I get all that - but the picture being painted is still one of the factions fighting the Government forces doing very bad shit - far worse than anything you actually witness from the Government forces themselves. There’s even a line that says once they overthrow the White House they’ll all start fighting each other. So is the message that if a despot dictator decides to stay in power/steal elections we should just do nothing because it ain’t worth it and hey look at how nice this clothes shop is? Is the message don’t elect tyrannical twats because this is ultimately how it ends up? Or is the message - as I suspect - that there is no message? It’s a completely apolitical movie about a modern civil war breaking out in America that never even attempts to look at what could cause that to happen or the fact it’s a path America could be heading down. Which is fine - that isn’t this movie but it’d be awesome if it was someone’s movie because that movie sounds super interesting to me.
Film Civil War (written and directed by Alex Garland) - in theaters on April 12, 2024
- Thread starter RedDevilQuebecois
- Start date
Good review, thanks.
I take small issue with one thing you said.
When you say the USA is meant to be a beacon of democracy to the world who are you speaking for? I dont know any non Americans who think that, have never met any in all my travels who think that.
I think its more a message about the intrinsically violent nature of human beings in the absence of order or deterrents that keep us in place. The causes and factions that the people rallied behind were only justifications for the heinous crimes they'd allow themselves to commit. It actually reminds me of the purge franchise, where it asks the pertinent question as to what otherwise law-biding citizens would be capable of doing to one another in the absence of laws and order. The fact that we saw almost no prisoners being taken alive by either side further adds to it - there were seemingly no laws or conventions that obliged adhering to, so people's instincts were to just shoot first.
To paraphrase uncle Ben, With great power comes great responsibility. I’m not saying USA want any sort of responsibility outside of their borders but they are the strongest advocate and poster child for democracy. Whether they want it or not , everything in the world is heavily influenced by what happens to them.
It’s no coincidence that the world seems to be unraveling as the USA effectively implodes on itself politically. I wasn’t suggesting usa is perfect or morally impeachable either, moreso that as the superpower bully to the world they have been the greatest promoter of democracy.
I have so much to say about this but I'll leave it out of this thread
Just booked my tickets for this evening.
Enjoy!
What did you think?
I went to see it last night as well.
Really enjoyed it and thought it was extremely well made.
The last half an hour was outstanding film-making even though there's a couple of moments you know are coming:
Lee dying and Jessie photographing it, and Joel getting something out of the President
Glad I watched this because I think it went under the radar slightly, I don't recall seeing a trailer for it and I go to the cinema a lot!
Agree, it was a taut, fun two hours of film watching.
Heading tonight to watch this. Not really seen any of the trailers but the good positive reviews certainly have me looking forward to watching it later tonight.
Saw and thought it was good. Had some flaws but teaming up Cali and Texas and not getting into the 20-25 years of history leading up to the actual war was the right choice for what the film set out to do.
The film will have staying power for the themes and visceral exploration of them. It's not perfect, I'd rate maybe a 7.5 or 8 depending on mood but it is disturbing and does interesting work. A huge improvement over the Marvel era of fluff rubbish.
Also, it makes no difference what Garland said or his intentions. There's a common thing among fictional writers that once a novel (or any art) is released, the creator's opinion or intention is no more relevant than anyone else's interpretation. All that matters is what's on the page.
It allowed it get into some themes like desensitization to violence, what people are willing to do for entertainment, what a breakdown in order can turn people into, and a glimpse at some types of ultra nationalist racist Americans turn into when cut from societal expectations. Also, what even is objective journalism and what does that even mean.
The film will have staying power for the themes and visceral exploration of them. It's not perfect, I'd rate maybe a 7.5 or 8 depending on mood but it is disturbing and does interesting work. A huge improvement over the Marvel era of fluff rubbish.
Also, it makes no difference what Garland said or his intentions. There's a common thing among fictional writers that once a novel (or any art) is released, the creator's opinion or intention is no more relevant than anyone else's interpretation. All that matters is what's on the page.
Last edited:
Just back from watching this. It’s very good. Anyone who is interested but hasn’t seen it yet, do yourself a favour and watch it in the cinema, before it goes to the small screen. One of the best films I’ve watched in a long time and the sound and visuals deserve better than a home system. Some of the best use of music I’ve seen in ages.
