Sounds like a whiter, but probably also better version of Cool Runnings
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
This is accurate, save the "fish out of water" element; it's more My Fair Lady or Pretty Woman in that regard.
A ★★★★½ review of The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)
“Jane, since I've met you, I've noticed things that I never knew were there before... birds singing, dew glistening on a newly formed leaf, stoplights.” This film follows Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen), a member of the Police Squad. The latest job for the Squad is to protect the visiting...
letterboxd.com
Buddy of mine loves this movie. I've not seen it but may sometime soon.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in theaters.
It's good. Not a waste of your time. I give it a B-.
Meanders some. Too long. We start getting to know the main apes. Some 300 years after the death of Caesar and they still don't speak as well as I would hope, making them take too long to say some things.
Ultimately, a human girl who still can speak and think is on a mission. An ape king is consolidating power by kidnapping people. He's a bad guy.
She's out to destroy a bunker full of tanks and weapons to keep them out of the hands of the ape king. Due to the over-used girl boss, this (and I think Furiosa) are suffering from a sort of fatigue of girl leads in action movies. Even if the movie is good, it may suffer box office due to people fearing girl bosses. This on is not a boss but, who picked a 100 lb girl to go on a dangerous mission like this in the 1st place? At the end, she gives her people something recovered from them (which a lady takes from her while in a hazmat suit). I'd thought the girl and her people immune from the virus but no: they've simply isolated. Going out into the world, we can assume, the girl knows she will contract the virus and can never go home again. But... she meets another human that is fine. Seems he's been out in the world forever. Plot hole? Some immunity for some people out there? Any hope? Dunno.
Last edited:
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, 8/10
Yep, a worthy prequel. I haven't seen Fury Road since it came out, but this can easily stand up to it, and the two make for a surprisingly seamless experience. I had no idea of the plot beforehand, and it turned out far more extensive and sprawling than I expected. Calling this a saga feels earned, because it's a proper epic at a meaty 150-minute runtime, and both expands the worldbuilding of Mad Max as well as introduces a level of nuance and complexity that Fury Road definitely didn't bother with. Chris Hemsworth absolutely steals the show and is clearly having the time of his life acting as an unhinged maniac. He's almost unrecognizable.
The action has that same visceral thrill as Fury Road does, and there are some action scenes that feel like they go on forever, but constantly keep up the adrenaline with new elements and gimmicks. It's not maybe as over the top in its style (no lightning sandstorms or flamethrower guitars to be found), but no less tense or exciting for it. It also carries on the minimalist dialogue from Fury Road, and the visual storytelling felt way more complex here. Relationships and character motivations are established and played with through close to zero dialogue which I always appreciate.
It's a notably darker and bleaker movie than Fury Road. Fury Road was basically "whoo, explosions, bang, boom, crash" type fun. Furiosa by contrast feels downright mean and nihilistic at points. Everyone in Mad Max is a lunatic plagued by a tragic backstory, but this movie delves into it in depth and detail, and it is harrowing. There were a couple of scenes that reminded me of Violence Jack of all things, one of the most notoriously mean-spirited and cruel post-apocalyptic fictions ever created. It doesn't get overbearing, but I think it is worth mentioning if you're expecting this to be like Fury Road.
If there are criticisms, the CGI being not that great is the foremost one. It's fine most of the time, but very noticeable at points. I was reminded of the CGI jumping physics in Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man in a few scenes. Beyond that I guess it can feel like it's taking its time getting going in the first act, but I felt it was all necessary. And as a final point I literally cannot get over how gorgeous Anya Taylor-Joy is. Even caked in dust and mud she looks like something out of a painting.
The Zone of Interest, 5/10
This is the recent A24 Oscar darling about the family of Rudolf Höss during his time commanding Auschwitz. The conceit of this movie is that you never see the concentration camp stuff, you only hear it in the background while the movie shows incredibly ordinary and everyday things: kids playing, mom preparing the dinner, talking with grandma and so on. But the noises can be heard just on the other side of the wall, and there's hardly a shot in the film where you don't see a barb wire fence, a guard tower or nazi soldiers walking by. It's a film you experience more by listening rather than seeing.
