Really enjoyed this film. Ending is very intense. The war is just another character in the movie that's still kind of mysterious in many ways. The film is definitely more focused on how the war is affecting people than the war itself.
A Gripping Dystopian Thriller Reflecting on Divisive Extremism
"Civil War" (2024) is a gripping dystopian thriller directed by Alex Garland, following journalists racing across war-torn America to reach D.C. before rebel factions. Kirsten Dunst's haunting performance as battle-scarred journalist Lee encapsulates the film's somber tone, exploring the media's role in shaping narratives amidst societal collapse.
Garland balances the overarching narrative with intimate moments, while Hardy's cinematography contrasts brutal realities with fleeting beauty. Even if the visuals and action seems excruciatingly real and original, the pacing issues and soundtrack were uneven for the pulse of the film. The film basically caters to our imagination of a country in civil turmoil.
Watch or Not?
"Civil War" serves as a somber warning of a country torn apart by divisive rhetoric and political extremism. Not all cinema lovers will embrace the film based on war journalism and the deep meaning it intends to pass. If you are interested in media and journalism during wars, give it a try.
Jokes aside
Solid DECENT movie - but definitely flawed. They completely left out pretty important story details, like WHY the civil war is happening, and motivations for either side. The most they did was make the president look and speak like Trump, but the movie didn't dare make any further commentary on the country or politics - you just get in the movie and you learn that Florida and California defected.
That's it. I'm not looking for side to be taken, but some development of WHY it was happening would really help.
Besides that though Alex nailed many other elements though. It felt real and tangible - even bordering on WEIRD seeing the shots in the movie , it felt pretty real and they didn't skimp on details. THE SOUND DESIGN for this movie really is insane too - I've never heard guns sound this real & accurate in the movie, it really steps up the immersion.
I also appreciate the deep plot when it was present. The commentary on photo journalism was a cool focus from the regular, especially shedding light on just WHAT these journalist go through. Kind of in the same vein as Fall Guy bringing attention to stunt actors. So that's cool!
Characters are pretty scant on development & Jessie is the victim of "character needs to do something incomprehensibly dumb to move plot forward." but besides that everyone was ok. My main gripe was the ending - What happened to Lee? They show her losing it, not focusing on getting good photos & just blanking and she DIES at the end and that's that. They don't explore her character further, why those things happened, nothing. It was kind of of an unfulfilling end, like Alex forgot to finish her character arc. I was waiting for the plot to move forward but then the movie abruptly ends.
Overall - movie was a fun watch, but definitely sloppy in more areas then I expected, especially coming from Alex Garland.
This was the third movie I tried in one evening. I quit the first 2 because they were boring af and just kept watching this due to a lack of alternatives. It's well made, love Kirsten and still it's as boring as the other two... Not worth my time and full attention.
Wow. Did not expect this. This was one impressive movie. I was expecting an average action movie with not so much of a story. What was I wrong. I loved how they worked with sound or the lack of sound in some scenes. Strong acting with great characters.
Best film I’ve seen in years. A homage to photo journalism and humanity.
I’ll need to give this a second watch, but my gut reaction is: I thought it was well done. Cinematography was utterly gorgeous and I think I like the fact they didn’t make it too political as this is obviously a touchy subject for my friends south of the border.
Very disturbing in some spots and the characters didn’t evolve much (at all?) but I think that’s what made it work.
It almost felt like an episode of the first season of the walking dead, minus the zombies.
As a non American a lot of context passes me by. While I don't generally appreciate American adventure movies, this one does because of all those brilliant photojournalistic snapshots that give a greater global human weight to the biographies of the photographers that this movie is really about. I'm slightly overwhelmed with thoughts and references to stuff I haven't thought of in years.
Also Silver Apples and Suicide. And Kirsten Dunst only gets better as the years go by. I don't even
What an absolute piece of overrated tripe! Starting with the extremely deceiving trailer, really terrible dialogue (sounds like they are having a brain seizures), zero chemistry between the actors, and the very very thin and boring plot. Garbage.
I'll get straight to the point. It's actually nice, but very classic and a bit boring. The acting is good. I was guessing what would happen in the future in almost every scene of the movie. Watchable but a little boring. Anyway, thank you for your efforts.:thumbsup:
some people think it's gonna be full blown* this is more of a perspective of a handful of journalists. watch and you won't regret it.
SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA CHECK YOUR EMOTIONAL STATUS TO ENJOY SOME MOVIES.
this was fine, a nice one watch and never come back sorta of thing.
Well, that was pretty rough. Since I haven't watched any trailers or looked up info on movies in years, I was completely surprised. I like how the movie doesn't give you the option to pick a side at all. We don't know why the Civil War started or who the bad guy is. We just see the conflict through the eyes of (sometimes overly) impartial war photographers. And it's pretty crazy. This is what it could look like and I hope it never happens.
Btw: the sound is extremely good!
If I had not read the description of the film, I would not have understood at all what the film was about, who was who, I almost fell asleep, for a narrow circle of the genre
This was a pretty good movie where they followed war photographers. They hinted at the reason for the civil war without getting super political about it, which I think was actually a good move.
well, in a word: silly. too silly to take any of it seriously, as great as the action scenes were technically. the only scene that resonated with me in even the slightest was joel getting upset with the TV journalists being so routine when talking to lee about sammy and the other two guys being killed. and the only scene i found entertaining was the one at the body pit, because of jesse plemmons. sometimes i wondered if it was supposed to be ironic like a scripted 'borat'. but as realistic and incredible as the battle scenes were, the whole plot just didn't feel real. who knows? maybe those kids who were in Hawaiian-like shirts could be experts in military operations. but almost every person felt like a cosplayer - even the pros, who I see included actual veterans. I understood what they were going for with the dilemma of how journalists have to cover such things while removing themselves, but it wasn't compelling. and I'm never a fan of the whole 'push the other person out of the way of impending death' shots. most times, the person who takes the hit for the other could have saved themselves too. it was so drawn out and dramatized. every other scene showed real-time action, which again, was the strongest point of the movie. idk. obviously the movie gave me lots to think about, but not with intrigue. I wasn't expecting the angle the movie took, but even with that angle, I expected something more compelling, similar to zombieland. maybe I'm too cynicical
Not a bad movie, I was expecting a little more actionand maybe a little more closure, but it's worth watching
Alex Garland is a gem in the movie making world, and this one caught me off guard. It was a total departure from his usual sci-fi inspired content, but possibly more thought provoking! Easily one of the strongest movies of the year so far!
Rating: 4/5 - 85% - Would Recommend
My heart was pounding through the last portion. Someone else called it terribly human and I think that's spot on. Draw whatever conclusions you want from it, that's what art is. But don't fool yourself into thinking people aren't fully capable of every moment of this film.
I saw the complaints about the focus being too much on the photographer before watching the movie. Plus I never watch trailers so I guess that's why I'm not disappointed. If the the actual civil war were on the foreground, it could have been another generic action movie, like those London Has Fallen movies.
The only thing I disliked was that stupid, cliché sacrifice. I can't believe a writer as talented as Garland wrote that.
I commend the ambition and creativity, but an apolitical stance on something that should be highly political is a bit of a letdown. It makes the entire thing seem hollow somehow. And yes, I know that the point is that war is bad for all sides. But saying something besides the safest talking point would have been far more refreshing and meaningful.
Not realistic at all. You will never see a group of journalists following a platoon like this. Especially in the middle of a city surrounded by fighters. The use of a helicopter and tanks in the middle of the streets is nonsense.
Not a fan, boring drama and suspense
I've seen a fair share of bad movies in my life, but this one hardly even qualifies as a movie. It's so... empty, pointless, soulless. Just a weird experience devoided of any real emotion.
There’s the obvious civil war that is the backdrop of this movie. Then there is the civil war within the artist to tell a story versus being consumed by it.
Far more boring than the trailers would have you believe.
Good storyline, with some gruesome scenarios. Good action, but probably more for the American audience. It's not the best but an interesting story about the Photographers and photos journalists involved in the visual picture stories of conflicts at home and abroad.
Very engaging, tense at times drama from Alex Garland.
He's deliberately made the film apolitical with no clear good guys and bad guys, and while this works for some scenes (the Winter wonderland scene, which is as grim as it is funny), there's no real emotional attachment as a result. Which is the point - we root for the photojournalists covering the story. But how did we get to the brink of civil war? Maybe Garland's point is that it really doesn't matter which side you are on, when there's no one left with any morals to judge who was on the right side of history.
