Hilariously, this is not a political film.
As a photographer, I was at the edge of my seat. Every shot was as if the cinematographer was looking right at me and said, here this shot's for you. I was immensely proud of Jesse becoming a photojournalist and also taking everything on a Nikon FA2. So many shots I would love to have taken myself. So many moments where I just felt like the right shot was taken. Moments where I felt myself whispering guidance to Jesse. And it pays off in the end where she becomes actualized.
As a psychologist, I knew what this was going to be the moment Jesse joined Lee's group. A death of an artist, a loss of innocence, and a look into passion of art and storytelling.
As person, I think this isn't for the lighthearted. Not for the ones looking for political intrigue or emotional punches. It's gory, it's raw, and it's just about the mind of an artist. The ppl behind me hated this film because it was boring. It was not an action movie. But for those who seek the stories of the human condition, this was a masterpiece.
While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.
First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.
When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.
Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.
I'm completely fine with not painting the broader context of the civil war in this film. If that doesn't interest Garland as a filmmaker, there's no need to. The notion of California and Texas teaming up negates any possibility of this being a direct metaphor almost by design. His interest here clearly lies in making a movie about journalism and neutrality as symbolized through the character played by Kirsten Dunst. Together with fellow photojournalists Joel, Jessie and Sammy we find ourselves on a road trip where our protagonists are trying to get to the white house and interview the president (Nick Offerman). Unfortunately, none of these characters are developed in an interesting way, so that makes the first half a bit of a slog. There's still interesting bits of tension, but some of the writing is surprisingly stupid coming from Alex Garland. Take the scene with Jesse Plemons, which is probably the best scene. The entire set-up to that scene introduces these two disposable new characters in a way that feels like it comes from a much dumber film, on top of that it makes the Plemons scene feel contrived and forced. That scene has some fantastic acting and tension, but it ultimately resolves in a way that's unintentionally funny by using a trope often found in action comedy films. I don't know if Garland's consciously watering it down to reach a broader audience, but he's certainly not at his sharpest here. You pretty much know from the beginning which characters are going to die, and they're usually killed once they expose themselves at their most human. Going back to how that comments on the theme of the film, I think that's an incredibly narrow minded, childish view of journalism. The film even indirectly acknowledges how taking pictures is a process of selection; there's bias involved there, it isn't neutral or simply something left for a reader to interpret. Combined with the general portrayal of the journalists as opportunistic assholes (look no further than the cheesy note this film ends on), this movie often fails to strike a chord that feels truthful. I could go into all the other small details that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. aren't there a ton of escape routes underneath the white house?), but instead I'll just leave it there. I enjoyed Dunst's and McKinley Henderson's performances (the other two aren't quite as strong) and the third act is an engaging set piece for as long as you don't put too much thought into it. Technically, it's fine. There's some beautiful visual moments but I wouldn't say it looks better than Devs or Annihilation. Rob Hardy does some interesting things with objects coming in and out of focus to reflect the main characters, but in terms of colour and composition I expect a little better from him. The music choices didn't work at all for me, I found the juxtaposition way too jarring. There's this De La Soul needle drop when someone's being executed and I'm still baffled what that scene's trying to communicate tonally. Still, I enjoyed the sound design and strong use of silence, especially during the more intense scenes. Overall, if this is A24's interpretation of what a blockbuster should be going forward, they probably shouldn't bother. I'm astounded by how much of this doesn't work. It's simultaneously too watered down to work as art and not fun enough to work as entertainment. For something that's tainted to be the 'most controversial movie of the year', it's too forgettable to leave a real impression.
4/10
Just saw the trailer and I had no idea Jesse Plemons is in it, I jumped out of the seat when he appeared. It's crazy how criminally underrated Jesse Plemons is as an actor, every time this man is on screen I get chills.
The movie is not a bad movie. But it’s not about a Civil War. The marketing was very misleading.
It’s a movie about war photographers and being detached from what’s happening. It’s a movie about not getting involved.
Now I want to actually watch a movie about American Civil war set in modern times, cause this wasn’t it.
People seem to be mislabeling this movie as “apolitical” because it doesn’t say “HEY THIS IS TRUMP!” or “LOOK AT THE BLUE STATES” or whatever but overall it is better for it. It shies away from being eye rolly and just presents a terrifying world at war and the people tasked with documenting it. I think the people upset about it “not picking a side” are the ones that think we are living this reality now and this movie is showing how things could be much worse.
"No one's giving us orders, man. Someone's trying to kill us. We're trying to kill them."
Quite literally the scariest movie I've ever seen.
