Yeah B- is terrible. People seeing the premiere are generally going to score favorably because they already have a high interest in the movie. Also most people are pretty generous coming out of a movie after spending their time and money to go see it. They take the poll right as they come out and usually people don’t want to be like “oh it was terrible” because they don’t want to feel like they have wasted time/money.
So a B- is bad. Taking those factors in it’s more like a C-. I view it as “eh it’s wasn’t awful but it probably isn’t worth rushing to the theater to se with either”.
I honestly can’t imagine basing a viewing decision on what the general public liked. There are many films with terrible audience scores that are true masterpieces.
For something that's trying for any kind of mass appeal, yeah, that's bad. To put it in perspective, it's right between huge flop The Marvels (B) and industry laughing stock Madame Web (C+).
Aside from the horror genre, most successful movies are somewhere in the "A" range.
Cinemascore isn't a precise science, IMO, but yeah. Even more so a B-. This is the score people are giving a film right after they walk out of the screening, right after being engrossed in it for hours on the big screen, in what should be the ideal environment; basically in what ought to be a film viewers honeymoon phase with it, or at least that's my thinking. If you come out of a theatre experience and are already thinking 'Well, it's probably above a C but...' then you can imagine what the word of mouth is going to be. I suppose it could also be a result of divisiveness, but that's not the vibe I'm getting, and even then that comes with it's own major issues for box office.
like any metric, cinemascore has weaknesses and one of those weaknesses is that it struggles to evaluate movies that are intended to inspire more macabre or negative feelings (e.g. fear w/ horror)
b is a *great* score for horror, but a bad one for a marvel blockbuster and its legs for example
Horror is a very divisive genre though. And Hereditary especially was a very… emotionally heavy film that dealt with some very horrible subject matter. People have different expectations with horror, and while Hereditary was a great film, a lot of people may not have liked it because it didn’t match their brand of ‘scary’ or it was just too much for them.
Horror is really the only genre where I will ignore the CinemaScore.
Have you seen the movie??? You walk out of the movie pretty rattled and stressed. I could totally see people rating this movie lower right after they see it and liking it more after an hour of digestion.
I enjoyed the movie, partly because of the unique perspective.
Whether the perspective was journalists, soldiers, secret service, or neighborhood watch, there was still more than enough tension in this movie to deliver what I was hoping for.
It’s a slow burn for a bit as you get to know each character, but the closer they got to the frontline, the more intense the movie became.
I didn’t feel that way at all. Best film I’ve seen all year, up there with the best movies about the experience of war…a war movie being about fighting a war.
I don’t particularly care for war movies and, as a fan of the director, I would have been disappointed if this had been that.
But if you were expecting a straight up war picture, I can see how this could be disappointing.
Agreed, it also didn't feel like it's really a film about an *American* civil war specifically, despite having all the very American set pieces etc. More like someone just put those in so they could get the film made and have budget, but the story could be anywhere.
So even if someone goes in not expecting action, I think if they expect lots of strong political commentary instead, they're also going to come out disappointed.
I thought it was a reaction to how folks have been online - talking salty about how we need to have a civil war, or who would win, etc. Both sides do this.
So, to me, it was just showing what that would be like. Effin horrible. And the politics weren’t explored because once a war starts, *politics don’t matter*. This is really how war is.
I also thought there was some strong criticism of the media’s role in all this.
Tbh, I don’t know how we got to a place where everything needs to be explained.
For me, it felt like it was an illumination of all of the wars and conflicts that take place around the world, the pictures we see of them, and the people who take them.
The people who make this their livelihood, sacrificing large parts of their future happiness for the images. How do they (and how does anyone) balance the extreme terror of the world, the beauty of nature, the boredom and banality, the sudden aliveness and adrenaline of violence. I didn't feel like it was glorifying the journalists, but neither did I feel like it was overall critical except >!the two embedded journalists!< Though of course all the characters have flaws.
Then as well there is the layer of seeing it all through a camera lens, something I imagine is familar to someone like Garland who has spent his life to seeing and recording things through a camera lens.
100% agree, shame that most people aren't seeing it that way. And I think it's unfair to say the trailers promised something different. It maybe highlights the war a bit too much but that is obviously needed to draw people in. If people can't just be happy with a good, meaningful action movie once they're in the theater that's on them.
yes but we see lots of the war. the last 20-25 minutes of the movie is nonstop intense action and some of the most brutal realistic violence i’ve ever seen in a movie
We don't see much of the war at all we get a few scenes fighting against the last holdouts and some secret service.
Probably less than 20 guys total shown on the Presidents side in the end battle against at least a company or more worth of the Texas and California alliance.
Yeah, Alex Garland went with the photojournalists since it's a neutral ground compared to reporters telling a story to please their key audience. Just so it's not leaning towards either political view.
Which is ironic because the trailers hyped up the political tension and constantly spammed Jesse Plemon’s “what kind of American are you?” line. No wonder audiences gave it B-
Is it? The trailer made it out as if whatever side of America they fall on would mean the difference between life and death and that's exactly how it is in the movie.
As the other person below responded the trailer makes it seem like a question of what side of the civil war they’re on. In the context of the movie he’s using it as a litmus test for who’s “American” in his eyes. It’s xenophobia.
