Save your money for something good and enjoyable

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Louder than Bombs is a frustrating movie because it's so beautifully edited and directed but everything about it just falls flat. The film is about the Reeds, a family made up of a father and his two sons, one an adult starting his own family, the other a teen, who are all coping with the loss of the mother of the family Isabelle, a war photographer who died 4 years earlier. The events in the film are triggered because a retrospective of Isabelle's work is being put on and a friend and journalist writing an article regarding her life warns Isabelle's widow that he plans to be "honest" about the way she died implying that the car crash she died in might not have been accidental after all. The rest of the film follows these three men as they stumble around their lives, reminiscing about the Isabelle they knew and didn't know and struggling to move forward. It's a very watchable film, but it's also somehow not enough. The struggles of the film feel self-indulgent and it's one of those films where women exist only to be lusted over or listen sympathetically to the men as they talk about their problems and throw tantrums. Even legendary actress Isabelle Huppert, as the ghost that haunts the family, doesn't get much to chew on. The worst part is that it's a movie that isn't easy to write off entirely. The youngest son is a bit of a writer and the way his text is layered over with images leads to some beautiful editing and some true movie magic. It's just a shame that these great moments don't quite live up to what they could have been if they had had strong emotion to back them up.

Renown war photographer Isabelle Reed (Isabelle Huppert) died close to home in a car crash. Her work is getting an exhibit with work partner Richard (David Strathairn). Her older son Jonah (Jesse Eisenberg) returns home to help after having a new baby. Her younger son Conrad (Devin Druid) is introverted and has a crush on classmate Melanie (Ruby Jerins). Conrad is furious when he discovers his father (Gabriel Byrne)'s new fling with his teacher Hannah (Amy Ryan). The family struggles to come to terms with their loss and their differing memories of Isabelle.Norwegian filmmaker Joachim Trier creates a compelling dysfunctional family. The movie would probably work better concentrating on Conrad as a coming-of-age story. It may not help that Druid is not the most accomplished actor. The allure of following the great adult actors is too much for Trier. These are interesting characters if only he could harness them better visually and narratively.

A multi-nationally produced film, especially you can call it a European product, but an English language film that takes place in the New York. The story of a husband and two sons of the famed war photographer who recently died in a car crash. So the film is focused to tell how they are going to cope with their loss, especially the little brother who has differences with his father. They all kind of drifted away from each other, but without an alternate they have to come together to go through it.This is not a usual mourning theme, but sometimes I felt they forgot they're in mourning. Because the narration quickly shifts to various topics like the birth of a child, a new affair and trying to impress the girl whom the boy has a crush. So with all this, I completely witnessed a different type of film than what it had said. That's not bad, just a refreshing and with constant moving back and forth in in time to disclose some key events.Mainly the portrayal splits into three to cover those three family members and each has its own specialty. Something like a film for older people, middle-aged and teens, all the these contents smartly joined together. Apart from the good show from the cast, the director did his best as usual, but this is not up to the par with his other works. For a watch this film definitely would do good. Since it's not a Hollywood, you won't have to worry about American film clichés, because it was developed much better and ends better.6/10

There are some that say you cannot review a film unless you have watched it throughout. The main reason given is that you can't judge a film on just one part of it's journey, but you must judge it on it's whole, which includes where it ended up. I disagree with that. Very strongly. A film is a visual story, and a story has to have elements that make sense. It does not have to be linear, it can jump around time and it can mix events up, but what it must do is engage you. Even when you don't fully understand what is going on, it must engage you. My opinion is that if you watch 20 minutes of a movie and it has not engaged you within that time, it does not matter where it ends, or how it ends, or what it's message is: it has failed as a story because it was not able to engage you to the point you wanted to continue to watch.That's how I feel about Louder Than Bombs. We begin by finding out about a photographer who killed herself, perhaps as a consequence of her experiences during conflict. But in the first 20 minutes of the movie, that's all we learned. There was nothing more except confusion, disjointed scenes that never made a whole and no guesses could patch a story together that might explain random actions such as the son throwing himself on a complete strangers grave. The lack of explanation, the lack of cohesion and continuance, the lack of flow of the story and the total lack of engagement says to me that the film maker wanted to make the scenes for his own benefit, and not to tell a story that others could enjoy. The purpose of stories is to entertain others, and too many film makers don't do that. They are trying too hard to make people think that their movie is 'arty' in some way, or profound in it's wisdom, when the truth is they are self absorbed fantasies which hold little interest for most people. Why should I indulge someone for a full 20 minutes if they won't indulge me? The story as far as I watched it was confusing, irrational, disjointed, unintelligible, unengaging and even irritating. By the time I got to the girls' monologue at about the 18 minute mark I got incredibly frustrated and annoyed at her awful reading voice stumbling over simple words, the nonsensical words she read for almost a full 5 minutes, and the completely irrational and unexplained thoughts that Conrad was having during that reading. It was at that point that I decided that I would not watch the movie in it's entirety. If I did, and even if I enjoyed the ending, not only did I not enjoy the whole journey but it irritated and angered me to the point that I resent being made to feel that way in order to be given a meaty treat at the end. There should be a range of emotions brought out from a good story but they should stem from the story, they should not include anger, boredom and consternation at the storyteller. So, Louder Than Bombs, highly considered by some to be profound, to me is a very badly scripted movie that does not competently tell a story and distances the viewer to the point the story becomes irrelevant. I'd give it no stars, 0 out of 10 if I could but the lowest IMDb allows is 1. Absolute rubbish film making and story telling and a waste of the 20 minutes I spent on it.It's telling that from an $11,000,000 budget it made only $160,000.