How I Live Now

Fysh

IMDB info

I saw this today and was reasonably impressed with it - it's a film that seems to be getting very little promotional push (bar about 2 posters on the underground and a good review from Donald Clarke in the Irish Times, I've not heard or seen anything much about it).

Overall, it's a pretty decent effort - I think Clarke's description of it as "a film about nice England vs diseased England that just happens across a passionate romance along the way" is an apt summary of the film overall. There's some lovely cinematography in here, good performances from all the leads, and good use of sound and music to help accentuate the atmosphere -the way dialogue and music is used at the start of the film to establish Daisy's state of mind is quite clever and very effective. Also, I particularly appreciated the fact that, with a core cast of children/teenagers, all of them behaved in ways that were age-appropriate, rather than the usual convention of having children behave like miniature adults - there's some good banter between them and the naturalistic performances really help the humour to shine.

I wouldn't say it's quite as good as Children Of Men, but CoM is the best comparison I can think of as far as the overall tone goes.

The trailer is below, if you're interested:

The marketing has ben atrocious and the posters have been incrediably misleading. For months every time I went to the cinema and saw the poster I assumed it was some generic coming of age tale about a teenage girl on the cusp of adulthood. It wasn't till I googled it during the week that I realised that there was so much more to it.

MagicMarker

There are ads for this constantly on TV, not sure how you both missed them.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are ads for this constantly on TV, not sure how you both missed them.

In this day and age who watches ads?

MagicMarker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In this day and age who watches ads?

People with eyes?

You're not really in any position to criticize the marketing if you openly admit that you don't watch ads.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

People with eyes?

You're not really in any position to criticize the marketing if you openly admit that you don't watch ads.

Most people in 2013 have Sky+ or watch TV on demand meaning that ads are skipped and on the the few times I've watched live TV in recent months there hasn't been a single ad for this.

More importantly I didn't see a single trailer for this at the cinema and the poster campaign was woeful. It did nothing to sell the film as anything other than a generic looking rom-com.

Fysh

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are ads for this constantly on TV, not sure how you both missed them.

Might be different in Ireland, but the only thing I've seen in the UK is 2 posters on the tube over the last month (which, given I work in central London, is very very restrained). Even the guy behind the counter at the cinema today had no idea what it was about, and based on the conversation we had he was reasonably up to speed on the rest of the current releases...

Anyway, the point of me starting this thread was to talk about the film rather than the advertising. It's worth a watch in my mind, the subject matter could be very boring if handled carelessly, but here the atmosphere is handled expertly and as a result I was engaged right until the end.

losthorizon

Fysh wrote: »

IMDB info

I saw this today and was reasonably impressed with it - it's a film that seems to be getting very little promotional push (bar about 2 posters on the underground and a good review from Donald Clarke in the Irish Times, I've not heard or seen anything much about it).

Overall, it's a pretty decent effort - I think Clarke's description of it as "a film about nice England vs diseased England that just happens across a passionate romance along the way" is an apt summary of the film overall. There's some lovely cinematography in here, good performances from all the leads, and good use of sound and music to help accentuate the atmosphere -the way dialogue and music is used at the start of the film to establish Daisy's state of mind is quite clever and very effective. Also, I particularly appreciated the fact that, with a core cast of children/teenagers, all of them behaved in ways that were age-appropriate, rather than the usual convention of having children behave like miniature adults - there's some good banter between them and the naturalistic performances really help the humour to shine.

I wouldn't say it's quite as good as Children Of Men, but CoM is the best comparison I can think of as far as the overall tone goes.

Clarke gave the film a very good review alright and it was the first time I had heard about it but after I read the review I still wasn't sure what the movie was about.

I usually only read one review of a film (daft I know) and don't watch trailers because I want to be surprised when I watch a film. Modern Trailers give too much away.

Is it a romance, a horror film or dealing with the breakdown of society?

MagicMarker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most people in 2013 have Sky+ or watch TV on demand meaning that ads are skipped and on the the few times I've watched live TV in recent months there hasn't been a single ad for this.

Do you really believe most people DON'T watch live TV? Seriously?

In the past few days alone I've seen the trailer probably 4 or 5 times.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you really believe most people DON'T watch live TV? Seriously?

In the past few days alone I've seen the trailer probably 4 or 5 times.

Most people watch their TV through sky and anyone I know makes use of the Sky+ function so that they can skip the ads. The way people watch TV is changing and its becoming more and more common for people to watch the shows they want at a time that best suits them and not the schedulers. I can't recall the last time I watched live TV and when I do I certainly don't watch the ads and nor does anyone else I know. If you can't fast forward you change the channel.

