Civil War [Alex Garland]

Spon Farmer

fantastic film.

Edge of the seat stuff, the Plemons scene in particular.

Other than Dunst I had no idea who was in it but a couple of times earlier in the movie I thought “there’s jesse plemons.” I didn’t recognise Moura at all. Obvious now but I’d l only seen him in Narcos until now.

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122016163#Comment_122016163

He was terrifying. A character like that could easily go over the top or be dark humour, but all through that scene I was thinking the are all dead.
Did not know they were married.

Spon Farmer

He was at the very start rehearsing his speech.

Didn’t recognise him until he started talking and I assumed he was a good president because Beef Tobin is the all time greasiest TV dad. :P

dublin49

Very disappointing for me,a few graphic set pieces ,no plot development,I heard Dunst said this film is a warning,I didnt see the warning,bit like a film version of the walking dead.

Spon Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122015806#Comment_122015806

I misheard “the Antifa massacre” and thought maybe it was a reference to an Arab city.

Didn’t Jesse say Lee took that photo when in college? So it was not during the presidents first two terms.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122023195#Comment_122023195

That sounds more like her marketing the film than anything else.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122023257#Comment_122023257

The antifa massacre could have been taken two ways as well, were they massacred or did they massacre. You could be right about when the photo was taken not sure tbh.

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122023463#Comment_122023463

well, however well or not it does its job, its primarily an anti-war movie (hence intentionally not making cases or providing big picture context for the sides involved), so her comment makes sense in that respect. Her character in the movie directly says as much when talking about how she’d thought her photography of horrific foreign wars was going back home as a warning “don’t do this”, which had clearly failed.

johnny_ultimate

A bland shrug of a film on the whole, with nothing really interesting to say… or anything at all, frankly.

I get that it’s meant to be challenging American and Western audiences to consider the idea of how we wouldn’t be desensitised to images from war zones if it was happening on our doorsteps… but, OK? Not really sure the film develops that basic idea in any interesting or engaging way. Indeed, its vision of journalism is rather bizarre. The characters here seem far more interested in a stunt interview and ‘money shot’ than they are in documenting and reporting the atrocities and injustices they encounter along the way (even those inflicted on their own friends and colleagues). One major character doesn’t seem to have much journalistic motivation at all beyond being an adrenaline junkie. Which doesn’t really track with the idea of it being a tribute to the act of conflict journalism or photo journalism. It’s all just rather confused and shallow, which isn’t great when the journalism angle is really the only thing to grab onto. It goes without saying that there’s no hint whatsoever as to how the press is regarded in this world, as they seem to be welcomed or protected by virtually everyone bar the odd rogue psychopath or sniper.

I don’t think a film needs to be a screed, but Jesus this apolitical nothingness makes it pure Hollywood fantasy rather than anything based in actual reality. Indeed, the fact it uses the language and iconography of modern ideological division (including stock footage from Andy **** Ngo) and then abstracts it out into a nonsensical conflict that is explored in no way, shape or form other than as a vehicle for action setpieces is in itself taking a political stance: and it’s a timid one. I’ll credit AA Dowd on letterboxd as describing this film not as ‘bothsidesism’ but rather ‘nosidesism’. There’s just nothing there. Made me just want to rewatch something like The Battle of Algiers instead: films with courage and conviction.

It might have gotten away with its thematic emptiness if it was a decent action thriller or character study - but alas it fails there too despite some scattered effective setpieces (the Plemmons one mainly) and fine performances (Kirsten Dunst innocent). It all looked oddly flat and cheap to me, with barely a memorable image in it (ironically for a film that, if it’s about anything, is about the act of creating memorable images). But the writing and dialogue was often atrocious. There’s a sequence around 30 mins in where two characters clunkily discuss an ethical dilemma where I was immediately like ‘that surely is the film’s ending’. And rest assured… I’ve no problem with foreshadowing as a dramatic device, but god it has to be done well.

Credit where it’s due though: it’s not as noxiously awful as Men. Nor is it any good, though.

Not the worst but far from his best. Some sound from IMAX in blanch. Seemed more of a take on war correspondents but not a very good one. 2/5. Plemons was the only memorable thing in it.

dulpit

I really enjoyed this movie. There definitely is something weird about seeing war scenes but in a modern America rather than in the middle east or Africa or wherever. I found the action scenes largely excellent, some very tense moments too.

