It may not have the most appealing title and there's a conspicuous lack of 'stars' but this independently made 'eco-thriller' may be the best thriller you will see this year. Basically you could say it does what it says on the tin as a group of 'eco-warriors', (good performances from a largely unknown cast), set out to sabotage the pipeline of the title. Think of it as a heist performed by eager, well-intentioned amateurs but with the pipeline standing in for the bank vault while director Daniel Goldhaber displays the same ability as the young John Sayles for eliciting first-rate work from his fresh young cast and for giving the film the feel of a documentary.

It's also genuinely exciting; for starters these guys are dealing with high explosives that could go off at any time with deadly results and secondly, whether or not you agree with their agenda, they remain a sundry bunch of criminals packing weapons and perhaps capable of anything. A neat ending, too, that isn't as predictable as you might think. All in all, one worth seeking out.

Do the ends truly justify the means? That's an age-old question that has been asked countless times in countless contexts, but what's the answer? That's a decision left open for viewers to ponder in this taut ecothriller about a group of zealous environmental activists who plan to blow up a west Texas pipeline in an effort to draw attention to such issues as global climate change and public health considerations. Writer-director Daniel Goldhaber's second feature skillfully combines elements of various cinematic genres, including Westerns, heist films, political thrillers and ecological dramas like "The East" (2013), but it does so in some highly unexpected ways. In particular, this well-constructed, smartly produced offering is heavily character-driven, presenting genuinely compelling back stories about its crew of protagonists told through a series of strategically placed flashbacks. What's more, the picture's gorgeous cinematography, superb editing, fine performances and intense original score all lend themselves to a splendidly crafted package, certainly much more than what one would typically expect out of a low-budget indie. Of course, these strengths aside, this still leaves open the question about the impact of this story. What kind of message does it send? Is it appropriate to make and release a picture that depicts such a subversive venture such as this? Can the kind of collateral damage at stake here be justified, be it even theoretically told through a work of fiction? But, then, can society continue to willfully ignore the kinds of environmental damage that are being allowed to unfold without taking any meaningful action? And what of the law enforcement questions involved in a scenario like this? "Pipeline" gives viewers ample food for thought while simultaneously reminding us that the clock is ticking on these issues - and that we had better start making some serious decisions soon.

How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a punchy film with a pertinent message.

It follows a group of environmental activists who, you've guessed it, hatch a plot to blow up a pipeline. The plot tracks them as they begin to enact their plan, and also delves into each of their back stories to reveal why they have arrived at this drastic course of action.

It makes for a compelling watch I must say. Each of the characters are interesting and distinct, and delving into their backstories is engaging. The performances are all very solid.

Visually the film is appealing but sparse, with few bells and whistles. It looks rugged and rough which works well.

In terms of pacing it does leave a little to be desired. There are a few troughs, but actually I found the whole thing more thrilling than I was expecting.

The result is a thoroughly entertaining and engaging film with a strong and timely message at its core.

Recently, when a bunch of "Just Stop Oil" activists disturbed a World Snooker Championship game and, as per Gen-Z-climate-activist tradition, threw food all over the tables and sat themselves down in their anti-oil garments, a Twitter user quipped: "These types of climate protests are so detrimental to raising actual awareness and widespread support that if it ever came out that these people were paid for by gas and coal-owning billionaires I'd probably believe it".

Now, I don't know if the companies behind the well-made but questionable How to Blow Up a Pipeline have any such dubious ties (neither the production companies nor the distributor, Neon, have any deals with Big Oil that I could find). But man, what a time to do a psyop to make the enemy look deranged when said enemy will agree with the assessment and be proud of it!

Here is a movie loosely based on a book -- whose name-similarity to some kinda Dark Web instruction manual isn't accidental -- that speaks straight-out about how violence is a necessity for "climate justice"; essentially how destruction is correct so long as it's (purportedly) in the name of the right cause. I guess I shouldn't be too shocked. It was racism in 2020, it's climate change now; I just thought it was gonna be less mask-off terror apologia and more trying to rationalize throwing soup at art to make fossil fuels go away.

Then again, the book predates all those incidents and this manner of disruption was fairly commonplace in Sweden, the author's homeland, before the big vandalism stories of recent UK and US news. Perhaps the real surprise is that it came out after the Nord Stream incident -- an as-yet-unresolved case (of POSSIBLE eco-terrorism) that damaged decidedly more than "replaceable property" (what many radicals will tell you is the only real victim, even on a bad day). Not that this ever really stopped at "property", especially among the new wave of post-Thunberg soup Zoomers.

