Again the dystopian feeling is that the reason behind it is non sensical and that we became a police state because the president refused to listen . That’s why the ending is more potent.

I do think if alludes to more but essentially the president abused their power to the point they wanted their own civilians dead

The only thing I wish it would touch on more is how the world is reacting to the civil war of America. Which in a way it does but are nations sending journalist to America to cover our horror as we do theirs

well I do think the thesis of this film is explained in the sniper scene @twitch mentioned. this whole idea of disillusionment with war, no one even knows why they're fight anymore.

That’s why I take it as him calling the audience r word . He saying” you always want a reason for the violence no reason ever justifies it and you forget until the best reason you are told “ like us the journalist are going to dc to find that reason . We are the journalist in that way . The photos and video we see of modern wars as consume by choice it makes us feel alive . We could Colorado . We could see no trauma yet we seek it

We are never in danger of being destroyed by it but it does like the journalist in the movie drive us insane no matter what reason is given or if it changes . So do we look away , do we protest , we get the truth out to others , frame it in favor of our side ? Or stop

Howard Zinn said you can’t be neutral on s moving train and this train is America but the sides aren’t partisan it’s violence or non violence . Where pacifist are refugees because they aren’t willing to become monsters to maintain the American dream

While movie serving as America finally seeing its nightmare that we become the destabilized war zone we make the world .

Imagine an African , Muslim or Mexican trying to understand we terrorize them

so is this mid or nah? Men was mid

Wonder if this movie will be looked on more fondly the further out from release it gets.

Like, once it becomes just a movie that came out a decade or so ago. More removed from the moment and all the dumb comments from the director.

if you thought Men was mid this in many ways will be mid to you because it is as vague as men vs a full punch

I can respect that being his vision but I don't think the execution was as effective as it could be. To me, if the goal is to portray the horrors of war and the different degrees of desensitization each character takes on throughout then fine but the film should lean far heavier into the chaos factor. I'm sorry but there are far too many nod nods wink winks about modern day American politics in this film for me let Garland get off his "It's not about the WHY" message.

In Children of Men, we know why the dystopian world has become what it is but that doesn't really clue us in to the specifics of the in-fighting that is happening throughout, we just know there's a common goal amongst these characters to transport this person to a certain location. And to your point, the African, Muslim, Mexican civilian may not know or care why their being terrorized but I find it interesting that Garland chooses to focus on journalists who offer no perspective more than "war is bad". I expect that from a film about civilians but not from those privileged enough to traverse the warzone with a press badge (albiet still dangerous enough).

I do whole heartedly agree on that I feel on using archive footage \ trump implied like president it’s irresponsible. It feels like after the weirdness of men a24 told him to make their money back especially with only 48 hours off between movies that feels like less of a choice

i strongly believe it’ll garner a reputation like Children of Men did .. or Sicario

The fact yall got so much to say about this movie makes me want to watch it

I feel like most of the negativity this is getting comes from it not lining up with expectations

Are there a lot of guns in this movie. Wondering if it will scratch that sicario itch

I feel like that resembles real life? Look how many people always question war and “why are we even going to war in the first place?”

Agreed

Nah, I think most of it is because of Alex Garland putting his foot in his mouth.

Is this actually good? I’m hearing this s*** is about war journalism and not actually the war itself and I’m not trying to watch that s*** sound too boring/indie

yeah that's what I feared. I actually loved the idea of Men a lot but it came off a bit toothless. so I didn't have high hopes for him making another sociopolitical statement kind of film

See I would agree with that if he immediately rushed over to the presidents room after Lee gets killed. He doesn’t. He stops to talk to Jesse and yank her up. In that time frame, instead, he could’ve shut his dead friends eyes or something, just a small gesture was needed while telling Jesse “let’s go”

It’s funny cus Men wasn’t vague at all and pretty easy to understand. Especially with every man in the town being the same actor. Lol Garland was pretty obvious with his message.

Also we need a new movie with Plemons in a villainous role

It’s more character based than action based. It’s not Dunkirk or a typical war movie. But it’s also not boring at all. It’s basically a deadly road trip movie.

legit question: why is the president in the oval office? like why am i expected to take this final sequence seriously.

i mean i think the movie succeeds at being a kind of a road trip action apocalyptic thriller