I liked it until the old dude died.
Film Civil War (written and directed by Alex Garland) - in theaters on April 12, 2024
- Thread starter RedDevilQuebecois
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
You didn't like the final arc? Sure it was sad that he didn't make it, but his demise drove our remaining protagonists to go all the way.
It was okay but I enjoyed the build up more. The sequence where Jessie gets kidnapped and Sammy kills the soldier was the best bit.
In the final arc Jessie just pissed me off consistently which I imagine her naivety/adrenaline of the situation is supposed to but yeah.
An odd one this. Obviously, that scene is tremendously effective. I couldn't sit still and found it deeply upsetting. The rest of it was interesting, but perhaps a little flat. Maybe it felt so much like a potential not-so-distant future that was just a bit too depressing. Liked it. Didn't love it.
Is everyone still watching in the cinema? I reckon this would be a hell of a lot less effective on the small screen (true of all movies but think it’s particularly true here)
I thought it was good but not great. The soundtrack did not work. I'm fine with taking the politics out of it though I wish there was some more explanation of the sides and what they were fighting for.
Ultimately by centering three journalists who seem to have no point of view other than career advancement and perfectionist goals it was just empty. The young girl was believable but stupid. The rapid progression from shaking over the guys at the gas station to showing no emotion about her mentor and hero's death (which she directly caused) was a bit much. Kirsten Dunst was the most believable character and losing her nerve for a few minutes in DC was a good touch. Pedro Pascals non-union Mexican equivalent was the most pointless of them all. He existed just to prop up the others. He was capable and level headed but all of his efforts were towards getting a stupid quote? Pointless.
Overall the movie was fine and it doesn't need to explicitly talk about politics and take sides but it needed a bit more than it was. Empty calories.
Ultimately by centering three journalists who seem to have no point of view other than career advancement and perfectionist goals it was just empty. The young girl was believable but stupid. The rapid progression from shaking over the guys at the gas station to showing no emotion about her mentor and hero's death (which she directly caused) was a bit much. Kirsten Dunst was the most believable character and losing her nerve for a few minutes in DC was a good touch. Pedro Pascals non-union Mexican equivalent was the most pointless of them all. He existed just to prop up the others. He was capable and level headed but all of his efforts were towards getting a stupid quote? Pointless.
Overall the movie was fine and it doesn't need to explicitly talk about politics and take sides but it needed a bit more than it was. Empty calories.
I’m a photojournalist. ‘Civil War’ gets war photography dangerously wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-war-garland-movie-war-photojournalism-wrong/
Agree with this. Initially I was disappointed when I heard that it wasn't actually going to really comment on modern politics, but I think it's fine. It doesn't have to be more. But the movie was also just fine. I don't regret watching it, but it was just a series of things happening. It didn't really mean anything, or tell a particularly compelling story.
Also I'll thank you not to disparage Wagner Moura, who is a great actor in his own right and not remotely Mexican. Actually the Spanish speaking world was apparently a bit critical of his accent as Pablo Escobar in Narcos, given he's actually Brazilian. He was great though.
its a simpsons joke nimnom
Can you translate it into a Futurama joke so I can get it?
Thanks Eboue, I can always count on you
Finally watched this tonight. I avoided spoilers, but weren’t people saying it gave no reason for the civil war? Because it did, clearly, at the beginning: a Trump-like President suspended the Constitution by having a third term, then disbanded the FBI, and executed journalists as enemies of the state. Basically what Trump would like to do.
I thought it was mostly good, the ending was visible from space, and they didn’t explain why the hardcore , hard bitten photojournalist (Dunst) suddenly shut down and freaked out.
The movie was a series of loose vignettes that didn’t really add up to any kind of narrative. Shot and directed and acted well. Some great imagery. Ultimately empty. Not sure if it was trying to tell us about war journalism via an imagined civil war, or trying to tell us about civil war via an imagined pair of photographers.
Using Suicide songs was a really cool choice, in my opinion. This movie was largely/completely vibes based.
Probably would have been a cool series.
7/10 maybe
I thought it was mostly good, the ending was visible from space, and they didn’t explain why the hardcore , hard bitten photojournalist (Dunst) suddenly shut down and freaked out.
The movie was a series of loose vignettes that didn’t really add up to any kind of narrative. Shot and directed and acted well. Some great imagery. Ultimately empty. Not sure if it was trying to tell us about war journalism via an imagined civil war, or trying to tell us about civil war via an imagined pair of photographers.
Using Suicide songs was a really cool choice, in my opinion. This movie was largely/completely vibes based.
Probably would have been a cool series.
7/10 maybe
Last edited:
Watched this yesterday and thought it was shallow and average. Didn’t really find it impactful at all. Strange character progression whilst also feeling nothing for any of them. Not fussed that they didn’t take a side but it made it all feel a bit like background noise whilst these journos took some pics. Just didn’t do anything for me.
The movie Salvador (1986, Oliver Stone) certainly did a better job of showing the life of war photojournalist, and has some story and plot besides. Salvador didn't puss out on picking sides, like Civil War did, and clearly let the audience know who were the good guys and who were the bad.
I completely agree with your take on the characters, the only character who was interesting to the level of wanting them to be onscreen longer was Jesse Plemons. The young photographer was reckless and annoying, the driver was lecherous and stupid, Kirsten Dunst was tired and more tired.
There were some pretty cool images in the film, but it was kinda like a bunch of cut-scenes strung together, with the bulk of the story and plot left for the level play-throughs that happened somewhere offscreen.
I disagree with your overall take on the film but that's subjective, but on this - why does it matter? It's entirely irrelevant.
Calling the driver lecherous feels a bit like projection, to be honest. He didn’t actually do anything creepy at any point?
