Reviews for Civil War directed by Alex Garland, starring Kirsten Dunst

[astroturfing]

We didn't wear ear protection in Afghanistan and we had 49 straight days of fighting. My hearing is fine and I had a MK 48.

I saw it last night with my cousin who isn't the biggest Garland fan. We both liked it. He liked that it was about journalists instead of a family trying to survive, which we have seen a million times. It kinda reminded me of Nightcrawler with a photo journalist trying to get that perfect shot of people dying.

Click to shrink...

49 days of shooting sounds like a lot.. uhmm, are you sure it's fine..? often people don't notice when their hearing gets worse, unless it's actually tested. my hearing went to shit just going to concerts, lifelong tinnitus even with ear protection. can't imagine firing any weapon without really good protection myself.. not even once.

very off-topic now sorry lol.

 

[Serpico99]

49 days of shooting sounds like a lot.. uhmm, are you sure it's fine..? often people don't notice when their hearing gets worse, unless it's actually tested. my hearing went to shit just going to concerts, lifelong tinnitus even with ear protection. can't imagine firing any weapon without really good protection myself.. not even once.

very off-topic now sorry lol.

Click to shrink...

Got tested at the VA around 3 years later and all good.

But back on topic... what was the rest of the world doing while the US destroys itself? I guess canadian currency is worth something.

 

[BeeDog]

We saw this one yesterday, and I have to say I absolutely loved the movie from start to end: alongside Dune Part Two, it's one of the best movies I've seen in the last few years. I fully bought into the dystopian scenario it painted, and I actually found the characters well-drawn despite the lack of fleshing-out (their acting, and the way everyone played their characters was more than enough for me). Visually and audibly, the movie was top notch: I was amazed at how much more expensive everything felt than I had expected, and the action was really well done and sounded amazing. The only negative was the slight overuse of licensed music laid on top of gloomy or intense scenes: the movie strongly insinuated it was Lee's way of detaching herself from what she's seeing, but it dragged on a bit too long in some cases.

The movie felt like a vibe, and I simply vibed with it in full. Without having seen Devs or Men, this is by far my favorite Garland thing thus far.

 

[BloodRayne]

So is this about a Republican dystopia kinda like The Purge series?

 

[Sec0nd]

But back on topic... what was the rest of the world doing while the US destroys itself? I guess canadian currency is worth something.

Click to shrink...

Just going about their day I assume. Don't think the rest of the world really would do much if America would fall apart. Maybe some power moves from the EU/Russia/China. But that's about. There is a lot of war and conflict going on in the world right now, but it's still business as usual for most of us.

 

[Kusagari]

The troops we see in the movie are the Western Forces (Cali + Texas), this is clearly stated. The Florida Alliance and whoever the New People's Army are are not in the movie.

Click to shrink...

I'm talking about the group of dudes (half wearing Hawaiian shirts) they follow in the middle of the movie. That was the Western Forces?

 

[Kahhhhyle]

I guess I'll be the wet blanket. Didn't really like it, maybe some extra thoughts could help with the issues I had with it? Spoilers obviously

Spoiler: Spoiler

The car scene was the first one that really took me out of it. Like the whole movie was pretty tense and somber, then we have these idiots jumping car to car while doing what? 50mph down the road? But I could kind of forgive that because the following scene where the two other reporters and Ralph are shot was by far the most tense even if it was pretty obvious those two guys were dead as soon as they showed up.

But then the ending... Again, whole movie was very tense and methodical. Then it turns into a CoD set piece. And the hallway scene was so stupid it sort of left me with a sour taste for the whole movie.

 

[AlexBasch]

Just watched the movie. As someone with a past as a journalist in a violence ridden country, the movie definitely hit some notes for me. Liked it. I was taught how to develop film at college almost 20 years ago and I would have loved to own that portable photo lab Jessie was carrying, along with the viewer+phone thing.

But as an outsider, I'm really scared of people like the one played by Meth Damon. It's the kind of people I imagine playing Warzone and having confederate flags or Nazi shit in their profiles. That man is so fucking good at playing scary roles, wtf.

 

[Slick Willy]

I had such an amazing time watching this movie, but at the same time it was so completely illogical and improbable.

It felt like someone that doesn't actually understand America wrote a script about it. I know this is a tired talking point, but the whole Texas/California alliance makes no sense and the entire last third action setpiece

Spoiler

set in DC where they siege the president

was bizarre to say the least.

There were many scenes in the movie that just felt weird or artificial, not really how a massive land war in America would actually play out.

Still, it was beautifully shot and a thrilling experience. I'd definitely recommend it but it could have been a masterpiece had it bothered to be anything more than an extremely loose and simplistic war thriller about journalism.

 

[jkk411]

Finally saw the movie tonight. I had barely dipped my toes in the discourse til now, so reading this thread has been a whirlwind. I thought it was...alright. Some genuinely harrowing stuff throughout, but it left me feeling kind of cold at the end.

The most fascinating part of this thread to me is the near absence of any real discourse about what this film is saying (if anything) about the press with its main characters.

Spoiler

The movie is doing a lot in the final act and doesn't give it much room to breathe. Lee espouses the idea to young/naive Jessie the press is there to impartially capture the events so others can ask questions, but in the finale she suffers a full-on panic attack and ends up sacrificing herself to save Jessie. Jessie doesn't linger on Lee's body and coldly pushes forward to be able to capture the President with her camera. They basically end up "swapping roles" with each other, Jessie now being the impartial/emotionless one and Lee putting the camera down and sacrificing herself to save Jessie's life. Is there some grander takeaway to be had here about the nature of war photography/journalism? Maybe journalism in general? Maybe the "Press" in this movie is more of an audience surrogate and Lee and Jessie's arcs are more intended to speak to our arc as consumers of the press? I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'm chewing on that right now more than anything about the loaded political imagery people have been working themselves up over.

