DIRECT ACTION

This shouldn't have the right to call itself a film, looking out a window on a 3 an a half hour car ride is honestly more fun, certain shot drag on to the point you feel like the camera man fell asleep, I had no idea what was happening because there would be 20 minutes shots of trees between every scene and you for the whole thing. This 3 and a half hour "film" could have been cut down to probably 35 minutes and you would probably understand it better, we had to watch this for school and people still walked out and let their grade get punished for it. Sure some films decide to choose sending a message over being entertaining but this film has so much unnecessary footage added to it that you forget what is even happening. I see no value in watching this movie in full, there is a shot of a lighthouse that lasted so long it felt like the projector broke and switched over to someone's screen saver. Maybe if you can fast forward all of that you could knock the film out in less then a hour and save time.

If the goal of the documentary was to portray French eco-activists as backward marginals, using outdated technologies and attacking the police without any argumentation, armed with rubber boats meant for swimming pools, and further to fuel viewers' hatred with endlessly long shots where nothing happens, then it was somewhat successful. However, I doubt that was the intended purpose.

Seriously, in 3.5 hours, it would have been possible to tell the whole story with all points of view and explanations, which obviously exist. Instead, the viewer is forced to watch for 3.5 hours either actions that by today's standards seem simply silly and ineffective, or just nothing at all. The average shot feels like it lasts for 10 minutes, 10 minutes during which nothing is explained. Then another 10 minutes where nothing is explained... And so on until the victorious end. It's up to the viewer to provide explanations for what's happening.

No, this is a bad approach for a documentary film.