It's a little tropey at times, but I was engaged throughout, and yes Jesse Plemons is one of the best in the biz at playing that cold, detached psychopath.
No character build up at all.No back story. I didn't care if the characters lived or died.Just a sequence of boring action sequences building up to a finale in DC, by which time I was nearly asleep.
Dull movie. Never really got going.
Wasted an 1:49 of my life! Dont waste yours, too.
Incredible. The photography and cinematography was purely incredible. The plot was slow but extremely raw. A lot of people want more backstory, but we weren't asked to choose a side. We were asked to be witnesses, like the journalists. If you want a backstory, then switch on your tv. A million and one reasons will flood over you. The acting was atrociously good, and to pair us up with such a different cast was genius. The score and sfx was heart-beat skipping, and the vfx, locations, and editing was breathe-takingly beautiful.
I wasn't impressed.
The characters had no depth and the story was disappointing.
It starts off well but then falls off a cliff in my opinion.
There are better documentaries from real war correspondents out there..
Let’s dive into the chaotic world of “Civil War” (2024), a film that’s as divisive as a pineapple pizza at a gourmet pizza party. Imagine a dystopian future where the United States is more fractured than a dropped smartphone screen. In this alternate reality, militias and fascism are like the estranged in-laws at Thanksgiving dinner—nobody wants them there, but they insist on showing up anyway.
“When the nation crumbles, journalists rise… and then question their life choices.”
Picture this: A group of journalists, armed with notepads and existential dread, embarks on a road trip through a war-torn America. Their mission? To cover the conflict, dodge bullets, and find the perfect Instagram filter for documenting the apocalypse. It’s like “Thelma & Louise” meets “Mad Max,” but with less desert and more existential angst.
“Civil War” is like a Tinder date gone wrong. You swipe right, expecting a thrilling adventure, but instead, you end up at a coffee shop with someone who insists on discussing their stamp collection. You’re there, sipping your latte, wondering how you got roped into this mess. The movie promises epic battles, but it delivers more awkward silences than a mime convention.
“Civil War” is like that cryptic fortune cookie message: intriguing, confusing, and probably written by an AI. In summary, “Civil War” is the kind of movie that leaves you questioning your life choices. As the credits roll, you’ll wonder if you’ve wasted precious hours better spent alphabetizing your sock drawer. But fear not—it’s still more entertaining than a PowerPoint presentation on tax law. So grab your emotional baggage and board this train wreck. As they say, “In a divided nation, journalists unite… and then argue about who gets the last soy latte in the press room.”
If you're American you might find it interesting and intriguing, nothing special about the movie, and the third act was dumb
Wasn't what I expected but I did enjoy it never the less
Lots of comments and low ratings by people who didn't comprehend the film...
This is a dark and gritty take on war journalism, set in a fictional timeline not too different from ours. This was mainly to avoid the audience interpreting it as a political message. They make this abundantly clear in the first few minutes when Texas and California are both on the successionist side.
Civil War would have earned a 9/10 from me, but got bumped down to 8/10 due to how unfathomably fake and immersion-breaking the "sacrifice" scene was (intentionally vague to avoid spoilers). So much attention to detail throughout the film, and then such a sloppy delivery of one of the most impactful moments.
Otherwise, there was a high level of polish from start to finish. The acting, effects, and cinematography were all top notch.
Needed a little more meat on these bone.
I was expecting a "what if" film of a Civil War, still enjoyed it
Much like the photographs captured by the central journalists, multiple shots throughout Civil War are truly captivating; a layered work of subtle world building with few exposition dumps that feels gripping and strangely real. Some will lament the movies restraint in political message, but as a boots-on-the-ground thriller about the mindset of vulturine journalists all preying for the singular photograph to summarise complicated human conflict, it delivers in spades. Toothless for those after a scathing political piece, but an abrasive, character-led thriller for everyone else.
You've already heard how good the Plemons scene is, I'd argue that it's worth the price of admission by itself.
they want more money for piles of shhh like this. I'm so disappointed in this movie. horrible acting, writing,music in unnecessary parts, pukile of shhhhh
Worst movie ever! I do not recommend it at all!!!
Civil War (2024) - :heart:x7
This is not a war movie!
This is a movie about the Press reporting on a war that happens to be in our backyard. And it's about the Human condition. About life and death. It's about endings and new beginnings.