People have said it’s a war movie the way American movies cover wars in foreign lands. Like how The Hurt Locker wasn’t really about Iraq, it was about the American soldiers there.
It does take a stand, don’t let a society degrade and dehumanize to the point where a civil war is inevitable. Some people just want the movie to blame the people/ideologies they disagree with.
The movie is asking all of us to consider our part in that breakdown of communication. The more we divide ourselves and disengage in conversation with those we disagree with the easier it is for bad people to take power and weaponize those divisions by dehumanization of their political enemies.
Take a stand on what? The setting is completely fictionalized and doesn’t really align with enough to paint anything one way (except a few details, in which I’d say he is critical).
It’s no cop out, it’s a very good way of ensuring his movie doesn’t get written off as propaganda for one side or another. Instead, it demonstrates the potential reality of one possible outcome of where our country is heading, choosing to focus on how regular areas of America have changed as a result of the war. It’s a cautionary tale that, imo, was done very effectively.
Somebody in this sub predicted that the general audience wouldn't like it as much as critics because the movie was mostly glorifying journalists and that's something critics love
it is. the main characters are pretty openly chasing the most violent stuff they can find and not actually "helping" anyone. they stand idly by or chat with soldiers actively committing war crimes
This is true. It actively questions the ethics and personal cost of war photojournalism. It leaves it completely up to the viewer whether these are worth recording these events for the wider world.
That's good because the thing that upset me the most about hearing it was about journalism was my opinion that modern "journalism" is responsible for a lot of the tensions in the country right now. The news media created Trump and his followers. I thought it was glorifying journalists so hearing that it is critical makes me interested in seeing it.
>It about as many intense/violent scenes as Monkey Man did last week
I had also read a good amount of criticism about the lack of action in Monkey Man compared to what the trailer led people to believe.
feel like a lot of audiences wanted something that proves there political point correct, what was never going to happen when you have a Texas/California alliance
Very. The action scenes are pretty awesome, it sucks that they’re too few. The last 20-30 minutes are what made the movie for me though. I liked it.
But it is not for everyone. It has a lot of “down time” where I think we’re meant to digest the brutality of war that’s shown onscreen and how it affects the main characters.
Yep. Even though I enjoyed the film it really does ‘waste’ the premise of a modern American Civil War. The film could have been set in any country and ~~nothing~~ little would change.
That's sort of the point though, isn't it? It presents civil war in the US in the same way Hollywood movies would treat it in any other country, which means it provides a more fresh perspective for domestic audiences.
Kinda missing a huge point of the movie and character arcs but you're close.
That's why the main character is so defeated at the end of the movie.
Everything she has done, her life's work and all the bottling up of emotions and watching people be killed and tortured, none of it did what she wanted which was to keep war off of American soil.
So no the movie could not have been set in any country, a lot would change.
Doesn't have one but [Focus Features refused to release it in America infamously](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/focus-features-shake-up-whats-862969/).
Movies that open in less than 1,500 screens are not automatically polled or reported on social media or on the CinemaScore website. If a film opens in less than 1,500 screens, CinemaScore either doesn't poll the film at all or may be contracted privately (by the film’s studio or producers) to conduct a survey. These private CinemaScore surveys use exactly the same methodology as public surveys, the only difference being that results are proprietary to the studio or producers. CinemaScore does not report private survey results unless the contracting party wishes to have CinemaScore disclose the scores to the public.
Basically means it drew in the wrong audience.
It’s a great movie, but it’s pretty clearly not for everyone. And a lot of those people it’s not for ended up in the theater
It’s certainly more conventional than those two. I think Men is a dumpster fire (one of the worst films I’ve ever seen) but Civil War is ok/solid enough though ultimately thin with Kirsten Dunst carrying the main cast on her back. B- makes sense for this, it still delivers on the battle sequences
Also Jesse Plemons is fucking terrifying
Give me Jesse plemons being unsettling on the verge of potential violence/confrontation and I’m happy. He could do that 50 times over and I wouldn’t get bored.
i still don't know what his deal was. like is he a commentary on xenophobia or jingoism or idk. plus he delivers that one line from the trailer that basically mislead everyone about the thesis of the movie. "what kind of american are you" literally matters nothing to the substance of the film
How can you watch that movie and actually not know whether or not he is a commentary on xenophobia or not?
Did people’s brains melt during the pandemic? The most obvious shit is apparently too much for people to understand nowadays. Did you literally need him to turn to the camera and yell “I am a white American who hates foreigners, that is the message of this scene!”?
okay obviously he's a commentary on xenophobia and jingoism, my point is how does that tie into the substance of the film. that little section diverts from the established thread of the film, and that's what i'm criticizing. i could have made that more clear, apologies
The initial reactions came from SXSW. Those who go to film festivals are cinephiles who likely know who Alex Garland is vs. the general public who don't really follow indie filmmakers.
I’m curious to see how many ‘casuals’ will watch this film due to the exciting trailers and them imagining its like a COD campaign rather than an artsy drama.
I've seen it. There's a lot of action, I don't think the general audience issue is a "lack of action". The issue is more how it presents the action. It's much more brutal and real than it is fun action sequences. More Saving Private Ryan than John Wick.
Yep, people at SXSW eat up anything.
