Film Civil War (written and directed by Alex Garland) - in theaters on April 12, 2024

[RedDevilQuebecois]

For a reminder, here are the premise and the latest trailer.

"The film from acclaimed writer-director Alex Garland (Ex Machina) imagines a near-future dystopia where the United States has been torn apart under the authoritarian rule of a three-term president (Nick Offerman). The story follows a journalist (Kirsten Dunst) and her colleagues as they make their way across a hostile and divided states of America with the hope of interviewing the president as the forces seeking to overthrown him close in."


A number of movie critics had access to the movie premiere at the SXSW Film Conference and gave rave reviews. If you already enjoyed Garland's previous work for 28 Days Later (as a screenwriter), Ex Machina and Annihilation, you know what to expect. The movie will intentionally not touch on the politics of how the civil war began or even got to that point, but this is the charm of the movie as we see the conflict through the eyes of war correspondents and innocent civilians. Audiences do learn that the fictional 3-term POTUS has disbanded the FBI, so...

Here are some of the reviews that came in so far.

Alex Garland’s #CivilWar is unlike anything I’ve ever watched. It’s a big, vicious, action-packed war picture from A24, which means it brings with it a richness & depth you don’t get anywhere else. Garland’s best work – flawless cinematography & gripping from start to finish.

#CivilWar is phenomenal. Alex Garland’s latest is a wholly consuming war movie. An epic but deeply intimate piece that uses the experience and motivations of a group of military-embedded journalists to highlight the deeply chilling reality of living in a world that never learns.

The production value is through the roof. Between Rob Hardy’s highly immersive cinematography and the booming sound design, Civil War puts the viewer as firmly in the shoes of a war photographer as possible.

Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson make for an A+ lead ensemble. And the dynamic between Dunst and Spaeny’s characters is especially poignant. A brilliant microcosm of generational inspiration, and the challenge of figuring out how to carve a path forward, not one that spins in circles.

Alex Garland’s “CIVIL WAR” is an absolute f*cking MASTERPIECE. A riveting, unflinching, visceral cautionary tale that’s scary as hell. Watching it, one can’t help but feel how close we are to this actually happening, making it a MUST SEE to stop it before it actually does.

If you want to have discussions about how cautionary of a tale it is and how we can make parallels with the current political landscape in the US or in anywhere else in the world, this is also the place to do so.

 

[Jev]

Very excited about this one. Watched the trailer at the cinema and was sucked in immediately. I loved Ex Machina and Annihilation and this seems like a very interesting turn for Alex Garland.

 

[macheda14]

He has his flaws but I’ve always loved Alex Garland. The Beach and The tesseract are two books I loved as a teenager. He does always follow the same trope of when humans are siloed from wider society they forgo their morals, but it’s still entertaining if you ignore some of the imbued preachiness.

 

[golden_blunder]

on the watch list

 

[Sweet Square]

“Why are we talking and not listening?” he asked. “We’ve lost trust in the media and politicians. And some in the media are wonderful and some politicians are wonderful—on both sides of the divide. I have a political position and I have good friends on the other side of that political divide. Honestly, I’m not trying to be cute: What’s so hard about that? Why are we shutting [conversation] down? Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s fecking idiotic, and incredibly dangerous … I personally [blame] some of this on social media.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/m...-garland-civil-war-release-timing-1235852725/

It’s going to be so fecking shite that I’m looking forward to watching it.

 

[FrankDrebin]

It’s going to be so fecking shite that I’m looking forward to watching it.

I'm not going to watch it though. Trailer looked legit awful on its own . And that comment by Garland, jeez.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

It seems we are reaching the point where (almost) everything associated with A24 will be praised and promoted to the death because they are supposedly saving Cinema on their own or whatever. What people see in the likes of Garland, Aster etc., i don't know. Films that think they're clever but they actually have the depth of a kids' pool. That quote is an indication that this one will be no different.

 

[Jev]

It seems we are reaching the point where (almost) everything associated with A24 will be praised and promoted to the death because they are supposedly saving Cinema on their own or whatever. What people see in the likes of Garland, Aster etc., i don't know. Films that think they're clever but they actually have the depth of a kids' pool. That quote is an indication that this one will be no different.

