (which is why he had to intervene before they did after they all got into the room) and I think he knew that if he didn't pounce on that opportunity, Lee would've died for nothing too. I know it's grim, but that's how I saw it

I 100% agree with this. He knew there would be no great speech in his mind its not a movie its a reality. He knew there would be no perfect speech. The whole movie starts with the president trying to create the perfect speech or lie he is so nervous the cameras are rolling. We spend the entire movie seeing the truth

I think if this was marketed as a war photography or war journalism movie it would've gone over much smoother with that group. Admittedly it is a bit odd to call it Civil War, put damn near every action scene in the film in the trailer, and then not even do so much as to address why the civil war is even happening

Yep, and in the hotel in the very beginning Joel makes his goal crystal clear. He's going to get a quote from the president. I think what he did and how he did it made perfect sense

I do think the title is dumb in itself. If anything I think the true war is between Journalist, army and citizens

I had heard people thought a character development was fast or abrupt . It made sense to me perfectly when you see a certain amount of trauma you want it all to make sense or be worth it not be for nothing. Even if the president dies its only symbolic because America has already fallen

Oh s*** the goat

I didn't see it from that perspective. Throughout the film we see basically every group protect the journalists, and I could be wrong but a lot of the people/groups they encounter don't even seem to be affiliated with WF or the US, they're just apocalypse-esque survivalists who are totally distrusting of everyone