I feel like you can always recognize a writer-director. Alex Garland's vision is so confidently realized here. Masterfully constructed all around, from the cinematography to the sound design to the outstanding performances.
I was struck by the way Garland advances his story and lends it weight using tiny, understated moments that hit me like a punch to the gut:
"300 Canadian."
"Florida. Central America."
The two star flag of the WF
Lee deleting the photo of Sammy
I never call a movie important, but I think this one might be.
The title is bait and the trailers are misleading, but this is still a pretty good movie about journalism and the personal realities of war in a setting close enough to touch.
The part with Jesse Plemons was one of the most nerve-wracking scenes I’ve seen in a long time
Also want to give props to the sound design. In my theater every single bullet was LOUD and impactful. I honestly jumped in my seat a few times just from getting startled by the gunshots after more quiet moments.
I think people complaining about the choice not to elaborate on the politics behind the civil war are kind of missing the point. War on the ground is not political. It's people killing people trying to kill them (and often killing anyone they happen to run across, combatant or not). No ideology can rationalize slaughter. This isn't a film about why a war breaks out. It's about life and death in a war zone, but instead of a third-world country we can feel superior to, it's the formerly United States of America.
This movie is not about a civil war in America. It's about war photojournalism, backdropped by a completely wasted concept.
Stunning. Alex Garland take a bow. Nods to Black Hawk Down and Deliverance. Right up there with Apocalypse Now. I look forward to watching this again and again.
Great movie that is essentially a character study of journalists is war time. Fantastic performances from the lead actors - particularly Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny.
As a person who is not American, it was scary and unsettling to think that whilst this is a fictional film an event like this could easily come to pass.
The title “Civil War” may conjure mental images of combat galore, pulse-pounding action sequences, and glorious scenes of battle and valor. Alex Garland’s new film has some of these things, but your heart is less likely to be jolted by action than it is to be slowly cranked to a frantic pace by the unrelenting tension that is laid thick across the entire runtime.
The majority of Civil War is a road movie. Lee (Kirsten Dunst) is a war photojournalist who is traveling from New York City to Washington, D.C. with fellow journalists Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and Joel (Wagner Maura), along with a young upstart photographer, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). Years into an American civil war, parts of the United States are desolate, dangerous places; of course, these are the parts that the group must pass through. Lee and Joel are intent on interviewing and photographing the President (Nick Offerman) before the conflict comes to what they believe is its inevitable end with his execution. With a pretty on-the-nose deadline of July 4, the clock starts clicking.
Interestingly, this film shies away almost completely from political conversations surrounding the nuances of the larger conflict. The provocative title and concept evokes our national anxiety, particularly in a contentious election year, but then subverts what we expect from it in a fascinating way. We hear snippets of background, like a disbanded FBI and the “Antifa Massacre”, but generally speaking, it’s not about who did what to start the war — instead, it’s about the war already in progress, and how it has devastated the country. Rather than investigating the division between Republican and Democrat, Garland (ironically, a British filmmaker) is much more interested in the human response to war. The film is a series of vignettes illustrating this point as the journalists come across various set pieces throughout their journey to D.C. In Pennsylvania, a small group of men have taken command of a gas station and string up looters in the car wash; in West Virginia, an entire town is going about their business as though the war is not happening; and in what is undoubtedly the most tense sequence in the film, just outside of Charlottesville, VA, our group is held up by several nationalist soldiers digging a mass grave filled with those they deem un-American.
Alex Garland creates an interesting take on the idea of an American civil war by examining it through the lens of a group of journalists. Rather than an extravaganza of CGI battles, this begs for a much more grounded and practical approach to the conflict, which is exactly what we get. It puts the disquieting notion of what a war-torn United States could look like front and center without gratuitous spectacle to cushion the blow. I couldn’t help but reflect on the way the 2023 Academy-Award-winning documentary 20 Days in Mariupol made me feel; I was deeply and profoundly disturbed by that film, but months later, I am able to mentally demarcate those events and images in Ukraine as being halfway across the globe. I am safe from them. Civil War forced me to consider: what if they weren’t, and I wasn’t?
With Civil War, Alex Garland has reached into an all-too-plausible future and pulled out a nauseatingly anxious portrait of an America that has fallen. The public discourse surrounding this movie is undoubtedly hurtling towards contentious debates, and with intentionally vague in-text politics, it’s relatively easy for almost anyone to claim that this film justifies their current political ideology and intolerances; one can readily adjust who is “us” and who is “them”. This dichotomy sounds divisive, but if the sides are so easily characterized as one or the other, doesn’t that actually mean that they’re much closer than you’d think?
