Civil War [Alex Garland]

aidanodr

So .. the premise of this movie is:

The United States stands on the brink of civil war in a near-future setting. The film stars Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, and Cailee Spaeny.

This could be interesting in the times we now live in. I have a friend in the USA ( Irish ) living there for last 20 years. He is very afraid that this may come to pass, said its very uncomfortable living there last few years, divided polarised society

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/12/7/9vxajlyqac7g4m5rjk3dnedihmr1y6

pixelburp

First trailer: looks potentially incendiary and will be interesting to see what the social reaction to this. They certainly don't seem to be underplaying the actual war and carnage that'd happen

California and Texas allying with each other, did I hear that right? I couldn't see that happening without one state turning red or blue lol.

https://youtu.be/aDyQxtg0V2w

Agent Coulson

Feels like an 80's mini series about an Alt America that I watched years ago on VHS.

aidanodr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121491208#Comment_121491208

Presient I wonder? looks well done and rather scarey. And I just read this:

"JUST IN - Chancellor Scholz: "Should the situation deteriorate due to Russia's war in Ukraine," the government may declare an "extraordinary emergency situation" in Germany."

silverharp

seems like doomer porn, and kind of cynical film making and lets face it, watching americans in real time is far more entertaining than any Hollywood movie can portray.

ohnonotgmail

The mention of a "three term president" is interesting

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121498901#Comment_121498901

Methinks that's the inciting incident that triggers events.

I've seen mixed reaction from Americans on this; much of it amused mockery at its reductive politics like Texas and California being sudden allies.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121499321#Comment_121499321

Maybe it’s a way to show that no political side is beyond nonsense.

Of course in recent years one side is way ahead of the other.

Flaneur OBrien

I only saw the trailer last night, I assume they chose Cali and Texas Vs the rest more to remove it from the current Dem Vs Rep war happening over there

aidanodr

Is this how it begins ..

https://twitter.com/NationalIndNews/status/1736877858633478598

silliussoddius

Yes, exactly.

aidanodr

So Reality and Alex Garland CIVIL WAR film are becoming more aligned?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d9agn/texas-vowing-resistance-supreme-court-ruling-razor-wire-us-mexico-border

AMKC

I just seen the trailer for this film today and must admit I was hoping at first that it was "Last of Us" season two before I knew what it was then when I did I was hoping it would be a series but then when it said in theatre's spring 24 I thought yes OK that could be a good movie.

pixelburp

New trailer up: so looks like this film's slightly bonkers politics has two secessionist states: Florida & Texas/California.

One does wonder which side in the US this is gonna píss off more, assuming it makes a splash at all.

https://youtu.be/cA4wVhs3HC0

aidanodr

I find this movies trailers very disconcerting especially due to the times we live in now. We could really have life immitating art.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121798893#Comment_121798893

If Texas and California merge as allies then it's not so much life imitating art, as (American) life taking suddenly head trauma.

Basq

Saw this tonight and don't really know how I felt about it.

A lot of potential promise, but blended in among essentially a meandering road movie disguised as something smarter than it actually is.

Liked the perspective from the press but it's a bit more style than substance.

Shame!

AMKC

Seen this today. Not great. An average film at best. Best not waste your time going to see it. It's not a film that you sit down and enjoy.

Could have been so much better.

A pity.

ancapailldorcha

Dreadful, anodyne dreck. One of the most tedious things I've ever sat through and I never felt the urge to check my watch during The Marvels. There's no info on what's going on, nothing about why the civil war is underway, or any background whatsoever. It's just the story of some journalists trekking to Washington. The trailer sold this as some sort of taut, political "What if?" scenario but that might have triggered some people so we got whatever this is.

el Fenomeno

I don't mind that the origins of the war weren't explained. I was expecting what felt like the inevitable scene where the older journalists explain the war to the younger journalist, but that never came and I wasn't too bothered. Though there was some subtle hints that the President just went power mad (i.e. the reference to his third term).

Granted, probably couldve called it something other than Civil War if taking that approach. Unless you're going to get fancy and claim it's actually about journalists' internal civil war (puke).

Edit: Jesse Plemons stole the show in his brief appearance. Thought he was excellent and incredibly unnerving and unpredictable. Had no idea how that scene was going to go.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012438#Comment_122012438

As a film about war journalism, it could have been quite good. I just couldn't get over the fact that details about the war were obscured to avoid offending American audiences (IMO).

el Fenomeno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012446#Comment_122012446

I suppose you could just look at it as a film about journalists on the front line where the bigger picture is not their focus and instead, it's moreso about (as the sniper so eloquently put it) "guys trying to kill other guys who are trying to kill them".