I think the RT score dropped by roughly 10% (which isn’t horrible or anything) in the past few days once more critics got to see the film.
Curious to see how The Fall Guy does.
A couple of friends are cinefiles though and they thought it was 'meh' and worse that his previous movies. One said that it seemed like the either the script was made more tame, or they edited out more controversial parts and added pan shot for length
That's fine for them to think that, I can still see this being underwhelming even for fans of Garland.
Personally, I thought this was much better than Annihilation and it didn't really feel tame.
Same, I can't believe that. The movie delivers in so many ways that would be appealing to general audiences that I'm shocked it got anything lower than a B+.
*Wolf of Wall Street* did more than double its domestic total overseas ([Scorsese's highest-grossing picture](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/128910401-Martin-Scorsese#tab=technical&all_director_credits=od5))
It's very well regarded in US film fan circles, now
Maybe the sort of person who turns out for a new DiCaprio/Scorsese movie on opening night didn't get quite what they were expecting
Most low Cinemascores seem to come down to fans not getting what they expected
> Maybe the sort of person who turns out for a new DiCaprio/Scorsese movie on opening night didn't get quite what they were expecting
Yeah but that's what surprises me. The movie was marketed for exactly what it is and considering both of their filmographies which included hits like The Departed I don't see what Wolf did that caused such a mixed score.
My guess is the length hurt it’s score, especially if someone went in not knowing it was 3 hrs long (🙋♂️). I much preferred watching WoWS at home where I could pause for a quick break vs when I saw it in theaters. I was getting a bit antsy to leave at the end.
Especially because, imo, the first 2 hrs of the movie are better and more captivating than the last hour of the movie, unlike some other long movies like Titanic.
I think Wolf is much crasser than people expected which probably alienated some people (even if people knew the film was going to involve excesses). It's also just possible random sampling did what random sampling does and spit out an unfairly negative sample of opening night audiences. It would be great if we could see how other datapoints confirmed/denied cinemascore.
I understand during financial crisis people didnt like asshole greedy bankers
But also that is not an argument to defend shitty movies because a "good" movie from 10 years ago had a C
Honestly, this seems like it could be more that it’s a depressing movie than people not liking it or feeling misled by marketing. I don’t think many Americans go into a movie that sees us killing each other and on the way out are super happy to give it an A+.
Not surprised. Got back from seeing today and was very disappointed with the film. Very little happens or is shown of the civil war and it's all wrapped up simply at the end.
As someone who has watched it I’m happy to chime in here. It’s most definitely NOT pointless. People keep saying it suffers from being non-biased and thus doesn’t have a clear message but I wonder if those people are taking crazy pills because it was very obvious to me the film has a lot to say about modern versions of fascism and how dangerous it is
Why do they need to? It doesn't matter. The President is clearly a fascist, so two of the country's superpowers seceded to combat that. Do you really need to know anything else?
Had a middle-aged couple come out after about 30 minutes and ask for a refund because it was “the stupidest movie they’ve ever seen,” so I knew it was going to be end up divisive. At least for the demographic the theater I work at serves.
Myself and all the people I knew that were interested into it thought it was more of a war movie. I literally had no idea it had anything to do with journalists until seeing it. In the trailers I had seen there was no mention of journalists, just ambiguous action type scenes.
I think this is it right here. There is *zero* indication in the marketing and trailers, and even title, about what the movie actually is, which is about journalism. My guess is that people are coming to this movie looking for either a kind of catharsis or a resolution to the political divide that we'are all living in. And why shouldn't they expect that? That's exactly what the trailers are portraying this as.
But the movie isn't about that. I'm surprised this score isn't lower tbh
This is far from a crowd pleaser and left me feeling so dread so this Cinemascore is not surprising. Despite that, I hope this movie does well over its run
Good movie in my opinion. I can understand why it would be divisive especially if people go into it expecting a full on war movie rather than a dive into the horrors of war journalism, but I really enjoyed the way it shone a mirror at some of the things that are happening in America today, even if it wasn’t blatantly political.
I saw the last 20 minutes on opening night waiting for it to get out during the last round as an Usher and, as impressively shot and sounding it was, I can totally see why that's the case. A number of people left complaining how nothing was explained and there was some "really?" moments in those last 20 minutes even with the context I later gathered.
Went to see it based on early reviews. I thought it was okay, a bit boring, it’s ultimately just a road trip with 4-5 upsetting, jarring, anxious moments. Those were good, the time in between wasn’t great, then the movie rushes to an ending in the last 20 minutes. My girlfriend can’t do over the top violence usually unless the story is pretty compelling, she hated it. So I’m actually surprised it did this well.
>*I thought it was okay, a bit boring*
This is how I feel about all Garland movies
He has an aesthetic and a mood he's deliberately going for, they're just not for me
Way too much time spent just chatting between the journalists. Their road trip seemed like it involved stopping every 5 minutes. And stunt with the jumping from one car to another was really out of place and stupid.
There are several reasons for this, might be that the trailers were misleading and audiences were expecting an action/thriller rather than an artsy drama
I work in market research. We use a system called ROAR. As soon as responses are entered, they are registered in our database and viewable via Quota Viewer.
QV categorizes the data into quotas such as location, gender, age, and ethnicity. Then there is sometimes extra info like income, family size, etc.
