Hence "How I live NOW". I was hesitant to rent this due to some poor ratings but glad I saw it. This is not a big budget movie, but I found that there was enough action to keep me interested and enough military "gear" to make the visuals plausible. Some have written about technicalities of the war and inconsistencies thereof, but I think that misses the point. The main character's perspective is dramatically changed by her experiences and she matures dramatically throughout the film. Some have also bagged on the romance, but first love is overwhelming and single focused. It is a simple straightforward film that didn't get too cute. Don't overthink it and you will enjoy it. The feel of the country house makes me want to move to Wales, although I am sure it is only that nice in weather for two weeks a year.
Add a Review
-
GrowMagicBeans17 December 2013Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) is a young, broody, moody, American girl who is sent to stay with extended family in the English countryside. At first cynical about her summer arrangements and outwardly cold towards her jolly hosts, slowly she begins to thaw to their hospitable nature and thus begins to discover something within herself in this new setting – a home away from home. But just as she finds her place in the world, an unthinkable event occurs and everything is thrown into turmoil. In a World War III type scenario, she is taken away from those she now considers family in the first and with only the companionship of her young cousin Piper (Harley Bird), she must journey back across the warn torn English countryside, to the place she wants to call Home.
It's a curious pick n' mix type story that in some ways feels like two genres melded together. The immediate narrative feels very much like a teen 'chick flick', but this is played out over a dark backdrop that at times feels course and close to the bone.
To me, the running commentary of Daisy the American girl, outlining her disciplined set of rules and paranoia, felt a little cheesy in its attempt to force home the difference between English and American culture. So too do some of the romanticised elements of country living, such as the young fourteen year old cousin (Tom Holland) who drives without a license, or the dashing older cousin (George MacKay) who raises eagles and will suck the dirt out of a bloody cut. It's a pity because I felt some of the subtler signifiers, such as the character of the motherly aunt (Anna Chancellor), or indeed the setting of the old country home with it's beautiful but cluttered wood interior and the backdrop of rolling English countryside, spoke a thousand words that other forced elements could only ever hope to convey. In this way I felt the scenario in itself, a city girl living in the countryside, should have been self explanatory.
If you can manage to overlook some of the hammier elements of the narrative, the movie really gets interesting in the build up, and realisation, to war. Movies about atrocities of war generally maintain a degree of separation for the Western World viewer because of differences in geographical location, time or culture. Whereas, where zombie movies may deal with scenarios in a world as we know it, again we feel separated by the fantastical suspension of disbelief that has to be made in order to accept a universe where zombies can walk the Earth. How I Live Now is set in a time, a world, a space that is starkly familiar to our own and so the degree of separation --that this could really happen to us!-- is only a small leap of faith. Indeed, the detached manner of the news reporters add a level of verisimilitude as they sound very much like reports we might see on our own t.v. screens on any given day. And so the rate and horror at which we see State structures deteriorate after the bomb is dropped, can be felt vicariously.
By actually detaching itself from the politics, How I Live Now manages to depict a faceless horror to war that is far more disturbing than if we had all the answers at the ready. We are never quite certain, for example, what spurred the bomb in the first place: if it was an invasion from abroad or a movement from within. Are the government forces that split Daisy from her male cousins simply making poor decisions on her behalf? We are left wondering who the real enemy is, but that doesn't really matter anyway, as soon we learn that even in a war of 'sides', those caught in the middle can only become victims. The pile of bodies that Daisy shifts through is a scene that echoes real life atrocities and dumps the reality at our door. The story is powerful in this way, because even though it speaks through a 'pop' veneer, still it touches upon the human condition. Our heroine cannot hope to change outcomes outright, but rather, in a grim reality, try only to traverse a topsy-turvy environment haphazardly.
So overall, does the movie work? Perhaps not entirely for the reasons I stated above. The over romanticised elements may prove too much for some. Again, we have some Lassie Come Home moments in the later half of the movie which bordered on cheese for me. And yet I can't help but feel drawn to this flick – I have to give it kudos for its attempt to nit 'realism' and romanticism together. It's a quirky number with genuine flavour and thus, despite my criticism, manages to stick out in the mind while other more generic movies fade away from memory. -
andreandpaula21 February 2014There are movies where you automatically suspend belief to enjoy them - Godzilla, War of the Worlds , Star Trek. This is a movie following a similar trend. Maybe this is because ultimately this is adapted from a young adult novel and therefore lacks the coherency and demand for detail.
As an adult viewer I therefore found this an unsatisfactory view but not so unsatisfactory to stop viewing it until the end. However by the end I came away with the frustration of a weak and implausible storyline, inaccurate facts and a a lack of sympathy for the characters.