Genuinely excellent film. Felt like I was watching a documentary during most of the set pieces. Hope Garland goes back on his decision to quit directing, as this is arguably his finest work.
Those last 35 mins of just sheer carnage was fantastic viewing. Overall a good, easy watch.
It's a pretty amazing piece of filmmaking. Just got out of it and still feeling very uncomfortable. Very, very good. Everyone should go see it.
Not an adjective I would have used!
Yeah, it stays with you. I dug out the soundtrack on Spotify and was listening to it walking the dog today. Interesting experience.
Yeah so I saw this yesterday and it's genuinely a great, great film. I don't know why or how some of the debate around the film's promo has polarized around politics or the views of Alex Garland (which in fairness were probably taken out of context), it's a surprisingly apolitical film considering the title and the context within which it's released. It's a film with many underlying themes and points of discussion, but it's definitely not a film about the Democrats or Republicans - if that was ever in doubt.
Journalism, war reporters/photographers and the iconography of war are obviously at the forefront of it, questioning how much of war reporting has become a source of entertainment. More interestingly (for me), the film also shows how tenuous the balance within society between civilised behaviour and primitive violence is, and how that balance can quite easily be destroyed with the total collapse of our institutions. The scene with Meth Damon is in that regard the most interesting scene of the film for me. There's some food for thought, I didn't find it particularly preachy and I feel the message (or messages) are generic enough for the film to age quite well.
Having said that and having evacuated any potential confusion or whatever around the political motives of the film... It's seriously such a great piece of filmmaking. It's engrossing, it looks and feels gritty and real, it's beautifully shot and it makes a great use of music throughout the entire duration. The sound design is also very good. It's got small moments of levity, but it conveys a sense of constant threat and anguish, well carried out by the main actors (they're all great, special shoutout to my boy Wagner Moura who's so good in this), and by the tense direction - there's this random one scene where Jessie is jumping from one car to the other, you don't know exactly what's going to happen, you feel there's too much calm, too much "niceness" in the preceding couple of minutes, and you're stressed for what might happen. It earns that tension and that commitment from the viewer by carefully creating that threatening backdrop. The contrast between the extreme violence of the events taking place onscreen and the beauty of the landscapes they're driving through is also a very simple but very effective way to highlight the apocalyptic world they're now living in.
The story is tight and simple enough to keep the viewer engaged throughout, and it delivers some absolutely extraordinary scenes that will stay with me for a while:
It's just a very good film that you should definitely see at the cinema.
Journalism, war reporters/photographers and the iconography of war are obviously at the forefront of it, questioning how much of war reporting has become a source of entertainment. More interestingly (for me), the film also shows how tenuous the balance within society between civilised behaviour and primitive violence is, and how that balance can quite easily be destroyed with the total collapse of our institutions. The scene with Meth Damon is in that regard the most interesting scene of the film for me. There's some food for thought, I didn't find it particularly preachy and I feel the message (or messages) are generic enough for the film to age quite well.
Having said that and having evacuated any potential confusion or whatever around the political motives of the film... It's seriously such a great piece of filmmaking. It's engrossing, it looks and feels gritty and real, it's beautifully shot and it makes a great use of music throughout the entire duration. The sound design is also very good. It's got small moments of levity, but it conveys a sense of constant threat and anguish, well carried out by the main actors (they're all great, special shoutout to my boy Wagner Moura who's so good in this), and by the tense direction - there's this random one scene where Jessie is jumping from one car to the other, you don't know exactly what's going to happen, you feel there's too much calm, too much "niceness" in the preceding couple of minutes, and you're stressed for what might happen. It earns that tension and that commitment from the viewer by carefully creating that threatening backdrop. The contrast between the extreme violence of the events taking place onscreen and the beauty of the landscapes they're driving through is also a very simple but very effective way to highlight the apocalyptic world they're now living in.