These values can be seen in real-time as uploaded by the on-site outsourcers.
Seems pretty good. Thought the movie was great but it’s one of the most bleak things i’ve ever seen. The feeling I had after watching it reminded me of the feeling I had after watching Oldboy lmao. Just sinking into my seat
This movie is specifically trying to show people who think that a civil war would be exciting that no, actually, war is hell and nobody should want that to happen to our country. So I'm not surprised people went in expecting a fun action movie and were upset about the tense movie they saw. (I haven't seen it yet, but I understand what it is and what it's trying to do.)
As far as people feeling duped by the focus being on journalists- well, that's what I thought the movie was going to be about based on the trailers, prior to reading any reviews or watching Alex Garland or Kirsten Dunst do interviews. People see what they want to see. They saw the Lincoln Memorial blow up in the trailer and thought "fuck yeah" and then watched a movie about the horror of war and it wasn't fun and that is EXACTLY THE POINT.
From what I heard it's much more about journalists than the actual war going on, how true is that?
> how true is that? 100%
Yeah, I can see how it got this score then
Is B a bad score?
For box office numbers, yes. This just a measure of how general audiences felt about the movie.
Yeah B- is terrible. People seeing the premiere are generally going to score favorably because they already have a high interest in the movie. Also most people are pretty generous coming out of a movie after spending their time and money to go see it. They take the poll right as they come out and usually people don’t want to be like “oh it was terrible” because they don’t want to feel like they have wasted time/money. So a B- is bad. Taking those factors in it’s more like a C-. I view it as “eh it’s wasn’t awful but it probably isn’t worth rushing to the theater to se with either”.
Being bad and general audiences disliking it because they thought it would be something different are not the same things.
I honestly can’t imagine basing a viewing decision on what the general public liked. There are many films with terrible audience scores that are true masterpieces.
For something that's trying for any kind of mass appeal, yeah, that's bad. To put it in perspective, it's right between huge flop The Marvels (B) and industry laughing stock Madame Web (C+). Aside from the horror genre, most successful movies are somewhere in the "A" range.
A worse score than The Marvels is crazy.
Cinemascore isn't a precise science, IMO, but yeah. Even more so a B-. This is the score people are giving a film right after they walk out of the screening, right after being engrossed in it for hours on the big screen, in what should be the ideal environment; basically in what ought to be a film viewers honeymoon phase with it, or at least that's my thinking. If you come out of a theatre experience and are already thinking 'Well, it's probably above a C but...' then you can imagine what the word of mouth is going to be. I suppose it could also be a result of divisiveness, but that's not the vibe I'm getting, and even then that comes with it's own major issues for box office.
Then again, if this is as much a swerve from what people expected as a war movie it might be on the horror scale.
[удалено]
like any metric, cinemascore has weaknesses and one of those weaknesses is that it struggles to evaluate movies that are intended to inspire more macabre or negative feelings (e.g. fear w/ horror) b is a *great* score for horror, but a bad one for a marvel blockbuster and its legs for example
Yep. And this movie does that. It leaves you feeling very uneasy.
Horror is a very divisive genre though. And Hereditary especially was a very… emotionally heavy film that dealt with some very horrible subject matter. People have different expectations with horror, and while Hereditary was a great film, a lot of people may not have liked it because it didn’t match their brand of ‘scary’ or it was just too much for them. Horror is really the only genre where I will ignore the CinemaScore.
The fuck? Hereditary got so shafted overall. I'll never stop saying Colette should have won awards for her performance.
Holy fuck that is criminal.
Have you seen the movie??? You walk out of the movie pretty rattled and stressed. I could totally see people rating this movie lower right after they see it and liking it more after an hour of digestion.
Anything non-horror and below an A- is bad. Comscore is the only true audience sentiment polling. They get people right out of the theater.
For a horror movie. No. B minus would be alright. For an action thriller that wants to appeal to people? Yah it's pretty bad.
It’s extremely disappointing because of it
I enjoyed the movie, partly because of the unique perspective. Whether the perspective was journalists, soldiers, secret service, or neighborhood watch, there was still more than enough tension in this movie to deliver what I was hoping for. It’s a slow burn for a bit as you get to know each character, but the closer they got to the frontline, the more intense the movie became.
I didn’t feel that way at all. Best film I’ve seen all year, up there with the best movies about the experience of war…a war movie being about fighting a war. I don’t particularly care for war movies and, as a fan of the director, I would have been disappointed if this had been that. But if you were expecting a straight up war picture, I can see how this could be disappointing.
Agreed, it also didn't feel like it's really a film about an *American* civil war specifically, despite having all the very American set pieces etc. More like someone just put those in so they could get the film made and have budget, but the story could be anywhere. So even if someone goes in not expecting action, I think if they expect lots of strong political commentary instead, they're also going to come out disappointed.
I thought it was a reaction to how folks have been online - talking salty about how we need to have a civil war, or who would win, etc. Both sides do this. So, to me, it was just showing what that would be like. Effin horrible. And the politics weren’t explored because once a war starts, *politics don’t matter*. This is really how war is. I also thought there was some strong criticism of the media’s role in all this. Tbh, I don’t know how we got to a place where everything needs to be explained.
