|
Post by moviemanjackson on Apr 14, 2024 17:21:06 GMT
How do you all feel about it after viewing? I don't mind the apolitical stance, I was super interested in the how we got here and there are a few details, but that's probably not the story Alex Garland is telling, and if we're paying attention in the US it essentially answers that question.
Overall, I thought it was a really good movie but not great. The characterization is fairly light outside of Kirsten Dunst's Lee (she's phenomenal). The conflict feels semi-muddled but I believe that is intentional; even with two opposing sides there will be smaller groups within them---or outside, who will operate on their own ideologies. The pacing is strong, enough down time to accentuate the immersive intensity. Some of the music choices pulled me out of the movie a bit, but I'm glad I caught it on the big screen. 7.5/10.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 14, 2024 21:45:25 GMT
Glad you liked it. I wanted to see it this weekend but ended up being too busy. I’m between jobs right now so I might try to catch it this week.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 15, 2024 0:15:40 GMT
in short: its a well made movie that i hated. i hated everything about it except the few minutes jesse plemons was in.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 16, 2024 1:41:12 GMT
Loved it. Saw twice over the weekend. My second-favorite movie of the year so far after Dune 2.
|
|
|
Civil War
Apr 17, 2024 5:34:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Nora on Apr 17, 2024 5:34:23 GMT
Loved it. Saw twice over the weekend. My second-favorite movie of the year so far after Dune 2. what did u like about it so much?
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 20, 2024 21:06:46 GMT
Loved it. Saw twice over the weekend. My second-favorite movie of the year so far after Dune 2. what did u like about it so much? Thought the story was compelling, the actors were great, and thw action, when it came, was intense.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 22, 2024 23:48:57 GMT
Just got back from the theater. I liked it a lot/borderline loved it. I really want to see it again.
I’m a little surprised at the backlash for the apolitical stance. It felt like, for this story (as moviemanjackson said), a deeply political and detailed explanation for the conflict would be out of place.
I can understand wanting a little more explanation because it’s literally called Civil War, but I enjoyed the angle here.
Also, this feels like the most human Garland-directed movie. It felt a lot less pretentious than his other work.
|
|
|
Civil War
Apr 24, 2024 1:57:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Nora on Apr 24, 2024 1:57:59 GMT
Just got back from the theater. I liked it a lot/borderline loved it. I really want to see it again. I’m a little surprised at the backlash for the apolitical stance. It felt like, for this story (as moviemanjackson said), a deeply political and detailed explanation for the conflict would be out of place. I can understand wanting a little more explanation because it’s literally called Civil War, but I enjoyed the angle here. Also, this feels like the most human Garland-directed movie. It felt a lot less pretentious than his other work. i too liked that they didnt get too political. that (and Jesse Plemons) were the one redeeming quality )
|
|
|
Civil War
Apr 24, 2024 2:36:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by sdrew13163 on Apr 24, 2024 2:36:00 GMT
Just got back from the theater. I liked it a lot/borderline loved it. I really want to see it again. I’m a little surprised at the backlash for the apolitical stance. It felt like, for this story (as moviemanjackson said), a deeply political and detailed explanation for the conflict would be out of place. I can understand wanting a little more explanation because it’s literally called Civil War, but I enjoyed the angle here. Also, this feels like the most human Garland-directed movie. It felt a lot less pretentious than his other work. i too liked that they didnt get too political. that (and Jesse Plemons) were the one redeeming quality ) You weren’t a fan of the final siege in DC?
|
|
|
Civil War
Apr 24, 2024 15:02:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Nora on Apr 24, 2024 15:02:07 GMT
i too liked that they didnt get too political. that (and Jesse Plemons) were the one redeeming quality ) You weren’t a fan of the final siege in DC? it was shot well as in it was thrilling, ill give you that. but i felt the way the one character died was so poorly executed that it turned me off from it.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 28, 2024 8:33:00 GMT
in short: its a well made movie that i hated. i hated everything about it except the few minutes jesse plemons was in. Although I really enjoyed Civil War, we concur that the most memorable part is the extended scene with Jesse Plemons (who seems to be rock-solid, or letter-perfect, in everything that he appears in).
