It was quite slow. In fairness the first time I ever saw it I was on a headful of shrooms so may have been a little biased.
Film Civil War (written and directed by Alex Garland) - in theaters on April 12, 2024
- Thread starter RedDevilQuebecois
- Start date
I enjoyed it. It's not one of my favourite movies ever or anything, but it was certainly great to look at.
Wouldn't be my first choice of film after downing some mushies
Trippy enough as it is.
I liked it, but didn't love it. Only seen it the once, though.
However, I did think Ex Machina was brilliant. Out of the two, I preferred that. Haven't seen Men yet.
You ain't alone, somehow. One of the worse things I've sat through tbh, truly awful.
Not saying that critical opinion is always (or even usually) right but it was pretty positively reviewed. I guess it just shows how different opinions can be!
Annihilation was completely forgettable. In fact, I remember forgetting about it immediately after watching it 
Ex Machina is probably his best film.
Ex Machina is probably his best film.
Lucky
Agreed on the last bit but surprised you found annihilation forgettable. If nothing else, it was sumptuous visually.Annihilation was completely forgettable. In fact, I remember forgetting about it immediately after watching it
Ex Machina is probably his best film.
Oh lord.
"Annihilation" was great (as was the novel(s) it was - somewhat loosely - built on). But I had read the novel before seeing the film, which obviously has an impact on reception.
Anyway, really looking forward to this.
Anyway, really looking forward to this.
It notably did significantly worse with the critics than his other films? Odd thing to say. Also on Ari Aster (as per your other comment). Hereditary was great for what it was - how was it trying to be obnoxiously intelligent, and not just a horror film about family dynamics and occultism? You've chosen some very well liked films by critics and audiences alike (Ex Machina, Annihilation, Hereditary) to rail against.
28 days and Ex Machina were amazing films.
Annihilation and Men were junk.
So he's on a bit of a losing streak right now. Hopefully he limits some of that naval gazing pretentious drivel in Civil War.
Annihilation and Men were junk.
So he's on a bit of a losing streak right now. Hopefully he limits some of that naval gazing pretentious drivel in Civil War.
Ex-Machina is an okay movie. Alicia Vikander only works as a robot because she's a wooden actor (and she's fit).
I quite enjoyed Hereditary. I don't necessarily agree with the raving reviews it got, but it was a good watch. Midsommar, for me, was boring and pretentious. His latest starts off well, but quickly turns into an exercise in self-indulgence and is only saved by Phoenix's dedication to the main character. Again, it's my opinion. Garland feels to be going down the same route. Ex Machina was good but nothing groundbreaking. Annihilation was just "too much". Men is style over substance. That was my point, good films being praised as great ones (understandable, in the age of blockbusters) because they show some talent and promise even though, more often than not, they also leave a lot to be desired. And, just maybe, this creates a "regressing to the mean" situation. Even Dream Scenario felt like a letdown from Borgli after Sick of Myself. As for the critics and the audiences liking films, good for them. I won't use an example of my own, but i'll just agree with the people on here who argue that Top Gun, despite being praised from critics and audiences alike, was a rather pointless remake that served no purpose whatsoever.
Hmmm… I think you’re onto something there. It does seem as though critics have a habit of getting carried away by not very good films that at least try to be different to the relentless flow of shitty blockbusters.
See also almost every Christopher Nolan film. I loved Midsommar though. I thought it was really original and interesting.
Last edited:
I've long ago noticed that my taste differs from "the critics". As far as I'm concerned they hype up and praise movies which to me are average at best. Not great, not bad. Just average.
Oppenheimer is one of those. Highly praised by critics in general but to me it was nothing special. Just a decent drama flick with big production values.
Oppenheimer is one of those. Highly praised by critics in general but to me it was nothing special. Just a decent drama flick with big production values.
He's ballsy enough to make that kind of movie, so why not. I guess, he wants to try something else, everytime, no matter how low budget he gets these days, and that's a good thing about him.
Annihilation and Men were bit weird, with Annihilation almost LSD induced in few scenes, but I guess that's what he's all about too. His next movie / series will most likely hit a different field.