In investigating our differences, Garland has made a poignant argument — and perhaps a desperate plea — that Americans are, maybe, more alike than we are different.
If it looks even slightly interesting to you, please get out of this comment section and just watch it. While the politics in this movie are intentionally vague, they're also very not at the same time. As soon as you involve politics, you become politics, and two or three podcasts later you're suddenly the worst thing ever. Just watch it and decide for yourself.
An unsettling and bold war movie taken place in the U.S. This movie should make a U.S. citizen uncomfortable to see what our world could look like if what other countries faced (or is currently facing) happened on our own turf. Great movie to see in IMAX. WARNING: If you are sensitive to war violence this movie may not be for you.
Unfortunately; this movie plot could come true. I'm not sure how to anticipate the release of this movie. Propaganda? Awakening?:thinking:
Not at all what I thought this film would be. Here I was thinking it would be a typical apocalypse type film going into detail about the civil war plot and following a group of activists, but instead it follows closely a group of journalists on the front lines as they travel to the heart of it all to get a story from a main source. There is very little about whats going on around them and more on the importance of taking photos and getting full info from the scene and how beauty can be found in anything. This is more of a artistic piece that portrays amazing filming and slow motion impact moments.
"There is no version of this that isn't a mistake. I know. Because I'm it."
Some of the song choices were whack, but driving through the burning forest to "Breakers Roar" had me crying.
Don't miss the credits. That photo... chills.
Good in terms of cinematography, lacking in terms of politics. I felt the title and trailers were very misleading, painting the movie about a political dive into a country that's divided. Thats not what this movie is. Rather, it's more a road trip film through a war torn America (for the movie's purpose it could literally be any war). The shots and scenes were striking and sharp. The characters were decent. But by the end it kinda felt it was lacking a message, leaving only a vague feeling that the movie treats journalists as heroes, and violence of any kind as bad, with an unspoken statement of "always just fall in line with the establishment no matter what because conflict bad" which is politically tone deaf in 2024. The premise of the film had really set it up to be an interesting political dive into the often unclear lines in politics. Instead we got a character biopic praising journalists. It's a solid film regardless though.
Alex Garland is a filmmaker who is masterful at his craft. He knows exactly what emotion to wring from you and the entire time I was on the edge of my seat. It gripped me, it gripped my humanity and made me look at what humans could do when all rules have been thrown out the window. We are a vile, vile species and what we do to each other is disgusting.
Beautifully shot too. Some shots look like photographs, exactly when a photograph is being taken. When an actual photograph is being shown, it adds to the tension.
We're only shown how these 4 journalists experience it, everyone else is just passing through. And these guys are brave. If that is really how they act, out there in war zones, my god.
I love movies that can make me feel something besides just entertainment. To enact an emotion from me that is not just pure awe at technological adeptness of the medium, but to show me with mesmerizingly neutral yet horrendous content is daring. I am so happy films like this are still being made.
This was a great movie. Cinematography was top tier and extremely well acted. Reminded me a bit of the old video game, "Beyond Good & Evil"
I went in having not watched the trailers and I was pleasantly surprised at the complete lack of political commentary. I enjoyed that it had its own conflict and world, rather than being a political commentary on Left vs Right, which definitely could have been an angle to build a movie around in today's USA.
Characters felt real, and the world building was incredible. I loved how they captured the tranquility and prosperity of American life in the background of the chaos. It hit that this is not too different to the current USA today, just that the violence has not overtly bubbled to the surface as much as it has in the movie.
Some great moments ($300 CAD being worth a ton for gas, while the $300 USD has hyperinflated due to the conflict.
The scene with Jesse Plemons and the friendly journalists in the car when he kills both of them was intense, but the dialogue was a bit off.
There were some pacing issues in this movie, namely the conversations between Lee & Jessie. I felt these interactions were forced and inauthentic - they were a bit angsty and corny on a first watch, but in hindsight I feel better about them - it was all foreshadowing for the final scene, which was masterfully executed.
I liked how it ended, although I was hoping Joe would have got his interview before they executed the President.
This is almost a 9 for me, but pacing and dialogue issues in some moments downgrade it to an 8.
This beautifully shot and expertly edited love letter to journalists and their craft is filled end-to-end with moments of stand-out cinema. Not a single performance feels an iota less than perfect in this departure from director Alex Garland's usual hyper-surrealist style that nevertheless fits snugly into his established filmography. A24's latest hit is undoubtedly the best new film I've seen so far this year
No need for Reviews, comments, opinions, meanings! This Movie is just 'necessary'. Periodt.