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 28, 2024 9:27:39 GMT
I found Civil War, which I saw in IMAX, "very good." The casting and acting are strong and the dramatic interactions—whether on an interpersonal level or a matter of war-oriented violence and action—are very intense. The interludes between such interactions—the "between-scenes" bits or "time-and-space," "before-and-after" filler that "round out" certain scenes, offer some balancing quietude and certainly are not ineffective, but the film does not maintain a sense of optimal tension in those shots and parts; had it done so, Civil War could have proved a classic. (Note that I am not referring to quiet scenes of human interaction.) Either way, it is shot in a very visceral way that creates a sense of the viewer being along for the journey, embedded with the photojournalists (who themselves are sometimes embedded with the troops). Indeed, the movie largely eschews spectacle, instead emphasizing grit and the sense of subjectivity inherent in this line of work, even as photojournalists are ostensibly objective. And perhaps most notably, it suggests how war journalism—specifically war photojournalism in this case—becomes dangerously addictive, thrilling yet torturous, heightening the senses yet ultimately devastating them. One can draw a bit of an analogy to what American Sniper (2014) revealed about the nature of war for a soldier.
Civil War is not on that level, but it is a pretty savvy film. It is and it isn't "apolitical." On the one hand, the movie takes pains to avoid following obvious partisan lines and instead suggests metaphor and fantasy—Texas and California, forming the "Western Alliance" in Civil War, are about the last two big states that would ever form a secessionist partnership of any kind. But the movie is clearly cognizant—in an entirely implicit way—of the current political situation in the country. Indeed, the film—especially its climax in Washington, DC, and ultimately the White House—is haunting and chilling precisely because of what happened on January 6, 2021, because of Donald Trump, in March, forecasting a "bloodbath" if he fails to win this fall, and because of certain other politicians (on the Right, to be honest) embracing the threat of violence. While Civil War smartly avoids any direct commentary on any of those issues, there is little doubt that their shadow looms over the film, informs the film, and causes the film to resonate that much more. Even more significant is the extended scene with a brilliant Jesse Plemons, which clearly speaks to the xenophobia roiling so much of the political anxiety currently at play in the country (and in other countries around the world, for that matter). That scene is certainly "political," and in the best sense of the term. Indeed, for those reasons, I would ultimately describe Civil War as "nonpartisan" rather than "apolitical."
In addition to Plemons, Kirsten Dunst excels as the war-weary veteran photojournalist, to the point where she seems a little older than her actual age (not that it is a huge difference, but she looks, say, forty-five in the film, whereas she turned forty during the shoot). It is probably writer-director Alex Garland's (Ex Machina, Annihilation) best movie, one with a memorable climax and commendable studio reconstructions of the White House and its surrounding streets.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 28, 2024 9:39:49 GMT
Some of the music choices pulled me out of the movie a bit, but I'm glad I caught it on the big screen. 7.5/10. ... agreed, especially about one musical choice in particular where the film's tone arguably wavered very briefly. But even in the moment, I understood the irony that writer-director Garland was trying to achieve with that selection, so it was not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 28, 2024 9:49:14 GMT
The pacing is strong, enough down time to accentuate the immersive intensity. ... well-said. As I indicated in my review a couple of posts ago, though, I believe that a "great" film would have maintained its tension a bit better during that "down time." (Again, though, I am referring to quiet "filler," as opposed to quiet scenes of human interaction.) Then again, it is very difficult to make a "great" feature film (in my estimation, there are between zero and five per year, at least among those that I see in US theaters, and I see a lot), so if Civil War has to settle for "very good," that is still a major achievement. Indeed, it is the kind of movie that makes one excited to see a movie, to think about a movie, to discuss a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 30, 2024 6:16:33 GMT
I assume they present European Americans as the baddies and the goodies are diverse?
