Civil War (2024)

[ScoutingForToys]

the journalists are pretty neutral throughout

Neutral journalists? Way too farfetched an idea for any movie
The trailer looked interesting but I had my doubts that a movie with this subject matter could be made these days without it being borderline propaganda for either left or right politics.
Alex Garland's involvement gave me some hope it would more than "orange man bad" or "dementia man bad".

 

[Wor-Gar]

Welp, just got home... and this movie is an interesting one, but I think I was expecting too much. It fell a little flat for me. Took too long to get going. Best scene was Plemmons, and I had hoped there would have been more scenes like this. The finale was good but, I don't know. By that time I just kept thinking about what I had missed.

I wanted to see more of the Mad President behind the scenes. I wanted to see the drama of a general forced to open fire on Americans. I wanted to see captured "soldiers" being sent to make-shift camps. I wanted more about the "war" and less about "journalism" (which truly was not very insightful). The one scene they mentioned that happened off screen -- when the soldiers guarding DC surrendered -- THAT we should have seen. Sometimes I felt I was watching "The Last of Us". I suppose if the "mock family" was a little more compelling I would have enjoyed my time with them, but instead I kept waiting for something to jump out at them.

Overall, I was sadly underwhelmed. Limitations of the budget, I understand. The guy did good for the money they say he had. But I don't like his choice of music interludes.

Again, I think I just expected too much from this. It's well done, and a frightening premise... I just wanted to see some different moments of the crisis.

 

[davejames]

I suppose it would have been nice to see other perspectives, but personally I found the journalists interesting enough. And despite the epic subject matter this is really an art house movie at heart (like everything else Garland does), so I think you kinda have to go in expecting a more limited scope.

One element I do wish we had seen more of though was the one-on-one, neighbor against neighbor violence, that you would surely expect to happen in another civil war. There was a hint of that in the gas station scene, but for the most part it was just soldiers fighting soldiers or militants through the whole thing.

 

[Mandible]

Welp, just got home... and this movie is an interesting one, but I think I was expecting too much. It fell a little flat for me. Took too long to get going. Best scene was Plemmons, and I had hoped there would have been more scenes like this. The finale was good but, I don't know. By that time I just kept thinking about what I had missed.

I wanted to see more of the Mad President behind the scenes. I wanted to see the drama of a general forced to open fire on Americans. I wanted to see captured "soldiers" being sent to make-shift camps. I wanted more about the "war" and less about "journalism" (which truly was not very insightful). The one scene they mentioned that happened off screen -- when the soldiers guarding DC surrendered -- THAT we should have seen. Sometimes I felt I was watching "The Last of Us". I suppose if the "mock family" was a little more compelling I would have enjoyed my time with them, but instead I kept waiting for something to jump out at them.

Overall, I was sadly underwhelmed. Limitations of the budget, I understand. The guy did good for the money they say he had. But I don't like his choice of music interludes.

Again, I think I just expected too much from this. It's well done, and a frightening premise... I just wanted to see some different moments of the crisis.

Go and watch the original Red Dawn... that will tick a few of those boxes you felt were missing.

 

[ZE_501]

Go and watch the original Red Dawn... that will tick a few of those boxes you felt were missing.

I haven't seen that movie in decades. Don't remember much about it other than ... wasn't it kind of a cheesy '80s flick??

 

[MeatHookGekko]

 

[choombaz]

Yeah I agree with most of the comments. The film doesn’t seem sure what it wants to be. My main takeaway is that it’s not a political film, although there are a couple of scenes like the Plemons one that are highly charged, it’s much more about the ethics of journalism, but even then it really doesn’t go into much depth.

But it is a really great experience in the cinema. Packed Imax theater, and those moments where there is no sound you could hear a pin drop.

A couple of random thoughts, the photography and scope and sound design was absolutely huge and I don’t think I was pinned to my chair this much since Dunkirk.

The music choices and timing of them felt a bit like overdone Kubrick. Go and watch Full Metal Jacket for masterful music choices. Serious full on moment followed by some crazily boppy tune. The cast were all really good. I wanted more Offerman, can never have too much Offerman.

8/10

I think he's great at portraying that sort of casual cruelty, especially on Breaking Bad. But he does come across rather bland in other roles I've seen him in.

He is fantastic in Game Night. I’ve watched that one too much.

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.

Yeah I don’t really remember that but there seemed to be a lot of stuff ups re the photography. I guess you could put the errors down to Garland wanting something more cinematic so screw logic or the fact the kid really had no idea what she was doing. She was constantly being pulled or pushed out of the way.

 

[davejames]

I thought the film was very clear in it's focus. And if they had been any more specific about the details of the war it would have just made the movie all about this fictional US conflict instead of about the brutally and insanity of war itself. And it would have made it even harder to identify with what was going on.

 

[Mandible]

I haven't seen that movie in decades. Don't remember much about it other than ... wasn't it kind of a cheesy '80s flick??