Just to add, I posted about the film last week on facebook and reading through the replies the common thread was the complete lack of awareness that people had of the film. One lad who writes for a number if major publications said that before watching it on Wednesday he had thought that it was a coming of age love story.

Stheno

losthorizon wrote: »

Clarke gave the film a very good review alright and it was the first time I had heard about it but after I read the review I still wasn't sure what the movie was about.

I usually only read one review of a film (daft I know) and don't watch trailers because I want to be surprised when I watch a film. Modern Trailers give too much away.

Is it a romance, a horror film or dealing with the breakdown of society?

I rarely go to the cinema but went to this one as I somehow read a lot of articles about it online, think the IT covered it a bit due to Saoirse Ronan being in it.

Anyway I enjoyed it for the most part, it's rare I'd actually sit through an entire movie, so that says something for it.

There were about twenty people at the showing I went to last evening.

It's hard to classify it, it's combination romance, quirky/eccentric english family welcoming american cousin, catastrophic terrorism causing the shutdown of society and introduction of martial law.

There were some fairly gruesome scenes in it.

I'd probably have liked a bit more detail on the actual attack and updates as the film progressed through that timeframe, I found as it focussed more on the characters without that background that it was sometimes hard to contextualise.

MagicMarker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most people watch their TV through sky and anyone I know makes use of the Sky+ function so that they can skip the ads. The way people watch TV is changing and its becoming more and more common for people to watch the shows they want at a time that best suits them and not the schedulers. I can't recall the last time I watched live TV and when I do I certainly don't watch the ads and nor does anyone else I know. If you can't fast forward you change the channel.

Just to add, I posted about the film last week on facebook and reading through the replies the common thread was the complete lack of awareness that people had of the film. One lad who writes for a number if major publications said that before watching it on Wednesday he had thought that it was a coming of age love story.

Most people in Ireland don't even have Sky, so how you've come to the conclusion most people use Sky+ is confusing to me.

Ciaran_B

I thought this was pretty great. Saoirse Ronan gets better with every film. She's onscreen for almost every scene in this and she's consistently good. For a film aimed at teenagers/young adults it's pretty heavy at times. And there are some nasty scenes.

Kevin Macdonald does well with a limited budget and manages to convey a real atmosphere of doom. It's well shot and paced and I wasn't sure where it was going to go next.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

Most people in Ireland don't even have Sky, so how you've come to the conclusion most people use Sky+ is confusing to me.

I think you'll find that most households in the country have either Sky or Upc's alternative. Between the two they have over a million TV subscribers in Ireland. That's a fairly sizeable percentage of the TV watchers in this country. The point is that the film has been poorly marketed. The fact that so few people are aware of what it's about highlights that fact and a couple of quick TV ads don't change that. If the marketing department behind the film think they've been successful in selling the film then they're wrong

XxMCRxBabyxX

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are ads for this constantly on TV, not sure how you both missed them.

I have only seen the ad for this once and that was from youtubing it. I've seen nothing on tv. I have also only seen one poster.

I'm mixed on this myself. I don't know if it'll be too "teenagery" for me. The ad certainly leaned that way.

syklops

MagicMarker wrote: »

Most people in Ireland don't even have Sky, so how you've come to the conclusion most people use Sky+ is confusing to me.

And 100% of the people that I know who have sky+/UPC+(or whatever its called) dont know how to use it to avoid ads. I go to my parents house and some one phones us and unless I control the reomte, they press mute and we miss the content of the programme and then sit through 5 minutes of ads.

That said, avoiding ads as much as I do, on Irish stations I have seen the trailer for this movie about 4-5 times. The trailer did not grab me, but thats not to say this movie wont. Would it be safe to say this is Children of Men with a little romance?

Stheno

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I have only seen the ad for this once and that was from youtubing it. I've seen nothing on tv. I have also only seen one poster.

I'm mixed on this myself. I don't know if it'll be too "teenagery" for me. The ad certainly leaned that way.

I'm forty and really enjoyed it, I can certainly see why it's a 15A from some of the more gruesome scenes in it.

I wouldn't say it's a teenagery movie particularly at all, it's adapted from a book for younger people.

syklops wrote: »

And 100% of the people that I know who have sky+/UPC+(or whatever its called) dont know how to use it to avoid ads. I go to my parents house and some one phones us and unless I control the reomte, they press mute and we miss the content of the programme and then sit through 5 minutes of ads.

