I saw it when it came out and was stoked about the creative plot but front what I remember they just turned the cool concept to a “get from A to B action”.

With all the praise I heard about it later I’m thinking maybe I missed something or remember it wrong but here’s someone else who thinks it bland.

As others have stated, the world building does a lot of heavy lifting in that movie where the explicit chsracterisation is perhaps weaker. The movie is not really supposed to be a character study, it is, like many sci-fi stories, about a hypothetical future and the extrapolation and exploration of humanity in that new world. The characters are there to help move the plot along and expose us to the events and interactions that take place, rather than as deep and nuanced people.

The cinematography is really spectacular and, even just from a technical perspective, totally mindblowing. The long shots convey chaos and tension in a way not many films had done before (or since) and I found them to be wholly immersive. I used to watch this movie a lot in a formative time of my life and it is still one of my favourites but I can totally understand why it didn’t resonate with you if you didn’t like the premise and were left cold by the characterisation. I would guess it just isn’t your kind of movie, which is totally fine.

I only saw it when it first came out and have been thinking of giving it another rewatch. I don’t remember being blown away by the plot or anything - just that the action and cinematography was excellent.

It’s a different kind of storytelling than most audiences are used to. You’re not just handed a complete story with all the details explained, you’re more along for the ride while you barely know who these people are or how things got this bad. Along the way some things become clear but many others do not. To me this feels far more realistic than most movies that are made today. And there’s some very impressive cinematography on display along the way as well, with minimal (or none? can’t remember) CGI. So yes, I’m certainly one of those people who think it’s absolutely brilliant. Should probably rewatch it again, come to think of it…

Personally I liked how vague it all was. I love when movies leave stuff unexplained for the viewers to figure out or interpret instead of having unrealistic exposition. The characters live in that world, they don’t need to talk about how things are. The only real exposition is the news report in the beginning

Unlike most movies, I felt like I was IN the world. This was helped by the cinematography. I haven’t watched it in a long time but I remember the first time I saw the last (?) gun fight scene. Asking myself “Did [character] just die??” as the camera keeps moving. Yes, they did, but there’s no time to even let the camera hang.

Not the best story, not the best characters, but I still loved it.

I agree with you on the characters and plot - It leaves a lot to be desired, but the good acting makes up for it. I too would’ve loved to see the premise explored more in detail, but I think that would’ve required a much longer runtime, possibly split into several films, each of which wouldn’t really stand on their own. Think of it more as a story in a different world where the world building isn’t that important to fully grasp.

However, there are two very positive points about the movie I want to point out:

• The sound design. It actually sounds realistic. The ambience suits the scene without sucumbing to layers upon layers of what one would expect such a scene to contain. This means that the guns are free to sound like actual guns.
• The cinematography of them escaping through the battle is the true masterpiece. The continuous take approach allows for more immersion in the danger they’re facing and the urgency of the situation. It truly captures how it feels to be stuck in a war zone as a 3RC party, and it feels like a real combat scene with proper ricochets and stray bullets where you are at risk of dying at any moment even if you’re an innocent bystander and nobody is out to get you.

I watched One Battle After Another last week. My impression was that it was a more feverish take on Children of Men. I rewatched that the next day and it holds up perfectly. Cinematography allows for the real story to be told in backgrounds and mood. Characters were not that important so I appreciate it that they kept movie short.

Oh, and the scene at Theo’s brother where a young adult at the table is too consumed by some electronics to participate in the discussion is uncannily prophetic since the movie came out before smartphones exploded.

The book has a roving murder pack of weasles. The movie does not. 3/10