Director Garland did a great job creating an eerie atmosphere - both visually and with the score/soundtrack. This movie is just a tiny glimpse of the horrors of war.
It is worth watching.
How I rate:
1-3 :heart: = seriously! don't waste your time
4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this
7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too
9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!
War is bad, Americans are stupid, and media cares about nothing other than getting you to watch what they produce.Didn't need a $50 million movie to tell me that.
I must give a 5/10 because there are many flaws. This movie is more about how a war may look like in America and the story of two photographers. But the biggest flaw in the Movie is the so called Western Alliance, California allied with Texas, laughable.
Ok we are in the middle of a civil war and thats it. If you go into this movie looking for a hero or feel good when it is finished, this is no for you. To be honest, this movie is kind of scary. LISTEN TO THE MESSAGES IN THIS MOVIE. Yes, it is a MUST WATCH!
This movie exposes the essence of humanity in moments and details, the good and the bad. Unfortunately for us, much more in the bad.
Brutally bad, bad title,casting, bad action, bad story.
In what world do press go into front lines with helmets. Never mind being the very front of the front lines.
Film shouldn't have been called civil war as misleading when film was about war press photographers having mid life crisis.
I'm going to pretend that I know nothing of what Alex Garland himself has said about this movie and his motivations while writing it. All I've heard is vague bad misinterpretations of what he's said anyhow and I have no interest in doing any further research.
I have a different interpretation of this movie. I don't think it's trying to be "apolitical" or be a centrist stance on anything. I'm not even sure it's trying to be much of a war movie as such or be a study of the United States and divisive politics. I don't even feel like it's a look into "war journalism" and I'm sure actual journalists would be fairly appalled at how they're portrayed and I'm reasonably certain that this is in no way accurate whatsoever. Obviously the movie isn't trying to be left or right wing and is certainly vague about party affiliations but it is also thoroughly unconcerned with trying to explain what happened that led to these events beyond vague, hand wavy concoctions. To me, the ending very much comes across as "you can try your hardest to not care but you will be forced to". I don't think it ends abruptly because it ends when the story does. There's nothing more to discuss because what would inevitably happen happened. The characters are forced to come to grips with what the maelstrom around them as they wade through the muck in the quest for their own brand of thrills. This is simply a character study of a unique set of individuals in an unusual and dangerous situation with the setting simply as set dressing.
Before I go any deeper into my thoughts that are filled with spoilers, I'll give my spoiler free opinions. This was an incredible movie but not without its fumbles. The dialog is not always good and some lines come across as quite goofy. But when it hits, it very much hits it right out of the park. The battle scenes are tense, the music choices are excellent and the performances are absolutely wonderful. Kirsten Dunst is obviously a highlight but Cailee Spiney was a revelation, not having seen her in anything else before this. Jesse Plemons' small role has already been memed into oblivion but with good reason because it certainly is one of the most memorable sequences I can think of. The movie is shot beautifully and it very much is one of the most gorgeous, well shot movies I've seen in recent memory. All that said, it's so hard to recommend this movie to anyone. It's not straightforward or plot driven like most of Alex Garland's previous works (barring Men that I have not watched as of writing this review) but to me, this would certainly count as required viewing if you want to watch a movie unlike any other with fairly unique subject matter and for a masterclass in building tension. Watch it if given the opportunity but do not go in expecting payoffs and action set pieces. This was an extremely thought provoking piece but I don't think it was for the reasons I was expecting. I think I will be thinking about this one for a long time.
Now with the spoilers:
The moment it became clear to me that the movie wasn't trying to be apolitical was when they went arrived at the town out of time. Joe asks the cashier if she knows what's happening around them to which she says "we're trying to stay out of it". This clearly initially comes off as the naive and arrogant retort of someone privileged enough by geography to afford to say that but soon after, the movie shows that the town has taken the violent steps to keep it that way and it did not come about by accident. The town is no apolitical anachronistic paradise but a haven that is enforced through guns and blood spilled conveniently off screen. In a similar vein, none of the characters by the end remain neutral or disconnected from what happens around them. Lee is clearly shaken and can barely do her job in the moments leading up to the invasion of the White House. We do know that she is not immune to the affects of her work but what changes through the runtime is her affinity for Jessie and protecting her as she figuratively passes the torch to her. Lee tried to move with the times and keep herself focused as she adopted the digital camera, struggling to upload her shots through broken wifi, as the new generation comes in with the old film camera to take up her mantle. Joe and Jessie can clearly no longer stay neutral in the conflict as they leave behind Sammy and Lee's corpses and direct their ire towards the President who they probably feel is the reason for their colleagues' deaths and they take satisfaction in almost joyfully covering the President's final moments. "War is bad" seems almost like a trite message to have to be covered in 109 minutes but ultimately that is what I feel the movie is about. It does not matter how many photos you take, the moments that will deeply affect you will remain in your mind forever, needing no reminders and war is a powerful force that will leave an indelible mark on anyone
Actually impressed with how boring this turned out to be. Marketing scum wins again.