This is the first movie from Alex Garland that I watched in IMAX. I enjoyed Ex Machina and Annihilation, so I was expecting some good and out of the mainstream trend.
But OMG, amazing cinematography and one of the best, if not the best, sound mixing for gunfight scenes.
Alex Gaarland is joining Nolan, as directors whose movies I always watch in IMAX.
On a side note, this is one of the few movies that I remember where the character development supersedes the plot.
Terrific movie!
'Civil War' is a blast from beginning to end, I enjoyed everything about it to be honest. It features an interesting story that is told with excellence. My biggest takeaway is the sound design, which is outstanding; literally from the first seconds post-BBFC black card.
It is paced absolutely spot on, the end comes around so quick; probably because I was hooked. The cast do great jobs. Obvious credit to Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson, they are all ace. Cailee Spaeny is my personal standout though, what an excellent showing from her!
Engrossing viewing. Highly recommended. Very much want to rewatch it already.
Thought provoking movie which could in the main part be classed as quite realistic in our current world. The feeling for me within the movie was "tense" which it maintains throughout - there are certain parts which increased my personally anxiety which i believe is what the director and team were aiming for. The violence is quite a challenge at times but at no point is it violence for the sake of it, with it always serving to further the narrative.
Overall i would recommend, worth watching at a decent cinema as visuals and score are excellent.
Civil War is a movie filled with striking images and heart-pounding tension, punctuated by moments of quiet and stillness. With stunning sound design, this movie puts the humans at the heart and center of everything. Based on the title and premise, it would be easy to assume this is a very politically charged movie with a political statement to make. I do not think that's actually the case. Sure, you can fill in the blanks with your ideologies of choice, but at its heart, this movie explores the motivations of journalists and the danger and horror they put themselves in to get the story. While it is certainly a war movie, it is also a road trip movie, set to the tune of folksy music and artillery. Kristen Dunst and Cailee Spaeny are fantastic as well. My only criticism is that despite there being an underlying theme and narrative to the story, at times it can feel a bit like disparate vignettes stitched together. Regardless, I think this is such a strong departure from Alex Garland's usual sci-fi horror, and we are the better for it.
The title and the poster are.. a bit misleading, IMO :sweat_smile: Nonetheless, liking the focused story-framing while providing a slight depiction of a more-likely-than-not eventual situation.
Photographers risk their lives to take a picture of Hitler Ron Swanson - highly recommend
Civil War does not care that you guys are calling it an apolitical one, because it’s not interested in exploring partisanship, especially when it does not, for one moment, stay neutral on the matter of war journalism
I have to contradict most comments here, this is a great parable on civil war and current society, not a story about photojournalism. Those journalists acting as a tool, a train driving through the story to show the gruel reality there: total numbness, inhumanity and resignation about the people and circumstances of the conflict. Only glimpses of their background and feelings are shown, apart from fear. Nothing is questioned, morale is absent.
Garland leaves his usual void to fill in your thoughts and it is working brilliantly here. No one wants to wake up to a reality like this, but the way it is told is unsettlingly plausible.
The director mistook 'vagueness' for 'subtlety', and seems to have accidentally made one of the least subtle commentaries on his own - and many Americans - flawed beliefs. Also, he's a failed war photojournalist who is making a love letter to a passion of his by recreating an entire coffee table's worth of famous war photos - essentially larping. That would be just fine if it were in just about any other movie other than this.
If you haven't seen it, I think you could best imagine it as what would happen if you told Ubisoft to make a 'gritty, edgy, hyper-realistic movie about a civil war in America'. All of those adjectives are committeed-away and this fictional America is turned into a politically-inoffensive Far Cry world where the story doesn't fully make sense, and neither do the characters. Except, in Far Cry, it doesn't really matter because you're there for the over-the-top gameplay. In Civil War you're supposed to be there for the characters, the story, and the realism. Nothing quite matches up.
Also, the action sequences in this movie play out like some kid recorded a Call of Duty cutscene on his phone and told the director to recreate the video, so it doesn't even have that going for it.
To give you a taste of how Ubisoft this world, Texas, Florida, and The Boogaloo Boys are the good guys. They're the good guys in a movie about fighting back against a fascist dictator who stole an election and ended democracy. In the real world, it's been three years since the real Texas, Florida, and the fucking accelerationist Boogaloo Boys assisted a real fascist wannabe dictator to steal a real election and keep himself in power.
What a way to both sides this. Stand up for your work, Garland.
