It did, but it wasn’t what most people went in there for, so they didn’t recognize it. It wasn’t about one side or another, it was about the role of remaining neutral in a polarized situation. In the end, we still aren’t sure if the president was Right or Left, but the media was clearly neutral.
Yeah, that movie sucked. The only almost good scene was the “What kind of American are you?” scene, which was entirely undermined by the fact that it ended with the guy choosing to kill the only genuine foreigners in the group instead of any of the Americans, regardless of what “kind” they were ??? Maybe I’m the one that completely missed the point.
Yeah, I remember being underwhelmed with the lack of a coherent plot.
My armchair critique is; It didn’t make any political prescriptions, or communicate any sincere analysis of real life shit. That’s me being insufferable, though.
I think the only message I took away from it was some sort of commentary on war journalists and maybe by extension the people who watch their coverage for conflict voyeurism. The main lady called their purpose showing the world so they can make decisions, but you can tell that’s not really sitting right in her head throughout the movie, and the other two are riding an adrenaline high like it’s all just exciting.
The only reason it would need to be set in America would be that if it was a war in Africa, we’d be even less inclined to see the detachment of the journalists as an issue to examine. There wasn’t even all that much American on American action. The antagonists are either faceless or implied to be clinging to a lost cause on the wrong side.
The most humanized antagonist... (spoiler).
The most humanized antagonist might be the brief close up on the young female suicide bomber at the start of the movie.
We got line 2k troops in DC right now that could end Trump and the fascists. They just need to wake up and remember their oath to the constitution.
Sounds a lot like the plot of that film ‘civil war’
I feel like that film didn’t really have a plot. Maybe I’m miss remembering.
It did, but it wasn’t what most people went in there for, so they didn’t recognize it. It wasn’t about one side or another, it was about the role of remaining neutral in a polarized situation. In the end, we still aren’t sure if the president was Right or Left, but the media was clearly neutral.
Is there a mister remembering?
Nope, I just can’t english.
Yeah, that movie sucked. The only almost good scene was the “What kind of American are you?” scene, which was entirely undermined by the fact that it ended with the guy choosing to kill the only genuine foreigners in the group instead of any of the Americans, regardless of what “kind” they were ??? Maybe I’m the one that completely missed the point.
Yeah, I remember being underwhelmed with the lack of a coherent plot.
My armchair critique is; It didn’t make any political prescriptions, or communicate any sincere analysis of real life shit. That’s me being insufferable, though.
I think the only message I took away from it was some sort of commentary on war journalists and maybe by extension the people who watch their coverage for conflict voyeurism. The main lady called their purpose showing the world so they can make decisions, but you can tell that’s not really sitting right in her head throughout the movie, and the other two are riding an adrenaline high like it’s all just exciting.
The only reason it would need to be set in America would be that if it was a war in Africa, we’d be even less inclined to see the detachment of the journalists as an issue to examine. There wasn’t even all that much American on American action. The antagonists are either faceless or implied to be clinging to a lost cause on the wrong side.
The most humanized antagonist... (spoiler).
The most humanized antagonist might be the brief close up on the young female suicide bomber at the start of the movie.
We are the plot