Civil War (2024)

[jaztermareal]

At first I thought would be a passable movie but by sounds of it it will be an experience to watch. Sadly being a father now I prob won't get to see it on the big screen so may e won't be as impactful

 

[Wor-Gar]

Good question: is this a must-see on the big screen?

 

[nonametofame]

Good question: is this a must-see on the big screen?

Yes, 100%

 

[Mandible]

Very curious to see this. My only concern is I don't want a right or left "push" - I just want to watch a bit of entertainment, and make up my own mind for myself.

If it's not asking you to "take a side" and just experience the horror of what could be - then great. If it's challenging and thought provoking - then great as well.

 

[Mr.E]

Haven't seen it yet, so I just watched the original Red Dawn instead. Still good.

 

[Khev]

Very curious to see this. My only concern is I don't want a right or left "push" - I just want to watch a bit of entertainment, and make up my own mind for myself.

If it's not asking you to "take a side" and just experience the horror of what could be - then great. If it's challenging and thought provoking - then great as well.

You aren't asked to take a side, there are red and blue states on both sides of the war and the journalists are pretty neutral throughout in that none of them seem to have a preference on whether the president survives or not, nor is the president an obvious representation of any current politician. The movie does seem to highlight the value of the second amendment throughout so take of that what you will.

 

[Mandible]

Thanks Kev - now I'm excited!

Does it stay with you after you leave the theater?

 

[Khev]

Thanks Kev - now I'm excited!

No problem!

Does it stay with you after you leave the theater?

Not as much as I feel that it should have. Some of that was how certain parts of the story were told that took me out of the movie (nothing political though and there's no hint of "the Message" thankfully) and some of it was because nothing in the film approaches the real world atrocities of October 7th. Also, while its commendable that he carefully constructed the story to not be divisive the end result is that the conflict is almost *too* lacking in context.

Comparing it to other Alex Garland films, 28 Days Later and Ex Machina had much more impact.

But that final siege on an IMAX screen is definitely worth the price of admission.

 

[Mandible]

No problem!


Not as much as I feel that it should have. Some of that was how certain parts of the story were told that took me out of the movie (nothing political though and there's no hint of "the Message" thankfully) and some of it was because nothing in the film approaches the real world atrocities of October 7th. Also, while its commendable that he carefully constructed the story to not be divisive the end result is that the conflict is almost *too* lacking in context.

Comparing it to other Alex Garland films, 28 Days Later and Ex Machina had much more impact.

But that final siege on an IMAX screen is definitely worth the price of admission.

Interesting. For me, Ex Machina is by far his best work, so if it's no where near as impactful as that, that's a little disappointing. I was hoping with the subject matter it would be challenging, thought provoking, and confronting (attributes sorely missing in modern cinema).

 

[Khev]

Interesting. For me, Ex Machina is by far his best work, so if it's no where near as impactful as that, that's a little disappointing. I was hoping with the subject matter it would be challenging, thought provoking, and confronting (attributes sorely missing in modern cinema).

I think if he had given more insight as to the cause of the conflict and then made aspects of both sides sympathetic then that would have allowed for more of the attributes you described. Something to give everybody to chew on no matter your political leanings. But Hollywood itself is seemingly so incapable of understanding what is good and what is evil anymore that he probably did the next best thing in just not explaining or idealizing anything.

Which then reduces the whole film to simply being some journalists in search of a story while trying to avoid stray bullets along the way. I wish it was more than that, and maybe for you and others it will be so I don't want to over-critique it until more people have had a chance to watch it.

Either way the finale really IS amazing so it definitely ends on a high note.

 

[jaztermareal]

I am glad it lacks "the message" and focusses on spectacle over dividing the audience. Sounds like good ol cinema even if not perfect. Excited to watch it

 

[davejames]

You aren't asked to take a side, there are red and blue states on both sides of the war and the journalists are pretty neutral throughout in that none of them seem to have a preference on whether the president survives or not, nor is the president an obvious representation of any current politician. The movie does seem to highlight the value of the second amendment throughout so take of that what you will.

Well there is that one line about the President having "journalists shot on sight" which made me think this could be interpreted as a (much) more extreme version of Trump, but that's the only thing that jumped out at me. And ultimately it feels like this guy is on a level of crazy that goes beyond any political party.

And personally I didn't think the movie needed any more specifics. Although I will agree some of the directorial choices were a bit frustrating, like that cutaway from the gas station scene or the music playing over certain battle sequences.

Still though, I found it incredibly powerful and just as good as Garland's previous work.

 

[karamazov80]

Jailing/killing independent journalists is a standard move for authoritarian leaders of all stripes in any situation (see Russia and China today), so it doesn't need to be associated with a specific leader.

 

[Khev]

Well there is that one line about the President having "journalists shot on sight" which made me think this could be interpreted as a (much) more extreme version of Trump, but that's the only thing that jumped out at me.

But that would require a leap from the viewer that doesn't align with anything that Trump has said or done, which is much different from other films that put his actual words in the mouths of their villains. That's something that I actually found clever about the film; it does do a pretty good job (for the most part) of being a bit of a Rorschach test as to what parts that you think are speaking for or against your "side," though again, its so freaking free of context and a "message" that regardless of who is supposed to represent who there just isn't enough info about what's going on for anyone to feel offended or called out IMO.

And ultimately it feels like this guy is on a level of crazy that goes beyond any political party.

Agreed.

I will agree some of the directorial choices were a bit frustrating, like that cutaway from the gas station scene or the music playing over certain battle sequences.

Yeah, and

Spoiler

scenes like the burning trees that make no sense logistically and are so obviously inserted just to look "artistic."

Other bits that were too on the nose and even insulting to the audience like that entire conversation that Dunst has with the older guy where its pounded into our heads that the young girl is *just like Dunst's character used to be.* Yes, that was already painfully obvious, nobody needed such a long drawn out explanation.

Also the buddy who I went with had trained as a war photographer so I had to hear his rant about how stupid it was that all the photographers in the movie were constantly taking pictures while running or walking which I guess would have screwed up every single photo they took, lol.

 

[jye4ever]

As long as Shimo doesn’t show up for the end battle I’m good.

 

[Wor-Gar]

No ice ghosts? No frost monster?

Cool.

 

[davejames]

Jailing/killing independent journalists is a standard move for authoritarian leaders of all stripes in any situation (see Russia and China today), so it doesn't need to be associated with a specific leader.

True, but there's only one recent American President who's kinda famous for attacking the media, calling them treasonous scum, and banning them from press briefings.

But like I said, this would be a super extreme version of that, and is the only thin connection I could see someone possibly making.

 

[goatchumby]

I'll admit that I leaned into the concept for a fictional second US Civil War. But then they insinuated that TX and CA (of all states) had enough in common politically to band together

 

[Dave_W]

I'll admit that I leaned into the concept for a fictional second US Civil War. But then they insinuated that TX and CA (of all states) had enough in common politically to band together

Maybe the Prez wanted to take the guns away from the LGBTQIA+ crowd?

 

[Wor-Gar]

Seeing this today. Theater is surprisingly full for a Monday.