I have what I think are a few rather pedantic critiques of this movie, which I generally found to be suspenseful, well-made, and above all unapologetically radical; I feel like I’m harping on it a bit but I think it’s a very thought-provoking film so I might as well articulate them.

First, the good: I haven’t read Andreas Malm’s book yet, but I am aware of his general argument and I think this movie does a great job presenting those same ideas dialectically as the characters debate the merits of their plan. There is a clear endorsement of his controversial line of thinking, and you are never not rooting for their plot to succeed. This is an impressive achievement for a movie with any kind of studio budget and makes it worth watching on its own. 

The setting is maybe a bit cliché, but it’s well-suited towards the subject matter and we all know at this point that West Texas is a cheat code for moody cinematography of the unforgiving American frontier, as countless other movies have shown (No Country for Old Men, Hell or High Water, Nocturnal Animals, haven’t seen it yet but Paris, Texas). The grainy film texture looks fantastic and the shots are generally well-composed.

The synth score is also maybe a bit derivative of other recent, popular thriller movies but it’s still baller and suited towards the plot.

The ensemble cast gives solid performances overall, and we get a solid sense of their motivations for the risky plot with frequent flashbacks to each character’s life.

This story structure is where I start to have qualms with the movie, though. The flashbacks are necessary to establish a justification to engage in such radical action for each activist, which sucks time away from the present-day “heist” sequences of actually blowing up the pipeline, which basically commences with little to no issue. This is only because the group is not very tightly connected personally or geographically, so we need reasonable individual explanations for why these young people would be pushed over the edge towards engaging in risky sabotage.

I realize that the diversity of the group is meant to reflect on the identity-and-ideology-agnostic solidarity that the threats of the climate crisis necessitate, but I think this could’ve been achieved by making the group comprised of members of a specific community threatened by fossil fuel infrastructure and/or climate catastrophe. Localizing the activists to, say, Michael’s indigenous community could more realistically create an impetus for action in the characters while also establishing the historic role of settler colonialism in the extractive industries that underpin the crisis. You could still even include a few characters motivated similarly to the conservative Dwayne to establish cross-ideological consensus in the team.

Instead, the characters are linked together with varying degrees of believability in the story; there is truly no reason for the Portland couple to have been involved in the plan besides the fact that it introduces the main conflict of government infiltration. I would assume any protest action of this nature would be at risk of this, especially because the characters frequently interact online, so this could’ve probably been introduced more organically.

Lastly, in what is not really a complaint but more of a speculation, I wonder if this movie could be rendered even more provocative by writing the activists to not be as perfectly sympathetic. Most of the characters have tragic backstories that have led them to this point and give them some emotional depth, such as a dead parent or a cancer diagnosis, and the group as a whole is diverse, very hip in a Gen Z way, and many of them espouse very refined academic opinions on empire and climate change.

What if some of them were totally unappealing dirtbags, though? It wouldn’t change anything about the validity of their concerns for the future. This is similar to the point Mohamed el-Kurd makes in The Politics of Appeal, a very compelling book I finished recently that discusses the plight of Palestinians and the standards raised by the media for them to be considered worthy of consideration and sympathy.

In the same way that the physical and emotional appeal of victims of genocide shouldn’t have any bearing on the motivation to correct injustice, we shouldn’t demand that the perpetrators of radical climate activism be attractive and college educated, devoid of any internal conflict about the decisions they are about to make. It would’ve been very interesting to see a more flawed group of people grapple with the nuances of their situation and decide to trust each other because of the urgency of their shared future. Not really an issue specific to this movie, but I think it’s an interesting discussion.

Overall this is a film that needs to be seen by more people!

Watched 8/5/2025