Some people on here rave about Saoirse Ronan but I really do not know why. Her character was initially unlikeable but in theory we should have grown to like her. I did not. There was no clear flow to her character improvements, rather there were sudden developments like her falling in love with her cousin (which was most disbelievable.) Her acting bought little to this character who could have been so richer. On the other hand she does nail the disinterest teenager very well.
The other supposed main character "Eddie" was frankly as flat as cardboard. I felt no empathy towards him and really was quite disappointed he was still alive at the end.
Given that I could not develop any feelings towards the two main characters this movie was doomed to fall flat.
The backdrop of a war was equally frustrating. I totally understand that the war was not the major feature of this ;'coming of age' movie.but it did need some credibility to it. Some form of bomb, possibly nuclear hits Paris. Clearly the country is already on heightened alert, given the military presence at the airport where Saoirse lands. These are adolescent children who really would know more about what was going on in the world than conveyed. Instead we are forced to believe that they live some lord of the flies existence. (The 14 year old driving the land rover out of London was highly improbable.) The build up to war is good. You do sense the tension caught in the late night telephone conversations the mother has and the snippets of information from the radio. Oddly the family don't seem to use a television much.
Then we get the nuclear explosion. This really annoyed me. We know that the family live a long way from London. Near the beginning the boy who picks Saoirse up from the airport says a bus takes 8 hours to get to their house. (Hint that these are American script writers as really they must mean coach.) SO they a probably 200+ miles from London and yet are hit by a substantial blast wave and hear the blast. Inverse square law suspended here. Oddly on the television we see news reports showing the fires with commentary that maybe 100s of thousands died. Given this is London that would imply a relatively small nuclear device as a megaton device would kill millions. Now I was prepared to forgive the blast wave error as it made a poignant visualisation point. However the immediate development of fall out was pathetic. Oddly the fall out was never seen or mentioned again.
There are hints this is a terrorist type attack yet later we hear that parts of the country are under enemy hands. At one point we do see the 'enemy' who look rather unsoliderish and ragtag. This and the speed of the 'invasion' are improbable to say the least.
The family (without adults) are evacuated (no rationale reason why.) And soon we discover the girls farming on a communal farm. Wow that was set up rather quick. Our lead female appears defeated already and submissive. There are hints of terrorism again with reference to poisoned water supplies which again is implausible given real life military history.
The rest of the film revolves around our American lass escaping with the young girl, seeing small snippets of a decaying society (all men are rapists apparently) and trying to return home. It really does not work and the fact that Eddie has lived and is found by them in the woods stretches plausibility.
In the end we are left with them living on the farm successfully. Seemingly the terrorists or invaders are giving them a wide berth? And we are meant to hope that Eddie finds himself eventually and they live as a new nuclear family.
Suspend belief, try to ignore the incest and the needless naked running through the forest dream scene and the unlikely ending and yes there are enjoyable parts of this film. But overall its weaknesses overshadow the noble attempt to convey modern war through a teenager's eyes. -
The American teenager Elizabeth "Daisy" (Saoirse Ronan) is sent by her estranged father away from New York to the countryside of England to stay with her Aunt Penn (Anna Chancellor). Her distant cousin Isaac (Tom Holland) welcomes her at the airport and drives her home. She is introduced to her cousins, the seventeen year-old Eddie (George MacKay) and the young Piper (Harley Bird) and to their friend Joe (Danny McEvoy). However Daisy is a resentful, needy of love and aloof girl that believes that is cursed and that bad things happen wherever she goes since her mother died in her delivery. Aunt Penn is a busy woman that is studying the war scenario in England that is in alert due to an eminent terrorist attack and needs to fly to Geneva. However, on the next morning, a nuclear bomb explodes in London and the authorities of the United Kingdom declare state of siege. Meanwhile Daisy and Eddie fall in love with each other, but they are separated by the military that send girls to a camp and men to another. Daisy and Eddie promise to meet each other again. In a country in war, Daisy and Piper flee from their lodging and cross England in martial law trying to find Eddie and Isaac.
"How I Live Now" was a great surprise since I was expecting to see a drama about a rebel teenager and I found an original come of age story in time of contemporary war. Saoirse Ronan is presently one of the most promising young actresses and her performance in the role of a girl that finds love and reaches maturity is top-notch. The little Harley Bird is another promising actress and I look forward to see her again. My vote is seven.
