• Light/Dark

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

Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
Speevy said:
Why does Trump, or a Trump-like figure need to be in the movie? Did he go away? He's been the president. He's on every channel. You want a warning for a Trump presidency? Look at the polls. A message about complacency or both-sides-ing? Look at us complaining about Biden.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't need anything to be in the movie. Alex Garland's commentary has ensured that I'll never see it.

I just find it funny that so many of the positive reviews are from liberals doing what you're lambasting while Garland himself wants nothing to do with it.
 

Nola

Member
Oct 29, 2017
8,312
I'm yet to see the film but I do question how a film like this will ever have any staying power, if not risk being considered in a mocking way with hindsight given the comments of the director(who up to this point I consider one of my favorites currently working, and by all accounts in its own merits this film is well made) and the nature of the film deliberately trying to be so non-partisan in an era mired by the rise of a new century of fascistic right-wing movements that are in no way a both sides phenomenon.

On the surface it just comes off like if someone tried to make an antiwar film like Come And See but decided to make the Nazis in Belarus being portrayed some shapeless entity. Or making a film about dehumanization set in a period similar the Rwandan Genocide but making it vague and not naming the Hutu's or Tutsi's.

It's just an odd angle to try and make an evergreen anti-war movie set in a period where there is such a one sided rise of American right-wing fascism, aimed at a Western audience.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,789
Kusagari said:
I don't need anything to be in the movie. Alex Garland's commentary has ensured that I'll never see it.

I just find it funny that so many of the positive reviews are from liberals doing what you're lambasting while Garland himself wants nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Why don't you see it on its own terms, and then form an opinion on it? Is it the money part? I'm sure it will be on Hulu or whatever in 4 months.
 
Squirrel Killer

Squirrel Killer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,181
Nola said:
I'm yet to see the film but I do question how a film like this will ever have any staying power, if not risk being considered in a mocking way with hindsight given the comments of the director(who up to this point I consider one of my favorites currently working, and by all accounts in its own merits this film is well made) and the nature of the film deliberately trying to be so non-partisan in an era mired by the rise of a new century of fascistic right-wing movements that are in no way a both sides phenomenon.

On the surface it just comes off like if someone tried to make an antiwar film like Come And See but decided to make the Nazis in Belarus being portrayed some shapeless entity. Or making a film about dehumanization set in a period similar the Rwandan Genocide but making it vague and not naming the Hutu's or Tutsi's.

It's just an odd angle to try and make an evergreen anti-war movie set in a period where there is such a one sided rise of American right-wing fascism, aimed at a Western audience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a political film and it's not "deliberately trying to be non-partisan."

It's about how we become desensitized to violence. I'm not even sure the title refers to the military war portrayed on the screen.
 
Fletcher

Fletcher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
759
Reading up on it and it seems Garland has clarified that he isn't finished directing. Which is a great thing as I enjoy his movies quite a bit.
 
Zerozerozero

Zerozerozero

Member
Oct 11, 2022
419
Saw it last night. Incredible film.

Seeing comments here, there and everywhere really shows that this film has really broken some peoples brains.

Every scene, every encounter explores the themes in different ways.

The Sniper scene showing that politics or sides don't matter one bit when you are fighting for your life.
The "What kind of American are you?" scene showing how questions/encounters take on entirely different meanings when someone has a gun in their hand.
 

Nola

Member
Oct 29, 2017
8,312
Squirrel Killer said:
It's not a political film and it's not "deliberately trying to be non-partisan."

It's about how we become desensitized to violence. I'm not even sure the title refers to the military war portrayed on the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And that's fine to make that the aim, though I guess that makes this feel like the movie is taking the DARE approach to warn about polarization/war, but what I'm saying is that I do find it odd to make a film like this where to achieve what is being sought to be achieved Garland set it in a politically whitewashed America that deliberately saps all contemporary context from the world it's portraying.

like I said, just sort of feels like you would never do this in any other context and if someone had done it contemporaneously at the time of some other historically relevant period like post war fascism or Vietnam, we probably wouldn't be super kind to it is my guess.