 

[SolidSnakeBoy]

Finally saw the movie tonight. I had barely dipped my toes in the discourse til now, so reading this thread has been a whirlwind. I thought it was...alright. Some genuinely harrowing stuff throughout, but it left me feeling kind of cold at the end.

The most fascinating part of this thread to me is the near absence of any real discourse about what this film is saying (if anything) about the press with its main characters.

Spoiler

The movie is doing a lot in the final act and doesn't give it much room to breathe. Lee espouses the idea to young/naive Jessie the press is there to impartially capture the events so others can ask questions, but in the finale she suffers a full-on panic attack and ends up sacrificing herself to save Jessie. Jessie doesn't linger on Lee's body and coldly pushes forward to be able to capture the President with her camera. They basically end up "swapping roles" with each other, Jessie now being the impartial/emotionless one and Lee putting the camera down and sacrificing herself to save Jessie's life. Is there some grander takeaway to be had here about the nature of war photography/journalism? Maybe journalism in general? Maybe the "Press" in this movie is more of an audience surrogate and Lee and Jessie's arcs are more intended to speak to our arc as consumers of the press? I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'm chewing on that right now more than anything about the loaded political imagery people have been working themselves up over.

Click to shrink...

As I see it

Spoiler

Lee is capturing in her character and scenes the toll that it takes to be even close to the ideal of an impartial press. With the death of her old friend and the brutality of the preceeding scenes breaking her, as in those scenes she's unable to use her profession as an emotional bulkhead. Her breakdown is here to underscore the true horror at hand, she spent her life covering horrible things and loosing a part of herself to do it, and now when it's happening at home and to her friends, it must be unbearable to ask the question "why did this happen after I spent a lifetime covering these horrors as a cautionary tale", how can she be impartial to something like this? Atleast that's how I read her character. Her saving of Jesse is a final act of belief in the ideal, she might not be able to bear this all longer and justify carrying on, but Jesse might, she is tasked with the baton, horrible as it might be.

 

[Euphoria]

Saw this movie a couple weeks ago and really enjoyed it. Surprised that my 14 year old daughter did too.

 

[Truant]

I keep coming back to thinking this film would have made a better mini-series on HBO or something.

 

[chrominance]

Came back from it just now.

Spoiler

I'm basically fine with the movie not really explaining how the war came to be, that really doesn't seem to be the point and I think it's okay for the movie to decide to concentrate on something else while using the provocative setup to draw people in. And I think it's not entirely pointless window-dressing either; it does feel like part of Lee's unraveling is about not having a real home to go back to anymore because home is now everything that she saw in other places covering other wars. There is no escape. The concept of "safety" no longer exists for the most part, and that feeling soaks through the whole film.

I'm still trying to decide if the movie has anything else of substance to say by setting events in the United States, though. The biggest thing I got was, essentially, that if civil war ever came to our shores, we would be no better than the countries and factions we watch five-minute reports about on the nightly news. This isn't really a novel revelation, though, and I don't know if the movie does enough with its extended meditation on this particular point.

Aside from that there are some interesting ideas about the nature of war reporting: what kinds of people are drawn to the profession, what they value and what they get out of it, and the lengths to which they're willing to go to get the story/shot. There is also a veiled critique of how war reporting seems to focus on the hows and whats, while underplaying the whys; when the reporters are discussing going to D.C. back at the hotel, they talk about how interviewing the President is the only real story left, as if to say there are no interesting angles to this conflict that haven't already been covered ad nauseum. And then when even that story seems like it's not going to happen, everyone goes to D.C. anyways because fuck it, that's where the party is. A lot of this isn't particularly novel either but I did find this aspect of the movie a lot more compelling, and based on what I've read from Garland and other outlets about the movie this seems to be the desired focus.

Finally there are all the subtle ways in which the media manages the war and vice-versa; everyone in the movie is so used to the idea of embedded journalists that random soldiers just know what to do to keep their unofficial charges out of danger and treat their presence as just part of the job. And then of course there's the really obvious stage managing at the very end with the President.

I think the way the ending is set up felt contrived, and that takes some of the power out of it. I don't know what a better approach would've been, though.

Overall, not really sure how I feel about the movie yet. I don't think it's bad, but I'm still trying to decide what to take away from it.

 

[ShutterMunster]

I think it's a great cinema experience, the sound design is really strong and the sense are tense, but the script was shallow. I think I like Garland more when he's playing in sci-fi space with more abstract concepts. It's okay if the films only hint at stuff and are more vibe pieces. That approach didn't really work for me here, it makes the whole exercise feel a little exploitative.

 

[take_marsh]

Pretty good movie. Great scenes, great performances, and I think the approach was good following journalists. The scene with the suicide bomber carrying a huge American flag was damn good.

Kirstin Dunst kills it. Absolutely kills it.

Not an amazing movie. Just a good one with some great ideas. Some of those great ideas are unfortunately unfulfilled.

 

[DeepBlueDay]

Some random thoughts:

As a hobby photographer, some of those scenes / dialogues spoke to me in a nice way.
The film was beautifully shot, absolutely adore cinematography like this.

All in all I was positively surprised by how much I liked this movie. Also in parts it felt like a slow burn road movie with a (civil) war background.

Many times during the movie I was convinced that Alex Garland should direct the next "28 (Years ) Later"! But with Danny Boyle returning to that franchise as the director, I'm very optimistic as well.