Title ( Brazil ): "Minha Nova Vida" ("My New Life") -
MonsieurMS7 July 2018Beautifully constructed, and always wistful, this enchanting little film features hard choices (not always wise ones), an air of dread and strong acting. Ronan centers the film as her character goes from cranky kid to driven survivor. The failure to explain the background in more detail is not a failure at all. It is not relevant for anything more than was portrayed. It just gets the story started. This is about the characters and their will to survive.
There aren't many wrongs here and the film's refusal to fix all problems increases the sense of loss and admiration for the courage of Ronan's character. Well done. -
beardedmovieguy2 March 2015How I Live Now is an interesting look at what happens to a group of young people who are left to fend for themselves once World War 3 breaks out. The main character is a self obsessed girl visiting from America, who has to grow up in a hurry once her and her cousins are rounded up and separated by the army. The cousins all vow to make their way back to their house no matter where they are taken. This story is fairly well made, with equal time spent developing characters and allowing the story to unfold. The acting is good for the most part, with Saoirse Ronan doing a terrific job in the main role. Although it sometimes seems a little too unbelievable in parts, overall this post apocalyptic film strives for a smaller more intimate portrayal of the aftermath, and does a decent job accomplishing just that. 3 Beards Out Of 5
-
endymionng5 March 2017First of let me say that I didn't mind the love-story or the connection between the involved... - However it fills the later half of the movie to an extent that is just syrupy and sappy in the extreme. No way that anyone sane is going to be that obsessed by a boy while world war III is occurring around her - At least I hope not... Saoirse Ronan is exceptional, while the rest doesn't have much of a story. The production is notably cheap, but it is still pretty well made on a budget. Way to many cuts though.
As an introduction to the cozy catastrophe version of the post apocalyptic genre it is interesting, but sadly could have had so much more impact if the love story were either removed entirely or at the very least dialed way down. A much better look at this genre is Terry Nations's classic "Survivor" TV-series from 1978. -
Amari-Sali13 November 2013To be completely honest the sole reason I saw this film was Saoirse Ronan. After Byzantium I must admit I sort of saw her as perhaps one of the few actresses who didn't really fit being "The Next " At the same time though, I must admit I was just hoping the trailer didn't speak for the quality of the movie. Unfortunately though, it did.
Characters and Story
For the movie, our lead character is Daisy (played by Saoirse Ronan) who begins as an annoying American who as time goes on we learn has some sort of anxiety issue. This issue, which she takes medicine for, leads her to pushing people away in order to not participate. However, a young man named Edmond (played by George MacKay) changes all that. Her attraction to him, and his saliva, seems to bring out a more open and kinder girl. Then terrorist hit London and send the film into war mode.
With this, the boys and girls are separated and Daisy ends up stuck with her little cousin Piper (played by Harley Bird) who is this sweet and eccentric little thing, but at the same time a child who grew up in a slightly neglectful household. Still, despite Daisy being quite mean to her in the beginning, Daisy makes sure that after they are taken, they will go back to Piper's home where she is supposed to reconnect with Eddie. This leads to Ronan bringing out her inner Hanna and getting the two home, but not without seeing some horrors on the way.
Praise
To be honest, there isn't a lot to praise about this movie. I must admit, I did like the idea of Daisy having anxiety and that helping to explain why her character was so obnoxious, but after awhile it seemed like they sort of dropped that angle and then picked it back up when convenient. But perhaps a decent amount of praise should go to Harley Bird for often little kids in most visual media are liabilities or one of the best of the film. Luckily for How I Live Now, Bird's character Piper is more than just a little eccentric kid tagging along and causing mischief. She helps bring a likable side to Daisy, outside of what Edmond brings, and through each other we get to see both characters evolve a little bit. Daisy in terms of what makes her think she is unworthy and a curse, as well as seeing the effects of Piper's mom who is so busy with her work that her children are sort of neglected.
Criticism
At the same time though, this film does not play out well. Don't get me wrong, it has its moments of sweetness, but at the same time the romance is rushed and doesn't have a good build. It goes from her attacking him, then him showing her a hint of kindness, and then soon they are making out and seemingly having sex. Not to say that perhaps with the circumstance of World War III I entirely blame the two, but this film is definitely nowhere near a film like Life is Beautiful which handles the idea of romance and war, in the same movie, so much better. Perhaps the worst thing though is the film is boring. I walked away from it a few times and it is mostly due to the script overall. Ronan as a seemingly stereotypical American just makes you roll your eyes, and at times I did wish Bird's Piper was the focus for the story she could have had was more appealing to me.