I might have actually liked it if they didn't make me expect something completely different...
Could’ve been so much better. Lots of potential. Felt like a circle jerk for journalism in the context of much more important topics. It had the potential to be a character piece, but between the bad writing and inconsistent acting, it doesn’t even do that well.
The music and intensity is all this has going for it. War never changes. Here’s what war in America might be.
But there’s no way a photographer would be given that priority on the battle field, intentionally.
This was a great watch. An apocalyptic setting where America is deep in a civil war, yet the politics were never brought into the story. Just the raw events and the human condition. It was beautifully shot. The final act was high-octane military action. I loved it.
Intense. Beautifully shot. Really makes use of the sound design. Was ear piercing/gorgeous w Dolby atmos/vision combo for an at home viewing. There's a lot of missing pieces, but it nails the in your face chaos of war. This one leaves a mark. 8.0
Predictable and laughable. Who could have seen the cold grizzled veteran photographer turning into a scared child, while the petrified newbie becomes fearless in a matter of days?! The young fearless photographer is directly responsible for her hero's death... SHOCKER! -"Would you photograph my death?" Whoa!! What a plot twist! I love how Dunst pushes the young photographer out of the way from the imminent gunfire and then just stands there and waits to get shot in the back. Then once she collapses from being shot multiple times, not one member of the press even checks on her. The movie had potential, but the writing got stupid and lazy in the most crucial parts.
Lots of head shaking and eye rolling to be had in this one
This movie definitely has some good and interesting ideas and topics sprinkled throughout it. I can't help but feel like by staying so apolitical though, this movie didn't have a huge reason for being made in the first place. Overall, some good messages, but as a whole felt a little shallow.
This is how the world has changed sice Facebook started. Countries are divided, regimes are falling and people are fighting each other in so many countries.
It just feels unrealistic to many people to imagine the same thing could happen in the United States. But if social media companies are not held accountable, it’s not a question of if, but when. They will keep dividing society for profit.
Because people fighting in post comments mean more time spent on the networks meaning more commercials shown meaning more profit. That’s what their business is all about and that’s where populists come in taking advantage of this attitude and dividing society even more.
Civil war is not really about photographers, it’s just a picture about the sad reality to which we are heading. Unfortunately I don’t really see any possibility of us changinge the narrative. Really good and thought provoking movie.
There´s a lot of hint on which side is which, and i have an idea about it, but that's beside the point.great movie about human condition and journalism.
Trailer shows a very different movie.. just waisted an hour of my time (not watching it further)
The movie shows what it wants to show very good. The acting is fine. But not my type of movie, what’s fine. But the trailer mislead me into thinking otherwise..
If I could a have back story, like wtf happened and all. I would like this movie more. Now it’s just watching some people with a camera make photos of dead and injured people. Not my cup of thee thx.
Civil War shows powerful story that spark deep conversations. It focuses on themes and characters without being preachy. It's not about how the war started. Instead, the film goes beyond politics and dehumanization, highlighting war journalism, the tough choices of those who risk their lives to tell important stories, and the personal changes needed for such difficult work.
The complex characters and intense cinematography and sound create a gripping and shocking viewing experience. It's a tribute to a profession often forgotten, but equally a challenge for viewers to reflect on critical issues in contemporary society.
I've gotten more story from the back of a cereal box then this movie.
Alex Garland is one of my favorite writers / directors, and this is an absolute masterpiece.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
Shout by UnderDoggoVIP BlockedParent2024-06-11T13:22:30Z
The film depicts the challenges that journalists face in spreading the truth in the midst of the conflict in Palestine. Despite being based in America, the film effectively conveys the fine line between reality and drama.