Civil War [Alex Garland]

Spon Farmer

fantastic film.

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

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

Spon Farmer

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

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

Spon Farmer

He was at the very start rehearsing his speech.

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

dublin49

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

Spon Farmer

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha

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

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

gmisk

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

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

~Rebel~

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

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

johnny_ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

winstonia

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.