That said, avoiding ads as much as I do, on Irish stations I have seen the trailer for this movie about 4-5 times. The trailer did not grab me, but thats not to say this movie wont. Would it be safe to say this is Children of Men with a little romance?

I've never seen children of men, but it's basically about American cousin being sent to live with english family slow romance develops between her and one of the cousins then there is a nuclear disaster, martial law, they get seperated and how they try to survive (that's without putting in too much info.)

MagicMarker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you'll find that most households in the country have either Sky or Upc's alternative. Between the two they have over a million TV subscribers in Ireland. That's a fairly sizeable percentage of the TV watchers in this country. The point is that the film has been poorly marketed. The fact that so few people are aware of what it's about highlights that fact and a couple of quick TV ads don't change that. If the marketing department behind the film think they've been successful in selling the film then they're wrong

And there are over 1.7 million households in the country. So your claim that most people don't watch live TV is quite clearly bullshít. Or do you seriously believe most people Sky+ The Late Late Show on a Friday night? Or maybe the new series of Love/Hate earlier tonight, sure no one watched it, it's all on demand.

I think I'm going to need more than what your Facebook friends say before coming to any conclusion about the marketing of the movie.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

And there are over 1.7 million households in the country. So your claim that most people don't watch live TV is quite clearly bullshít. Or do you seriously believe most people Sky+ The Late Late Show on a Friday night? Or maybe the new series of Love/Hate earlier tonight, sure no one watched it, it's all on demand.

I think I'm going to need more than what your Facebook friends say before coming to any conclusion about the marketing of the movie.

If over a million households have Sky or UPC then it's quite likely that most people would make use of the various tools at their disposal and such they make use of them. How many people watch the ads, most will fast forward or switch channels.

The point here is that the film has been poorly marketed. My friends on facebook are a pretty decent judge of that due to the fact that most of those that replied work in the industry. They, like me keep a keen eye on what is out and coming out and if were not aware of what a film is about then something is amiss. It's been a long time since I've had to go online in order to find out about a mainstream film as generally were inundated with trailers in the months leading up to release. I haven't seen a single trailer for How I Live Now play before any film in the past year and I'm at the cinema 2-3 times a week. I also think the fact that at a showing my girlfriend went to on Saturday evening there was about 8 people there says a whole lot about just how well the film has been marketed.

Even the poster says nothing of note about the film. Looking at the poster you get the impression that it's a generic fluff filled tale of one woman finding herself through music. Even the tag line gives no real hint to what the film is about.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

If over a million households have Sky or UPC then it's quite likely that most people would make use of the various tools at their disposal and such they make use of them. How many people watch the ads, most will fast forward or switch channels.

The point here is that the film has been poorly marketed. My friends on facebook are a pretty decent judge of that due to the fact that most of those that replied work in the industry. They, like me keep a keen eye on what is out and coming out and if were not aware of what a film is about then something is amiss. It's been a long time since I've had to go online in order to find out about a mainstream film as generally were inundated with trailers in the months leading up to release. I haven't seen a single trailer for How I Live Now play before any film in the past year and I'm at the cinema 2-3 times a week. I also think the fact that at a showing my girlfriend went to on Saturday evening there was about 8 people there says a whole lot about just how well the film has been marketed.

Even the poster says nothing of note about the film. Looking at the poster you get the impression that it's a generic fluff filled tale of one woman finding herself through music. Even the tag line gives no real hint to what the film is about.

Isn't it bizarre that as someone who yesterday went to the cinema for the first time in over four years to see a movie, I did, to see this movie, due to what I'd read about it!

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

Isn't it bizarre that as someone who yesterday went to the cinema for the first time in over four years to see a movie, I did, to see this movie, due to what I'd read about it!

Been awhile since reviews have been so beneficial to a film. Few people I know went to see because of the reviews they read. Before reading them they had no idea whet it was about other then the fact that Saoirse Ronan was in it. The only reason my girlfriend went was because whatever they had initially planned to see had sold out. Going to be giving it a watch over the week myself and the fact that I know do little about it may help me enjoy it more.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

Been awhile since reviews have been so beneficial to a film. Few people I know went to see because of the reviews they read. Before reading them they had no idea whet it was about other then the fact that Saoirse Ronan was in it. The only reason my girlfriend went was because whatever they had initially planned to see had sold out. Going to be giving it a watch over the week myself and the fact that I know do little about it may help me enjoy it more.

For me part of it was that I liked the guy the guy who directed it, so followed that. I also like the hypothesis which is why I was surprised as above that there wasn't more focus on it. I actually found the Daisy/Saoirse character hard to stomach for most of it.

