There is no way that any of the amazing actors that played in this film read the script and thought 'OMG, I absolutely have to take part in this movie because the screenplay is extraordinary'. Instead, they were thinking, well, this movie will pay the bills.
To say it didn't make any sense would be an understatement. The movie's trailer is in fact misleading, as many other reviewers have pointed out. You are led to believe that the country has broken out into a civil war, the way some imagine it would be if a politically divided USA decides to battle it out. But no. This film was The Walking Dead without the zombies. So, instead of the protagonists traveling across the country to find a cure, a safe haven, or something better than the apocalypse they're living in and coming across a continuous torrent of selfish antagonists trying to kill them for various reasons, you have a group of journalists who are traveling to get 'the' best photo and story of the chaos and coming across all sorts of antagonists who are trying to kill them as they are killing each other off, mostly for no reason whatsoever other than that they can. Sure, in real life during a civil war, while there are supposed to two sides, mankind's worst self does often come out resulting in unnecessary mayhem and murder to suit one's personal interests that have nothing to do with ideology or the reason behind why the civil war even broke out. But as the real journalists in The Guardian pointed out, what you're getting is a very generic movie that quite frankly, doesn't really know what it's trying to say or worse, doesn't really have anything to say other than we made a movie that will entertain you for two hours in an IMAX theater for that $20 you could have used for gas or food for your children.
Another very inaccurate portrayal was that of the journalists themselves. While the cast was absolutely amazing, especially Kirsten Dunst as the lead journalist, in real life journalists do not act so haphazardly. Yes, war journalists are heroes that are constantly risking their lives to report news to the rest of us, but in this movie they are most often than not conducting themselves in amateur and unprofessional behavior, for instance sticking the camera in between the faces of the cop and rioter battling it out that are only inches apart. As someone who is an amateur photographer, I can attest that I have never witnessed this absurd behavior and that the journalists, while very close to the action, never act so stupidly and carelessly.
Finally, the ending. Garland either didn't know how to end the film or rushed to finish it due to scheduling constraints, and the result is so nonsensical that you are left wondering if the whole movie was a joke all along.
In summary, this film did have a superb cast, cinematography and special effects and even an outstanding soundtrack that for me for not enough to save this film from its senseless and generic storyline.
To say it didn't make any sense would be an understatement. The movie's trailer is in fact misleading, as many other reviewers have pointed out. You are led to believe that the country has broken out into a civil war, the way some imagine it would be if a politically divided USA decides to battle it out. But no. This film was The Walking Dead without the zombies. So, instead of the protagonists traveling across the country to find a cure, a safe haven, or something better than the apocalypse they're living in and coming across a continuous torrent of selfish antagonists trying to kill them for various reasons, you have a group of journalists who are traveling to get 'the' best photo and story of the chaos and coming across all sorts of antagonists who are trying to kill them as they are killing each other off, mostly for no reason whatsoever other than that they can. Sure, in real life during a civil war, while there are supposed to two sides, mankind's worst self does often come out resulting in unnecessary mayhem and murder to suit one's personal interests that have nothing to do with ideology or the reason behind why the civil war even broke out. But as the real journalists in The Guardian pointed out, what you're getting is a very generic movie that quite frankly, doesn't really know what it's trying to say or worse, doesn't really have anything to say other than we made a movie that will entertain you for two hours in an IMAX theater for that $20 you could have used for gas or food for your children.
Another very inaccurate portrayal was that of the journalists themselves. While the cast was absolutely amazing, especially Kirsten Dunst as the lead journalist, in real life journalists do not act so haphazardly. Yes, war journalists are heroes that are constantly risking their lives to report news to the rest of us, but in this movie they are most often than not conducting themselves in amateur and unprofessional behavior, for instance sticking the camera in between the faces of the cop and rioter battling it out that are only inches apart. As someone who is an amateur photographer, I can attest that I have never witnessed this absurd behavior and that the journalists, while very close to the action, never act so stupidly and carelessly.
Finally, the ending. Garland either didn't know how to end the film or rushed to finish it due to scheduling constraints, and the result is so nonsensical that you are left wondering if the whole movie was a joke all along.
In summary, this film did have a superb cast, cinematography and special effects and even an outstanding soundtrack that for me for not enough to save this film from its senseless and generic storyline.
Tell Your Friends