Color this one a big "eh, 'twas alright" for me. It just didn't work for me. I wasn't really bored, but not engaged either. I get the concept and it's masterfully executed, but beyond that there wasn't really much of anything to latch on to aside from it being really well shot and acted. There's no real story, character arcs and development are minimal, and there's very little sense of momentum, escalation or things going anywhere. Things just sort of happen for 100 minutes and then it stops, and I don't feel that I really got much out of it. The playing with the soundscape is the whole point of this movie, and IMO it felt more like a 30-minute short film stretched to feature length rather than something organically that long.
Yep, a worthy prequel. I haven't seen Fury Road since it came out, but this can easily stand up to it, and the two make for a surprisingly seamless experience. I had no idea of the plot beforehand, and it turned out far more extensive and sprawling than I expected. Calling this a saga feels earned, because it's a proper epic at a meaty 150-minute runtime, and both expands the worldbuilding of Mad Max as well as introduces a level of nuance and complexity that Fury Road definitely didn't bother with. Chris Hemsworth absolutely steals the show and is clearly having the time of his life acting as an unhinged maniac. He's almost unrecognizable.
The action has that same visceral thrill as Fury Road does, and there are some action scenes that feel like they go on forever, but constantly keep up the adrenaline with new elements and gimmicks. It's not maybe as over the top in its style (no lightning sandstorms or flamethrower guitars to be found), but no less tense or exciting for it. It also carries on the minimalist dialogue from Fury Road, and the visual storytelling felt way more complex here. Relationships and character motivations are established and played with through close to zero dialogue which I always appreciate.
It's a notably darker and bleaker movie than Fury Road. Fury Road was basically "whoo, explosions, bang, boom, crash" type fun. Furiosa by contrast feels downright mean and nihilistic at points. Everyone in Mad Max is a lunatic plagued by a tragic backstory, but this movie delves into it in depth and detail, and it is harrowing. There were a couple of scenes that reminded me of Violence Jack of all things, one of the most notoriously mean-spirited and cruel post-apocalyptic fictions ever created. It doesn't get overbearing, but I think it is worth mentioning if you're expecting this to be like Fury Road.
If there are criticisms, the CGI being not that great is the foremost one. It's fine most of the time, but very noticeable at points. I was reminded of the CGI jumping physics in Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man in a few scenes. Beyond that I guess it can feel like it's taking its time getting going in the first act, but I felt it was all necessary. And as a final point I literally cannot get over how gorgeous Anya Taylor-Joy is. Even caked in dust and mud she looks like something out of a painting.
The Zone of Interest, 5/10
This is the recent A24 Oscar darling about the family of Rudolf Höss during his time commanding Auschwitz. The conceit of this movie is that you never see the concentration camp stuff, you only hear it in the background while the movie shows incredibly ordinary and everyday things: kids playing, mom preparing the dinner, talking with grandma and so on. But the noises can be heard just on the other side of the wall, and there's hardly a shot in the film where you don't see a barb wire fence, a guard tower or nazi soldiers walking by. It's a film you experience more by listening rather than seeing.
Color this one a big "eh, 'twas alright" for me. It just didn't work for me. I wasn't really bored, but not engaged either. I get the concept and it's masterfully executed, but beyond that there wasn't really much of anything to latch on to aside from it being really well shot and acted. There's no real story, character arcs and development are minimal, and there's very little sense of momentum, escalation or things going anywhere. Things just sort of happen for 100 minutes and then it stops, and I don't feel that I really got much out of it. The playing with the soundscape is the whole point of this movie, and IMO it felt more like a 30-minute short film stretched to feature length rather than something organically that long.
Last edited:
A ★★★★ review of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)
“What is this, some kind of funhouse?” “Why, are you having fun?” As a bit of casting trivia, the eventual cast for Willy Wonka was not the first choice, nor was he the one preferred by Roald Dahl, who wrote the book and screenplay for this adaptation...or rather, Dahl wrote an outline, failing...
letterboxd.com
Our Friend (2019) on Amazon Prime
Odd movie told in an asynchronous manner of a family man (Casey Affleck) with a dying wife (Dakota Johnson) who have a "friend" (Jason Segel) that helps them through her long, suffering death from cancer. Real life story in which the Affleck character is a writer that in reality published a story about this entire experience.
C-
Odd movie told in an asynchronous manner of a family man (Casey Affleck) with a dying wife (Dakota Johnson) who have a "friend" (Jason Segel) that helps them through her long, suffering death from cancer. Real life story in which the Affleck character is a writer that in reality published a story about this entire experience.
