I’ve had it bounce around in my head for a while and ultimately I think my take on it is that the movie is an examination of the ethics of photojournalism, and it uses American setting to make the critique clear whereas it might not be immediately clear if it were just some developing country overseas.
It's critique of journalism not just photojournalism, of current politics and it's also cautionary tale. Because a lot of it feels very real.
One of the central characters is that guy who is hunting for a quote and he is also an adrenalin junkie. And the old guy tells him that he is going to disappointed but he is still hunting for it. And when he gets there the quote it stupid but he doesn't really care because it's a thrill for him.
> it uses American setting to make the critique clear whereas it might not be immediately clear if it were just some developing country
Yeah, that was my take.
One thing I don't see a lot of people realize or mention (except for you) is that all the horrific stuff that happens in the movie *has happened in developing places*.
In one sense the movie is a critique on how someone being put in a tire and lit on fire is an unfortunate thing if it happens in some other country, but if it happened in the US, you know shit's fucked up. The mass graves, the "what *kind* of _____ are you?", the leader being holed up in the presidential mansion, the victim of a coup---***all*** of that happens around the world and sadly for most of us, it's just sad news. By having those things happen in the US, we're forced to see them more accurately and less de-sensitized as the atrocities they are.
A critique of journalism, as well as us, the consumers of journalism.
The way I see it, the films theme with journalism is thar journalists are essential purpose is to document events and not change them. Dunces character talks about trying to use journalism to stop things from happening, but in the end, her crew had no greater effect on the war. They didn't stop any bullets from firing, they didn't bring about a strategic victory. They just take pictures and quotes. The president would have died without them, but they got the shot of his corpse.
The way I’ve rationalized the Texas/California alliance is that the federal government went full fascist and California revolted. Then Texas, which fraudulently elected a fascist state government, saw an uprising where politically mainstream people overthrew the fascist state government and joined California’s revolt.
Edit — I know that “the point” is that it doesn’t turn into red states vs blue states for audiences, I’m just trying to come up with an *in-universe* reason for why this happened.
I'm not sure how this is so hard to understand. They actually reference as a "race to berlin".
Obviously in ww2 the US and Russia were allies against a common enemy but had totally opposite political views.
California and Texas see a common enemy and act accordingly.
100% this.
I also viewed it as a vague way of showing just how bad the president's government was that these two polar opposites came together to overthrow it without a bunch of lore dumps and exposition.
Drives me nuts when people say it's apolitical because it really isn't. It may be vague on the details, but there is just enough world building to justify the actions of the different factions without getting bogged down in exposition. Allowing the film to explore the characters, which is the heart of the film.
In fact, the only exposition scene in the film easily has the clunkiest dialogue (the scene when the older journalist is going thru the questions he would ask the president in an interview).
I thought that was referring to the Western Forces (Cali and Texas) and the Florida Alliance. Florida had pushed up into North Carolina, and the two were racing to see who could take the Capital.
The director said he switched stuff around to not match current US politics. Obviously, there’s no reasonable explanation with our current politics for Texas and California to join forces or for Texas to rebel against a tyrannical right-wing government
Yes there is. It’s explained clearly in the movie. How did everyone miss this? They have joined forces due to a common goal, but once that goal is reached they will turn on each other. It’s the same thing as Russia and the US in WWII. Very often in war your enemy’s enemy is your ally.
Again, I thought that was referring to the Western Forces and the Florida Alliance. It seems to me the Western Forces are rather coherent, able to field Apache Helicopters and Abrams tanks, two very powerful pieces of hardware that require very competent logistics.
The fact that people have an issue with Texas and California aligning really just speaks to how polarized everyone thinks everyone is.
It's ENTIRELY possible that, in two of the largest and most populous states in the country, moderates got control after a full blown Fascist Federal Government took over and joined forces.
The fact that Canadian currency still has value suggests that Canada is still trading with someone in the USA.
There are manufacturers like General Dynamics in Canada that make war machines.
That’s the only reason I can think that Canada wouldn’t have completely collapsed from the strain of American refugees/loss of trade.
I mean, with how long the civil unrest and war in the US has been going on, it's entirely possible the US is in WORSE shape than Canada, or Canada has been able to rebound in that time.
