TCTTS said:

---

What the hell are you talking about?

Again, you haven't even seen the movie yet.

---

I'm going by what the reviewers themselves have said about the movie, just as everyone else is here including yourself. Based on their own descriptions of the movie there's just a complete lack of self-awareness and empathy to not even acknowledge the timing of it.

To quote your own words about it:

Quote:

---

I mean... immigrants *are* being rounded up now in unprecedented ways, and there *are* very vocal members of our current government actively endorsing Christian Nationalism. So making a movie about what could happen if those things were left unchecked/taken to the extreme seems perfectly fine/plausible to me.

---

if that's what the movie is about, as multiple reviews have suggested and you yourself have guessed (without even seeing the movie!), then not acknowledging the 2000 pound elephant in the room of a very fresh politically motivated murder which has consumed the nation's attention at the same time is bizarre and speaks volumes.

The world does not revolve around Charlie Kirk and his murder. It was a horrible tragedy that has only made the country more divided, no doubt. We all feel for his family and agree that it was a senseless killing by a radicalized individual.

But you have no idea how radicalization is depicted in this movie.

To complain about a small number of Twitter reactions not addressing Kirk in their tweets, simply because you think the movie supports radicalization/violent revolutions/etc - again, without having seen it for yourself - is jumping the gun, to put it mildly. Especially if the movie ultimately makes DiCaprio's character out to be kind of dolt (which looks to be the case), leans toward conservatism in certain regards (as one reaction hinted at, which you're conveniently ignoring), etc.

You're asking for something wholly unreasonable, while engaging in an unreasonable act yourself (complaining about something you don't yet know the specifics of). Again, if the movie ultimately ends up justifying your complaints, complain about it at that point. At least wait to see if you're right or not first.

TCTTS said:

---

The world does not revolve around Charlie Kirk and his murder. It was a horrible tragedy that has only made the country more divided, no doubt. We all feel for his family and agree that it was senseless killing by a radicalized individual.

But you have no idea how radicalization is depicted in this movie.

To complain about a small number of Twitter reactions not addressing Kirk in their tweets, simply because you think the movie supports radicalization - again, without having seen it for yourself - is jumping the gun, to put it mildly. Especially if the movie ultimately makes DiCaprio's character out to be kind of dolt (which looks to be the case), leans toward conservatism in certain regards (as one reaction hinted at, which you're conveniently ignoring), etc.

You're asking for something wholly unreasonable, while engaging in an unreasonable act yourself (complaining about something you don't yet know the specifics of).

Again, if the movie ultimately ends up justifying your complaints, complain about it at that point. At least wait to see if you're right or not first.

---

wasting your time
Leo choosing the movie AND it's by Paul Thomas Anderson should be enough to get anyone that actually likes movies to the theaters.
These clowns just live to cry about things they will never watch online.

schmendeler said:

---

I was honestly kind of neutral on this movie based on the trailer, but the positive reviews are getting my attention.

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I'm still distracted by the pregnant lady with the machine gun pressed up against her belly, but I am really really really struggling to see how this film is connected to charlie kirk's death.

---

- Dude posts a bunch of reviews which summarize the movie as extremely political, one which will appeal to those in a "leftist bubble" (reviewer's word), and which has as plot points a villain who is a white Christian nationalist racist leading an army of the same, with our heroes being former revolutionaries who liberated immigration concentration camps. This is from the reviewers themselves.

- the movie doesn't have anything to do with Charlie Kirk's death, obviously. It was written and made years before.

- the reviews, however, describe the movie as this overly political film which depicts an extreme caricature of those on the right, and the reviews came out the same week right after Kirk's murder by a nutjob who was radicalized by extreme depictions of those on the right. To not even acknowledge that obliquely when reviewing a movie is just tone deaf as to the timing. Frankly I can't imagine the same type of critical oversight and lack of empathy if the pertinent worldviews of the movie and the critics and the murder victim were flipped. And if anyone is being honest with themselves, I don't think they could either.

- Kirk was a pretty moderate voice on the right whose trademark was engaging in civil discourse with ideological opposition. It takes a helluva lot of extremist propaganda to make someone think he's an evil Nazi whose murder is striking a blow for the cause. A movie that paints a future of concentration camps and white Christian nationalist racists controlling swaths of the country kinda fits with that, if that's what those movie depicts (again, this is suggested by the reviewers themselves)

I didn't come to this thread to find a movie to complain about, as the hypocritically narrow-minded poster above suggests. I came to this thread because I was interested in the movie based on the cast and the director, and the trailer didn't reveal enough for me to know what it's about.

The posted reviews themselves are where I got my opinions of what the critics think it's about. And they paint a consistent enough picture that one of the most consistently argumentative posters on this board himself even guessed at what it's about. And IF the critical descriptions themselves are accurate, then it's nuts to not even have a single critic mention that "hey, the timing of this film release is a little awkward."

But given the widespread celebration, at worst, and smug indifference of so many on the left to Kirk's murder by a radicalized leftist, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that none had the self-awareness to draw that connection.

Anyway, I'm out on this thread and movie until someone I trust tells me it's not the extremely political caricature that a lot of the critics suggest. I have zero reason to believe the most active posters on this thread will even consider what I've said here, so I've wasted enough time on this.

He posted a well reasoned and polite response and you escalated to the next level with cursing and the Internet equivalent of yelling. Why? I would guess that is probably people's number one hang up with you as a poster, and not that you actually get in these arguments. There was absolutely no reason for the escalation in your response to the post DTP made.

woah am i a narrow minded hypocrite? cause I honestly was shocked that what seems to be a pretty typical dystopian plot is being connected to Kirk's assassination and I think it makes sense to give the critics some grace and say that didnt occur to them to make that leap either.

its just a stretch imo.

That's par for the course with him, it's all he knows how to contribute.

Sea Speed said:

---

He posted a well reasoned and polite response and you escalated to the next level with cursing and the Internet equivalent of yelling. Why? I would guess that is probably people's number one hang up with you as a poster, and not that you actually get in these arguments. There was absolutely no reason for the escalation in your response to the post DTP made.

---