The story is tight and simple enough to keep the viewer engaged throughout, and it delivers some absolutely extraordinary scenes that will stay with me for a while:
- The encounter with Meth Damon's character (seriously, Jesse Plemons is such a good and somewhat underated actor) is amazing and is a great summary of a lot of what the film is trying to achieve, showing what would remain of a lot of the population when stripped of the conventions of society and law; it's a terrifying scene, it builds the tension brilliantly throughout those few minutes, and with very few lines and great body language, Plemons delivers a villain character that feels just a little too real and threatening
- The scene in the small town that seems (on the surface) to have been spared from the madness of the war is quite hilarious
- The assault on Washington, the closing stages of the film, is masterfully directed and choreographed; Lee's anxiety attack as they are approaching the White House is done with some subtlety by Dunst, and kinda hammers home the point of nervous exhaustion and madness of war, while her apprentice Jessie takes on the mantle and has been contaminated with the virus of obsession for the best shot, the best image, the best vantage point - the contrast between the 2, with Joel's character as a sort of archangel for both of them, while not particularly sophisticated, works well within the backdrop of extreme violence and warfare
- The final scene is great - it's the only logical conclusion to everything we've seen up until then and the film was always going to end that way, in a final shot of disappointment in our political leaders and institutions, and with this obsession for that shot being satisfied and being ultimately rather underwhelming
It's just a very good film that you should definitely see at the cinema.
I thought it was weak, aside from the good part in Washington.
Why not flesh out the civil war story a little bit more? How did it get to the point of a civil war?
Also, some bad insertion of soundtracks here and there. Why have a tense scene of someone getting shot and then start playing hiphop? Why defuse the tension like that?
There's nothing particularly special aside from the part in Washington so for me it's a forgettable movie unfortunately. It was too safe.
Why not flesh out the civil war story a little bit more? How did it get to the point of a civil war?
Also, some bad insertion of soundtracks here and there. Why have a tense scene of someone getting shot and then start playing hiphop? Why defuse the tension like that?
There's nothing particularly special aside from the part in Washington so for me it's a forgettable movie unfortunately. It was too safe.
Last edited:
I disagree with most of what you’ve said there but surely you can see that the decision to not dig into the politics behind the war worked here?
The whole point of a movie about the horror of a civil war would have been undermined if the two factions could be split into obvious heroes and villains (which would have been inevitable if he went any deeper into the politics)
It didn't have to be about obvious heroes and villains. The fascist president is the villain. Just some background on how he rose to power, why he wanted (or got) a 3rd term etc. No need to make it about libs vs conservatives or shit like that.
I rarely find "that's the point" arguments convincing anyway, aside from Verhoeven's Starship Troopers where the point is obvious satire. When a movie is weak, it's weak IMO.
Agree. They should've called it Journalist Road Trip.
I mean, we have no evidence he was a “fascist” other than the Trumpy speech and the reference to the press being shot on sight (which was a clever nod to the end point of Trump’s demonisation of the “fake news” media) but whatever, I don’t know why you needed any more backstory to enjoy the film on its merits? We knew absolutely nothing about the motivations or people behind the uprising and the movie was all the better for that ambiguity. Civil wars can pitch neighbours and members of the same family against each other. That’s much more believable and tragic when you’re not being forced to take a side.
If it just didn’t float your boat that’s fine (and the fact the musical scenes annoyed you while I thought they were some of the strongest elements means we’re obviously coming at this from completely opposite ends of the spectrum!) but I am surprised you think that more exposition or back story would have made it a better film. I think it would have had the exact opposite effect.
Honest questions then. What's so good about playing a hiphop song after a tense scene in which they clear the building and kill someone? Also, the setpiece in Washington initally started with a soundtrack played over the urban combat. What's the artistic value of doing that? I thought it was dumb, I couldn't take it seriously. For a moment I thought that was it. Was glad to finally hear the bullets flying around.
The hip hop track sountracked the scene you’re talking and the next, exterior, scene. It was the first time we saw how brutal and cruel the western alliance could be. Combined with the journalists goofing around with them, high on adrenaline. The whole thing was really fecked up and that track fitted perfectly IMO.
Same with music over the battle. It just worked. How did you feel when you heard Ride of the Valkyries over the helicopters swarming in Apocalypse Now? Disappointed at the lack of engine noise?!?
My soundtrack criticism isn't limited to Civil War anyway, I seem to notice it quite a lot in modern movies. During a tense scene when a sad-ish soundtrack starts playing it just kills the scene. You know there won't happen anything anymore, otherwise the soundtrack wouldn't be inserted there.
The lack of music can be extremely powerful in itself. Keep the audience on edge.
The lack of music can be extremely powerful in itself. Keep the audience on edge.