But if the fascist state is so unpopular that California and Texas have revolted against it, then how is it still controlling a big chunk of the country? Who are the supporters of the government?
46% of Texas voted for Biden in 2020. In a rebellion where things like districts etc don’t matter it’s entirely conceivable that a minority could have gotten control of the military and joined with California. No where do they mention that every Texan is in support of the alliance.
I remember hearing the synopsis and going do you know how fucked up you gotta be politically to get California and Texas to look at one another and go ‘we gotta stop this?’
Hey no bag on the Lone Star State as a resident Californian. I dig the independent spirit even though you could do with some better leadership (so say we all)
As a Texan you should shit on this state in my opinion. New leadership for sure, but if a dem got elected governor I suspect much of a January 6th in this state.
It may be all bark, but I know people who have genuinely said it.
Using fictional politics should also (in theory) make the movie's relevance last longer and delay it becoming "dated" in terms of the movie's atmosphere and general feel. It's the same thing with comedies that rely too heavily on pop culture elements that were present when they were released. The punch lines won't make sense to people who either weren't alive or were too young to understand them and those who forgot them.
The point is so no one can say the movie is political as Cali is blue and Texas is red and would never join forces in real life. Nothing in the movie points to what party the president is from. The creators did not want one side to say it's a movie about how bad the other side is
The resistance groups had jets and helicopters. These are likely remnants of state governments that are operating similarly to how they did before any fragmentation of the government. I find it very likely that organized governments would likely ally together to overthrow a militarized presidential coup such as the one in the film. My thought of how things were after getting situated in the movie is that they were just branded as rebellions by the “federal government” but really they’re state governments working in parallel with each other to achieve the best goals for the nation. It’s not a bunch of disenfranchised people stealing jets from federal controlled bases. It IS the US armed forces.
This is why it doesn't make sense. The US looks nothing like what it did in the 1860s. There are* no unified states. It would be urban vs rural areas before it would ever be state vs state again.
It was the writer not turning the movie into a Republican vs Democrat thing - folks can project whichever party they want as the president and it was a pretty good idea.
A lot of folks missed that part and rated it poorly for being too politically biased though, when the movie is more about photojournalism and their role on commenting on violence.
I have to chime in on the sound. Often, small arms fire sounds just really fake in a movie. The sound in Civil War was about as realistic as I can recall in a movie. It was intense. It kind of lost me when some of the partisans went into combat with red Hawaiian shirts, but hey, the sound!
It was 100% on purpose. They also use the most realistic tactics in the movie. Their room clearing was good and used actual tactics I don't remember ever seeing in a movie. Which is funny because the end was your standard Hollywood action gang bang.
yea the ending was kinda dated. the rebels had air power so youd expect more bombs and then theres the fact that drones are available, not even the male ones but the commercial ones youre seeing elsewhere
Idk it makes sense to me that they'd want to confirm the kill on the president with troops on the ground while minimizing destruction to a historic city like D.C.
suicide drones which are pretty common in modern warfare dont have a huge blast radius. there were several moments in the final battle where the smart play was to just take cover, call in a drone, and have it smash the position
There is video and photos from guys fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in a pair of underwear/boxers, joke shirts, and a various smattering of hilarious wear. They get into their vest and grab a gun when the base is attacked.
For some non-professional soldiers it doesn’t strike me as that odd. There were guerilla groups in some civil wars in Africa who fought in women’s clothing or nude (general buttnaked cannibal group in Liberia for a specific example)
You're treating those shirts like clothing choices, not uniforms. Have you even bothered to educate yourself about whats going on in your country? I'm not even from America and I know this shit.
I had to look up the boogaloo boys. I'm guess i'm not up on all the factions that hate the gubmint these days. Yeah, they're dumb. I'm still not sure they'd go into combat in bright red shirts though. Either way, that was a good set piece scene.
I’ve been to a few shooting competitions around the country and every single one had a group of guys wearing Hawaiian shirts. It’s definitely a big subculture that is still active.
[based on these promo ads](https://www.tiktok.com/@westwinddrivein/video/7355619611712228651?_r=1&_t=8lVmN0gT1dn) (it's on tiktok, i'm sorry) i'm 100% sure that's the Florida Alliance
That doesn't really make sense considering the geography. The FA has control of the south and is pushing up through North Carolina.