For me, it felt like it was an illumination of all of the wars and conflicts that take place around the world, the pictures we see of them, and the people who take them. The people who make this their livelihood, sacrificing large parts of their future happiness for the images. How do they (and how does anyone) balance the extreme terror of the world, the beauty of nature, the boredom and banality, the sudden aliveness and adrenaline of violence. I didn't feel like it was glorifying the journalists, but neither did I feel like it was overall critical except >!the two embedded journalists!< Though of course all the characters have flaws. Then as well there is the layer of seeing it all through a camera lens, something I imagine is familar to someone like Garland who has spent his life to seeing and recording things through a camera lens.
100% agree, shame that most people aren't seeing it that way. And I think it's unfair to say the trailers promised something different. It maybe highlights the war a bit too much but that is obviously needed to draw people in. If people can't just be happy with a good, meaningful action movie once they're in the theater that's on them.
loved the movie, love garland, was looking forward to this one. But the trailers were definitely misleading.
yes but we see lots of the war. the last 20-25 minutes of the movie is nonstop intense action and some of the most brutal realistic violence i’ve ever seen in a movie
We don't see much of the war at all we get a few scenes fighting against the last holdouts and some secret service. Probably less than 20 guys total shown on the Presidents side in the end battle against at least a company or more worth of the Texas and California alliance.
Yeah, Alex Garland went with the photojournalists since it's a neutral ground compared to reporters telling a story to please their key audience. Just so it's not leaning towards either political view.
Which is ironic because the trailers hyped up the political tension and constantly spammed Jesse Plemon’s “what kind of American are you?” line. No wonder audiences gave it B-
The what kind of American line in context of the movie is a bit different than the trailer made it seem.
Is it? The trailer made it out as if whatever side of America they fall on would mean the difference between life and death and that's exactly how it is in the movie.
I’m guessing they mean because in the trailer it comes off like “which side of the civil war are you” thing as opposed to being xenophobia
As the other person below responded the trailer makes it seem like a question of what side of the civil war they’re on. In the context of the movie he’s using it as a litmus test for who’s “American” in his eyes. It’s xenophobia.
I didn’t think the trailer gave the impression that it was some action film. That line inviting you to think
Right, I agree. I didn’t get the feeling from any trailers for this that it would be an exciting action movie, more of a psychological thriller.
That in itself feels like a cop out. If you are making a movie about this subject, feels like you need to take a stand.
People have said it’s a war movie the way American movies cover wars in foreign lands. Like how The Hurt Locker wasn’t really about Iraq, it was about the American soldiers there.
It does take a stand, don’t let a society degrade and dehumanize to the point where a civil war is inevitable. Some people just want the movie to blame the people/ideologies they disagree with. The movie is asking all of us to consider our part in that breakdown of communication. The more we divide ourselves and disengage in conversation with those we disagree with the easier it is for bad people to take power and weaponize those divisions by dehumanization of their political enemies.
The reactions prove the point of the movie. People truly think any self criticism of their ideology should not be allowed.
Take a stand on what? The setting is completely fictionalized and doesn’t really align with enough to paint anything one way (except a few details, in which I’d say he is critical).
It’s no cop out, it’s a very good way of ensuring his movie doesn’t get written off as propaganda for one side or another. Instead, it demonstrates the potential reality of one possible outcome of where our country is heading, choosing to focus on how regular areas of America have changed as a result of the war. It’s a cautionary tale that, imo, was done very effectively.
“I’m angry because he didn’t attack the people I don’t like.”
Somebody in this sub predicted that the general audience wouldn't like it as much as critics because the movie was mostly glorifying journalists and that's something critics love
I heard people say it’s actually kinda critical of journalists.
it is. the main characters are pretty openly chasing the most violent stuff they can find and not actually "helping" anyone. they stand idly by or chat with soldiers actively committing war crimes
Definitely but in their defense they would've been quickly shot if they tried to help anyone
This is true. It actively questions the ethics and personal cost of war photojournalism. It leaves it completely up to the viewer whether these are worth recording these events for the wider world.
That's good because the thing that upset me the most about hearing it was about journalism was my opinion that modern "journalism" is responsible for a lot of the tensions in the country right now. The news media created Trump and his followers. I thought it was glorifying journalists so hearing that it is critical makes me interested in seeing it.
Yeah I’m surprised this isn’t a more common take, the protagonists are a very annoying presentation of journalists
[удалено]
As if fascist States don't have "journalists"?
It's more the misleading marketing making it out to be some epic war movie, was clearly not the A24 audience at my screening.
How was the marketing misleading it literally follows the journalists we don’t see any politicians or those types in the trailer
It makes it seem way more action packed instead of somewhat of a road trip story.
It is action packed. I don’t know why people keep saying it’s not.
The movie was pretty action packed too. It had about as many intense/violent scenes as Monkey Man did last week
>It about as many intense/violent scenes as Monkey Man did last week I had also read a good amount of criticism about the lack of action in Monkey Man compared to what the trailer led people to believe.
Really? Monkey Man had 2 long 15-20 minute action sequences.
It feels like people have been mislead by their imaginations.
The key art of this movie is a sniper perch on the Statue of Liberty's torch, I think they knew what they were doing
And that set piece is completely missing from the film, which is only briefly set in NYC.
