You people are morons

Totally agree. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Can't believe it's rated so low. This was not a war movie.

>>But of course, it's one of those movies you have to think about a bit too much. Can't expect the masses to dig it.

The ever popular "thinking" when it comes to indie movies is highly overrated and exaggerated. Just because you loved it, and it doesn't have a score that makes you smile, doesn't mean you have to belittle the masses -- and was in a limited release so the masses barely had a chance "to dig it."

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

I can't say this movie required overmuch thinking. In fact, the problem in the comments seems to indicate that everyone was OVERthinking it. Who's at war? Why? What's happening elsewhere in Europe? How about the rest of the world? But this movie wasn't about the conflict, it was about two damaged kids finding a bond with each other and then having to fight their way back to each other. The war was meaningless to them, except that it separated them. Part of the problem was caused by using actors considerably older than the characters they were meant to portray. We read them as older, therefore we expect them to be at least somewhat invested in world events. But these were kids, particularly Daisy, who barely seemed to even notice the military stationed throughout the airport and the countryside as she traveled to her cousins' house. This was the story of thwarted love, plain and simple. And I thought the movie made an excellent job of it.

Lethe

I can't say this movie required overmuch thinking. In fact, the problem in the comments seems to indicate that everyone was OVERthinking it. Who's at war? Why? What's happening elsewhere in Europe? How about the rest of the world? But this movie wasn't about the conflict, it was about two damaged kids finding a bond with each other and then having to fight their way back to each other. The war was meaningless to them, except that it separated them. Part of the problem was caused by using actors considerably older than the characters they were meant to portray. We read them as older, therefore we expect them to be at least somewhat invested in world events. But these were kids, particularly Daisy, who barely seemed to even notice the military stationed throughout the airport and the countryside as she traveled to her cousins' house. This was the story of thwarted love, plain and simple. And I thought the movie made an excellent job of it.

Lethe

It's interesting that you automatically attribute the low opinions of this film to a lack of understanding. You're right, it does happen...films can be underrated due to misinterpretation. (Though, many times films simply attract the wrong audience; Jason Statham-action junkies may be unpleasantly surprised midway into Gravity).

I understood the movie. Throughout the entire film, I actually remained enthusiastic to connect to the story, but it was a no go for me. Don’t get me wrong, I realize its potential, and it possessed the bones of a great story, but for me, the movie wasn’t depicted in a meaningful way. A previous film that Saoirse starred in suffered from the same predicament (The Host). Just because a film is “understandable,” doesn’t necessarily make it good. I’ve seen so many movies that I connected with and was able to enjoy, but even I would have to admit that they weren’t always “great.” I’m sure you’ve heard a joke, understood the punch line, yet still, it wasn’t a very good joke.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Just curious, what wits and resolve do you think they employed to get them by? In what ways did they grow or develop from who they were into who they became because of or after the war? Because, I think this was largely my issue with it...those questions were seemingly unanswered.

There wasn’t much to the love story. She gave him oogly eyes, he sucked her finger blood, they did the nasty a couple times then frolicked around the woods. The next thing we know, they are challenged and eventually separated because of the war, and we are then expected to be inspired that she would put not only hers, but his little sister’s life on the line for this “connection” that they are supposed to have, which, was scarcely explored. I recognize that their connection is meant to be sort of spiritual and clairvoyant- he “gets” her and vice versa, but again, it just wasn’t manifested or explored very effectively. Their “performances” alone made that plot believable…not the script/screenplay. Though, it would have been nice had the writers explained the setting or antagonist (the war) a bit more, I would have been fine with the ambiguity of the war situation if Daisy and Eddie’s relationship were more thoroughly portrayed.

Not everyone may agree, but I was impressed with the acting, however, I’ll reiterate that the performances carried the movie- not the story. I’m sure the book was great, but when creating a screenplay from an established book, writers and directors sometimes have a difficult or tricky job ahead of them- they need to make sure that the story translates smoothly to film. I appreciated the message that the writers wanted to make, and the film was visually telling, however, I feel more emphasis could have been given to the plot. At the end of it, I asked myself- what did Daisy’s journey say about the backdrop of the story, OR, what did the backdrop of the story say about Daisy’s journey?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

On a last note, and I’m sure you probably don’t care- otherwise you wouldn’t have made a post just to tell people who disliked the movie how dumb they are, but the arrogance that you demonstrate (not to mention the childishness of the post) is not a very becoming quality. Tear a movie apart, or give it as much acclaim as you wish, but it’s sort of unnecessary to insult someone on the sole basis of disagreeing with you. I get that it is likely self-assuring to assume that you are part of some small and superior intellectual faction (the faction that “understands” the movie) which is separate from the “mass” of uneducated and unenlightened individuals, but you should seek self-esteem in your merits and qualities…and not through attempting to demean others in order to feel better about yourself.

I'm already halfway expecting you to retort back with another insult- sometimes the best defense, or the only "perceivable" defense is an offense (heck, I would be lying if I said that I wasn't guilty of that before). However, aside from the name calling, I genuinely am interested in hearing your thoughts about the issues presented in this post...if not, that's cool.

Duck&cover :))

I thought the movie was good but awkward because her goal was to get back to her lover who happens to be her cousin.

If people are disappointed because the movie doesn't answer questions I can commiserate in a general sense. But, in this movie I didn't mind that none of the questions I asked about the set up were answered. The movie is about young people who rarely get things explained to them by adults and there is limited communication about what is going on. But more to the point it doesn't matter. The point of the movie is how would you react in the situation of world war 3. The specifics don't really matter. Often times when movies or books try to explain things too much they get bogged down by pulling people of the story to think about logic. Here they don't even try to explain why you would send your kid to a country on the brink of war.

The movie is what it is. I get being disappointed if you expect filet mignon and you get a hamburger. But some hamburgers are delicious. If you didn't like the movie wait a bit and watch it again. I am sure if you rewatch it with the right expectations most people will like it. It's a good movie imo. But just because someone doesn't agree it doesn't make them a moron.