Overall: TV Viewing
Though certainly not the best film out there, it surely isn't the worst. If you are a fan of Ronan you will be slightly disappointed, but not so much that you feel like it may be time to turn your back on her. This film just suffers from trying to do too much at once and it just doesn't coordinate well in the long run. Plus, if you have seen other films which balance having a plot with romance and war, this film looks even worse. Still though, I think this is worth TV viewing, or watching OnDemand, when you're bored on a Sunday and have nothing better to watch. -
prendj0128 January 2014This film starts out on a slow burn, but is not about car chases, explosions or blood and gore. With that out the way, what it is, is warmly filmed and deftly directed. I found it a very enjoyable exploration of the aftermath of a civil war, and the impact that has on several young lives. Some reviewers have commented that setting that civil war in the UK is not realistic. But that is to wholly miss the point of this movie. It's a film about people under extreme adversity and random circumstance, the setting is peripheral. Its about they deal with the fast changing situation, and the changes that occur in them as a result. Well paced from at least a quarter of the way in the ending is emotional and moving. I'll leave it for you to judge if you agree with me. So long as your not looking for a happy movie, but something that digs a little deeper.... then I don't think you will be disappointed.
-
maildevo1 February 2017I'm struggling to understand why the reviews aren't better. It's a magnificent film, from a long and difficult source, turned into a fine screenplay. One of the best gangster movies in many years. Sprawling, epic, lovingly photographed and well acted, the film shows that Hollywood can still make good genre films if the script is right. You have to like Afflect to go along with this project, but his character and his performance have depth and the support cast are uniformly believable, the prohibition/gangster era is well-wrought and the story maintains its tempo all the way. It avoids clichés as much as possible , given the genre, and remains plausible throughout.It's well worth your time.
-
danew1313 November 2013The most redeeming quality of this film was the lovely British countryside shown.The story is thin and hard to believe, one more example of how a bad script is impossible to transform into good film.
It amazes me some of the glowing reviews on IMDb...either these people were watching a different film or working for Film 4.
This is the story of an American girl, Daisy (Ronan), who comes to visit English cousins mainly because her father is too busy to look after her and her mother is dead. Yet her visit oddly is ill timed being on the verge of a nuclear war that supposedly wipes out London an spreads fallout over a wide area...radioactive ash that cover everything yet doesn't seem to affect the Daisy and Co.
Even though she initially dislikes her new home, she just as quickly falls for her teenage cousin Eddie. They make love and she's smitten, even though they're first cousins.
But after the bomb, for some reason the army is in the rural countryside rounding up and splitting up families in relocation camps. From there the are forced to work in the fields...we don't know why. On the other hand the unknown enemy invaders seem intent on killing civilians.
Eventually the bulk of the film revolves around Daisy trying to get back to her first love Eddie, with her youngest cousin Piper in tow.
We never know why there's a war and who is fighting and how it ends. It just does and so does the film, with no sign of radiation poisoning hitting anyone. Maybe this is why Film 4 is hard-up for cash and has to depend on the National Lottery. -
eaton32113 October 2013Of all the movies I've seen, this is up there with the best. It's perfect in its variations of tone, from the lyrical to the grisly, and paced so that I never failed to be engaged with it. It avoids being over-elaborate or over-clever.
We are drawn in by comedy. Stroppy American teenager Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) flies in to stay with her English cousins and so far as she's concerned, she's landed in Hicksville. They live a carefree, mostly adult-free existence in a ramshackle farmhouse with animals all over the place, unwashed crockery and a casual approach to eating. Just what you want when you've got OCD, food fads and medication.
Determined to sulk in her room, she is eventually drawn out and succumbs to the warmth of her cousins, 14-year-old Isaac (Tom Holland), younger sister Piper (Harley Bird) and older brother Edmond (George MacKay}.
But in the background there are rumblings, particularly of a nuclear bomb which has been detonated in London. In the foreground, Daisy's and Edmond's hormones are rumbling.
The sex scene, when it comes, is how it should be done: lovely without being too explicit, too long or salacious.
That's followed by soldiers arriving, guns blazing, to impose martial law. Boys and girls are split up to be taken to separate camps, but Edmond and Daisy vow to be reunited.
Daisy's escape is a grim survival scenario in which she has to practically force-march Piper to exhaustion through a landscape beset with dangers, particularly for vulnerable females of any age. Who will survive?
The acting? Well, there's acting, good acting and acting so good that you forget that it's acting, and Ronan's and Bird's acting both come into this last category. I was totally absorbed in their journey. It's very, very rare for me to lose my sense of detachment when I'm watching a film but I did here.
Few people have doubted Ronan's ability since her impressive performance as the 13-year-old Briony Tallis in Atonement. However, I've sometimes felt that she has been the victim of a misguided director (Peter Jackson in The Lovely Bones) or a substandard screenplay (The Host). I've often wondered when she would get more material worthy of her talent. Well, boy, has she hit the jackpot this time.