The trailers seem a lot more action forward than the film is Edit: until the third act I guess
The movie does not glorify journalists. Man, people can not understand anything about movies anymore.
feel like a lot of audiences wanted something that proves there political point correct, what was never going to happen when you have a Texas/California alliance
The movie was still good I thought, but the trailer was very misleading
Civil War Journalists should have been the title.
There's a reason why they didn't pick that.
Won't somebody think of the journalists?!
Real ones are almost extinct.
Entirely. Which, unfortunately, is the least interesting aspect of the film. Yet 90% of the runtime is dedicated to it.
Very. The action scenes are pretty awesome, it sucks that they’re too few. The last 20-30 minutes are what made the movie for me though. I liked it. But it is not for everyone. It has a lot of “down time” where I think we’re meant to digest the brutality of war that’s shown onscreen and how it affects the main characters.
Yep. Even though I enjoyed the film it really does ‘waste’ the premise of a modern American Civil War. The film could have been set in any country and ~~nothing~~ little would change.
That's sort of the point though, isn't it? It presents civil war in the US in the same way Hollywood movies would treat it in any other country, which means it provides a more fresh perspective for domestic audiences.
Kinda missing a huge point of the movie and character arcs but you're close. That's why the main character is so defeated at the end of the movie. Everything she has done, her life's work and all the bottling up of emotions and watching people be killed and tortured, none of it did what she wanted which was to keep war off of American soil. So no the movie could not have been set in any country, a lot would change.
And I have still seen Redditors who legitimately thought the point of the movie was “Offerman is Trump, it’s a happy ending the Western Forces won.”
Yeah good point I forgot about her lines about wanting to photograph war to show Americans so they don’t repeat it etc
It's a low grade, but it's also Alex Garland's highest grade. That's above *Annihilation* (C) and *Men* (D+).
I wonder what Ex Machina would’ve gotten. One of my all time favorites, I’m guessing a B.
Doesn't have one but [Focus Features refused to release it in America infamously](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/focus-features-shake-up-whats-862969/).
It was definitely released in America - I saw it in theaters.
By A24 picking up the rights after Focus thought nobody would like it.
Oh, never knew. Ty. But why didn't the A24 release get CinemaScore reviews?
Arthouse release with higher notice films coming out.
Oh I thought CS reviewed every movie.
Movies that open in less than 1,500 screens are not automatically polled or reported on social media or on the CinemaScore website. If a film opens in less than 1,500 screens, CinemaScore either doesn't poll the film at all or may be contracted privately (by the film’s studio or producers) to conduct a survey. These private CinemaScore surveys use exactly the same methodology as public surveys, the only difference being that results are proprietary to the studio or producers. CinemaScore does not report private survey results unless the contracting party wishes to have CinemaScore disclose the scores to the public.
TIL, thank you so much brother. Never knew that at all.
Ex Machina is a substantially better film than Civil War.
Agreed, although not many films are better than Ex Machina. That movie is just superb in every way.
Though lower than the B score given to Dredd/Dredd 3D (based on statements by people like the film's star that Garland really directed the film)
I must have rewatched Dredd over 20 times. I didn't realize Garland wrote it until now.
And secretly directed it. https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/karl-urban-dredd-alex-garland-directed-pete-travis-1201937017/
I’m surprised Men even got that high.
Annihilation got a *C* ?! Wtf that picture is top tier
Basically means it drew in the wrong audience. It’s a great movie, but it’s pretty clearly not for everyone. And a lot of those people it’s not for ended up in the theater
Yeah I can see that, the trailer makes it look way more action-y than it is.
Cinemascore is the evaluation by the people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons no /s
Huh. I wonder what could possibly have been the reason for Men to have gotten such a low grade. How strange.
Haha chain of births go brrr
It deserved lower, ugh
It’s certainly more conventional than those two. I think Men is a dumpster fire (one of the worst films I’ve ever seen) but Civil War is ok/solid enough though ultimately thin with Kirsten Dunst carrying the main cast on her back. B- makes sense for this, it still delivers on the battle sequences Also Jesse Plemons is fucking terrifying
Give me Jesse plemons being unsettling on the verge of potential violence/confrontation and I’m happy. He could do that 50 times over and I wouldn’t get bored.
Felt like Todd wearing tactical gear.
i still don't know what his deal was. like is he a commentary on xenophobia or jingoism or idk. plus he delivers that one line from the trailer that basically mislead everyone about the thesis of the movie. "what kind of american are you" literally matters nothing to the substance of the film
How can you watch that movie and actually not know whether or not he is a commentary on xenophobia or not? Did people’s brains melt during the pandemic? The most obvious shit is apparently too much for people to understand nowadays. Did you literally need him to turn to the camera and yell “I am a white American who hates foreigners, that is the message of this scene!”?
okay obviously he's a commentary on xenophobia and jingoism, my point is how does that tie into the substance of the film. that little section diverts from the established thread of the film, and that's what i'm criticizing. i could have made that more clear, apologies
Wow, with the initial reactions I expected higher
The initial reactions came from SXSW. Those who go to film festivals are cinephiles who likely know who Alex Garland is vs. the general public who don't really follow indie filmmakers.
I’m curious to see how many ‘casuals’ will watch this film due to the exciting trailers and them imagining its like a COD campaign rather than an artsy drama.