I'd a lovely time in the cinema, used go about once a week, definitely going to look into going more, used love going to the IFI

Fysh

Lads, let's leave the mickeywaving about Sky & UPC for another time, eh?

Myself, I got interested in this because of the director - the poster's dire job at actually selling the film got me looking up the trailer, at which point I figured I'd give it a chance and it was worth it.

As far as the Children Of Men comparisons go, it's not a Hollywood version of it - it's more like a similarly-toned story that happens to have teenage protagonists. It's not quite as good as CoM, but CoM is excellent.

delbertgrady

I thought it was good, and Saoirse Ronan was solid throughout, but the first half (or even the first two-thirds) were much stronger than the final act. It's like it's not bleak enough to get the message across that the country is effectively in the middle of World War III. What I couldn't understand was how radically it had departed from the source novel in so many ways. It's like they just took the bare bones of the narrative and created a sort of "cover version" of the novel. Some of this could be for budgetary reasons, but other changes were just bizarre, as a lot of them completely changed the central character's persona.
I've listed most of the changes below, if anyone's interested.

The poster design is terrible. The book was a bit of a mini-sensation when it was initially published, but time has moved on, and the vast majority of cinemagoers probably haven't heard of the book, never mind read it.
I went to see it on Saturday evening and it was pretty poorly attended for what would be a prime slot. It got the main review in The Ticket in The Irish Times on Friday (which must be at least partly-attributed to Saoirse Ronan's presence), but didn't even warrant a mention from Camilla Long in yesterday's Sunday Times, which is weird, given Kevin McDonald's respected status.

In the book, it is Edmond (who is never once referred to as "Eddie") who collects Daisy from the airport. This is kind of crucial, since the drive to the farm immediately establishes a sort of "telepathy" between them.
From the outset, Daisy is reasonably content to be with her cousins, and is not the cranky, swearing, sullen teenager depicted in the film. For example, she is quite happy to go swimming with them.
There is an entire back story as to why Daisy has no real desire to be with her father, namely that he has shacked up with a new girlfriend that Daisy detests - this is never referred to.
There is no neighbouring friend in the book. The person killed at the checkpoint is an arrogant, pushy, fellow fruit-picker (whose constant pestering of Daisy irriatates her), and the Major (who Daisy and Piper are living with) is also killed when he attempts to retrieve his body from the road, sending his already-fragile wife closer to the edge.
Episodes such as Edmond's care for the hawk, Daisy being offered a plane ticket home early on, the suggested rape and assault of the woman in the forest, Daisy and Piper stumbling onto the wreckage of a plane crash and Daisy's shooting of the two men are not in the book. In the book, Piper is a fairly savvy kid (apart from an episode where she mistakenly assures Daisy that some mushrooms they pick are not poisonous), not the whiny, burdensome child of the film version. She is also the one who effectively helps them get back to the farm when she hears the sound of the river and realises they can follow it back home.
At the end, Daisy and Piper spend a lot of time back at the farm alone, before Daisy is located by her father and whisked off back to America. She is there for six years, before returning to her cousins. Only then is she reunited with Edmond.

Evenstevens

I liked it but it felt like a lot of other films that have come out in the last few years. I don't know if I cared that much about the outcome. Having said that all the actors were great.

Saoirse Ronan is a class act. there's no hype around her. She's great at her job and seems to just get on with it.
George Mckay is excellent too. He's going to be huge I think.

oxygen

Going to see this Sunday or next week based on this thread alone. I agree with the above poster saying its a poorly marketed film. Before this thread I had no idea what its was about, or seen any poster or trailer for it. The above move poster would only have repelled me from going to see it.

Anyways, I love Children of Men, so if its a tenth as good as that Im looking forward to it.

Banjaxed82

It's nothing like Children of Men. I was surprised at how much "romance" shtuff and how little Children of Men shtuff there actually ended up being.


Decent film. Worth a watch. Really good acting, but the story doesn't seem to know who it's aimed at, which gave it slightly half baked feel to it.

delbertgrady

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Really good acting, but the story doesn't seem to know who it's aimed at, which gave it slightly half baked feel to it.

That's not a bad way of putting it, that it doesn't know who it's aimed at. The book was aimed at a young teenage readership, whereas the film ratchets things up a little bit,

with Daisy's intermittent swearing - the book has no such language - and arguably a more "explicit" portrayal of the central relationship

, but, as I said in my post above, it's like the film isn't bleak or gritty enough. At times, if the tone had got any lighter, it would have ended up like one of those Children's Film Foundation films from the seventies.

How I Live Now or teenage cousin sex romp.