I also found the end piece quite good. Again, the mismatch between what we're used to seeing from the news versus the likes of the attacking army fighting the secret service and the beast limo was striking.

Jesse Plemmons was excellent, but he always is. The set piece with the snipers was great too.

One thing I'd be interested in would be like a companion extra, a fake documentary of how the war started and stuff. We didn't see much/anything as to what caused it, I'd have liked more there.

Irish Aris

I'm on the positive side as well, really liked it and it worked well in the Cineworld IMAX screen, sound especially.

There is an element of just being in the moment with Alex Garland's stories, with not much consideration on the before and after. And his stories also seem to have a video-gamey approach (and i understand that he has written for video games too??) - and his direction drifts occasionally in that territory. It works for me on most occasions, and it worked here. For all the open world (video-game pun intended 😜 ) it gave me claustrophobic vibes at times. Camera angles were interesting too. Nothing exceptional on performances, though I am intrigued on where Kirsten Dunst takes her career.

JayRoc

Went in expecting very little but was pleasantly surprised. Excellent flick. As mentioned the scene with Jesse Plimons was one of the standouts.

I didn't need any backstory on how the war started, personally. There were a few hints if you paid attention (like the reference to the Antifa massacre and that journalists were being targeted by government forces) but I didn't feel it was necessary to enjoy the film.

I did wonder how likely it was that soldiers would happily drag a trio of journalists with them through a firefight, though

(One downside I noticed was that my cinema's soundsystem couldn't handle a lot of the sound effects, though. The speakers were nearly coming off the wall a few times)

Fysh

I saw this on Saturday eve and have been chewing it over a bit since.

Overall I thought it was somewhere between good and very good; its main fault IMO is that it seemed to change its mind about what kind of film it was in the last 20 minutes or so, shifting from something more ambiguous to a straight-up war film, in a manner whose intent makes sense but whose effectiveness falls flat. Frankly the more interesting parts were along the way, and as others have said the Jessie Plemons scene was electrifying.

The more I have thought about it the more this feels like something that would have been better as a series, in that it would have provided more space for the various ideas that crop up to be examined more.

As to the film itself, I think as is it's good albeit flawed - I'd have had a much higher opinion of it if it had simply ended

Spoiler Warning

after the scene where Lee & co. meet the WF and hand over Sammy's corpse for burial, Joe has his rant about how they're too late and Sammy died for nothing, and then we see Joe's silent grief-rage as he screams while the tanks roll out behind him.

Shred

I liked it a lot, it’s quite tense at times, none more so tag that section with Jesse Plemmons, phenomenal stuff. It also features some of the best gun battles I’ve seen at the cinema since maybe Heat or Saving Private Ryan, at least from a sound perspective. Overall I’d give it 8/10 and I really hope they don’t do sequels or a bloody prequel, let it sit as is with its various questions dangling.

El Duda

Civil War – 8/10

Enjoyed this a lot. The first hour was much more character driven than I expected, but the second hour delivers some of the most visceral and intense scenes I’ve seen in the cinema so far this year. I found myself whispering “**** hell” under my breath several times.

It has so many memorable moments and bits of imagery. The dilapidated stadium covered in graffiti, the De La Soul needle drop and the Jesse Plemons scene are all excellent, but the scene where they play ‘Breakers Roar’ as they travel through a forest fire is the stand out. A rare moment of beauty and tranquillity amidst carnage.

The lack of politics has been covered a lot, but to me that was the entire point of the film. It’s simply saying “If THIS is the end result, does it even matter?”

The film doesn’t show anything that isn’t already happening in other countries right now. The Bobi Wine documentary last year showed these exact sorts of things have been an everyday occurrence in Uganda for decades. Seeing those same scenarios translated onto American soil is bone chilling.

It’s an effective cautionary tale and I’ll be seeing it again while it’s still showing.

Homelander

Well I thought this movie was absolutely astounding, went into it not expecting much but it honestly blew me away, the direction, the performances, the combat scenes, sound design, are just all incredible.

It's a fascinating and haunting movie and honestly the lack of explanation re: the how and why doesn't bother me because it isn't the point.

We're seeing everything through the eyes of war correspondants who don't have a side but an aim, and the film does a generally good job of showing the grey between both sides, the ugliness of a civil war, and there's a deliberate and masterful ambiguity as to who the "good" guys are, captured particularly well in that sniper sequence.