I sometimes ask: If, for example, a patient dies inside an ambulance as a result of road-blocking climate protestors -- as has literally happened in, you guessed it, Sweden a few months ago -- is that person deemed a necessary sacrifice for the utopia? After all, what's one death vs. The doomsday you've been told you're preventing? Do you redirect the trolley to kill one human when there are 8 billion hypothetical humans on the other track?

I accuse people of pussyfooting around this query, but I realize they've been answering me through actions for some time. When activists were convicted for the incident in Sweden, there were additional manifestations -- not in the name of the person that died, but the ones that got arrested.

Will a film like this exacerbate things? Hopefully not. It's being praised by the Usual Journalists for portraying the "terrorists" (sometimes in quotes, sometimes not) in a sympathetic light, but I didn't read them as outright unblemished. Someone will go "This was my Joker" but someone always does.

It's a tense movie with some good moments, interesting cinematography, and an even better score. However, it didn't live up to the high expectations.

Even I, who agree with the main message, found it to be too one-sided. Other perspectives are not heard, there are no arguments, no pros and cons (when there are - and only about the method - a conclusion is quickly reached). I like movies that make me reflect and not movies that feed me the message with a spoon, forcing me to accept that. The structure is interesting, although cutting the tension doesn't always have the desired effect (which I believe is the same as a cliffhanger on tv shows). Lastly, the characters are too linear, too victimized. We know almost nothing about what sets them apart, we are only left with their motivations - all with direct causes - to do what they want to do. Ok, but didn't make me care a lot about them.

It's an ok, flawed, somewhat interesting little thriller with an important message, but that's all it is.

It was a well crafted film from start to finish by Goldhaber, fuelled by a young and talented cast, especially in Lucas Gage's performance. The choice of flashbacks were sensibly done, something I'd normally avoid saying. It was a cheeky move executed confidently by Goldhaber using peak points of tension to cut back and learn about the characters. It worked, and strengthened the audience's connection with each character. The film had a hard time finding a consistent level of maturity. It plays more as a YA novel wanting to be like Mission Impossible. The stakes were high, but it lacked some unexpected sacrifice that would come with an emotionally charged team, driven by revenge to attack the oil industry in Texas. The reason it still worked is because the cast was so youthfully motivated and their energy kept things grounded in plausibility.

This cast and crew did a spectacular job in creating a sense of a blockbuster with a festival film. And though my phone screen was found to be shattered after the screening was over at TIFF, I enjoyed the film. Looking forward to more from the filmmakers.

I did enjoy 'How to Blow Up a Pipeline', but I couldn't help but want to rewatch 'The East' (dir Batmanglij, 2013), which had a similar structure (re denouement), but the stakes seemed higher in 'The East', and the psychology of the characters were a lot more deep and varied. I think that was because you come at 'The East' from the point of view of an outsider, and you watch her character arc alongside that of the eco-terrorists, and see how interacting with them changes her (and changes you, as a viewer, too).

But, even so, I'm very glad I did watch 'How to Blow Up a Pipeline', and the film made me want to read the source material.

I think this might have worked better for me had there been any of these conspiratorial characters with whom I could vaguely relate. As it is, they are collection of disparate folks with health problems, chips on their shoulders and axes to grind. Indeed, the rather episodic manner in which they are introduced to us reminded me of a rather dismal series of X-Factor auditions. Anyway, they quickly decide to take it upon themselves to destroy some remote pipeline infrastructure and with the help of the internet and some stump remover, they manage to construct some pretty lethal IEDs and set their plan in motion. Depending on your politics, I suspect you will either love the efforts of these courageous eco-warriors or you will see them as little more than self-appointed judge and jury for the rest of us. Whilst my jury was intrigued at the start, the increasingly underwhelming nature of the personas collected here gradually made me consider whether or not I would ever want any aspect of my future (or anyone else's) in the hands of these people. The last twenty minutes is quite well put together but I did struggle with the roles attributed to the FBI agent and the local police officer. Is it daring or is it reckless? You decide but, though effectively illustrative of just how simple it is to make a bomb, I think had this been presented as something rather more that a student protest video consisting of people with plenty short-term answers but no actual solutions, then I might have appreciated it more.

When I read about "How to Blow Up a Pipeline", I just had to see this movie. It is a timely political thriller that follows a group of eco-saboteurs who target an oil pipeline. Led by Xochitl, played by Ariela Barer, the group includes a diverse mix of characters, each with their own reasons for taking drastic action against the things that are killing the planet. The movie intercuts between their operation in Texas and flashbacks that reveal each character's motivations. We follow the group's nerve-wracking operation in Texas, where they check out their target, rig up explosives, and then set about doing the deed. Despite its political leanings, the movie doesn't preach or glamorize its characters, and the actors deliver strong performances that bring the characters to life. A very enjoyable movie to watch.