But when you put a hiphop track after what was supposed to be a brutal/cruel scene, it just kills the tension IMO. It takes away the seriousness and rawness of the moment. I don't know how to explain it differently.
Imo, that would have made it a much worse movie and a very different movie. The movie is delving into different themes than that rather obvious political shite. I think it works better for posterity without touching on those questions. No matter how the creator might have imagined how it got to the point of civil war, locking something in there instead of leaving it open ended would have completely dominated debate on the movie to only focus on that instead of the more interesting themes the movie gets into.
As it stands, the movie, imo, is very critical of maga types with the President scene at the start, the Jesse Plemons scene. If it was more obvious it would have directed conversation into very predictable, boring lines. The way it was made, the movie has more staying power and timeless relevance than if it actually tried to answer the question you asked.
I originally planned to watch it last Tuesday, but circumstances pushed me to go for it only today. Tuesdays always have specials on ticket prices; that is why I wait for Tuesdays to see movies. It really is an excellent movie and it does its job at making sure it will stick with you.
@Rooney in Paris already wrote a lot of things that I agree with as I look back at the movie.
While the overall message is that no side is the good guys in such an extreme set of circumstances, I think it's obvious that Alex Garland took a stronger jab at the factions and groups that have ultranationalist racist Americans. The scene involving Jesse Plemons' character as he and his 2 buddies performing some kind of ethnic cleansing in the village was tense like so few scenes I have ever watched before. As for the 3-term President, his character reminds me so much of Putin spending so much time pushing propaganda forward about "crushing victories" and "surrender proposals" while his armed forces were the ones getting their asses kicked.
As for the final battle in DC, the arc is a masterpiece. I have seen many war movies with some of them taking place in an urban setting, and I have not seen something this intense of a depiction of warfare (especially contemporary warfare) since Black Hawk Down.
@Rooney in Paris already wrote a lot of things that I agree with as I look back at the movie.
While the overall message is that no side is the good guys in such an extreme set of circumstances, I think it's obvious that Alex Garland took a stronger jab at the factions and groups that have ultranationalist racist Americans. The scene involving Jesse Plemons' character as he and his 2 buddies performing some kind of ethnic cleansing in the village was tense like so few scenes I have ever watched before. As for the 3-term President, his character reminds me so much of Putin spending so much time pushing propaganda forward about "crushing victories" and "surrender proposals" while his armed forces were the ones getting their asses kicked.
As for the final battle in DC, the arc is a masterpiece. I have seen many war movies with some of them taking place in an urban setting, and I have not seen something this intense of a depiction of warfare (especially contemporary warfare) since Black Hawk Down.
That was a very good answer.
I want to see this. If anyone wants to know what a second civil war would look like, the far right basically already has it written out as a novel called The Turner Diaries, which is a book Tim McVey sold at gun shows. That civil war is started with blowing up an FBI center, just like McVey did in real life. I want to see this film because right it seems the reasons for the war are the most important thing, although everyone says after seeing it that the reasons don't matter.
Saw it last night and I loved it. One of the most intense, visceral and one of the *loudest* war films I’ve ever seen (almost jumped out of my seat due to random gun shots on more than one occasion).
I felt it was a really good depiction of what a modern war in America would look like, with no clear front line, a general breakdown of official law and order amongst a heavily armed population, with some people (with the luxury of armed protection) living in denial that it’s even happening.
Won’t bother repeating what others have said about the Jesse Plemons scene - it’s as good as everyone says. But the last 20 minutes was an incredible action sequence, better than you see in most legitimate action movies. At that point you felt that any or all of the characters wouldn’t make it, and I flinched every time one of the photographers stepped out of cover to get a shot (I can see why Cailee Spaeny’s character pissed off a lot of people).
But I have to say that this film has had some of the dumbest criticism I’ve ever seen ie why wasn’t there more about the political reasons for this war, why wasn’t there more commentary on contemporary American politics, why would a ‘blue’ state ally with a ‘red’ state against Washington? Surely you should judge a film based on what it is, rather than what it isn’t? And would it have been a better movie with 40 minutes of clumsy exposition about politics? Absolutely not, it would have made it far worse (I actually thought that it’s tight running time counted in its favour #makefilmsshortagain). And the fact is that once you get to the fag end of a civil war, as we already are at the start of the film, the initial reasons for the conflict have often become largely irrelevant anyway. This film simply wasn’t meant to be a commentary on contemporary politics, that’s clearly not what Garland was interested in.