As said above, does it matter? The result is citizen against citizen, bitter atrocity, carnage and near societal collapse, all of which the film captures really well.

Also the film does show a basic why, in that the president was obviously sliding into something approaching a dictatorship rather than upholding democracy.

It's also not just Texas and California opposing the Government, there's some other Florida centric coalition as well in the south-east states.

I would say it's not just a good film but a damn brilliant one, very deserving of an 8.5/10. I was very disappointed with Men but Civil War really delivers and then some.

jj880

Just watched. Great cinematography, sound and performances. Enjoyed the unpredictability of some scenes but found myself thinking "this is ridiculous" for the majority of the movie especially towards the end. Maybe I just have no idea how photographers operate in a war situation. I just couldn't buy into it at all.

fritzelly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122022892#Comment_122022892

Thanks, was like I know the face but nothing in the credits

Apart from that found the film boring, what was the story - a journalist's road trip with some killing and explosions thrown in

cdgalwegian

Like many high concept films, Civil War takes a swipe at modernity, and its values, but with a bit of an odd title choice; the title is not so much a a red herring, but a reflection of how values differ, and can clash. So it’s not a film about a civil war, but a rag-tag team of journalists with differing ideas and impulses, and resultant values, just like everyone else. Everyone just happens to be in the middle of a civil war, which is why the backdrop to the story is apolitical in the party-alignment sense, and even to the specifics of causal history. The journalism angle allows the journalists display their own values of integrity, as they take snaphots of how values are currently being played out, with the key scene that captures this right near the end when

Spoiler Warning

Jessie puts herself in mortal danger for an action shot, and Lee saves her life, dying in the process – but Jessie captures her moment of death on camera (does she not care, as she got her money-moment?)

Overall, this being an Alex Garland film, it is quite cerebral. It’s slow to build, but peppered with some great scenes, and ending in a flurry of impressive action sequences, with really impressive acting. First impressions are that it is a bit shallow, not really knowing what it wants to do with itself, where the journalism angle seems a bit stagey, so it gets demerits. But the more I reflect on it, it’s a really cleverly crafted film, and gains merit the more I reflect on it.

pixelburp

My creeping problem with Alex Garland is that by all accounts he certainly seems intelligent and for sure, his films lean towards a degree of the cerebral ... it's just at the end of it all I wonder if he has anything to say. Men was like this, and much worse than Civil War to be fair: an undergraduate treatise by someone trying to be a Good Ally without actually saying anything profound beyond "men are a bit shít", yet still made his female lead a subject of abuse and trauma.

And in a similar vein of emptiness, the hoops he jumped through to make this civil war apolitical, even if it wasn't a specific intent, was to leave the thing utterly toothless. Sure if this was a raging MAGA polemic fantasy it'd at least have a voice. Or the "both sides" camp, similar to South Park for the last 30 years, tend to attack both ends of the spectrum, ultimately píssing everyone off - instead here there was nothing. While portraying the journalists as of noble purpose kinda faltered when one of the leads was a bit of a maniacal action junkie.

Cinema is an emotive concept, we are visual creatures and so leaving the film with no pulse, with a concept fundamentally divisive by definition, in a country notedly broken and fractured along increasingly clear ideological divisions, felt a bit cheap and ... well, kinda cowardly.

_CreeD_

I thought it was a decent enough flick, a solid 7 out of 10. Well made overall and harrowing in places but it has some very odd paradoxical approaches imho.

I liked that it wasn't a classical war movie and more about this human aspect but at the same time that also felt muted because of how jaded the characters were. Nothing ever hit them hard emotionally so it was the same for me.

I liked that he stayed away from explicitly calling out any one of the US political tribes other than the starting speech being very Trumpian but mashing up California and Texas into the main opposition coalition was a clumsy way to enforce this.

Things like that got in the way of just enjoying the movie itself. At least up until the very end where imho it just falls apart in a really badly choreographed saviour scene where what little emotional attachment you had through the main characters completely disappears.

thinkabouit

Thought it was unbelievably good, really grabbed my attention & never let go.

Even if it was another 2 hrs long id say It wouldn’t have bothered me at all, the ending was top class.

Felt so real & the gun battles felt like you were right there in the thick of it.

A film that every politician needs to see.