I still plan on seeing it next weekend cause Garland is one of my favorite directors, I just get the sense the reason it is done this way is not for some creative notion, but because he or A24 wanted it to appeal to a broad audience and "Republicans buy shoes too" and/or with what seems to be a bit of a lacking perspective of US politics on Garland's part.
 
refusi0n1

refusi0n1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,195
What a meh movie. Maybe it was living through the actual terrifying events of 2015-2021 that made it toothless for me. "Look how scary it can get and desensitized we are"... uh yeah? We had a kid murder a protestor that got off scot-free, another run over by a muscle car, people getting stuffed into unmarked cars, cops just killing people for reasons, jan 6th, the list goes on and on. That ship has left the harbor. Wasn't really bothered by the "apolitical" ness of it but not surprised how it could play into concern troll/war larper fuel even if it's not intended to be. If it's supposed to be antiwar/war is hell there are much better films out there imo. Bland as hell for me. Great performances though
 
Last edited:
Teenage Fansub

Teenage Fansub

Member
May 24, 2019
22,643
Nola said:
I'm yet to see the film but I do question how a film like this will ever have any staying power, if not risk being considered in a mocking way with hindsight given the comments of the director(who up to this point I consider one of my favorites currently working, and by all accounts in its own merits this film is well made) and the nature of the film deliberately trying to be so non-partisan in an era mired by the rise of a new century of fascistic right-wing movements that are in no way a both sides phenomenon.

On the surface it just comes off like if someone tried to make an antiwar film like Come And See but decided to make the Nazis in Belarus being portrayed some shapeless entity. Or making a film about dehumanization set in a period similar the Rwandan Genocide but making it vague and not naming the Hutu's or Tutsi's.

It's just an odd angle to try and make an evergreen anti-war movie set in a period where there is such a one sided rise of American right-wing fascism, aimed at a Western audience.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The movie's much more about the journey and struggles of the central characters. It'll stand the test of time for their performances, the tension of the set pieces, the visuals, the music.
 
Keldroc

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,164
Truant said:
The opening shot is literally Trump's profile.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Using Trump's language. "Many people are saying it's the greatest victory in the history of mankind."

It's very clear which side is which. Surprised people aren't picking up on it.

H.Cornerstone said:
The problem with this is that
A. This is never explained in the movie.
b. It's not like the WEstern forces are the bastions of virtue either
C. WTF would NYC and Oregon/Washington not align with the WF then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Points taken on A and B but C is pretty easy: California and Texas are the only states with enough self-contained, independent economy and military power to stand against an authoritarian government. Oregon/Washington would be easy to suppress militarily and NYC has so many financial ties to Washington and other East Coast interests that breaking away would be very difficult, plus the US military would stop at nothing to prevent the loss of the NYC ports. It is shown in the movie that NYC is extremely volatile and areas of it are occupied by military force, probably for this exact reason.
 
Exposure

Exposure

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,740
This thread is so weird because people are acting like people just need to watch the film and they'll get what Garland meant when the thing got people riled up is literally the interviews Garland himself did for his own movie

like it would not surprise me if the movie doesn't fit with what he's saying, he wouldn't be the first person to make something that didn't 100% fit with his interpretation after the fact (e.g Ridley Scott, stop trying to make "Deckard is a Replicant" a thing)

But people have quite literally read his words where he is both sidesing the current political climate of the United States, there's not exactly much room for interpretation in what he's said!
 
H.Cornerstone

H.Cornerstone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,928
Keldroc said:
Using Trump's language. "Many people are saying it's the greatest victory in the history of mankind."

It's very clear which side is which. Surprised people aren't picking up on it.



Points taken on A and B but C is pretty easy: California and Texas are the only states with enough self-contained, independent economy and military power to stand against an authoritarian government. Oregon/Washington would be easy to suppress militarily and NYC has so many financial ties to Washington and other East Coast interests that breaking away would be very difficult, plus the US military would stop at nothing to prevent the loss of the NYC ports. It is shown in the movie that NYC is extremely volatile and areas of it are occupied by military force, probably for this exact reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except Washington/Oregon align with Idaho/Montana and the Rocky Mountain states.
 
Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
Squirrel Killer said:
It's not a political film and it's not "deliberately trying to be non-partisan."

It's about how we become desensitized to violence. I'm not even sure the title refers to the military war portrayed on the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Very telling that this movies biggest defenders openly disagree with the person who made it

Nggj4Hs.png
 
Real

Real

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,563
I liked the movie. The audio in IMAX was very immersive and the atrocities of war were portrayed very vividly.
 