You disagree on Civil War or on Salvador? You disagree that Salvador was better and did a better job of setting the stakes? Just so I know how to answer your question.
If you're asking why a film about a new American Civil War can expect viewers to get invested in the characters and story without explaining how they got there, it's because it affects whether you view the struggles onscreen as heroic, misguided, tragic, or justified. With some context, maybe Plemons' character is right, maybe Dunst & Co. are wrong. Maybe Nick Offerman as President took a brave stand like Lincoln, or maybe he was a power-mad dictator like Trump. The events of the film are given weight by those answers, and because there were (almost) none, the film was light and breezy.
The equivalent might be a film about paramilitary groups in Belfast, scheming, plotting, struggling story survive, killing each other, committing atrocities and/or making heroic saves, and if you never find out who's on which side, why they are in this particular fight and moment, and which side has moral clarity, it affects things. Drama is heightened when good people are forced into making bad decisions, or decisions with horrible outcomes, even if those decisions end up being "right". Sacrifice and altruism.
Like, if we see a movie about Nazis, it's pretty cut and dried which side the viewer should be against. However, if a Nazi makes some altruistic decision, or you think they are having a moment of humanity and fighting against the riptide of evil, then you are invested in that character and their choices. If everything is grey, nothing matters. Then it just becomes a video game pew pew pew.
Just got around to watching this. Man, that was dumb.
Just watching this. It's terrible.
I thought I'd enjoy it as a kind of gritty realistic "I could see this happening" thing, but the whole concept of how it would play out is ridiculous, and the dialogue is cheesy action movie dumb.
"What if we pay"
"It was never going to be free"
"300 dollars"
"Hahahaha that'll get you a sandwich"
"300 Canadian dollars"
"Ok"
Can't remember the exact words but it was along these lines and this is not how two people would ever have a conversation with each other. The whole thing is like this and it hurts my head.
I thought I'd enjoy it as a kind of gritty realistic "I could see this happening" thing, but the whole concept of how it would play out is ridiculous, and the dialogue is cheesy action movie dumb.
"What if we pay"
"It was never going to be free"
"300 dollars"
"Hahahaha that'll get you a sandwich"
"300 Canadian dollars"
"Ok"
Can't remember the exact words but it was along these lines and this is not how two people would ever have a conversation with each other. The whole thing is like this and it hurts my head.
The writing in early season Simpsons was top notch. Unlike the writing for Civil War, which was dogshit.
It's impressive how up it's own pretentious arse it was despite being about as deep as a flannel, and having a script/dialogue that would be too simpleton for a Call of Duty game.
Yeah I fecking hated this film.
Would've appreciated some more world building instead of continuous long shots. Don't get me wrong, they're beautiful shots, but they're framing an empty movie.
Here's probably my main issue actually. The whole pretence of how the war would play out, and what a war journalist (and everyone else) would be doing in it, was utterly ludicrous.
Just go film some war over here then photo a man being set on fire, for no reason other than to get a better photo, then drive off over there to my nice hotel for the evening, then decide which bit of the war to drive to tomorrow.
Pretty sure war is just war. You are either stuck where you are in it or running away from it, and if you're a journalist all you can do is tell the story of whatever little bit of it you end up in.
This film either needed a lot more depth to both the characters and story, or a LOT more gritty realism if that's what it was going for. I don't really know what it was going for
Yeah, but what about racist Jesse Plemons in weird sunglasses?! So scary and profound, wow.
It angered me because I ordered takeaway and got myself in the mood to watch it, and then it was shit.
So now I'm going to have an unfairly harsh opinion on it forever.
How horrifying/powerful could that shot of the guy being set on fire in a tyre have been if it had even the teeniest bit of context? Or even was a random shot in a film with even a teeniest bit of context.
I watched it on a flight and maybe it was the sleep deprivation, the whiskey and sodas, or both, but I really enjoyed it. Garland leaves everything on the screen - everything he does looks beautiful - and I quite enjoyed the narrative. It chugged along at a decent pace and I thought the big set pieces were done pretty well. Obviously required a SIGNIFICANT suspension of disbelief and yes, agreed, crawled up its own arse a lot, but I enjoyed it! Definitely not up there with films of the year but a solid 6/10 for me.
Yeah my experience was similar to yours. Although replace whiskey with edibles and on a flight with in the cinema. It’s not flawless but it’s a well made and original movie that’s an enjoyable watch. One of the better films of the year for me. Really don’t understand how anyone can hate it.
Agreed. Also, wish I could've replaced whiskey with edibles on my flight!
I genuinely thought they were going to bring up her previous experiences again at some point, especially after her PTSD breakdown near the end.
Probably just looking for different things from it. War films for me need to tell a story/send a message, and also should feel real. Like this is how people would plausibly behave in this situation and this is how terrible being in it would feel.
The cinematography and beautiful shots don't do anything for me without that because it's all just meaningless fake imagery.
Also with this film in particular, even though its fictional, it had a lot in the "this really isn’t that farfetched" bank to create a world and scenario you could actually believe might happen and put yourself into, which is part of what interested me about it...and then it wasted that by being utterly unbelievable and at times ridiculous in terms of what was going on, and the silly "this is a film so we must all interact like film characters" dialogue.
Also at the time this was made really it was a missed opportunity to drum home the "this really ISN'T that farfetched" message
Once a red always a red our Jesse.
Think it’s already been said, but never have I watched so many gratuitously violent and sometimes tense scenes yet been so bored. Actually impressive.
Didn’t give a shit about any of the characters ever, was proper boring - despite the premise being incredibly interesting.
Didn’t give a shit about any of the characters ever, was proper boring - despite the premise being incredibly interesting.