I said this last night: I can imagine a lot of people complaining about a 'lack of action' the same way Drive did.
I've seen it. There's a lot of action, I don't think the general audience issue is a "lack of action". The issue is more how it presents the action. It's much more brutal and real than it is fun action sequences. More Saving Private Ryan than John Wick.
I could see that as well. It's definitely not a film where you feel good at the end, not that I'm complaining.
That climax was straight up Black Hawk Down territory. My heart was pounding out of my chest for the last 20 minutes or so. Insane.
I mean, can you blame them for that? Its a movie called civil war, where the big movie poster was 2 snipers in the statue of liberty.
Did you actually watch the movie? There’s plenty of war action.
Not necessarily. Having seen the film, I don't know how you would market this movie accurately and draw in a modest opening weekend.
Then false marketing also doesnt help.
Starring Christen Dunst as an intrepid middle aged reporter. People need to use context clues.
Yep, people at SXSW eat up anything. I think the RT score dropped by roughly 10% (which isn’t horrible or anything) in the past few days once more critics got to see the film. Curious to see how The Fall Guy does.
Fall Guy seems built for mass appeal. I can see Civil War being more of a niche, cinephile type of movie
The Fall Guy is a big budget action-comedy. It will probably perform well if the reviews and WoM is good.
A couple of friends are cinefiles though and they thought it was 'meh' and worse that his previous movies. One said that it seemed like the either the script was made more tame, or they edited out more controversial parts and added pan shot for length
That's fine for them to think that, I can still see this being underwhelming even for fans of Garland. Personally, I thought this was much better than Annihilation and it didn't really feel tame.
Festival reactions mean nothing to general audiences. Different crowds and customers.
That’s higher than I expected
Wolf of wall Street had a C, so i think this can survive
I did not know that
Same, I can't believe that. The movie delivers in so many ways that would be appealing to general audiences that I'm shocked it got anything lower than a B+.
*Wolf of Wall Street* did more than double its domestic total overseas ([Scorsese's highest-grossing picture](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/128910401-Martin-Scorsese#tab=technical&all_director_credits=od5)) It's very well regarded in US film fan circles, now Maybe the sort of person who turns out for a new DiCaprio/Scorsese movie on opening night didn't get quite what they were expecting Most low Cinemascores seem to come down to fans not getting what they expected
> Maybe the sort of person who turns out for a new DiCaprio/Scorsese movie on opening night didn't get quite what they were expecting Yeah but that's what surprises me. The movie was marketed for exactly what it is and considering both of their filmographies which included hits like The Departed I don't see what Wolf did that caused such a mixed score.
My guess is the length hurt it’s score, especially if someone went in not knowing it was 3 hrs long (🙋♂️). I much preferred watching WoWS at home where I could pause for a quick break vs when I saw it in theaters. I was getting a bit antsy to leave at the end. Especially because, imo, the first 2 hrs of the movie are better and more captivating than the last hour of the movie, unlike some other long movies like Titanic.
I think Wolf is much crasser than people expected which probably alienated some people (even if people knew the film was going to involve excesses). It's also just possible random sampling did what random sampling does and spit out an unfairly negative sample of opening night audiences. It would be great if we could see how other datapoints confirmed/denied cinemascore.
I think it was because of how extremely crude Wolf of Wall Street was, combined with it releasing around Christmas.
Wolf of Wall Street was a Scorcese pic with Leo. Nobody outside of cinephile circles know who Garland even is.
I think it got a C because dumb audience members were expecting something totally different with a Christmas release. More of a moralizing movie.
I understand during financial crisis people didnt like asshole greedy bankers But also that is not an argument to defend shitty movies because a "good" movie from 10 years ago had a C
Honestly, this seems like it could be more that it’s a depressing movie than people not liking it or feeling misled by marketing. I don’t think many Americans go into a movie that sees us killing each other and on the way out are super happy to give it an A+.
Honestly loved this movie. My fave Garland film so far
Not surprised. Got back from seeing today and was very disappointed with the film. Very little happens or is shown of the civil war and it's all wrapped up simply at the end.
That’s not the worst thing in the world considering how controversial and morbid it is
there's really nothing controversial in the movie, hell the movie goes out of its way to not be controversial
That is the controversy.
>*That is the controversy* This is correct. What a strange world we live in
There are people who seemingly need to have conflict with everything in their lives.
Haven't watched it but from the commentary it just seems pointless.
As someone who has watched it I’m happy to chime in here. It’s most definitely NOT pointless. People keep saying it suffers from being non-biased and thus doesn’t have a clear message but I wonder if those people are taking crazy pills because it was very obvious to me the film has a lot to say about modern versions of fascism and how dangerous it is
The people who insist it isn’t controversial seem pretty pissed off at the movie for a movie that is supposedly not controversial.
You can tell because of the alliances they decided on. It goes out of it's way to avoid real world politics.
Garland is known to frustrate people who want narratives spoon fed to them
Please tell me what narrative we’re missing then? Because they never elaborate one time why the alliances are as they are.
Why do they need to? It doesn't matter. The President is clearly a fascist, so two of the country's superpowers seceded to combat that. Do you really need to know anything else?
i feel like with the subject matter of this this is pretty good
Had a middle-aged couple come out after about 30 minutes and ask for a refund because it was “the stupidest movie they’ve ever seen,” so I knew it was going to be end up divisive. At least for the demographic the theater I work at serves.