Director Kevin Macdonald did everything he had to do to get the story across without any of those irritating "look what a wonderful director I am" flourishes.
People will inevitably draw comparisons with Meg Rosoff's novel, which I haven't read, or other films in this "genre". How I detest the pretentious overuse of that word. This film was enough for me and if you don't think it measures up to your precious novel or your precious genre that's your problem, not mine. -
s_campanale6 October 2013This British set, British produced film is yet another based on a popular piece of Young Adult literature, though dating back a decade to the terse post 9.11 period when all comfortable certainties seemed gone and death could strike right at our very doorsteps once again.
The storyline features troubled (of course) teen Elizabeth (Saoirse Ronan), a New York girl who is a neurotic, living by rules gleaned from magazines and TV, terrified of germs and infection, and convinced she is hexed, since her mother died giving birth to her. On the eve of an unspecified international crisis, her anxious father sends her to the UK, from where her mother hailed, and the isolated country farm of her maternal aunt Penn (Anna Chancellor) an analyst for the security services and about to ship out to Geneva to help co-ordinate the upcoming war effort, leaving her with her cousins: 14 yr old Isaac (Tom Holland), 7 yr old Piper (Harley Bird) and handsome 16 yr old Edmond (George Mackay). Their rustic idyll is cut dramatically short when a nuclear bomb is dropped on London (Eerily heard as a distant thud followed by a strong wind and an ash snowfall) and martial law is declared. During this period, Elizabeth learns to love her English roots, her cousins, and especially Edmond, who despite being her 1st cousin engages in a passionate first love affair that ends up defining them both (Let's hope they never decide to have children!) But Britain itself has been invaded by an unidentified enemy force (probably the Russians given the uniforms and Slavic looks) and paradise is soon lost. Evacuated by the military, Edmond and Isaac are drafted as army cadets while Elizabeth and Piper are fostered by a couple while they work on a nearby food production farm. But as the Russians (maybe?) come knocking, Elizabeth eschews further military help and takes Piper with her on a long night of the soul voyage to try and find the others, especially Edmond, whom she sees in her dreams and visions (it is implied early on the two have a psychic link) through the occupied countryside, living off the land and witnessing the many horrors of war (rape, mass graves, shot down civilian airliners full of dead passengers,etc) and testing their resolve to the full. Will she find her new soul mate, and what life will they manage to make for themselves after all the horror?
The film, directed by veteran Kevin McDonald, looks great and has a nice sense of pastoral elegance about it, with the beautiful British countryside being the backdrop to both love and death, joy and pain, beauty and horror. The cast are all good, especially the star of the show Ronan, who has been carving a niche for herself as special but tormented teens yearning to reach out and find a common humanity. Initially a neurotic bitch, with her disco haircut and make up making her look eerily like a young Sharon Stone, she charts the inevitable growth of her character well, but alas is poorly served by the script, which requires so little of her given the circumstances. A lot is implied through the photography, imagery, music and strange visions that Ronan herself is required to do little actual "acting" herself. Same goes for the talented George Mackay, who is meant to embody an ideal of love and masculinity (he appears as Adam himself in several visions) but is not asked to do much to prove it apart from bring out the nice side of his own cousin. The younger kids Holland and Bird are also very likable without being annoying, a tough act especially for Bird who is meant to be a typically chirpy happy gay 7 yr old in the middle of Hell itself but naturally unaware of any of it.
The film has a nice poetry and lyricism to it, and doesn't pull its punches in depicting the horrors of war and occupation (it has a 15 certificate in the UK, equivalent to R in the States) yet it does not quite have the impact desired. The main problem is that it's all been seen and done before so many times, in the old post nuclear dramas ("Survivors", "The Day After", etc) in the original "Red Dawn", "Cold Mountain" and others, and bleak post-apocalyptic dramas like "The Road" "A Boy and his dog" "War of the Worlds" (2005) and of course "28 days later", which this film most obviously resembles. There isn't anything fresh or original here, just more bliss before the storm, the loss of paradise, the long hard trek and paradise (sort of) regained. It also doesn't help that the central romance between Elizabeth and Edmond is hardly of the burning eternal passion kind (maybe it was in the book, or maybe it's all just a crutch that Elizabeth has largely created for herself), further compounded by the inevitable inescapable fact that they are first blood cousins who share a set of grandparents! Maybe it would have been OK in Jane Austen's time, but it's pretty disturbing now.