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012471#Comment_122012471

The trailers I saw suggested it would be a lot more political.

Agreed completely with regards to Jesse Plemons. It's a shame we don't see more of him.

Arghus

I thought it was just okay.

It's kind of amazing how completely unpolitical it is. Why are these people fighting? Who is fighting? What are the fighting for? How long has this being going on for? The film has nothing to say about any of this - it's not even interested. So it just is content to be an occasionally compelling action movie.

Bit of a wasted opportunity. In the end it's pretty vacuous and neutered whole.

~Rebel~

Honestly thought it was excellent. For me, what the war is about is just not important in the context of the 'war photographer' lens we're viewing the movie through, which is purely 'what is happening right here right now'. The movie is not about the big picture of the war, it's about those entrenched in the final days of it, and the absolute chaos and violence the war has inflicted. Entirely, and only, in the moment. And for a war correspondent, the two sides are 'press', and 'combatants'.

It felt like it was trying to represent the true feeling of war… we see them chatting away with people on both sides - sides that are often hard to distinguish ('quaint and curious war is, you shoot a fellow down you'd treat if met where any bar is, or help to half a crown'), just humans in bloodied conflict with each other for reasons they themselves don't necessarily understand or are not privy to.

Lee early on says that all that time as a foreign war correspondent, she'd thought her photographs were sending home the message; "don't do this", but that "still, here we are". I think that basically encapsulates the movie, and is the core theme, like "if images of it happening far away aren't making you think, then maybe images of it happening right here might?"

Living in the US definitely added an extra layer of impact for me for sure, but I felt it was one of the best contemporary anti-war movies I've seen in a while. To have started inventing political narrative that brought more subjective 'good' or 'bad' into it would have neutered that I think.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012438#Comment_122012438

Yeah I would pretty much echo this.

There were hints about that was going on with the president as you said with the three terms line. Also the fact that the press seemed to be welcomed by the WF, would also maybe indicate, the president went a bit power mad (FBI was disbanded and there was another line about journalists being killed on sight in DC) so he likely attempted to hijack the country."The antifa massacre" line was interesting.

Mad that Plemmons wasn't in the film originally, Dunst (who was also excellent) said the actor who was originally playing the role blacked out and Plemmons happened to be on set!

I enjoyed it for the most part, it was pretty slow pace wise but when it kicked in...it really did!

Basq

Fun fact - Plemons is married to Kirsten Dunst. He's fantastic in everything but his impact in that 5 minute scene was something else.

joe40

I really enjoyed the film as a straight up war movie, from the perspective of the journalists. I'm glad they didn't go into the politics too much but there were definite hints of what side the president was from. Was it just me or when we finally see the president at the end is there not a striking resemblance to Steve Bannon.

JP Liz V1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012438#Comment_122012438

Jesse Plemons is our generation's Philip Seymour Hoffman, terrific actor

Thelonious Monk

Saw it last night, it was entertaining enough. I found it hard to believe photographers would be able to just tag along with army kill squads though no bother. Jessie P stole the show in his brief appearance, the best part of the film.

Corben Dallas

Thought i was very good but ducked out of the tough questions… as in what did the President do etc.. its only hinted at like ..disband the FBI …decided to do a third term …shooting Journalists on sight in DC. Nick Offerman is criminally under-used. The film pulled its punches a bit, like it didn't want to offend either side of the current political spectrum in the US, it being an election year etc. It should have been a lot braver.

The whole 'War Photo Journalists just doing their job' to document Good and Bad, get a great photo and let someone else decide the rights and wrongs of it was good and could have been developed more. The cast is very strong, Kristen Dunst and Wegner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson (<old grizzled hack) and newcomer Cailee Spaeny(<the rookie) putting in good performances. Jessie Plemons absolutely steels the show with his scenes.

The action scenes hit hard, but they really could have given more background to why the US states left the Union and took up arms.

Worth a watch.

Spon Farmer

fantastic film.

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

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

Spon Farmer

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

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

Spon Farmer

He was at the very start rehearsing his speech.

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

dublin49

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

Spon Farmer

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha

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

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

gmisk

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

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

~Rebel~

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

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

johnny_ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

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

dulpit

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

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

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

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

Irish Aris

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

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

JayRoc

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

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

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

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

Fysh

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

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

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

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

Spoiler Warning

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

Shred

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

El Duda

Civil War – 8/10

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

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

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

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

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

Homelander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jj880

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

fritzelly

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

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

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

cdgalwegian

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

Spoiler Warning

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

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