I balled my eyes out in "Terms of Endearment" when Debra Winger passes from cancer and her mom loses it wailing that she foolishly thought her daughter's passing would be a relief compared to here, where a hospice nurse smiling beatifically tells Affleck not to worry, it's almost over. That it is a blessing when it is over. I might be reading too much into it but seems to be a sea change in our views of the meaning and value of life, love and dealing with loss.
C-
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
I actually saw this one tuesday in XD. Normally I'd just post my gut instinct on these Tuesday films, but man I really struggled with this one. I am still struggling with it.
It's a fine/great movie no doubt. It looks great, actings good, it's good story. I will buy it and rewatch the films in order...but there in lies the problem.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga...is not a "new" story. It falls very directly into the trap of "prequels".
Lets back up a step. What do you know about Furiosa?
* Furiosa grew up in the Green place
* Furiosa was captured and was made to work for immorton Joe
* Furiosa Became his Imperator
So what is Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga about? Well Furiosa lives in the Green place, Furiosa gets Captured, Furiosa ends up as Imperator for Immotan Joe. BUT PISCIAN THERE MUST BE TWISTS? Well..no not really. There's details there, theres your darth mual you didn't know about, your Quigon Jin who helped Furiosa, Big action set pieces. The problem is that all the film brings to the table story wise is paint by numbers. At no point in the film will you exclaim "Oh wow this changes the context of Fury Road!"
It leaves me in this odd place here where if I hadn't seen Fury Road this would be an easy 10/10 as it is I'm stuck at saying it's an 8/10
There are some...personal points I need to subtract. The thing about Fury Road that makes it a classic is that everything is larger than life. George Miller accomplished what Zack Snyder dreams about at night. Movies that are almost Music videos BIG SCENE SET SCENE BIG SCENE, minimal dialog, minimal exposition, show dont tell, end each scene with a bang!
In comparison Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is much more subdued. For instance theres a 10 minute chase towards the beginning with almost no sound other than sniper shots, motors stopping and starting, and the wind as 6 Bandits are hunted one by one across the desert. It belongs more in a old western filmed through David Fincher lens than what we perceive as a modern action film. While theres 3 or 4 Big motorhead smashie smashie scenes they are heavily interspersed with storytelling. Georgie still shows more than tells and the dialog is minimal and to the point it's just not as BOMBASTIC and idk I guess I wasn't ready for that. It didn't blow me away like Fury Road did.
My advice is of course go see it, absolutely in theaters, but I would say temper your expectations of being on the edge of your seat the whole time.
I actually saw this one tuesday in XD. Normally I'd just post my gut instinct on these Tuesday films, but man I really struggled with this one. I am still struggling with it.
It's a fine/great movie no doubt. It looks great, actings good, it's good story. I will buy it and rewatch the films in order...but there in lies the problem.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga...is not a "new" story. It falls very directly into the trap of "prequels".
Lets back up a step. What do you know about Furiosa?
* Furiosa grew up in the Green place
* Furiosa was captured and was made to work for immorton Joe
* Furiosa Became his Imperator
So what is Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga about? Well Furiosa lives in the Green place, Furiosa gets Captured, Furiosa ends up as Imperator for Immotan Joe. BUT PISCIAN THERE MUST BE TWISTS? Well..no not really. There's details there, theres your darth mual you didn't know about, your Quigon Jin who helped Furiosa, Big action set pieces. The problem is that all the film brings to the table story wise is paint by numbers. At no point in the film will you exclaim "Oh wow this changes the context of Fury Road!"
It leaves me in this odd place here where if I hadn't seen Fury Road this would be an easy 10/10 as it is I'm stuck at saying it's an 8/10
There are some...personal points I need to subtract. The thing about Fury Road that makes it a classic is that everything is larger than life. George Miller accomplished what Zack Snyder dreams about at night. Movies that are almost Music videos BIG SCENE SET SCENE BIG SCENE, minimal dialog, minimal exposition, show dont tell, end each scene with a bang!
In comparison Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is much more subdued. For instance theres a 10 minute chase towards the beginning with almost no sound other than sniper shots, motors stopping and starting, and the wind as 6 Bandits are hunted one by one across the desert. It belongs more in a old western filmed through David Fincher lens than what we perceive as a modern action film. While theres 3 or 4 Big motorhead smashie smashie scenes they are heavily interspersed with storytelling. Georgie still shows more than tells and the dialog is minimal and to the point it's just not as BOMBASTIC and idk I guess I wasn't ready for that. It didn't blow me away like Fury Road did.
