War (2004)

GENRESDocumentary,Drama
LANGEnglish
ACTOR
Dustin BertchJeff ClarkJeff ClarkCharles Cullen
DIRECTOR
Jake Mahaffy

SYNOPSICS

War (2004) is a English movie. Jake Mahaffy has directed this movie. Dustin Bertch,Jeff Clark,Jeff Clark,Charles Cullen are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2004. War (2004) is considered one of the best Documentary,Drama movie in India and around the world.

With just a small, black & white, hand-cranked camera, filmmaker Jake Mahaffy spent four years documenting the lives of three Pennsylvanian farmers.

War (2004) Reviews

  • Hated it! Now with Spoilers!

    award-62005-10-05

    If you even contemplate wanting to watch this movie please find a sharp metal object and place it in the nearest electrical outlet. I am an art student and I would consider this an "artsy" film but OH MY GOD. I seriously thought I was going to commit suicide during the showing of the movie. First of all there is basically no plot and as much was admitted to me by Mchaffy himself. The constant roar of radio static in the background for the entire 84 minutes gave me a full blown migraine and there is no dialogue between the characters. This is by all accounts an unconventional film and I can appreciate his attempt, but quite honestly I think he should have just left a majority of this film on the cutting room floor. Just stay away far far away if you want your sanity intact!

  • Post-apocalyptic mood

    Gareth_Hacking2004-02-27

    I'm assuming this is the same film that I watched in the Rotterdam film festival based on the names of the title and director. The first plot description here though couldn't be more different than the one that I had read before watching the film. Rather than a documentary, 'War' seemed to be a chronicle of the after-effects of a war that we never see on a slowly disappearing country life. The minister mentions the rapture early on and from what see for most of the film there doesn't appear to be anyone left apart from our four protagonists. Actually, 'protagonists' is probably the wrong word as they don't actually do all that much and we see very little interaction between them. When the minister calls his 'sweetie-pie' turns away from the camera so we don't actually see him speaking on the phone, suggesting she might not be on the other end of the phone.The characters are simply going through their routines, unable or unwilling to do anything else. Radio's buzz with the voices of preachers, proclaiming and preaching for all their worth. Towards the end there is a suggestion of hope for the future when the boy drops the radio from the bridge, silencing the past. Personally, I thought the film might have worked before as four separate pieces, each one focusing on a different character and lasting 10 minutes. But that's just me.

  • What the hell?

    CuriosityKilledShawn2006-10-01

    Um...I'm not quite sure how I should describe this film, before telling you what I think. It's not a film about war, or even anything related to war. I'm not sure where this comes from. Early on, one of the narrators, a young boy, claims the world has ended. If so, one can only assume by a war of some kind. But, if the world has ended, how come people are still walking around? Why is there traffic on the roads? I am confused!!! Shot in black-and-white on a hand cranked camera - how rebellious and cool, I might add - the film lingers and breezes around what appears to be dilapidated, backwoods, hillbilly towns in the middle of nowhere. Think of the location for Wrong Turn. Nothing much is going on. There is an ancient radio, constantly playing an over-the-top evangelist, a boy and his dog mucking around in the er...muck, an alcoholic priest who likes to eat and some bearded junkyard guy who wants to blow his brain out. There is hardly any dialogue, only narration. Much of the sound is from archival and stock recordings. The gritty, flickering, b&w picture looks real cool, but it doesn't capture anything of interest. There is no plot, only a succession of unconnected scenes taped together. "This is the world after the end of the world, acre by acre, fence by fence, the war is lost" is the tagline. I have no clue as to what it means. Me and most of the audience were lost in a very strange world, with no idea what the hell was going on. Ordinarily I would give a film like this a 2/10 rating. But there's something about the raw edge and dream like quality that makes me give it 4/10 instead. In an ideal world, I would love to make some kind of weirdo thingy like this and I adore the fact that it was shot on a hand-cranked camera. I've never seen a movie made with something like that. I feel even cooler than usual now. And that's mighty cool indeed.

  • Interesting Watch

    KyleLicht2018-12-04

    I just watch this in my experimental film class. It is interesting to look at and beautifully shot, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. The cinematography is very nice although it is very slow moving and kind of bleak. I do understand, though, that he is going for a very dismal tone by only shooting in the winter and fall and by shooting in black and white. Also, the tone is very depressing and post-apocalyptic. Everything looks dead, structures are crumbling, and everyone is miserable. Also, all the takes are very long and I don't know if we actually see anyone talk on camera although there are voices heard. A couple of things I really want to talk about here are the dogs scene and the preacher character. A lot of shots are interesting to look at and some concepts are really cool but these two specifically are integral to the story and the most memorable parts to me. First, the preacher was a very interesting character. Here's this large man with glasses in a bald head who is a preacher but either doesn't preach or isn't able to actually reach out to anyone. Either way, it feels as if he's lost his faith and willingness to even be a preacher. What I'm intrigued by him the most is all of the things he does. He has a lot of interesting quirks and is just odd. For example, every time he sits down in his car he honks the horn because of his size. This happens frequently and nearly every time he's sitting. Also, I was intrigued by the inner monologue in his head justifying staying for several hours at a buffet and what he would say if someone tried to kick him out. Also, while driving he empties a carton of milk and fills it with liquor to drink while he's driving. This leads to him hitting Sam's dog. The most disturbing part about this is that Sam's dad scoops up the dog in a bag and throws it at his son's feet saying "You should've kept him on his chain" and then leaving the young boy to bury it. This was heartbreaking and kind of traumatic. It was definitely the most emotional scene in the film. Give it a watch because it's fairly interesting but know it is very slow moving.

  • cool idea, beautiful camera work, a bit slow

    danebecky2009-03-06

    okay i admit i'm giving this movie a couple of extra points because i know some of the cast, its set outside my home town and the director is a distant cousin. i love the look of the film, but in some ways it does seem like an extended short more than a real feature. it is not really plot less, the plot is just a little thin for an hour and 20 odd minutes, but the imagery makes the movie worth the time. perhaps my prospective is too subjective to be of value to anyone else. i live in a small town and relatively little film making goes on here. seeing locations and people i know in my life transformed into these stark dreamlike sequences was fascinating. the mixture of complete familiarity and utter otherworldliness was a profound experience. i just not sure it would be the same for someone who hasn't driven those same roads and met those same people. i can't judge it in the same way i would judge any other movie. movies are perhaps too often compared with dreams, but this film felt like it was a dream i might actually have had and forgotten.

Hot Search