A solid film, hard, tough, well-directed and acted, yet lacking drive, motivation, passion, or indeed anything really fresh to say about the situation it is depicting, it will both engage and yet also leave you wanting more. -
ikeybabe21 March 2014I was so disappointed with this film. To start with, we're supposed to cheer for the protagonist. But "Daisy" was about the most unlikable teen ever. She was so mean and rude and irritable, (Yeah, I got that her daddy has a new baby and she's jealous. But how can you be so unfriendly to people being super friendly to you?). I just couldn't stand her. Then, there was the whole *SPOILER ALERT* story line of how she fell for her cousin! Really? Are we - the viewers - supposed to be down with this romance? It was disgusting. Oh yeah, and this cousin struck me as possibly having Asperger's Syndrome. (There's nothing wrong with that, but why allude (being non verbal and highly sensitive to loud sounds) to it and not explain it?). And then the big boom happens and fallout and no one appears to be sick from radiation poisoning at any point. And the happy clan of cousins decide to move out of the comfortable house with beds and running water and a bathroom to the barn?! Were they supposed to be hiding? They weren't well hidden at all. It was unbelievably sad *SPOILER AGAIN* when Daisy comes across the pile of dead and find young Isaac. And that was sweet the way she symbolically buried him by burying his glasses, but then she's a mean b*tch to the little girl with blisters covering her feet because she complains about being tired. Oh yeah, and then she finds Eddie, who is beyond damaged, and the war ends and oh happy days again. There is no explanation as to what happened, how the war came to an end and wouldn't some adults have shown up - like maybe her father, who cared enough to send someone from the Embassy with a plane ticket for her at the start of the war. The whole thing reeked. I gave the movie 2 stars because Saoirse Ronan is a really good actress and Tom Holland was a delight and the scenery was gorgeous. Overall, the acting was well done. The script was the great flaw here.
-
nikolova-assya20 November 2013There is some extraordinary sensitivity in Saoirse Ronan that made me watch the trailer that eventually led me to the movie. It is beautifully shot drama. Its dynamics created by the sequence of light and darkness, nature and civilization is so captivating that you are up in it right till the end.The portrayal of a nuclear war is not too light so it is believable, but not too dark so it leaves you hope. The film deals with the great theme of significant vs petty in life which makes you once again to think about what you really care about in this raw nerved life. There is some reaffirming conclusions about the one's will power that can do much greater deal that helping restrain the desire for chocolate,which could've been brought a bit further. But overall it is an interesting movie that asks the right questions, the only right answers being within each and everyone of us.
-
mooveephantom1 December 2021The movie was a mess. Although the storyline was intriguing, the more it progressed, the more flat it became. The film is pretty much like the teenage lead, confused with what it wants to be. A lot of young adult novels fall into this trap when adapted for the screen. Does it want to be an action thriller? Dark psychological teen drama? A fantasy? Sci-fi? Teen romance? It tries to mesh all these things and fails. Also, another main point of contention is the very unlikeable lead performance by Ronan. She simply does not have the acting chops to pull off the role. Her part was so phoned in. Saving graces are the magnetic performances of George MacKay and Tom Holland. They both shine wonderfully and did the best they could with the weak material. The young sister was also very good in her role.
Acknowledgments to some of the dark, dreamy sequences and some of the action and effects scenes. -
nogodnomasters3 September 2018Daisy (Saoirse Ronan) "don't call me Elizabeth" has Daddy issues and comes to vacation in the country side of England with relatives she has never met. She takes meds for the voices in her head and is a disagreeable individual who hates everything about the country except for a young man named Eddie (George MacKay) a cow whisperer. Europe is in turmoil, events we know little about. When a nuclear device is exploded in London, fallout comes to the farm (literally and figuratively) as Daisy opts to refuse passage to safety to stay in her newly acquired comfort zone.
The film centers around Daisy and the choices she makes for her new family, going from a self centered individual, finally learning about loving a family, something she has missed since the death of her mother. "WWIII" provides the background and was more of a distraction to the film than anything else. Saoirse Ronan, a NYC girl who has also lived in Ireland was a natural for the part.
This is another series of films that were well made, but I didn't find having an overwhelming amount of entertainment value. Even with the dropping of an atomic bomb and armies roaming the countryside, I was still in the mode of waiting for something to happen besides the growing of Daisy's character. Clearly this is an action/drama/thriller chick flick I had no business watching. 3 1/2 stars
Parental Guide: F-bomb. Sex. Off screen rape. No nudity. -
brandon_veracka22 March 2019It's important I admit that I'm a huge fan of Saoirse Ronan, and therefore I have a strong bias towards anything she's in; she's beautiful and incredibly talented at playing any part which she takes on. However, this film just didn't do it for me. I feel like the number one reason why is because of a lack of character development. We don't get to know these characters nearly enough to become emotionally invested in their fates, and I feel that's important in a story about love.