Sleepy

I thought there were rather subtle hints throughout that the president was a stand-in for Trump. It made me wonder if there was a directors cut somewhere that's more political but that got neutered by the studio…

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242415#Comment_122242415

There were undoubtedly inflections, but the overall picture of civil conflict felt very vague and handwavy as well; such that I'm not sure the studio has any say here. The Texan and Californian alliance felt too ludicrous and abstracted to make it seem like the entirety was anything but intentional.

RoboRat

I liked it. I think they pushed it as far as they could without stirring ****. The 3 term president was very much a warning about electing egomaniacs. I liked that for a vast part of the movie, you didn't know who was right, and who was wrong and they didn't try to address this. I assumed the insurgents were the 'baddies' and then there was the whole what type of American are you?

The Jesse Plemmons scene was fantastic and he really played the judge, jury and executioner so well.

Dogsdodogsstuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242141#Comment_122242141

I don’t understand your issue. Is it that it is intentionally apolitical?

Having Florida and Texas on the same side made it 100% clear, not open to ambiguity, that the movie was absolutely apolitical intentionally. I know some people didn’t like this unsubtle punch in the face way of doing it but in war all bets are off and things that were once unthinkable become the norm.

After covid , I thought people would at least of learned that in times of crisis , what once felt unthinkable (locking people into their houses or within a small radius) would show that nothing is beyond possible when the sh/8t goes down.

I came out of CW just being horrified at what a broken USA could look like. With the dollar collapsing, as a financial adviser I can tell you the ramifications globally would be monumental financially and obviously geopolitically. And that was just a throw out comment at a Service station.

I guess if you go into the movie expecting some sort of side or sides, then you are bound to be dissapointed. I just found the movie unsettling, as it was meant to be. I don’t think it mattered how they got to that point or who was at fault. Like a good horror, sometimes it’s what you don’t see that’s even scarier and the imagination.

That’s one of the things I like about the movies Garland is involved in. He’s really good at creating uncomfortable environments and I find if I let myself go I usually enjoy the ride, if not sometimes shifting in the seat.

cdgalwegian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242141#Comment_122242141

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242676#Comment_122242676

I think the film might be accused of being overly cerebral, but suffers with an unfair comparison to Men. That did not hit its intended mark, but I think this one did – however it’s aim is not about having a message; at least not anything new. This seems to lead some people having a bee under their bonnet; that there should always be a clear message behind the narrative. Here we have an old message as a Freudian metaphor, repackaged as the witnessing of a civil war; the mind as a citadel under siege by barbarians. The veneer of rationality (democracy) can be overthrown by the unconscious id (the other, and their dangerous values) – but this is justifed when truth, or the perception of it, is on their side. Hence one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The use of journalists in the film may appear a bit on the nose in this regard; they are the metaphor for supposed objective truth. Except, in this post-truth era, truth belongs to the victors, especially through the metaphorical lens of the journalists who captures the fall of the citadel; hence the captured quote at the very end of the film. In his way, there may not be any new message here, but it’s a really clever delivery.

As a story, it was pretty enjoyable to watch on both an intellectual and visceral level. But it has real intellectual heft when the metaphors are shifted through. And I think that’s the problem. It’s a ‘badly’ chosen title, depending on your approach, as it sets itself up for failure in terms of the intended ‘message’.

In a perhaps too subtle way, there is also a case of the dog that did not bark here as well. In the era of social media, partisanship has soared – such that even before a war, the first casualty is truth. Yet there is little to no mention of it in the film. If there is a message, maybe that’s it.

Dogsdodogsstuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122242923#Comment_122242923

The trailers didn’t do it any favours either. A lot of people thought it was an action movie!

What’s funny is that as I was initially watching it, I enjoyed it but afterwards it got me more. The more I thought about a USA in that state, the more horrifying the movie became.

Been speaking with a friend who lives in New York for over 2 decade’s. I remember chatting about Trump initially getting in and he felt “there are enough cheques and balances to protect against an autocrat”. Oh how that’s changed and he’s overly pessimistic about the damage of what a Trump presidency will do to us all.

Perhaps that’s why I found the movie more unnerving. Regardless of any other message , that’s how things may end up if the rise of populism is not addressed.

delboy85

I watched this during the week. I thought it was terrific.

I quite liked the fact that we didn't get the back story as to how the war started and instead just got subtle references.

I'll echo what others have said in that Jesse Plemons stole the show with his performance.

Kirsten Dunst was great too. Had no idea that they were married.