My advice is of course go see it, absolutely in theaters, but I would say temper your expectations of being on the edge of your seat the whole time.
I hate prequels for much of what you state. I was talking about this with the boy, saying about the only one I can think of off the top of my head that I like is "Better Call Saul" realizing, it wasn't just a prequel. Much of it runs along side "Breaking Bad" and then goes on after that show ended.
You largely cannot have character growth: the character needs to end up where the non-prequel starts off. I write largely as, I suppose a movie could have a villain and you can have a prequel that starts with a nice villain that turns into a monster and you see how (Star Wars / Hunger Games). But that sorta thing is so un-asked for.
Yeah I was hoping Furiosa would at some point move beyond the events of Fury Road. Better Call Saul is compelling because it doesn't flesh out Breaking Bad, its a difference story, different cast, running in parallel and past Breaking Bad. Unfortunately Furiosa almost tells us beat for beat what we already know, and not much beyond that. Oh heres the green, heres gas town, heres the bullet farm. They...look like what I kinda imagined.
A ★★★★★ review of Pom Poko (1994)
“I'm starting to get nervous. What if our little pranks aren't doing any good at all? What if the humans leveled the entire forest? Then where are we gonna go? Maybe Gonta's right. The only way to stop them is to get violent. I don't want to have to hurt any more humans. It just doesn't seem...
letterboxd.com
I agree that Furiosa's biggest problem is that it has to follow Fury Road. I don't agree that the movie lives and dies by what it adds to Furiosa's resume, or that it only counts if they retrospectively change something about the earlier movie (Phoebe Waller Bridge lives inside the Millennium Falcon! Wasn't that nugget worth watching Solo: A Star Wars Story?), although for me it does underscore Furiosa's breakdown in Fury Road when no such breaking point is reached in the 15 years of tragedy and misery Furiosa covers.
We do learn more about her. We didn't know the extent of her loss, the ups and downs of hope and despair, the course by which she quietly reinvented herself and made herself invaluable to the people she detested. And while it doesn't drastically alter the context of Fury Road I did like seeing the world more built up and fleshed out while never really needing the exposition.
Exactly why I love it, and the movie gets the S-Rank, and stand on its own. Furiosa actually avoids the traps most prequels fall into and is the movie equivalent of DMC3. I love the movie for not trying to outdo Fury Road.
A ★★★★½ review of Eraserhead (1977)
“They’re not sure it is a baby!” This film had a very troubled production. Due to it being his first film, on top of being the kind of film it is, David Lynch pretty much had to rely on funds from the AFI, as well as friends and family. Due to this, it took 5 years for the movie to get finished...
letterboxd.com
Lynch's refusal to talk about how he made that baby puppet always left a weird taste in my mouth. I mean, I like to think that it didn't involve some form of animal cruelty, but it looks suspiciously like at least parts of a dead animal were used to make it. And I know that Lynch did some art installations with animal cadavers, although obviously ones he found.A ★★★★½ review of Eraserhead (1977)
“They’re not sure it is a baby!” This film had a very troubled production. Due to it being his first film, on top of being the kind of film it is, David Lynch pretty much had to rely on funds from the AFI, as well as friends and family. Due to this, it took 5 years for the movie to get finished...
Looks like a skinned rabbit to me.
Speaking of which, do you know which one of these is Naomi Watts and which one is Laura Harring? I could never tell.
And to make things even more questionable, apparently they disposed of the prop after filming via burial.
Gun to my head, I'd say that the one on the couch is Harring, the one ironing is Watts.
Hah, and checking the credits on letterboxd, I seem to be right!
That's the story, yeah. Of course with how long the movie was in production, it's difficult to imagine it wouldn't decompose over time if it really was a dead rabbit or sheep or calf or something. Unless they shot all of the scenes with it over a really short time, which is hard to imagine seeing how much screentime it has, or they made multiple.
Civil War (2024)
Alex Garland's latest movie, and, according to him, the one he plans to retire on. Which might be for the best, if I'm being honest. I was hesitant to watch this, because Garland is a director I like and this seemed like a movie I'd hate, so I wasn't exactly in a hurry to see it.