Secondly, the improbability of the way in which the events unfold had me rolling my eyes a couple of times. I suppose I'm being a little harsh, but most of Saoirse's films are so "edgy", and this one just isn't. That's okay, but it's not for me. If you're in the mood for a story about being young and in love - the pain, the awkwardness, and the hopeful desperation - then you'll probably enjoy this. It's far from being bad. With all of that said, it just didn't dig deep enough for me. -
JoeytheBrit3 July 2020A competent but problematic tale of love in a time of war told from a teen perspective. Ronan is excellent in the role of Daisy, an American girl who falls for her cousin during an idyllic summer in Britain that is disrupted by the outbreak of war, but her character starts out as intensely dislikeable and never really recovers, and the backdrop of the war against which the romance is played out is so sketchily portrayed that its vagaries become a major distraction. And, yes, sexual relations between cousins is legal in Britain.
-
clarkj-565-16133616 November 2013This was a beautiful and artistic movie. I loved all the scenes especially at the beginning. The country house, the animals, the kids everything in perfect balance. Even a Series IIA Land Rover, what more could you ask for. I was hoping to see a friendly badger, but I guess they read the tea leaves correctly. This movie reminded me a little bit of the "Lord of the Flies" a movie made during a time of political insanity where nuclear war hung over everyone's head. They say that artists see things long before anyone does, so hopefully this movie is a warning of a potential future outcome which does not have to happen. The acting was superb, Piper was so brave. Imagine if you could have your first love!
-
Sleepin_Dragon26 September 2016My advice for anyone would be to give this film a go, I'd stress any new viewer not to be put off by the film's first twenty minutes or so, during that time, you like me will probably be struggling to keep an interest, where we see stereotypical American teenage spoilt brat forced to spend time in dreary Britain, where cats climb the dinner table and people drive thirty year old cars. If you can get past the rather soppy 'falling in love' aspect of the film (tough stretch I grant you as it's the main thread of the film) what you get is a movie featuring some frankly scary and dark realism. The impact of terrorism first on the idyllic lives of the film's youngsters, and then on the country as a whole was delivered in a harsh and unpalatable way, which made the film very watchable.
You could argue the film is over sentimental, I even heard someone say it felt like terrorists had invaded The Twilight Sage, I can understand, the 'true love' did seem a little overplayed, stretch belief beyond that and it's a film well worth watching.
Saoirse Ronan is good value for money, the transformation in her character was very well done. (Had a Turn left feel, DW fans!)
Worth a watch 7/10 -
jennifer-b-oneill3 October 2021My experience of this film consisted of a series of annoyances. Many of these concerned enormous gaps in:
Critical information - why does Daisy stay in the UK after the war without any reference to her family or her life of the past 16 years? Was the United States obliterated, or does she actually have the worst father ever? NOTE: At least the writers occasionally addressed this issue spot on, e.g., Eddie should seemingly have been killed along with his brother and all the other occupants of Gatesville Farm, but arrived home in a catatonic state. What really happened? "We'll never know." Hee hee.
Continuity - why was poisonous radiated water that all came from the same sky sometimes safe to drink? How did Daisy and Piper's hosts and their neighbors return home when the terrorists had taken control of the sole entryway to the development and were killing everyone on sight?
Logic - the hike back home was apparently 7 or 8 days. Daisy brought one bottle of water and no water pills, so she and Piper must have the hydration requirements of cacti. And after Piper says she can't go any farther after roughly 5 days - you know, without any water, or food, and bleeding feet that turned her socks red, and the fact that she's 8 - Daisy tells her to grow a pair, and that's enough to get her all the way home.
Other irritations centered around the personalities and behavior of the characters, e.g., London is destroyed, hundreds of thousands die immediately, the rest of the country is under siege, and the teens act like it's summer camp. Whee! No one misses Mom, although she couldn't be bothered to cook or wash a single dish and barely acknowledged she had children, so maybe that was realistic.
Honestly, there was no point at which I liked Daisy. From the moment she arrived in England, she was a stone-cold bitch (and was never called out on it). After sleeping with her cousin, he becomes her reason for living, and everyone else and their concerns be damned. She has the organizational skills of a kindergartner. Oops, forgot the water pills! Lost the map! Lost the compass! Not that any of that matters, as noted above; but maybe she needs to turn up the volume rather than shut out the critical, unexplained "rules" running through her head.