Antoo

Antoo

Member
May 1, 2019
3,886
i thought this was good, but the third act stopped me from loving the movie. my big problem is that the characters service the story instead of the story serving the characters. i can respect that choice in making everything serve the larger point of the film, but it was far too jarring to see all the characters suddenly act completely different out of nowhere to justify the director's message about the state of journalism. everything with jessie was a MESS.

ultimately, i'm fine with the movie stripping away the context of what is occurring in favor of telling a more character-driven narrative. however, when that approach butts heads with the message i'm left soured.
 
Last edited:
Zerozerozero

Zerozerozero

Member
Oct 11, 2022
419
I've seen the film. You haven't. You can't really have a discussion about what is and isn't in the film an more importantly how it's handled with someone who hasn't actually seen it.

Alex Garland wanted to make a film about war journalists, but not set it in a middle eastern country to avoid the distancing and othering tropes. As the saying goes War is Politics by other means, and the film is following people chronicling this war. It's not politicians sitting in rooms discussing the finer points on bills. It's about people struggling to get water, food, get petrol, travel and live.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,789
What would this film gain by connecting itself to our current political discourse?

A lot of run time and talking that no one on either side would have their mind changed by
 
UrbanDandy

UrbanDandy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,859
After seeing it yesterday, and thinking about it further by reading these comments, I believe the reason why Garland made this with a centrist view is because he's not American. I think that if an American filmmaker wrote and directed this, it would pretty much be a very black and white take given what this country's gone through the past 4 or 5 years.
 
Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
Zerozerozero said:
I've seen the film. You haven't. You can't really have a discussion about what is and isn't in the film an more importantly how it's handled with someone who hasn't actually seen it.

Alex Garland wanted to make a film about war journalists, but not set it in a middle eastern country to avoid the distancing and othering tropes. As the saying goes War is Politics by other means, and the film is following people chronicling this war. It's not politicians sitting in rooms discussing the finer points on bills. It's about people struggling to get water, food, get petrol, travel and live.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay, bro, I get it seeing the movie will change how the English language works and suddenly "this movie is not political" and "yes this movie is political!" will mean the exact same thing.

Alex Garland is such a visionary genius he's redefined how words work.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,789
*clips of January 6, George Floyd protests*

*bang bang, shoot shoot, riots, suppression*

News cast: "The incumbent Republican president, Ronald Trent, has declared martial law."

*American soldiers executing people*

What a brave and original film, or you know, an episode of 24.
 

Walpurgisnacht

Member
May 7, 2020
1,021
Yeah, at this point I'm really not getting the people in here that are saying war has nothing to do with politics.

At the risk of sounding like some keyboard centurion - war is the purest distillation of politics. When the political process breaks down and is thrown into crisis, what else do you think happens exactly?
 
Squirrel Killer

Squirrel Killer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,181
Kusagari said:
Very telling that this movies biggest defenders openly disagree with the person who made it

Nggj4Hs.png
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not defending the film. If you don't like it, fine. I saw people walk out in my showing. Good on them if it wasn't for them.

I'm just saying it's not a political movie because it doesn't advance a single political idea beyond "war is bad." It's, at best, "political"-ish. If he wanted to make a political film, he should've made those elements (which I agree were clearly in the film) actually mean something in the course of the movie.

You could flip the president's politics and wouldn't change the plot at all, it'd change maybe a few lines of dialogue. People, even creators talking about their creations, can be wrong.
 
meowdi gras

meowdi gras

Banned
Feb 24, 2018
12,679
What I'm getting from this thread is that a lot of folks prefer their political films to be apolitical.

🤔
 
The Teachinator

The Teachinator

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,033
ZeoVGM said:
Yes it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I disagree with your sentiment but I also haven't seen anyone clarify what they think the politics of the film are. Could you elaborate so I can get some insight about this perspective? I just don't see it.

Speevy said:
*clips of January 6, George Floyd protests*

*bang bang, shoot shoot, riots, suppression*

News cast: "The incumbent Republican president, Ronald Trent, has declared martial law."

*American soldiers executing people*

What a brave and original film, or you know, an episode of 24.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's interesting how you have to leave out the other 97% of the film to come to this vapid conclusion.
 