Sure you’re not the one thinking you’re cleverer than most? Ex Machina and Annihilation are very good movies.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Sure you’re not the one thinking you’re cleverer than most? Ex Machina and Annihilation are very good movies.

No, i'm not. I'm usually very open-minded and i want to be impressed by new experiences. These two are good films, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing special about them to make me bookmark Garland as a must watch director. The least said about Men, the better.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No, i'm not. I'm usually very open-minded and i want to be impressed by new experiences. These two are good films, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing special about them to make me bookmark Garland as a must watch director. The least said about Men, the better.

I’d say a history of making good films is the best possible reason to look out for the latest film from any director. Especially films as interesting as those two.

 

[Jev]

No, i'm not. I'm usually very open-minded and i want to be impressed by new experiences. These two are good films, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing special about them to make me bookmark Garland as a must watch director. The least said about Men, the better.

When a new director (even a rather old one at that) introduces himself with two thought-provoking movies in a row that are quite original both in terms of their ideas and their mood, I think it’s only natural that he becomes one to watch. Men was not a good film ultimately so this is sort of a litmus test. Bland, bothsideist quote aside, it seems like most critics think it’s pretty good.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

I’d say a history of making good films is the best possible reason to look out for the latest film from any director. Especially films as interesting as those two.

When a new director (even a rather old one at that) introduces himself with two thought-provoking movies in a row that are quite original both in terms of their ideas and their mood, I think it’s only natural that he becomes one to watch. Men was not a good film ultimately so this is sort of a litmus test. Bland, bothsideist quote aside, it seems like most critics think it’s pretty good.

Good for you guys that you liked his previous films. Again, i didn't say they were bad. Both were decent films, i just didn't find them as interesting or thought-provoking as you did. Personally, i don't care about critics' ratings nowadays. There's a tonne of psychological/thriller/mystery/action films out there that get good scores, but are just bland efforts that intend to but don't really know how to handle postmodern ambiguity to good effect. Men also did well with the critics.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

How wonderfully predictable that one of the best production/distribution shops in A24 is now getting hipster backlash because... Reasons?

It’s going to be so fecking shite that I’m looking forward to watching it.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

I know what you mean about the clever but shallow comment. They seem to focus a lot on morally grey areas but always make it quite obvious what point you're supposed to feel by the end of the movie.

To their credit, I gather they've created a bit of a niche in the American film system dominated by blockbusters.

I agree with the last sentence. I am more than willing to give them credit for what they're doing and the chances they're willing to give to filmmakers outside the blockbuster genre that's been dominating the scene. But, yeah, it's either that or films that are so condensed that they don't leave you room to breathe and take it all in.

 

[Pickle85]

It seems we are reaching the point where (almost) everything associated with A24 will be praised and promoted to the death because they are supposedly saving Cinema on their own or whatever. What people see in the likes of Garland, Aster etc., i don't know. Films that think they're clever but they actually have the depth of a kids' pool. That quote is an indication that this one will be no different.

Eh? Garland is a very interesting director with some big ideas. His films are also usually aesthetically pretty top notch. Both annihilation and ex machina were beautifully shot. This just seems like a contrarian, hipster take. 'Depth of a kids' pool'...come on.

 

[Salt Bailly]

I for one am shocked that a filmmaker releasing a film about a modern American civil war has opted not to shit on half of his potential audience. It's almost as if he wants his new movie to make money.

 

[nimic]

Eh? Garland is a very interesting director with some big ideas. His films are also usually aesthetically pretty top notch. Both annihilation and ex machina were beautifully shot. This just seems like a contrarian, hipster take. 'Depth of a kids' pool'...come on.

It's definitely possible to not like Annihilation, but I do think if someone thinks it has no depth it's because they missed the point entirely.

That said, I'm not really expecting much from Civil War.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I for one am shocked that a filmmaker releasing a film about a modern American civil war has opted not to shit on half of his potential audience. It's almost as if he wants his new movie to make money.