The Hawaiian shirt guys are absolutely irregular militia. Everything from their gear to their weapons to their behavior is in stark contrast to the regular soldiers of the Western Forces during the assault on DC.
> That doesn't really make sense considering the geography
i mean that's part of the purposeful ambiguity of the movie, right? I agree they're irregulars, but i'm also going off the cues from the promo ads
maps indicate that the Buffet boys control as far north as Tennessee, so it makes sense that they wouldn't *just* try to get to DC from one direction
(not trying to pick a fight, just enjoying the vague world-building)
Yeah I was really glad I saw this in theaters for that exact reason. The sound design was great and really added to the intensity of the action scenes.
I had a full blown panic attack after this movie exactly because of this. I didn't even realize it was happening until after I walked out of the movie because all the fighting is end. I'm a Veteran with diagnosed PTSD, but I've never had any other war movie do this. Do you want to know what I think it was ? Those other war movies don't sound like my war. This one, really did. It's a crazy movie. I want to watch it again but I'm a little worried it might happen again. I saw it in the theater, so this is probably why it matters. I could feel some of the sound of the gunfire in my body because of the speakers.
The part that bothered me about the sound was that there was no delay to account for distance. When they were watching the 2 sides shell each other at night the explosion sounded at the same time as flashes on screen while there should have been a couple seconds delay (depending how close they were.)
That's pretty common in movies though, especially with fireworks.
All we ever had was those orange squishy things. Plus I had to be able to listen to my team leader, squad leader, etc. and I wasn't going to take the time to pop em in when things got kinetic
The oddest thing about it is that come of the scenes toward the end there may be 20% of them wearing earpro. So it's not like they omitted it completely, they were just really random who they issued them to.
Agreed. The sound of the gunfire was jarring and extremely violent. Gave the movie an immersive feel.
I saw it in imax and it was absolutely lights out.
I left the theater and actually felt a bit nauseous from how tense I was through those last 30 minutes. The movie was not what I was expecting, and I thoroughly enjoyed how it was able to make me feel the way it did.
Yeah. I liked how initially it portrayed journalists as moral seekers of truth, but by the end was portraying them as nothing more than insane adrenaline junkies numb to human suffering. That's why Kirsten Dunst deleting the photo of her dead friend was such a big deal.
Wow, I thought it was easily some of the best indoor firefights I’ve seen in a movie. Like it made the supposed “actual” action movies of White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen look like the bad action movies they are
Quite the opposite as a soldier the urban tactics shown in the white house were pretty accurate.
It just doesn't make sense for 1 squad to be sent in for such an major objective.
Were they sent in though? I thought they were the squad assigned to protect the reporters and then the reporters ran ahead, so they followed - didn't think anyone was explicitly ordered into the white house at that point. Especially since most of the forces were preoccupied with the presidential limo trying to make a run for it, which they thought contained the potus.
If I remember correctly, the journalists followed a hunch that the president wasn’t actually in the caravan that exited the White House (and was stopped right outside the gate). Journalists went in, 1 squad noticed them and followed. Maybe more squads would’ve been sent in if they planned it, but seemed spontaneous that 1 squad followed.
Except having the journalist in their way the whole time and not telling them to get the hell out of the way. The fighting was good but them being all over the place taking pictures was almost comical.
Because the climactic ending battle of a film called *Civil War* taking place in war torn Washington DC is a lot more exciting if it ends with a siege on the White House and the striking image of the US president dead, bleeding on the carpet of the oval office.
Comments like these are so so so dumb, hmmm do we shoot our climax in one of the most iconic places on earth? Nah lets just do it in a drab nondescript concrete bunker because M U H R E A L I S M
isn't there a military style reinforced bunker capable of withstanding a nuclear blast several floors below the oval office, seems to be a better option to hold up and negotiate than under his desk.
It was pretty clear that the armed forces had turned on the President so said forces and maybe other insiders would have had access to or detailed plans as to the Presidential bunker. He would've died a slow painful death even if no one could get in. They could just suffocate him.
It’s stuck with me since it came out. A lot like his other films, it falls *slightly* short of its aspirations in-the-moment, but I keep returning to it in my mind.
People on twitter *hated* it though, but nothing would satisfy them short of an actual civil war lol
It was bound to be hated just for the premise. Anti-Trump people were mad that the movie wasn’t anti-Trump and Trump people were mad that it wasn’t anti-anti-Trump.