My final frustration is aimed at Marketing. Couldn't you have acknowledged in advertising that the movie is about an Instagram influencer who becomes obsessed with an incestuous relationship, then engages on an abbreviated Bataan Death March while torturing a cute little ginger? I would have easily known that I should pick a different movie. -
HOW I LIVE NOW is a poignant, disturbing, enthralling, and horrific film. Wonderful soundtrack and natural imagery that contrasts beautifully with the ugly and treacherous human world. Allegorical qualities: We don't know many of the specifics of who the terrorists are, the backgrounds of many characters, their full names, exact locations in Britain, etc. In those and many other respects, HILN is more for the heart than the head.
Good performance by Saoirse Ronan as Daisy, a brash, cantankerous, and troubled American teenager who is sent to live with some distant relatives in the English countryside. Ditto for the others who play the various teenagers and children. However, the relationship between Daisy and Eddie develops a bit suddenly and unconvincingly; with everything else that is happening here, the character development suffers. I have not yet read Meg Rosoff's original novel, but I would guess that it is yet another book that can never be done justice on screen. Nevertheless, I found this film well worth watching, and it should prove especially useful as a basic illuminator for the book. -
Teenage American Daisy visits relatives in rural England while international tensions rise . Before long a nuclear device destroys London and the country is put under martial law and Daisy finds herself in a fight for survival
!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!!
Yet another film featuring a teenager fighting to survive similar to THE HUNGER GAMES and THE MAZE RUNNER and like these films has a novel as a source . HOW I LIVE NOW does hint that it's going to be darker and bleaker than similar movies but then decides to blow everything with a scenario that is just too difficult to buy in to . It's trying to be more realistic than its peers but if you're going to be realistic then realism should be a prime concern and this is where everything falls down
As someone who grew up in the cold war era nuclear holocaust scared the heck out of me . Here it's used as a vague plot device . Nuclear bombs weren't a fun topic to research in the 1980s but watching stuff like THREADS did give a layman a rough idea of what happens when they explode . A nuclear device destroys London and yet TV cameras still work ? Wouldn't electro magnetic pulse ( EMP ) fry all the electronics in the surrounding area ? Ditto it would also destroy all the power supplies and yet the electricity stays on long enough to inform the characters and therefore the audience as to what's happening . Plot convenience while being contrived at the same time but many films use this so it's not unique to this one . However the story constantly keeps tripping itself up such as having a character state they're a long way from London and yet nuclear fall out instantly lands on them as they hear a nuclear explosion . In reality it would several hours and if fall out can reach them why didn't they experience the shockwave of a nuclear explosion ?
It's rather clear the nuclear device spoken about wasn't sent to its target via a delivery system such as a missile but left hidden similar to a terrorist bombing . Again there's a myth that you explode via conventional means it'll go up in the infamous mushroom cloud way . It won't . In order for the warhead to work it has to be delivered via the way it's designed otherwise all you've got is a "dirty bomb" unable to yield kilotons or megatons of explosive energy
This falls apart when it ties in with the rest of the scenario . Britain is being attacked by a "rebel / terrorist force" rather than a nation state but how likely is this ? A terrorist or rebel power doesn't have a nuclear delivery system and yet has the manpower and logistical support in order to invade an Island nation ? The last invaders to conquer the British Isles were the Normans and would be invaders like Napoleon and Hitler later found this impossible due to an accident of geography . A Island has borders that can be easily defended and difficult to breach and Britain also has a nuclear deterrent . If London had been nuked then surely that means the gloves have come off and any would be invader is going to get nuked in advance as they gather on the British shoreline ? I looked up Meg Rosoff's novel on Amazon and apparently it is similarly vague . THE ROAD by Cormac McCarthy is vague as to its scenario but that film gripped me like a vice . With HOW I LIVE NOW everything falls apart when given the slightest bit of thought and is painfully contrived all the way up to its implausible happy ending
This is all a great shame because there's almost a great film trying to escape from its screenplay . Saoirse Ronan as the mentally ill teenager Daisy gives a great performance as she starts off as selfish to the point of narcissistic troubled teen and turns in to a mature woman by the end . I can see the storyline is concentrating on character development and here it does succeed . Director Kevin Macdonald does show a lot of talent but like BLACK SEA he seems to be a victim that he has been hired to direct an underdeveloped screenplay full of plot holes and contrivance . Both its star and its director deserved more as did the audience -
staciarose2024 August 2021So her estranged dad sends her off to England during conflict, the only adult in the house is barely a parent, and a nuclear bomb goes off. Yet she falls in love with... her cousin? It would have been a better story if Eddie were a neighbor.