If the president is shown to be a pale dictator then it is obvious who they are referring to since they expect Trump to be a dictator (unlike Biden who is a Soviet-style puppet surrounded by diverse handlers).
The only way Texas and California would align (presumably against a white male president) is if a) they are mostly latinos from both states
or b) caucasians from rural parts of both states
It would be impossible for there to be an alliance of rural whites in California and Texas against a president unless he was based on Biden.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on May 1, 2024 8:52:31 GMT
I assume they present European Americans as the baddies and the goodies are diverse? If the president is shown to be a pale dictator then it is obvious who they are referring to since they expect Trump to be a dictator (unlike Biden who is a Soviet-style puppet surrounded by diverse handlers). The only way Texas and California would align (presumably against a white male president) is if a) they are mostly latinos from both states or b) caucasians from rural parts of both states It would be impossible for there to be an alliance of rural whites in California and Texas against a president unless he was based on Biden. The president isn't any kind of real character—we don't learn anything about him or his politics. Played by Nick Offerman, he is white and—unintentionally, I am sure—looks a little like Al Gore back in the day. The two sides do not play out along racial or ethnic lines at all, part of the film's effort to prove nonpartisan (although, as I indicated earlier, Civil War is political in certain senses, just not partisan).
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 1, 2024 13:51:16 GMT
The president isn't any kind of real character—we don't learn anything about him or his politics. Played by Nick Offerman, he is white and—unintentionally, I am sure—looks a little like Al Gore back in the day. The two sides do not play out along racial or ethnic lines at all, part of the film's effort to prove nonpartisan (although, as I indicated earlier, Civil War is political in certain senses, just not partisan). It is so unrealistic. It simply isn't possible to have a civil war within a single ethnic group now. BLM was a theater stunt--they disappeared when the Soros money stopped.
The other thing is that journalists have the worst reputation these days. They are considered stenographers for power at best so making them the focus is also very cringe. They aren't regarded as heroic by many people now. The crusaders for Fake News.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 8, 2024 3:50:55 GMT
The president isn't any kind of real character—we don't learn anything about him or his politics. Played by Nick Offerman, he is white and—unintentionally, I am sure—looks a little like Al Gore back in the day. The two sides do not play out along racial or ethnic lines at all, part of the film's effort to prove nonpartisan (although, as I indicated earlier, Civil War is political in certain senses, just not partisan). It is so unrealistic. It simply isn't possible to have a civil war within a single ethnic group now. BLM was a theater stunt--they disappeared when the Soros money stopped.
The other thing is that journalists have the worst reputation these days. They are considered stenographers for power at best so making them the focus is also very cringe. They aren't regarded as heroic by many people now. The crusaders for Fake News.
It is not stated explicitly, but it is clear that the President attempted to grab dictatorial powers, which led to some states declaring independence.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 8, 2024 6:31:01 GMT
It is not stated explicitly, but it is clear that the President attempted to grab dictatorial powers, which led to some states declaring independence. It's obviously aimed at Trump because Biden is a front man--he isn't making any decisions--so they are kinda making it a statement--especially with California being one of the rebels against this dictator. Hollywood has always regarded the "chieftain" as a big no-no--they prefer committee leadership. Air Force One or the Sum of All Fears situations. Although in the former, the president is running around a plane but he needs a lot of help to defeat the "ultra Russian nationalists."
I wonder if Putin has seen that movie.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 14, 2024 23:28:48 GMT
This movie is overly cynical trash. The only message seems to be 'People are terrible.' None of the characters are particularly likeable, which makes the ending feel hollow. If the movie was supposed to be about war, it needs to explain how we got here. If it's supposed to be about the journalists, it should've given them more personality. If it's a metacommentary on the political climate or attitudes towards journalism, it needed to make stronger statements for and against. It's insane that the Plemons character is the only one who feels like you understand their motivation, twisted as it may be.
Don't bother making a movie called 'Civil War' if you're afraid to make genuine observations about either 'side.'
|
|