Up until this film I had never heard of the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline nor of it's author, Andreas Malm but this Swedish writer and associate professor has been preaching the 'joys' of environmentalists taking direct action to property for awhile. Is this fictional depiction of his writing a good summary of Malm's thoughts? It would appear so.

Of course, that doesn't make the movie good. What does make it worth a watch is how the planning and execution of this act of violence (or self defense) is portrayed. The director, Daniel Goldhaber, has given us a very decent thriller. Yes, the characters are not terribly deep but if you enjoy watching smart people figure out a heist, well in this case an explosion, then this is the film for you. Also, to have a film made in America that is basically pro-terror attack 22 years after 9/11 makes for fascinating viewing. Who would have ever guessed this day would ever come?

Should this film get any push back I have no doubt you'll hear some denounce the picture by saying brute force is not the answer. The problem with that argument is that cinema has been celebrating violence against people (See any action movie, cop film or western) for years so why not one about violence against oil pipelines?

To make a movie on a small budget, with a small cast with a tremendous result...is my first thought after watching''how to blow up a pipeline'', an anarchists playbook like war on the petrochemical and petroleumindustry, and all the other hudlums and culprits that exploit OUR earth ,for a buck or a million, on behalf of us other 99%'ers that cant breath and gets any kind of murky diseases, because we are there, we just are, and cant runaway...

terrific story with a terrific cast, made in such a realistic way that it almost felt like its a biopic story about true life happenings. If you like films with a good drive of innicent young adults spinning their fantasies together to make a prank on BIG OIL, then have a watch. The float is fast moving, the caracter build up is ingenious, and its of course filled with a few plotholes that everybody will scream out loud about , but just plug your ears, cause this is a sonic boom of a scream in the wilderness , and maybe , i hope not so violent, will inspire further actions against globalisation and earth depletion in the future done by the BIG money.

My acclamation goes to the writers guild and the casting crew for a good and intense story, with high vibes of true realism. Well done and a recommend from the grumpy old man.

Since I was lucky enough to watch this movie early and there aren't many reviews I thought I'd give my brief thoughts. Solid movie. Delivers on the title! Maybe a little too preachy for some, but well executed and it never felt overbearing. It keeps a tight pace, and tension throughout. Despite cutting to flashbacks explaining the character's motivations periodically, it never felt like it detracted from the plot too much and in other ways it added to it very well. We aren't bogged down by exposition thanks to the clever structure and it keeps the movie going engagingly with a few surprises. I dug the style and synth music, all well made and executed. My only possible criticism is that a particular side story with 2 characters is probably the least believable part of the grounded story, and it doesn't help it's from the 2 least likable characters. However, I liked most of them in their own unique ways especially Michael. He got the most laughs out of my theater, just some small nice moments of levity. Despite the ensemble cast and short runtime, there is a good amount of depth given to the characters, and all the actors did a good job. I wish I had more to say since I was lucky to catch it earlier than most but it's truly one of those movies that I enjoyed but can only really say... "yup that was pretty good."

And by the way to the FBI agent reading this review I'm not condoning the actions taken in this film nor recommending the readers of this review to repeat those actions aha... But yup, I recommend it.

How To Blow Up A Pipeline is sold as a crackling environmental thriller with a message. The fact that it presents the message it has with a hammer doesn't hide the fact that as a film it is just shallow. It is exactly what the title says. It's about a group of climate change activists that plan and carry out the disabling of an oil pipeline in Texas. The problem is that the characters are paper thin. They are just a collection of grievances and slogans, not three dimensional people. I have watched many films like this where I may not agree with the cause or politics of the characters but at least in better movies of this kind I can relate or at least empathize with at least one or some of them. Even though this film uses flashbacks to set up the characters you don't get to know any of them. Those scenes are used to set up and justify their actions which we know is the blowing up of the pipeline. There is no suspense because I didn't care for characters. They are just stereotypes as opposed to fleshed out characters. Each character seems like a bumper sticker representing a particular grievance. This film wants the audience to think about how deep the message is but fails to create compelling characters to support the ambitions of their message.

The film is well made but is content with not really delving into the subject it wants to represent. The filmmakers sabotage their own message by being so superficial.

Grade: C-

A Solid Film of Characters, Plotline, Strong Score, Great Edits, Decent Cinematography, Character Backstories.

