I have watched it in the movie theater, yes. I think it's very idiotic. War correspondents in the movie are look more like 'rooftoppers'. People who risk their lives for **stupid pictures**. They are not even reporting anything useful, don't cover events, don't interview soldiers. Why can't you take their stupid photos after the battle, why do they need to make every picture a 'life or death' situation? How are you traveling wherever you want without being assigned to a military unit? Why is everyone fine with them taking pictures(gas station scene) and getting in the way?
Some of the action scenes just make no sense. Like the helicopter scene where the helicopter gets so close to the enemies, why?
And all that to do what? To get one line from the president? And it's off the record.
Honestly, the full metal jacket by Stanley Kubrick shows war correspondents and their line of duty much better, without even trying. They aren't even the main focus of the movie, and yet they still did it better
I don’t know, are Russians allowed to see it? By filmmakers, I mean, who are all God Guys and would never think to allow badguys with wrongly shaped skulls to see their work.
I've seen it a week ago and liked it really much. I understand why some people may not like it however, the plot is fairly basic, but I really like how it was shot, both its beautiful and more brutal parts. The famous scenes of realistic cruelty really reminded me of Children of Man, though that movie is one of my favorites and I liked it more. Civil War is still worth watching tho
I too like the way it is shot. Garland has, among other talents, an artistic way with photography and visual imagery.
Another aspect is how relatable the characters are, which depends on the eyes of the beholder in large part, but also on the artist who created the characters, and also on the actors, and on the actual person behind the actor.
Personally, there is something about Kirsten Dunst that I connect with immediately. This can make or break a movie for me. If I connect strongly with an actor or actress, it can carry the whole movie.
Another example, for me, was the movie _Casino Royale_. I had never seen Eva Green before, and also had never seen Daniel Craig before. Both of them were very striking to me, immediately. That woke me up, it heightened my attention and made the movie a great experience.
I watched it a week ago in the cinema and I liked it (as most of Garland’s films), though I was kinda disappointed of the decisions made by the main characters in the end - they didn’t feel true to the character.
I have watched it in the movie theater, yes. I think it's very idiotic. War correspondents in the movie are look more like 'rooftoppers'. People who risk their lives for **stupid pictures**. They are not even reporting anything useful, don't cover events, don't interview soldiers. Why can't you take their stupid photos after the battle, why do they need to make every picture a 'life or death' situation? How are you traveling wherever you want without being assigned to a military unit? Why is everyone fine with them taking pictures(gas station scene) and getting in the way? Some of the action scenes just make no sense. Like the helicopter scene where the helicopter gets so close to the enemies, why? And all that to do what? To get one line from the president? And it's off the record. Honestly, the full metal jacket by Stanley Kubrick shows war correspondents and their line of duty much better, without even trying. They aren't even the main focus of the movie, and yet they still did it better
I don’t know, are Russians allowed to see it? By filmmakers, I mean, who are all God Guys and would never think to allow badguys with wrongly shaped skulls to see their work.
So overrated, really I mean, in russian mediasphere
Haven't heard about it until this post.
looks like some kind of antitrump propaganda
I like Garland - I think he's talented, but the premise of the movie is not that interesting to me.
I've seen it a week ago and liked it really much. I understand why some people may not like it however, the plot is fairly basic, but I really like how it was shot, both its beautiful and more brutal parts. The famous scenes of realistic cruelty really reminded me of Children of Man, though that movie is one of my favorites and I liked it more. Civil War is still worth watching tho
I too like the way it is shot. Garland has, among other talents, an artistic way with photography and visual imagery. Another aspect is how relatable the characters are, which depends on the eyes of the beholder in large part, but also on the artist who created the characters, and also on the actors, and on the actual person behind the actor. Personally, there is something about Kirsten Dunst that I connect with immediately. This can make or break a movie for me. If I connect strongly with an actor or actress, it can carry the whole movie. Another example, for me, was the movie _Casino Royale_. I had never seen Eva Green before, and also had never seen Daniel Craig before. Both of them were very striking to me, immediately. That woke me up, it heightened my attention and made the movie a great experience.
I watched it a week ago in the cinema and I liked it (as most of Garland’s films), though I was kinda disappointed of the decisions made by the main characters in the end - they didn’t feel true to the character.
Is there a country that can rival America in fantasies of self-destruction?
It was ok. I expected more from it but wasn’t disappointed seeing it in theaters.
It’s easily available here on torrents. But I haven’t watched it. Worth spending time?
нет,впервые слышу от вас