I felt it was a really good depiction of what a modern war in America would look like, with no clear front line, a general breakdown of official law and order amongst a heavily armed population, with some people (with the luxury of armed protection) living in denial that it’s even happening.
Won’t bother repeating what others have said about the Jesse Plemons scene - it’s as good as everyone says. But the last 20 minutes was an incredible action sequence, better than you see in most legitimate action movies. At that point you felt that any or all of the characters wouldn’t make it, and I flinched every time one of the photographers stepped out of cover to get a shot (I can see why Cailee Spaeny’s character pissed off a lot of people).
But I have to say that this film has had some of the dumbest criticism I’ve ever seen ie why wasn’t there more about the political reasons for this war, why wasn’t there more commentary on contemporary American politics, why would a ‘blue’ state ally with a ‘red’ state against Washington? Surely you should judge a film based on what it is, rather than what it isn’t? And would it have been a better movie with 40 minutes of clumsy exposition about politics? Absolutely not, it would have made it far worse (I actually thought that it’s tight running time counted in its favour #makefilmsshortagain). And the fact is that once you get to the fag end of a civil war, as we already are at the start of the film, the initial reasons for the conflict have often become largely irrelevant anyway. This film simply wasn’t meant to be a commentary on contemporary politics, that’s clearly not what Garland was interested in.
The people who are mad it’s not that political are people who were hoping the President was explicitly a Trump or Biden stand-in (depending on their stance), and they could childishly get off on it.
I wished there were more interactions travelling through the US, encountering society and seeing how they react to the main characters, but the movie gave a broad overview of what you’d probably expect to find, ranging from the sympathetic and helpless (that settlement in blissful ignorance), the morally ambiguous (the sniper team) and the viciously savage (the Jesse Plemons posse).
And there’s just enough lines in the movie to satisfy you with regards to the lore of the world. I did like one from Henderson’s character that makes the ending even more haunting that once the President is dead, he believed all the rebel forces and alliances formed will turn on eachother and it gets even worse
I wished there were more interactions travelling through the US, encountering society and seeing how they react to the main characters, but the movie gave a broad overview of what you’d probably expect to find, ranging from the sympathetic and helpless (that settlement in blissful ignorance), the morally ambiguous (the sniper team) and the viciously savage (the Jesse Plemons posse).
And there’s just enough lines in the movie to satisfy you with regards to the lore of the world. I did like one from Henderson’s character that makes the ending even more haunting that once the President is dead, he believed all the rebel forces and alliances formed will turn on eachother and it gets even worse
I agree with this - it's a really weird stance from people it's excellent for what it is and mainly because of what it is. It doesn't need more exposition, we don't need the reasons why it's the Civil War started - the current state of the world and of politics are sufficient for our collective minds to fill in the blanks. It absolutely wouldn't have made it a better film. As some have said, it would have almost surely made it a worse film, if anything.
I get that but I have to say I like its runtime and I feel it might have gotten a bit too much - I feel, as I think it's been mentioned, that approach could suit a TV show format, with the risk of it being a bit of a Last of Us repeat. I thought what we did get to see was good to paint enough of a picture of what the US would be like.
Also, I didn't mention it, but it's also very clearly a thinly veiled criticism of the US and its rapport to guns.
Exactly, they just wanted it to be another front in their stupid endless culture wars. Fortunately, Garland was too smart a filmmaker to fall into that trap.
What are the themes of this movie?
They've been discussed extensively over the past page and a half - did you read the messages? There's not so many. The themes are also pretty evident I would say
The violence was so hyper realistic
I mentioned them in my first post here and Rooney in Paris has an event longer post about it plus plenty of other posts mentioning them as well.
Watched this tonight at the cinema. Despite being an impressively made film with some spectacularly tense scenes, I was ultimately underwhelmed and surprised by how shallow I thought it was in terms of its story, themes and messages. I really struggled to see whatever point Garland was trying to get to.
This was the first movie I have seen in a theater in over a year, and I am really glad I saw it. It wasn't what I thought it would be but ended up better than I imagined. The pacing, the balance between storytelling and action all really suited my preferences.
I like that they didn't dive into the "who were the good guys vs bad guys" in the context of fighting as that wasn't the job of those recording the events (which was the story).