I’ve only read one review but they said it’s a film about war journalism, rather than a film about war. With the politics of the war basically sidelined.

 

[Salt Bailly]

I’ve only read one review but they said it’s a film about war journalism, rather than a film about war. With the politics of the war basically sidelined.

I foresee many disgruntled rednecks exiting the multiplex.

 

[Sweet Square]

I'm not going to watch it though. Trailer looked legit awful on its own . And that comment by Garland, jeez.

Oh I don’t blame anyone for not watching it as your right it looks terrible. The movie appears to have been written by the brain of a Joe Rogan fan but with the ascetics of a rich upper class New Yorker.

I’ve clearly got some unrecognised illness which means I get sick enjoyment out of these films.

 

[Sweet Square]

Alex Garland pitching his film to A24

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I foresee many disgruntled rednecks exiting the multiplex.

Then and communist hipsters, equally convinced they knew all they needed to know about a film they hadn’t yet seen.

 

[Pickle85]

It's definitely possible to not like Annihilation, but I do think if someone thinks it has no depth it's because they missed the point entirely.

That said, I'm not really expecting much from Civil War.

Absolutely. He's definitely not a faultless film maker but I do think he at least tries to make interesting films. Re Civil War, this is the first I'd heard of it, but fingers crossed he puts together something worth seeing!

 

[Mickeza]

I’ve only read one review but they said it’s a film about war journalism, rather than a film about war. With the politics of the war basically sidelined.

Well considering he thinks politics is merely a debate between big and small government and people who disagree are fecking morons that’s probably for the best.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Well considering he thinks politics is merely a debate between big and small government and people who disagree are fecking morons that’s probably for the best.

Shhh, you communist hipster.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Well considering he thinks politics is merely a debate between big and small government and people who disagree are fecking morons that’s probably for the best.

He definitely didn’t say that but ok.

 

[Ish]

For a reminder, here are the premise and the latest trailer.

"The film from acclaimed writer-director Alex Garland (Ex Machina) imagines a near-future dystopia where the United States has been torn apart under the authoritarian rule of a three-term president (Nick Offerman). The story follows a journalist (Kirsten Dunst) and her colleagues as they make their way across a hostile and divided states of America with the hope of interviewing the president as the forces seeking to overthrown him close in."


A number of movie critics had access to the movie premiere at the SXSW Film Conference and gave rave reviews. If you already enjoyed Garland's previous work for 28 Days Later (as a screenwriter), Ex Machina and Annihilation, you know what to expect. The movie will intentionally not touch on the politics of how the civil war began or even got to that point, but this is the charm of the movie as we see the conflict through the eyes of war correspondents and innocent civilians. Audiences do learn that the fictional 3-term POTUS has disbanded the FBI, so...

Here are some of the reviews that came in so far.







If you want to have discussions about how cautionary of a tale it is and how we can make parallels with the current political landscape in the US or in anywhere else in the world, this is also the place to do so.

Thanks for these! Been looking forward to - nevermind the political theme - but mostly purely as an action spectacle. The great reviews around the story/execution are just a massive bonus on top!

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Looks decent, it's easy to feck up a film by putting in too much information or exposition when world building, so just dropping people into the situation and watching people wrestle with things is much more compelling.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I just find it mad that if someone is going to make a film about an American civil war it would be seen as anything other than a good thing to frame it with some moral ambiguity about who is “good” and “bad” as opposed to using paper thin stereotypes. Surely that’s the only interesting way to make a film like this?

Speaking as someone from a country who’s gone through a civil war in (almost) living memory what makes it really fecked up and fascinating to learn about was the similarities between the two sides, not the differences.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Arguably it's better to judge the movie based on its own merits rather than the trailer or the director's name attached.

Upvote if you agree.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Garland peaked with his tribute to Teletext's Digitiser anyway.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Having said all that, the film could be shite. I’m definitely open to that possibility.

 

[Mickeza]

He definitely didn’t say that but ok.