Positives of the Film -

1. The Film Doesn't waste Time and Does a Good Job of Immersing you into this Plotline with the First Time Group Meet up with all these Characters.

2. The Cut to the Backstories of all of these Characters was good, some were more interesting Backstories than Others.

3. The Score was Strong.

Things that could of been Improved Upon -

#. The Stakes were Light in the End and The Payoff was Decent Enough, the Film-Makers could of Ratcheted up the Stakes and Payoff with other Devices such as Character Deaths, Suspenseful Ending Scenes, Now-or- Never type Scenarios, One-Chance Scenarios etc.

Overall, it was Solid in Most of the Aspects of the Film-Making and Super Strong in a Couple of the Aspects, Particularly Score and the Edits.

The movie "How to Blow Up a Pipeline" offers a gripping experience with its consistently tense pace. The occasional flashbacks to explain character motivations fit seamlessly into the plot, enhancing it rather than disrupting it. The movie's structure keeps you engaged and surprises along the way maintain your interest.

The story revolves around lifelong friends Theo and Xochitl, who reside in Long Beach, a city grappling with pollution due to oil refineries. Their shared journey is marked by personal struggles, including Xochitl's disillusionment with her climate change campaign and Theo's battle with leukemia. Alongside Theo's girlfriend Alisha and a group of strangers, they hatch a daring plan to detonate an oil pipeline in West Texas, driven by their desire for more aggressive environmental action.

The film's focus on character motivations and backgrounds provides depth to the story, and the cast's performances contribute to its overall impact. "How to Blow Up a Pipeline" delivers an engaging exploration of environmental activism and human connections, with a mix of tension and thoughtful storytelling.

There are occasions when extremes need to be taken, in a world where there's so many to awaken, as catastrophe approaches, there are those that need reproaches, and reminding that, foundations can be shaken. Environmental vigilantes will not dither, to destroy, damage and stop how fuels delivered, if it's black, thick, like a tar, they won't leave the door ajar, as they curtail the poison, toxic, deathly river. It's just a shame that sabotage has to be planned, as the barons won't leave world's end under the land, with their fingers in the pies, manipulating through their lies, to save tomorrows, someone has to take a stand.

A group of motivated young people do what the title of the film suggests, and who knows what the consequences might be as a result.

In earnest dramatic thriller "How To Blow Up A Pipeline" a gang of angry, frustrated, twenty-something eco-warriors (Lukas Gage, Forrest Goodluck, Kristine Froseth, Jake Weary, Sasha Lane, Jayme Lawson, Marcus Scribner & Ariela Barer) plan to blow up a Texan oil pipeline (duh) to disrupt fossil fuel sales and slow humanity's industrial grind into annihilation via global warming. It's serious fare, as reflected in most of the performances & Daniel Goldhaber's second outing as a director - but in his debut as a co-writer (with Jordan Sjol & Barer) he cuts in background flashbacks with the unfolding 'attack' to help keep it fresh. It has a weighty tone, but is still entertaining.

The film is beautiful cinematically. The story and the cinematography go hand in hand with this film and seem like they fit one another like how africa and south america were once connected.

The film is about a couple of climate activists that find each other on accident and through already known connections they decide to blow up a pipeline to disrupt the fossil fuel industry.

The story of this film is amazing, the depth of the characters and the story is incredible. The story makes you think about what is an acceptable action to take in the crisis that we are currently in. And if blowing up a pipeline is an act of self defence or if it is is something else. The reason of the characters why they do it is brought forward in a nice way but can be unclear sometimes. Not why they do it but when the story goes back to explain why they do it.

It is an absolute must watch for everyone. It highlights beautifully the case for why to do it but also why it should be reconsidered and if it is ethical. The truth is this film is forward of its time as we are just waiting for it to happen. I would absolutely recommend it!

A low-budget environmental activist thriller adapted from Andreas Malm's novel, indie director Daniel Goldhaber embeds his fast-moving tale How to Blow Up a Pipeline with a documentary like quality that becomes one of the more memorable and successful socially minded features of recent memory.

Following a rag-tag collection of social misfits, outcasts and deep-thinkers on a clandestine mission to Texas to disrupt a significant oil operation that represents the modern way of business and life they all hold in contempt for various reasons both real and perceived, Pipeline is brimming with tension and a palpable sense of foreboding with its DIY nature and seemingly improvised nature fitting in with its goal to great effect.