All this talk makes me revisit Dredd and Devs soon. Some of his stuff have plain trippy fun factor, without him trying to be smart. Always loved that.
Annihilation and Men were bit weird, with Annihilation almost LSD induced in few scenes, but I guess that's what he's all about too. His next movie / series will most likely hit a different field.
All this talk makes me revisit Dredd and Devs soon. Some of his stuff have plain trippy fun factor, without him trying to be smart. Always loved that.
This is a correct statement.
Forgot all about devs. Don't think I managed to finish it, partly due to some godawful acting.
Low budget and Sonoya Mizuno as main character was a miss.
Despite all, It's slow, hypnotic and I found it relaxing.
It wasn't half as clever as it pretended to be, but I enjoyed it for the most part.
Same goes for Arnie in T2, though, which is a masterpiece.
Or just appreciate films differently to that poster, and you? Most of those examples are films where reception has been overall good but not overwhelmingly amazing either. Also, I feel a critic will usually appreciate and recognise when there's love and dedication behind a project, even if it's not 100% polished (which is perfectly fine).
Also "the critics" doesn't really mean anything. Avengers Endgame has a higher average score from critics than Beau is afraid.
There is this notion that "critics" are poncy film snobs, but there's just as many of them out there that will like shite stuff.
Didn’t Garland effectively direct Dredd? That was a great bit of fun.
He seems to be hit and miss but I do look forward to see what he has to offer.
I will goto this but hope it’s not over hyped. It’s better to have lower expectations and to be entertained rather then being in a cinema waiting for a movie to meet your expectations
He seems to be hit and miss but I do look forward to see what he has to offer.
I will goto this but hope it’s not over hyped. It’s better to have lower expectations and to be entertained rather then being in a cinema waiting for a movie to meet your expectations
I saw the trailer for this before Dune and my first thought was that it made me think of the Mahershala Ali's monologue at the end of 'Leave the World Behind' about the tactics of destabilizing a Western government. Could almost be a companion piece to that. Very prescient.
Yes. Consulted some stuff with John Wagner (Judge Dredd comic book creator), but it looks like he made it majority possible.
I'm also confused by this conversation. What's the thrust of the argument - critics' like films that I think aren't as good as they say they are? Because the films mentioned aren't particularly pretentious, overly complex or try hard. They are are all quite different and unique, even if the execution is up and down (Men was very forgettable, Annihilation was visually stunning with an interesting story but the dialogue wasn't there, Hereditary was a home run (rare in horror)). In a world of derivative super hero shite, is it any wonder critics endorse films and filmmakers that make relatively interesting stuff that is well put together and accessible to the mainstream?
Yes. But that said, "ambitious" and "good" isn't the same thing, and I both hope and expect that it takes rather more than that to earn a favorable review. And critics don't always agree either. Some films tend to be either adored or despised, with justifiable reasons for either stance. Much of Lars von Trier's production, for example.
Nolan’s films, if anything, are more popular with the mainstream audience than with the critics. They also aren’t difficult or artsy movies. Not entirely sure where you’re going?
First look with Alex Garland, Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura and Cailee Spaeny.
Saw the trailer in the cinema and thought it looked like a great spectacle, and I have a lot of time for Garland.
I'm somewhat of an anomaly on this thread though, as I loved Annihilation (although the book was far better) and really liked Men.
I'm somewhat of an anomaly on this thread though, as I loved Annihilation (although the book was far better) and really liked Men.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
God he is so incredibly stupid.
Why does that make him stupid?
Oh I was talking about what he said in the interview.
Wait people actually thought Annihilation was good?
I can't remember when I watched it but I remember i hadn't heard of it prior and ended up thinking it was one of those awful netflix b movies.
I can't remember when I watched it but I remember i hadn't heard of it prior and ended up thinking it was one of those awful netflix b movies.
I read the interview. Couldn’t find anything particularly stupid that he said it it? Or am I missing something?
Isn't he still pushing "the problem is polarisation" thing, which is a both-sidesy copout mistaking a symptom for a cause? He also apparently asks to go off record to give the journo his actual political views, which is just a little odd when you're doing a film called "Civil War".
There’s no “both sides” stuff in that interview.