This movie is like praising Mike Pence for not committing a coup, or Liz Cheney for not appeasing a fascist. Civil War uses deafening gunshots, gore, and genuinely harrowing stories to make people think that this is a serious commentary, but they're really only distractions from the many, many unanswered questions it raises. Because of this, it ends up feeling incredibly flat, a story about how we're deemed to repeat the same mistakes over and over, and that's actually okay. Aren't photojournalists amazing? Ignore the fact that it's 2024 and a single TikToker in this story would have more storytelling power than the entire New York Times and these nostalgia-driven awkwardly-justified FILM cameras.
It talks about how bad war is for both sides, and how both sides do bad things. But it doesn't, really.
The only - incredibly brief - mentions of any political philosophies other than right-wing liberalism (good) and right-wing fascism (bad) is descriptions of them as suicide bombers, immoral and directionless anarchists where men paint their nails, and vague mentions of massacres being committed by (maybe?) Antifa of all people. It's always intentionally - to the point of distraction - vague, so no matter what you believe you can think of those fellas as good or bad. The only thing that is certain is that they are not serious points of view and should be ignored. We will only talk about the right-wing here.
Otherwise, anything even centrist is totally ruled out in this world, it's only used as a way to excuse horrific acts by the right. Oh, those Nazis over there are murdering thousands of people? Well never mind that, this guy with green hair has a gun and my word does he look shift. They're the same, right? Let's never mention it again. Liberalism = normal and apolitical. This movie can't possibly be political. All the other commenters here wouldn't possibly be telling on themselves and their political beliefs.
There are literal 1940s Nazi propaganda films listed on Trakt. Not that you should, but if you go have a look you will find tons of Nazis on here commenting how amazing those dogshit - but very highly-rated - films were. We all have biases, and we tend to seek out media that agrees with our biases. It's important to take that into consideration when it comes to the ratings and comments here - and for what you expect going into this film. This is liberal propaganda, and was intended to be so by the director. He has done many interviews regarding this film, I would advise looking at them in conjunction with this piece.
Back to the movie, it portrays liberals as the heroic photojournalists from 'what's left of the New York Times'. We're then supposed to ignore the litany of war crimes these liberals commit. We're also supposed to believe their constant immoral decisions were 'uncontrollable' or 'out of their hands'. We are supposed to see them as neutral documentarians who don't intervene... unless it involves running into gunfire to get a quote of no consequence that nobody will ever need, or to nauseatingly stand around a dead body and pose like it's a deer they just shot on a hunt. They rubbernecked and inserted themselves into the story, in many occasions actively making it worse in favor of the fascists. They posed dead and dying bodies just so they could get the shot they wanted. They endangered themselves and others for no reason.
And, the biggest sin of all: not once did they pick up a gun. I'm not anti-journalist, and I think war journalism is possibly the most important form of journalism there is. But this is their home, and this is supposed to be an allegory in favor of liberal-democracy, journalism, and fixing the divide in American politics (whatever he thinks that means), but the main characters do none of that? They stand around a photograph Americans killing and defiling each other? They don't do a single piece of journalism in the entire movie. They're just making content for their feed. It's so depressing.
The only time there was any sense of bravery shown was when a journalist ran over a Nazi to save his friends. They never stop to think that maybe they should have shot him the second they saw him - an actual Nazi dumping civilian bodies into a mass grave. They'd rather pretend to be 'civilized' and observe - until very predictably it comes back to bite them and a man loses his life because of it. The only piece of bravery stemmed from deathly fear, that very quickly turned into actual death. How were they to ever know that a leopard would eat their faces? They were so civilized and moral.
For the rest of it, they might as well not be there. Many others here have commented that this is really a very personal story. I agree, except that I would add that it's a personal story about failing your country and your friends... and doing nothing about it. Nobody tries to do something useful. Nobody changes their minds. Nobody improves their personalities. Nobody even tries to do any fucking journalism. They just drive about watching their country crumble - in part due to the actions of the older journalists in the group - and their friends die. They are smug and self-assured about their clearly wrong believes. They watch a brutal deposition and lust in the violence. They have no plans for what comes next. THEY HAVE NO PLANS FOR WHAT COMES NEXT. A bit on the nose for NYT, isn't it? Overthrow a dictator and everything will be sunshine and daises and oil right?
The right-wing in this movie is responsible for almost every drop of blood spilled, both on screen and implied in the larger world. Both sides in this civil war were right-wing, with the loyalist 'Washington DC' side being more extreme. They tore the country apart because one side wanted more, and the other failed to stop them. It's the story of a tiny minority with weird and evil beliefs fighting amongst each other and destroying everything in their wake. It is the story of America. Unintentionally.