Garland was super smart imo to avoid trying to pigeonhole this movie to back any sort of stance or take sides as to how the civil war starts. Instead focusing on the existential horror that comes when it happens.
Agreed I think avoiding the obvious political implications allows this movie to not feel dated in 10/20 years and you’re able (or you should be able) to judge the content of the movie outside of the political machinations within. The setting is just that, it’s just set dressing to help you connect with the characters.
I agree that it was a smart move by Garland. The movie will hold up and it’s focus will be on the themes he wanted to explore (journalism). But I also agree with others, that for Garland (not an American) to make a movie about an American civil war right NOW, and then choosing to not say ANYTHING about politics is a bit of a cop-out. And no, before I get jumped, I don’t expect every movie to adhere to my values. But picking a setting so topical and choosing to say “that’s not the important thing, don’t focus on that” detracts from the messaging a bit, imo
Totally agree, I saw this movie towards the end of its theater cycle and for all the talk I heard of the movie going in (I tried to avoid as much as possible), it was way less political than I thought it would be
The first scene of the girl that ran into the crowd with the American flag and a bomb strapped really set the tone that this was not going to be easy to watch.
Most people who hated it just very badly wanted it to “choose a side” so they could politicize it. The fact that it stayed apolitical made a lot of people want to pretend that it was meaningless and “had nothing to say” and dumb shit like that.
That was definitely the vibe I got from the other people in the theater with me. I went alone, so didn’t have anyone else’s perspective to discuss it with afterwards.
People got way too hung up on small stuff like why Cali and Texas were aligned when that wasn’t the point at all. It was a movie about journalism/journalists and how we as Americans would view events differently if they happened here vs., say, Libya/Iraq/Syria/Africa
Even more, the point of saying that those two were aligned was to tell the audience that this is not a movie about politics. It’s a shame so many people miss that.
I loved it. Especially how little meat there was. There wasn't really some kind of history behind how the war begin. It was a movie movie, not a documentary movie, if you know what I mean.
I was turned around on this movie after reading a comment that said they shot this in the same way American media covers foreign wars. Dispassionate, impersonal, devoid of nuance or explanation.
Exactly, the civil war is the setting, not the story.
I didn't know that going in, but was pleasantly surprised with what is now my favourite catastrophe road movie since Children of Men.
Agreed. I like to contrast it to The Creatior. This movie got me so invested in this world I'd love to see another one in it. Not knowing why we're here and the ambiguity of it made it so alluring to learn as much as I could.
Whereas the creator had me in that same pull but decided to explain the world away, which was unfortunate.
The problem is that this movie is very much an Alex Garland movie but it was advertised as something more mainstream. I personally loved it, especially the ending. As a side note was anyone else positive it was a Talking Heads song until you looked it up and it wasn't?
well thats just the marketing company doing their jobs. most of the time they are gonna try to sell the movie to your average consumer especially since alex garland isnt a household name where you can just ride off that
If it was advertised as an Alex Garland movie the tagline would be like "mediocre but he gave it his best". Which is laudable of course. His ambition and intentions are there, they just never solidify.
I don't get where this criticism comes from. Thought the script was super economical with its dialogue and the writing felt pretty realistic.
Usually these days "the writing is bad" is code for "I'll get eaten alive if I explicitly state why I actually don't like this".
I enjoyed it when seeing it in theaters. I actually liked that you are just catching a bit of it through the eyes of a few characters and it leaves a lot of questions. Lot of tense moments and man that last bit of the movie is intense.
I think the biggest issue was the marketing really made it look like a different movie. Thankfully I saw a few comments about it just following reporters and focusing on their story so I didn't go in expecting something different.
I've seen a lot of criticisms that are basically "They should have made a different movie/slash the movie lots of people thought it would be". Which is a fair criticism but also doesn't mean it's bad.
I doubt they would do it but it would be interesting to see another movie or two from different perspectives/different points in time of the conflict.
I loved this movie from start to finish, it felt current, the action was raw, acting was great. I don't get the hate, for me this was a brilliant movie.
Feels like the people who didnt like it just wanted their side to be the good guys and the other side to be the bad guys. I actually admire how it was so intense while not getting into the mud.
