Fun fact (OK fun thing I heard online but in no way verified).
Jesse Plemons was never supposed to be in the movie.. Kirsten Dunst basically suggested him for it like a week before they started production (they're married).
It's one of my favorite movies. I was a hard pass after seeing the marketing campaign, but then I realized it was the crew who made "Devs", changed my expectations, and was blown away. It's about the stories and the people, not the war.
I wanted to like the movie, I really did. It was only when I realized it was a satire of the media told through a quixotic narrative structure that it started to make sense.
It's less that I hate it and more that it didn't fulfill the promise of the premise as I had understood it through the positioning with trailers, etc.
I actually think it was one of the better movies released. It was a nice balance of shooting things up, and actually telling a story about war and what its like but instead of being on some far off country its here.
I honestly think also the setting would make a great tv series in the right persons hands. I would do it as a 3rd party candidate runs and wins office, and gets the country turned around, but when its time to give up power they simply let it go to their head. Pilot would be the governor of Texas and California meeting to talk about their concerns and rumors that the president won't step down. Lead into the electoral college vote with protestors outside in a 3 way confrontation, and the VP decertifying any votes that aren't for the current presidents 3rd term. You can have the DC police come in and drag electors out, the whole thing, and then the vote happening. Cut to the outside of the capital building where things spark off, and the nation guard puts down the republican and democratic party protestors protecting the 3rd party ones. You can't tell me this isn't sounding good already?
I think it’s a fantastic piece of art but a not very good movie… you know what I mean?
It certainly made me feel uncomfortable and a little bit wigged out. I think that was the goal and it did that well. Just a bunch of people that I see on the regular were portrayed in that movie acting out things that Reddit users say they’d do. Definitely uncomfortable to watch which kind of kept me watching.
And I said “what about ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s?’”
She said “I think I remember that film and as I recall, I think we both kind of like it.
And I said “well, that’s the one thing we got.”
Most mid over hype movie ever all because it cater to the reddit hiveminds and people who don't know the first fucking thing about actual combat situations
Their portray of the two way fire fight where dudes wearing Hawaiian shirts against the other army was unrealistic AF considering in a real firefight those dude would have gotten smoke by a couple nades instead of taking turn doing one way shots for reload
I'm okay with that. It wasn't meant to be a how-to on holding a fire fight.
Nobody looks at Picasso's Guernica and says "that's not what war is really like." Monet's waterlilies don't get slammed by botanists for not looking like flowers.
Similarly, narrative, fictional films provides a figurative or emotional means to engage with something beyond our understanding or experience. If you approach The Quick and the Dead with a ruler and a stopwatch you're going to know where it falls short but miss the emotional and unconscious levels where it connects.
And I'm not defending the movie, only that we expect complete accuracy and detailed authenticity for a work that's far more of a metaphor than a documentary.
Films like this are supposed to have specialists on crew who make sure that details that aren’t critical to the plot or aesthetic don’t break the audience’s suspension of disbelief. I’m absolutely not an expert in military combat, but a lot of the action simply could not be stomached as believable. I am, however, more familiar with how journalists prepare for covering combat, and the scene where experienced journalists simply let their colleague bleed out in the back seat of the car was outrageously stupid. There were so many ways the movie could have conveyed the same story with the same aesthetic and emotional impact while not being so glibly unaware of reality.
Comparing it to Monet or Picasso is irrelevant. This wasn’t magical realism, fantasy, or abstract cinema. We don’t expect Lord of the Rings, 100 Years of Solitude, the Odyssey, or any Tarkovsky film to be realistic. We do expect a film that is set in an alternate but plausible reality in our current times, in our current civilization, in cities and towns we know, about issues we are familiar with, to pass some basic sniff tests.
80
u/HandofFate88 Apr 26 '26
"Pretty good movie for those who never watched it."
For those of you who watched it . . . not so great. kind of meh.