So, Civil War deals with... well, a Civil War in the United States. Texas, California and Florida have decided to secede and, at the time the movie is set, seem to be winning. Texas and California have an alliance while, I think, Florida is kinda supposed to be doing its own thing. Anyway, the army appears to have mostly allied itself with the secessionists and they're preparing to take Washington DC. The movie follows a small group of reporters trying to get to DC before them to interview the besieged president, played by an underutilized Nick Offerman, before he's captured or killed.
And... well, that's about it. You got 4 reporters, one young and idealistic (Cailee Spaeny), one jaded (Kirsten Dunst ) one old (Stephen McKinley-Henderson) and one an asshole (Wagner Moura). This might be a weird thing to point out, but I feel like Cailee Spaeny in this movie came off a lot like a young Elliott Page, back when he still lived as Ellen, which is kinda funny to think about, because she actually did play a transman in Garland's television show Devs. I dunno, just a thought I had. Either way, this movie follows their journey from New York to DC and their encounters in the last stronghold of the old USA.
Civil War is an odd movie, in that it deals with a topic as challenging as an American Civil War, but has incredibly sparse world building. We never learn why exactly these states are trying to secede. We never learn why the alliances are what they are or what the deal with Florida is. Nick Offerman's president doesn't even get a name, much less a backstory. It just expects us to take all that for granted. The characters certainly do. Which is why I'm wondering just how seriously we are supposed to be taking all this.
I'll say it: Civil War is either one of the worst dramas or one of the most deadpan satires I've ever seen. Because let me be honest, I did not care for these characters. If Civil War is supposed to sell me the "journalism" these guys are doing as something noble, it missed the mark by a country mile. Matter of fact, most of the time they felt less like journalists and more like annoying tourists staring and snapping photos while other people fight and die. There is a scene early when Kirsten Dunst tells a member of a militia to pose with a couple prisoners they had hung up by their hands at a gas station. And another one where they try to interview a soldier during a battle with a sniper. And honestly, when that soldier is exasperatedly proclaims "I get it. You guys are retards." I was kinda with him. And that feeling of "You can't possibly expect me to actually care about these people" remained persistent throughout the entire movie.
Honestly, what Civil War feels like is a compilation of, like, the least interesting plotline of some bigger television series. Because I can't help but think that almost any other perspective on this story would have been more compelling than the one we got. All the actually interesting aspects of a scenario like that, who are the people fighting this war, what are they fighting for, how did it come to this, what about friends and families who ended up on different sides of the war and so on and so forth are not just sidelined but pretty much disregarded entirely in favour of a bunch of cynical idiots who have no interest in the war beyond making pictures and getting out alive.
Which, again, makes me wonder: Is this supposed to be satire? Is this about journisms failure to actually capture the gravity and the tragedy of wars and atrocities? About the inherently cynical and predatory nature of even attempting to do so? Because if that is the case... well, why make up this whole elaborate fantasy scenario about a fictional civil war in America? What's the intention behind any of that? Or of quirky throwaway references to "Heartland Maoists" or an "AntiFa Massacre", stuff that almost seems like anti-worldbuilding in that it confuses the scenario rather than clarifying it in any way. You know, there's this sketch from the show "I think you should leave now" where an instructor at a driving school is showing an educational video where a lady makes constant obscure references to her job, which involves tables and famous horror movie characters, to the point none of the students pay any attention to the lesson about driving and everyone just keeps asking what the hell that lady's job is supposed to be. And what I'm saying is, Civil War left me feeling a lot like that.
I'm genuinely not sure what this movie was supposed to be about or how seriously I'm supposed to be taking it. It almost seems to be going out of its way not to offer any coherent social or political commentary. Alexander Garland sure knows how to keep a movie going visually, there's no doubt about that. But I have no clue what the point of any of it is. All I know is that I wasn't rooting for any side of the war that was depicted, because I have no idea of what any side of that war actually stood for, and I wasn't rooting for the journalists it followed, because they came off like a bunch of oblivious, cynical vultures. Like, is that the point? "War is bad, and so is reporting on it?" Have I gone stupid or has Garland? I'd say "it's the messiest, least coherent vision of a dystopian future you're gonna see all year." but Megalopolis is still coming out, so there's a decent chance that's not true.
Alex Garland's latest movie, and, according to him, the one he plans to retire on. Which might be for the best, if I'm being honest. I was hesitant to watch this, because Garland is a director I like and this seemed like a movie I'd hate, so I wasn't exactly in a hurry to see it.