Speevy

Speevy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
19,789
The Teachinator said:
It's interesting how you have to leave out the other 97% of the film to come to this vapid conclusion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


That's not in the film at all, and is better for it. I'm saying it doesn't need all that to accomplish its goals. There is 0% gained by saying the word Republican or Democrat, or even fascist. You know what it is.
 
Vectorman

Vectorman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,028
Riding the Chillwavves
My biggest problem is the lack of setting up any lore beyond the minor details said in passing. I'm a sucker for alternate history and it felt so insular for a film that has a country like ours having a second civil war. I felt like Garland focused way too hard on the journalists and we probably needed some different perspectives to really get into this world. I mean you got Nick Offerman as the Prez so why not see some of this world from his perspective? Or the soldiers from the many different factions? Normal citizens? The film's setting could have been in any non descript country at times. This film has so much potential but doesn't use the world its set up well in my opinion. Honestly this probably could be a tv show for all intents and purposes to get the real point across and still give us lore. Plus I really hated that ending. Woof.
 
SolidSnakeBoy

SolidSnakeBoy

Member
May 21, 2018
7,357
I just got out. Excellent film. I get concerns about its relliance on generic fascism as the propelling narrative vehicle. I don't personally think that means the movie is apolitical, just that it's aims are to examine American fascism in a wider context.

So the focus on journalism as a theme and device to capture the things that divide us (nationalism, racism, gun culture, white supremacy, indifference, and desensitization) works for me. I know the Republicans are the fascists I don't need a film to tell me that, I do need a film to capture the way war and its implicit hatred would look in this country such that a deeper refutal of those divisions be ingrained in me.

Having said these things, I perfectly understand why folks who live day by day a very real subset of the atrocities depicted here would find the film toothless.
 
Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
Speevy said:
That's not in the film at all, and is better for it. I'm saying it doesn't need all that to accomplish its goals. There is 0% gained by saying the word Republican or Democrat, or even fascist. You know what it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alex Garland in every explanation of the movie seems to just think "fascism" is. A fascist president would come from somewhere with an actual ideology beyond being "a fascist." Garland continually sidesteps this, I suspect, because of much of the premise of the movie would fall apart if he had to delve further.
 
SCUMMbag

SCUMMbag

Prophet of Truth - Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,898
Saw it tonight. Some amazing scenes and moments but it's a movie that's too cowardly to say anything on the larger level.

I think outside of one or two scenes, it's basically a blank canvas to put your political views on top of.

That's totally fine, but I think to make a movie knowing that the audience is going to bring so much baggage into it, it ultimately feels like it's ultimate goal is to make as much money as possible by not alienating any demographic.
 
SolidSnakeBoy

SolidSnakeBoy

Member
May 21, 2018
7,357
Kusagari said:
Alex Garland in every explanation of the movie seems to just think "fascism" is. A fascist president would come from somewhere with an actual ideology beyond being "a fascist." Garland continually sidesteps this, I suspect, because of much of the premise of the movie would fall apart if he had to delve further.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But the point isn't to explore a fascism ladder random president took to get there. It's to present what things such a person could use to get there in America ( but lets be honest history affirms universality), which definitely are captured in the film. Then the movie tries to present the horrible things that result from opting to not refute such ideology as a cautionary tale.
 
BloodHound

BloodHound

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,272
Just finished.

Tense AF film.

Some pacing issues here and there but enjoyed it.

One of the most interesting films I've seen in awhile. There is literally no context setting and it actually works.
 
Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,082
SolidSnakeBoy said:
But the point isn't to explore a fascism ladder random president took to get there. It's to present what things such a person could use to get there in America ( but lets be honest history affirms universality), which definitely are captured in the film. Then the movie tries to present the horrible things that result from opting to not refute such ideology as a cautionary tale.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My point is that Garland wants to have his cake and eat it too. He insists his movie is political, but then is overly vague in how the politics of the US that exists in the movie came to be.

I suspect if Garland truly had to delve into a backstory that explained the rise of the current president and the team up of CA/TX (beyond just generically saying they teamed up to stop a fascist president) the entire movie would fall apart because there's no real way to link the two.

That might be the truest reason of all to call this a centrist movie, because it literally can only exist by taking that point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.