The director was too unable to analyze his own beliefs and - yet again - let the right-wing be the heroes and the villains. Media like this is why that orange fascist we all hate so much is being allowed to have a second attempt at a coup. He'll play by the rules he's already broken, right? Let's hope this particular leopard proves this comparison wrong.
I don't expect anybody will get to this point in the screed, but thank you if you did. I needed to get it off my chest, what a frustrating couple of hours that was.
Just as a point of interest, it portrays the Boogaloo Boys in this as some badass Seal Team 6 militia operation instead of the bumbling mess they showed themselves to be when they tried their actual coup. The real Boogaloo Boys are loving this, they are using in their propaganda. I am certain this will create a couple of new boys for them. I would say that sums this movie up nicely. A piece of smug liberal nonsense about how they are the good guys, while actually helping the bad guys at every turn.
The film, although set in a context of armed conflict, deviates from the traditional war theme to focus on war photojournalists, promoting a perspective on the work of such professionals. Through a series of small scenes, the director seeks to compose a portrait of these professionals' actions on the battlefield without declaring the reasons for the war or identifying the sides involved.
Each scene, individually, is well-executed, standing out for the quality of cinematography and an immersive sound work that amplifies the tension. However, these scenes, although effective individually, fail to come together cohesively. The result is a film that seems less than the sum of its parts. The main problem with the film is a lack of depth.
Although technically well-produced, particularly in terms of audio, the film falls short of a deeper approach, which could have elevated it from a mere display of impactful scenes to a truly impactful work.
The film, although set in a context of armed conflict, deviates from the traditional war theme to focus on war photojournalists, promoting a perspective on the work of such professionals. Through a series of small scenes, the director seeks to compose a portrait of these professionals' actions on the battlefield without declaring the reasons for the war or identifying the sides involved.
Each scene, individually, is well-executed, standing out for the quality of cinematography and an immersive sound work that amplifies the tension. However, these scenes, although effective individually, fail to come together cohesively. The result is a film that seems less than the sum of its parts. The main problem with the film is a lack of depth.
Although technically well-produced, particularly in terms of audio, the film falls short of a deeper approach, which could have elevated it from a mere display of impactful scenes to a truly impactful work.
Alex Garland is a filmmaker who is masterful at his craft. He knows exactly what emotion to wring from you and the entire time I was on the edge of my seat. It gripped me, it gripped my humanity and made me look at what humans could do when all rules have been thrown out the window. We are a vile, vile species and what we do to each other is disgusting.
Beautifully shot too. Some shots look like photographs, exactly when a photograph is being taken. When an actual photograph is being shown, it adds to the tension.
We're only shown how these 4 journalists experience it, everyone else is just passing through. And these guys are brave. If that is really how they act, out there in war zones, my god.
I love movies that can make me feel something besides just entertainment. To enact an emotion from me that is not just pure awe at technological adeptness of the medium, but to show me with mesmerizingly neutral yet horrendous content is daring. I am so happy films like this are still being made.
I'll probably expand this later, but for now I think the movie was good. The cinematography sound design are all excellent. but I think the hunt was a better movie. I think this movie's attempt to maintain an apolitical stance hurt it. not in the box office obviously. but it makes the movie somewhat of a confusing mess. whereas The hunt while satirical is somehow more clear in its messaging.
I think I heard that. Jesse plemons Cameo was done as a favor to his wife. because no one else wanted to. but having seen the scene, I'm not sure why it's not that bad
This beautifully shot and expertly edited love letter to journalists and their craft is filled end-to-end with moments of stand-out cinema. Not a single performance feels an iota less than perfect in this departure from director Alex Garland's usual hyper-surrealist style that nevertheless fits snugly into his established filmography. A24's latest hit is undoubtedly the best new film I've seen so far this year
This beautifully shot and expertly edited love letter to journalists and their craft is filled end-to-end with moments of stand-out cinema. Not a single performance feels an iota less than perfect in this departure from director Alex Garland's usual hyper-surrealist style that nevertheless fits snugly into his established filmography. A24's latest hit is undoubtedly the best new film I've seen so far this year
This beautifully shot and expertly edited love letter to journalists and their craft is filled end-to-end with moments of stand-out cinema. Not a single performance feels an iota less than perfect in this departure from director Alex Garland's usual hyper-surrealist style that nevertheless fits snugly into his established filmography. A24's latest hit is undoubtedly the best new film I've seen so far this year
Rated a Connor 10, normal 9
Waste of time, no story, designed for 12 yr old boys shoot'em up
Slate used to have a feature called "If It Happened There..." which consisted of tongue-in-cheek articles on US political news written in the way we'd cover it if it happened somewhere else.