Making its mark in recent film festivals such as Palm Springs International, Toronto International and Miami Film Festival, Pipeline's release in the United States earlier this year even caused certain warnings to be issued by such companies as the one represented by the oil company in Goldhaber's film, while state authorities in America were concerned the film promotes sabotage and potentially deadly attacks as a way to make a stand by activists keen on making statements, Pipeline is a topical and realistic portrayal of where we find ourselves in the global space at present time.

Not able to give all of its characters room to shine in a relatively quickfire 100 minute runtime, there are times where you wish you cared a little more for the action seekers at the core of Goldhaber's affair but whether it's Ariela Barer's emotionally charged Xochitl, Kristine Froseth's in over her head Rowan, Sasha Lane's terminally ill Theo or Forrest Goodluck's backyard chemist and grated Native American Michael, Goldhaber has at the very least created a realistic and believable bunch of players who represent different spectrum's of such justice seekers, torn by their beliefs and the sense of crossing a line you don't come back from.

Backed by a moody and experimental score from Gavin Brivik and a gritty home movie like aesthetic that gives Pipeline a feeling that it could have existed in the 90's VHS market, Pipeline is a unique independent offering that stands out from a crowded marketplace, without ever reaching any forms of greatness.

Final Say -

Rarely pausing for breath and harbouring a strong sense of purpose at its core, How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a thriller with a difference and a low budget offering worthy of seeking out.

3 1/2 low flying drones out of 5

Jordan and Eddie (The Movie Guys)

It's interesting reading some of the other reviews here, so many with aloof somewhat sneering tones that anyone who has spent time on social media will recognise, especially women. This film is great, engaging, thought provoking & I'm sure speaks to the many who feel powerless in the face of Big Oil. It has strong female characters & casting, & their motivations & frustrations, whilst plainly idealistic & unencumbered by the cynicism of older generations, echo the voices of very many young people who are understandably angry at the insane & degraded world they are being presented with.

Editing was great, cinematography & score were great. Not a moment of flabby self indulgence as we see in so many Hollywood films. Best cinema I've seen for a long time.

Good surprise, it achieves what it sets out to do, though I can't compare it to the novel. It works mostly as a heist movie: the plan, the plan-makers, the anticipation and tension as the moment approaches, the unexpected and the aftermath. It takes its time to introduce all the characters with brief but effective expository flashbacks. Everything is very well structured, we get to know them as we learn the plan, top-notch editing. There are eight activists who more or less fill the range of archetypes, an intense loner, a walker Texas rancher, a couple of punks, and so on.

There are explosives involved, so things get tense, though this is no Hurt Locker. It's more like a competent, mid-budget crime drama with a political core. The politics are not discussed in depth but they're adressed sufficiently and with a clear mind. There are some truly disgusting shots of refinery rubbish next to houses and city streets... This film doesn't claim to be the answer to everything, it just wants to inspire some thought, hopefully some action. A collapse is happening before our eyes and all lines of thought/action must be discused. At the very least, it's an entertaining Saturday night movie, is that inoffensive enough? I personally wanted that pipe to blow up all the way to kingdom come.

Everyones so angry and two dimensional. Dialogue often falls into arguments, everyone's always bickering about something. Its exhausting to listen to. In the movie one of the characters mocked a documentary showing how pipelines affected ppls lives. Turns out this is what the film makers should've done. They try showing this painfully predictable plot and tie in shallow back stories of characters inspired by real life examples. Reality is more fascinating then fiction, and its especially true for this film. Put anyone who experienced something like what these characters did in-front of a camera for 5 minutes, and you'd have a piece of media more interesting, informative, and compelling then this entire movie. Just sad to think what a waste this film was.

This is a really good film that unfortunately may go underseen. Just a few days ago I was speaking to a group of "die hard film" fans about this film and to my surprise, none of them had even heard of it, let alone seen it. I'm not sure who to blame for that, or if any one is to blame but I think it's sad this film isn't "bigger" despite having some mainstream actors in its cast. At any rate this is a well written, well made, well acted film that deserves more attention. The book in which the film proposes an interesting thesis and makes for one of the more interesting "adapted" screenplays to come along in a good while.

A group of environmental activists is set to blow up a pipeline. Each one has their own reason and the movie reveals a few of them in their journey.

The actual caper isn't the most intense. There are a couple of good turns, but it's not like the action in robbing a bank. The filmmaking is good and there are some good actors. This needs more supporting scenes. For example, the toxic rain story is very compelling but it's better to show it than to tell it. I do like the final twist although this story may be better served as a story of the two female friends. If one is looking for a deeper discussion on the environment, you better look for fair and balance somewhere else.