I remember seeing it as a kid and enjoying it - simply as a piece of entertainment in that era. I watched it about a year ago and was taken aback how brutal and unapologetic it was.

Could any of it happen? I don't know. Could the kids actually do some of what they did? Again, I don't know, as I've been fortunate enough to never have been near or in situations like that, but in warring countries there's no shortage of teenage soldiers - so maybe?

I hear it gets a lot of hate these days (I'm not sure why, because I'm too apathetic to read some Gen Z whining about another problem from the past), but as a viewing experience... is it entertaining, yes. Does it evoke emotional responses from the viewer, yes. Does it leave you thinking about the horrors and futility of wars, yes.

 

[ZE_501]

I remember seeing it as a kid and enjoying it - simply as a piece of entertainment in that era. I watched it about a year ago and was taken aback how brutal and unapologetic it was.

Could any of it happen? I don't know. Could the kids actually do some of what they did? Again, I don't know, as I've been fortunate enough to never have been near or in situations like that, but in warring countries there's no shortage of teenage soldiers - so maybe?

I hear it gets a lot of hate these days (I'm not sure why, because I'm too apathetic to read some Gen Z whining about another problem from the past), but as a viewing experience... is it entertaining, yes. Does it evoke emotional responses from the viewer, yes. Does it leave you thinking about the horrors and futility of wars, yes.

I don't remember any brutality ... maybe it's time to revisit it.

 

[Mandible]

I don't remember any brutality ... maybe it's time to revisit it.

Even the opening scene with the teacher and the school?

That was stock-standard cinema back then, I doubt anyone would go anywhere anything like that scene now.

 

[Mr.E]

I, for one, love Red Dawn (there's only one, the '84 original). I see no issues with it whatsoever. It works.

 

[choombaz]

I thought the film was very clear in it's focus. And if they had been any more specific about the details of the war it would have just made the movie all about this fictional US conflict instead of about the brutally and insanity of war itself. And it would have made it even harder to identify with what was going on.

I totally get that, but the brutality and insanity of war is like … old news. It lacked the depth of his best work, ie Ex-Machina. There was a particular cut in the film from a serious moment to a crazy excited tune and all I could think of was Kubrick did it so much better in Full Metal Jacket.

But it does stay with you. Especially the ringing in the ears lol.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Sound-wise: I loved that mini-gun on the chopper.

 

[Felinx]

I remember seeing it as a kid and enjoying it - simply as a piece of entertainment in that era. I watched it about a year ago and was taken aback how brutal and unapologetic it was.

Could any of it happen? I don't know. Could the kids actually do some of what they did? Again, I don't know, as I've been fortunate enough to never have been near or in situations like that, but in warring countries there's no shortage of teenage soldiers - so maybe?

I hear it gets a lot of hate these days (I'm not sure why, because I'm too apathetic to read some Gen Z whining about another problem from the past), but as a viewing experience... is it entertaining, yes. Does it evoke emotional responses from the viewer, yes. Does it leave you thinking about the horrors and futility of wars, yes.

How telling that a movie from 40 years ago is more relevant/geopolitically on-point - and entertaining - than a movie from today.

It's like watching the earliest Bond films where they unashamedly showed China as the scheming villain - uncomfortable and even racist during that cuddly-Panda 20 years where Walmart was the U.S. ambassador - that now seems so relevant as the new global dominance (China + Russia + Iran + North Korea + every other non-Western country) forms while America screams or tearfully reflects over marble memorials to slave-owning founding fathers.

It's like the only movie that could accurately depict what is happening geopolitically would have to be done in the style of Sausage Party.

 

[chrisstbh]

This looks like the kinda movie your parents put on when it’s showing on TV, even though it’s already 45 minutes in and they’ve missed the start of it. Then when there’s 45 minutes left at least one of them is asleep on the sofa.

 

[choombaz]

This looks like the kinda movie your parents put on when it’s showing on TV, even though it’s already 45 minutes in and they’ve missed the start of it. Then when there’s 45 minutes left at least one of them is asleep on the sofa.

Garland movie + parents = Does not compute

 

[BeefEaster]

Just saw this on streaming. Great movie.

I saw a lot of people complaining in reviews that the reason for the war isn't explained but I think that ambiguity is vital to the film's message. No taking sides, no glorifying. Just a glimpse into what could be.

 

[Mandible]

Just watched it. Ugly film full of ugly people. I wanted them all to die except the old guy. The others were basically adrenalin junkies who we were supposed to sympathize with because of the (self-inflicted) traumas they've experienced. I just thought they were dumb ***** and deserved everything they got.

Only good things were the Jesse Pelmons scene and the Dolby Atmos mix.

Don't understand why people were complaining about the war stuff - it's a film about journalists, the war is incidental.

(And just for reference, I have no issue with ugly films - as an example, Full Metal Jacket is a masterpiece).