So, Civil War deals with... well, a Civil War in the United States. Texas, California and Florida have decided to secede and, at the time the movie is set, seem to be winning. Texas and California have an alliance while, I think, Florida is kinda supposed to be doing its own thing. Anyway, the army appears to have mostly allied itself with the secessionists and they're preparing to take Washington DC. The movie follows a small group of reporters trying to get to DC before them to interview the besieged president, played by an underutilized Nick Offerman, before he's captured or killed.
And... well, that's about it. You got 4 reporters, one young and idealistic (Cailee Spaeny), one jaded (Kirsten Dunst ) one old (Stephen McKinley-Henderson) and one an asshole (Wagner Moura). This might be a weird thing to point out, but I feel like Cailee Spaeny in this movie came off a lot like a young Elliott Page, back when he still lived as Ellen, which is kinda funny to think about, because she actually did play a transman in Garland's television show Devs. I dunno, just a thought I had. Either way, this movie follows their journey from New York to DC and their encounters in the last stronghold of the old USA.
Civil War is an odd movie, in that it deals with a topic as challenging as an American Civil War, but has incredibly sparse world building. We never learn why exactly these states are trying to secede. We never learn why the alliances are what they are or what the deal with Florida is. Nick Offerman's president doesn't even get a name, much less a backstory. It just expects us to take all that for granted. The characters certainly do. Which is why I'm wondering just how seriously we are supposed to be taking all this.
I'll say it: Civil War is either one of the worst dramas or one of the most deadpan satires I've ever seen. Because let me be honest, I did not care for these characters. If Civil War is supposed to sell me the "journalism" these guys are doing as something noble, it missed the mark by a country mile. Matter of fact, most of the time they felt less like journalists and more like annoying tourists staring and snapping photos while other people fight and die. There is a scene early when Kirsten Dunst tells a member of a militia to pose with a couple prisoners they had hung up by their hands at a gas station. And another one where they try to interview a soldier during a battle with a sniper. And honestly, when that soldier is exasperatedly proclaims "I get it. You guys are retards." I was kinda with him. And that feeling of "You can't possibly expect me to actually care about these people" remained persistent throughout the entire movie.
Honestly, what Civil War feels like is a compilation of, like, the least interesting plotline of some bigger television series. Because I can't help but think that almost any other perspective on this story would have been more compelling than the one we got. All the actually interesting aspects of a scenario like that, who are the people fighting this war, what are they fighting for, how did it come to this, what about friends and families who ended up on different sides of the war and so on and so forth are not just sidelined but pretty much disregarded entirely in favour of a bunch of cynical idiots who have no interest in the war beyond making pictures and getting out alive.
Which, again, makes me wonder: Is this supposed to be satire? Is this about journisms failure to actually capture the gravity and the tragedy of wars and atrocities? About the inherently cynical and predatory nature of even attempting to do so? Because if that is the case... well, why make up this whole elaborate fantasy scenario about a fictional civil war in America? What's the intention behind any of that? Or of quirky throwaway references to "Heartland Maoists" or an "AntiFa Massacre", stuff that almost seems like anti-worldbuilding in that it confuses the scenario rather than clarifying it in any way. You know, there's this sketch from the show "I think you should leave now" where an instructor at a driving school is showing an educational video where a lady makes constant obscure references to her job, which involves tables and famous horror movie characters, to the point none of the students pay any attention to the lesson about driving and everyone just keeps asking what the hell that lady's job is supposed to be. And what I'm saying is, Civil War left me feeling a lot like that.
I'm genuinely not sure what this movie was supposed to be about or how seriously I'm supposed to be taking it. It almost seems to be going out of its way not to offer any coherent social or political commentary. Alexander Garland sure knows how to keep a movie going visually, there's no doubt about that. But I have no clue what the point of any of it is. All I know is that I wasn't rooting for any side of the war that was depicted, because I have no idea of what any side of that war actually stood for, and I wasn't rooting for the journalists it followed, because they came off like a bunch of oblivious, cynical vultures. Like, is that the point? "War is bad, and so is reporting on it?" Have I gone stupid or has Garland? I'd say "it's the messiest, least coherent vision of a dystopian future you're gonna see all year." but Megalopolis is still coming out, so there's a decent chance that's not true.
While I understand the discontent with prequels in general, I don’t agree with the sentiment of them being pointless. That’s only true if all the viewer cares about is where the plot ends up.