For example, take this from the 2013 government shutdown:
"The capital’s rival clans find themselves at an impasse, unable to agree on a measure that will allow the American state to carry out its most basic functions. While the factions have come close to such a shutdown before, opponents of President Barack Obama’s embattled regime now appear prepared to allow the government to be shuttered over opposition to a controversial plan intended to bring the nation’s health care system in line with international standards."
Alex Garland's Civil War reminds me of these. The film uses conventions from Vietnam War movies, contemporary documentaries and, of course, the news, to make comprehensible a potential 2nd US Civil War.
The decision not to disclose the ideologies of the factions involved was wise, in my opinion.
Ideology would have distracted from Garland's primary points. Viewers would have picked a side to root for and been preoccupied with war fantasies and trying to guess who will win.
Instead, our focus is on the innocent civilians who suffer needlessly and the bloodthirsty who kill needlessly in every war, on every side.
Empty, completely empty of story, dialogues that have no influence on the development of anything, the film does not convey the chaotic atmosphere of war, it is empty even in that aspect. The weak direction brought completely disconnected and unnecessary scenes, sometimes it seemed like I was watching a film about another subject. The performances are weak and caricatured. Apart from two or three scenes, it is a completely disposable film.
Watching this film causes laughter, irritation and disgust. Maybe I liked such movies before, but not now. It's so far from the real horrors of real war that you can't even imagine! The real war is now taking place in Ukraine. Here, the Russians are committing truly terrible atrocities that the imagination of the best cinematographer cannot create. Genocide of Ukrainians is taking place here. Ukrainians are the only nation on the planet that was able to resist the Russian Empire and that could defeat this Evil Empire once and for all with a sufficient number of weapons and financial support. But the USA and the entire collective West betrayed Ukraine, betrayed democracy and the world order. They thereby signed a sentence for themselves. They lost the war to the Russian Empire without even entering the war. This means the collapse of the entire civilized democratic world. The next empire to fall will be the USA, but not the wild Russian Empire, descendants of the Androphages and the Asian Golden Horde.
This film is precisely about the future fall of the democratic world, which has already today lost its understanding of true civilizational values, "swimmed in fat", relaxed in a warm bath and lost its bearings... The retribution for this will be cruel. Moreover, this will not even require the armed forces of the united totalitarian world (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, etc.). Russia generously financed populists and right-wing radicals in all countries of the European Union, the USA (as well as in other parts of the world) in order to successfully destroy these countries from the inside.
This film is not about journalists. This film is a warning that the time has come for Americans and Europeans to learn Russian (and later, likewise, Chinese or Arabic) and prepare for the domination of the so-called "Russian world". Because (you don't know it yet) Russia forbids the native language of all the peoples it conquers. At the same time, Russia (Moscovia or Moscow State until 1721) considers all countries where there is a population that speaks Russian to be a zone of its interests. That is, if the indigenous population of some countries wants to gain (return) independence from Russia in the future, Russia will use its Armed Forces "to protect the Russian-speaking population" in those countries. Such a closed circle. Get ready, gentlemen, Americans, Germans, French, English, Japanese, Koreans, Poles, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Finns, Swedes, Danes, Belgians... Everyone get ready.
It shys away from anything political, which normally is okay but in a movie about a modern day civil war it just doesn’t work. The most political thing in the movie is the narration at the beginning, which intentionally explains nothing. It is a visually stunning movie and probably the best gunfights I have ever seen in any movie, but lacks in everything else
Civil War is like trying to evade the police: exciting at times, tense at times, and meandering at times. It doesn't always go where it should, but at least it has a spectacular end.
From the posters (I never watch trailers), I was expecting this to be more similar to Red Dawn, but then again it is an A24 film after all, so maybe Red Dawn with Marcel the Shell as the lead rebel.
What I got was closer to Apocalypse Now, which is not necessarily a bad thing, though there was some down time in the movie I felt could've been edited for tightness.
That cast was amazing, especially Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny and the inimitable Jesse Plemons. The message was clear and I felt Garland did a good job of not making the two sides too obvious, but still a little obvious anyway. It's a tough line to walk and he walked it well.
The third act / climax was pure fire, and I would kill to see the prequel to this!
(Seen in IMAX)
I went because of all the good reviews. Personally I found the sound effects awesome but I guess I don’t like to be left wondering what it was all about and which side did what and why.
Should be a limit on the size of reviews. People writing books on this.