Umm…yes he did - which is fine - he’s a filmmaker and now I realise his new film about a modern American civil war contains no actual politics about what led to it I’ll give it a watch - had it contained politics I’d be less inclined because personally I think anyone who thinks morality isn’t intrinsically linked to politics is a fecking moron or worse a Lib Dem. That could be a hipster communist position though.

“Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s fecking idiotic, and incredibly dangerous … I personally [blame] some of this on social media.”

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

It's definitely possible to not like Annihilation, but I do think if someone thinks it has no depth it's because they missed the point entirely.

That said, I'm not really expecting much from Civil War.

Perhaps, i should have worded it that better because it got some people triggered. I'm fine with the film's themes and ideas. Furthermore, around the time Annihilation was released i had lost someone very close to me to cancer and i was going through the experiences/changes the film deals with. It just didn't grip me, and it looked overall like a piece of cinema that thought itself more clever than it actually was. Maybe it's the source material at fault, i don't know... Just my opinion.

I just find it mad that if someone is going to make a film about an American civil war it would be seen as anything other than a good thing to frame it with some moral ambiguity about who is “good” and “bad” as opposed to using paper thin stereotypes. Surely that’s the only interesting way to make a film like this?

Speaking as someone from a country who’s gone through a civil war in (almost) living memory what makes it really fecked up and fascinating to learn about was the similarities between the two sides, not the differences.

We'll have to wait to see the film to make definite judgements. But, as a general comment, sitting on the fence like an "enlightened centrist" isn't a form of moral ambiguity. It's just a convenient stance (for some) until, of course, trouble comes knocking at your door. I'll wait to see how he'll handle it. I wouldn't mind a dystopic approach where the real reasons behind the divide have been lost in time, and we see people with deep-rooted hatred for one another without questioning the whys. To use it as a mere backdrop for an action film though, especially in this climate, it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Umm…yes he did - which is fine - he’s a filmmaker and now I realise his new film about a modern American civil war contains no actual politics about what led to it I’ll give it a watch - had it contained politics I’d be less inclined because personally I think anyone who thinks morality isn’t intrinsically linked to politics is a fecking moron or worse a Lib Dem. That could be a hipster communist position though.

“Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s fecking idiotic, and incredibly dangerous … I personally [blame] some of this on social media.”

I interpret that as meaning labelling people who vote differently to you as somehow all morally deficient is stupid. And I agree. People are messy and complex and vote the way they do for all sorts of different reasons. And lots of people (most people?) vote the way they do with good intentions. They genuinely think they’re doing what’s best for their country and their fellow citizens.

I do agree with you that you can’t completely remove a moral component from the politics of right vs left, so he’s wrong about that. But if someone is going to make a film about this sort of thing it’s going to be a hell of a lot more interesting if they look for the human stories behind the caricatures of right vs left, instead of reinforcing boring stereotypes. See also journalism about the same topic.

And I say all this without any clue if the war in this film really is between the right and left! As I said, in the one review I read they imply that the reasons behind the war are kind of a side issue and the cause of the uprising is deliberately ambiguous for most of the movie. I’ll watch it anyway. It sounds interesting and I liked a couple of his previous films.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Oh I don’t blame anyone for not watching it as your right it looks terrible. The movie appears to have been written by the brain of a Joe Rogan fan but with the ascetics of a rich upper class New Yorker.

I’ve clearly got some unrecognised illness which means I get sick enjoyment out of these films.

Yep. Joe Rogan instantly sprung to mind when I read that quote
Garland will surely appear on that podcast soon I imagine.

 

[Moby]

Annihilation

I almost made a vow to stop watching modern sci-fi after having to suffer through that. Proper crap.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Garland wanted Annihilation to be his Stalker/Solaris but it was instead his Prometheus.

 

[Pickle85]

Am I alone in thinking annihilation was great?! I thought it was stunning visually, gripping and totally bought in to it.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Am I alone in thinking annihilation was great?! I thought it was stunning visually, gripping and totally bought in to it.

I remember being underwhelmed by the first two thirds but it was saved by the ending.