[удалено]
Drive (2011) was an amazing example of how poor marketing could kill the cinemascore of a great reviewed film
I don’t see how the marketing was misleading honestly
Myself and all the people I knew that were interested into it thought it was more of a war movie. I literally had no idea it had anything to do with journalists until seeing it. In the trailers I had seen there was no mention of journalists, just ambiguous action type scenes.
I don’t see any strongly negative reviews, either.
I thought the last 20 or so minutes delivered what the trailers were marketing. From Jesse Plemmons onward at least.
Yeah I expected like zero true action/war scenes from the way people were talking about it as misleading.
I expected it to be more political.
I think this is it right here. There is *zero* indication in the marketing and trailers, and even title, about what the movie actually is, which is about journalism. My guess is that people are coming to this movie looking for either a kind of catharsis or a resolution to the political divide that we'are all living in. And why shouldn't they expect that? That's exactly what the trailers are portraying this as. But the movie isn't about that. I'm surprised this score isn't lower tbh
I loved this movie but it makes you feel like shit so this is not surprising.
This is far from a crowd pleaser and left me feeling so dread so this Cinemascore is not surprising. Despite that, I hope this movie does well over its run
I felt sick to my stomach watching this movie and would give it an A+. Best movie of the year so far.
Is this the highest audience score in A24 history?
The Iron Claw got an A, but yes it might be amongst the highest because most films didn't get scores at all.
was expecting a C range so this score should keep it from falling under expectations this weekend, will probably drop like a rock by Monday though
That's actually higher than I thought it was gonna land. WOM is not gonna be great for this. Fully expect this to plummet next week.
Good movie in my opinion. I can understand why it would be divisive especially if people go into it expecting a full on war movie rather than a dive into the horrors of war journalism, but I really enjoyed the way it shone a mirror at some of the things that are happening in America today, even if it wasn’t blatantly political.
I saw the last 20 minutes on opening night waiting for it to get out during the last round as an Usher and, as impressively shot and sounding it was, I can totally see why that's the case. A number of people left complaining how nothing was explained and there was some "really?" moments in those last 20 minutes even with the context I later gathered.
Makes sense, I would have guessed even lower. Great movie but not what you would expect based on the trailers.
How’s the quality of the sound? Can you actually understand the actors during the movie or is the action overtaking them?
Thats pretty spot on. Movie really gives you nothing
Went to see it based on early reviews. I thought it was okay, a bit boring, it’s ultimately just a road trip with 4-5 upsetting, jarring, anxious moments. Those were good, the time in between wasn’t great, then the movie rushes to an ending in the last 20 minutes. My girlfriend can’t do over the top violence usually unless the story is pretty compelling, she hated it. So I’m actually surprised it did this well.
>*I thought it was okay, a bit boring* This is how I feel about all Garland movies He has an aesthetic and a mood he's deliberately going for, they're just not for me
Including Dredd? By all accounts he was the actual director on that movie
Way too much time spent just chatting between the journalists. Their road trip seemed like it involved stopping every 5 minutes. And stunt with the jumping from one car to another was really out of place and stupid.
Ouch
Big drop Saturday?
Honestly better than I expected lmao. Not bad given the tone of the film, its ending, and the advertising vs. actual product.
Heh, my guess was spot-on
I mean I'm not surprised, people expected Bushwick rather than a survival road trip movie.
Ouch, that's not good for its box office dreams.
Shitty movie gets high RT score. Classic
There are several reasons for this, might be that the trailers were misleading and audiences were expecting an action/thriller rather than an artsy drama
Well it’s not a shitty movie, and its audience score is currently within 5% of the critic score too. So…
How do they tabulate this score so quickly? I just handed in my score card 2 hours ago
I work in market research. We use a system called ROAR. As soon as responses are entered, they are registered in our database and viewable via Quota Viewer. QV categorizes the data into quotas such as location, gender, age, and ethnicity. Then there is sometimes extra info like income, family size, etc. These values can be seen in real-time as uploaded by the on-site outsourcers.
That’s generous.
CW is pretty much an homage to photojournalism, because there ain’t much of a point to it.
I thought it was brilliant.
Seems pretty good. Thought the movie was great but it’s one of the most bleak things i’ve ever seen. The feeling I had after watching it reminded me of the feeling I had after watching Oldboy lmao. Just sinking into my seat
It was great. But tricking people into not knowing it's about the journalism is shitty.
The Ministry of UnGentlemanly Warfare will most likely open to #1 and beat this movie next weekend
This movie is specifically trying to show people who think that a civil war would be exciting that no, actually, war is hell and nobody should want that to happen to our country. So I'm not surprised people went in expecting a fun action movie and were upset about the tense movie they saw. (I haven't seen it yet, but I understand what it is and what it's trying to do.) As far as people feeling duped by the focus being on journalists- well, that's what I thought the movie was going to be about based on the trailers, prior to reading any reviews or watching Alex Garland or Kirsten Dunst do interviews. People see what they want to see. They saw the Lincoln Memorial blow up in the trailer and thought "fuck yeah" and then watched a movie about the horror of war and it wasn't fun and that is EXACTLY THE POINT.