I haven't seen this, but I've read enough about it to know that it's a giant waste of time. The writer/director chose to sell tickets rather than present an even semi-accurate picture of what's happening in America today. Only one side is comprised of white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Christo-fascists, and neo-Nazis who already once tried to overthrow the government, while having spent the past decade or so threatening civil war. Any comparison of the right and left is a false equivocation. Fighting against the fascism of the right is not the problem; the problem are the fascists. Yet, this film doesn't even begin to address any of this. In fact, they California and Texas teaming up, which is just a ridiculous proposal. This film is a pathetic excuse for what's actually occurring in the world.
Probably the dullest, most boring, underwhelming, and unimaginative pile of shit I've seen this year.
Effects are gorgeous. Guns are loud. There are bullet casings everywhere. Blood where you expect it to be.
Otherwise it feels like I went to an abandoned mall and stood in exactly one place and didn't move for two and a half hours. There are absolutely no other redeeming qualities for this movie other than shock value and gore.
There is no plot. Nothing happens. There are no characters. It's just these photojournalists driving along, some jumpscare happens, they stop and take pictures, and repeat.
California and fucking TEXAS for some reason are the states that seceded. You never learn why they do so. There's no details into what's going on. It's just stop, take pictures, and leave.
Do not waste your money on this.
"I've never been so scared in my entire life and I've never felt more alive."
This is exactly what I imagined an A24 movie in a blockbuster format would be like, mixing art with adrenaline action. I think Civil War is a good first attempt but it's not perfect by any means. It strangely doesn't take any political stances and doesn't try to be controversial – which feels like playing it safe – but I believe the point of the movie was to reflect journalism: "document and let the viewer make an opinion" – an idea also built on playing it safe.
The themes of journalism are the core of this and what makes it original and interesting. I do think the theme (and story) felt recycled in the second half though, it kept doing the same tricks over and over. A feeling that could have been avoided with more editing to tighten the runtime or just more creative ideas. It got borderline boring between the second and third act also.
The action sequences and especially the third act are epic and loud, excellent sound and special effects it all looked so real. Lots of tension throughout and even though it lets go of that tension quite often, it knows how to build it back up. Some shocking moments of violence. I don't get much of the musical choices, they don't fit the mood and it's just awful music in my opinion.
Kristen Dunst and Cailee Spaeny did a great job but the award goes to Jesse Plemons who manages to steal the best scene of the movie. Not a fan of Nick Offerman in this one, he felt off in the few scenes he got. A lot of this movie made me think of The Walking Dead for some reason, the highway filled with cars, the roadtrip, the encounter of new survivors, even the characters.
I just watched the trailer and it looks like syfy channel made this. It looks like :poop:. But reading these comments and see some positive reviews. I’ll give it go
So I was fairly on the fence before seeing this, but Garland for me has a pretty good track record. So first off, I enjoyed it but I have a huge bias in that I do a lot of photography and while not war photography there is some very relatable things for photographers that other people might not fully appreciate.
However with that aside, I think there is a solid movie here that while not up with the best of Garland's portfolio certainty a solid entry. Great use of sound and lack of sound to express points, some really great perfomances, including Dunst in a role archetype I've not seen her in before, but genuinely solid across the board.
Some really striking visuals, using the foreground and iconography of America with backgrounds that you are used to seeing in the likes of Iraq invasion and Middle Eastern conflicts, which when coupled with the great use of music and sound design really created some suspenseful situations and others with heaps of unease.
While only having the simple message of "War is bad" I really wasn't expecting anything much more from the guy that gave us Dredd lol.
If I wanted to watch something with genuine hard hitting war messaging I'd go and watch The Zone of Interest again.
Solid movie, but might get bonus points if you're a photographer lol.
It's ok.
Action scenes are the highlight. They convey the "realness" of the combat very well.
As to the why of the war, the movie is entirely uninterested in saying anything. Which is a choice.
It makes everything seem a little hollow.
Still. It's ok.
Civil War is violent and bleak. It has no moral center and provokes no positive emotions. The film is gripping, despite the fact that the title completely sums up the plot.
Shout by horoxixVIP 3BlockedParent2024-04-09T16:31:41Z
Terribly human, for good and bad, Civil War does not shy away from the message it’s trying to portray. The military action sequences are some of the best I’ve ever experienced, and in IMAX each gunshot rang in my ears.
The music was anxiety inducing, even during the calm moments, we feel the characters stress and emotions.
Fantastic film. I wish there was more explanation and world building so we knew why the country was in this state, but I understand the directors decision not to muddy the waters of what he wanted to say.