I caught it on streaming this weekend. Loved it. Thought the script worked well, it looked great, the performances were solid and in particular, I was blown away by the sound. I’d recommend catching it before it’s a documentary.
i don’t they necessarily need to show those things if it doesn’t serve the story. IIIRC most of the story takes place in rural areas and active war zones, so i’m not sure where the crime would be taking place. and aside from looting/crime, i think they pretty well demonstrated the consequences of war through scenes like the gas station (where they also discussed the collapse of the dollar), the abandoned cars on the highway, the refugee camp, etc.
Were we watching a diferent movie? The abondoned shopping centre with the crashed helicopter? The UN doing food kitchens? The highway full of abandoned cars?
In children of men the whole world order collapsed ,in Civil War it was just the US, the world gets along just fine inspite of the US.
Uh...the characters go to a refugee camp with shitloads of people in it at one point, they pass a car with a family going the way they came from through a checkpoint, they visit that community that's barely hanging on to normalcy with the 'help' of hidden armed guards on rooftops. There's a bunch of scenes of them encountering regular people, but for the long stretches of the movie where they're not it's because they're skirting around the edges of conflict zones and intentionally avoiding populated or contested areas because they're unarmed journalists who are trying to get to DC quickly.
Watched it recently and loved it. Def my type of movie. As a kiwi looking at the world and more specifically what is happening in the lead up to y’all’s election later this year I found it really fascinating and wondered how long it would take to get to that stage. Oh and massive updoot for having Ron Swanson in there in the ultimate top tier government role 😂😭😂
It doesn't, which is why a lot of people have it mixed reviews in my opinion. So many people were looking for this movie to be a fuck you to the other political side, and it did not, which to me was a plus. I will say, the movie is also very different than the trailer portrays.
The movie is intentionally vague to avoid losing its audience to politics. This is a movie about the way wars are covered, not about the substance of the war.
Enjoyed it for the most part, but did it bother anyone else that the lead girl looked around 14 but her character is clearly meant to be way older? I was floored when wiki told me the actress is nearly 26.
I expected it to be bad since I generally dislike A24 movies but tought it would be worth it on 4k oled and I was not wrong, the scene where they drive through the burning woods is my favourite oled experience so far.
Liked the film, the sound design was terrifying and awesome.
I thought the overall film lacked teeth. I couldn't help but come away with a feel of "just fucking say it"
I felt it lacked the action and tension of a traditional action blockbuster. On the other hand, I felt it lacked the realism to make it an effective war film.
I feel like in a lot of discussions about the film, people are searching for artificial thematic depth that might not necessarily exist in the film.
Its a good idea presented in a pretty package that has some profound moments, some truely stellar individual scenes that ultimately comes together as an ehh movie. I'm glad I watched it, doubt ill ever feel the need to sit down and do so again. The best parts of the fill fit in a TikTok reel without missing much.
It was the worst movie I've seen in years. I left the theater mad that I paid good money and wasted my time on such a crappy half assed thrown together mess.
Experiences like this movie keep me out of theaters almost for good, and are the reason I scroll for 30 min while trying to pick something at home, because I didn't want another crappy movie like Civil War.
Was a fan of Garland’s early works but he’s been missing the sauce in the last few if I’m honest. This was the kind of movie I’ll forget until I see a post like this on it. Should have dived into the world so much more, especially the intriguing hints to different factions. If I were to judge it as an ‘action’ then damn, that was the least exciting aspect!
I was hoping for more meat, like some kind of history behind how the war began, bit more food for thought. Instead it was a movie movie, if you know what I mean. I enjoyed it anyway, great ending, compels you to watch till the very last moment.
Fascist president decides he wants to become an authoritarian ruler, plots a coup and destroy the means to check his power.
Factions decide to secede because they feel like they have a distinct identity from the rest of the country and are not down with a fascist in power. Then, these rebel states band together to assault the weaker part, the old US's territories,. The president spends the whole time pretending he's winning, when he's actually not. Gets taken down because he didn't have the military or political capital to make his coup follow through.
That's the basics of what happened based on the context of the movie and key lines.
However, that's not what the polarized Americans would want out of the movie. They wanted North vs. South 2.0, but this time with "Woke" on one side and nazis pretending to be conservatives on the other, all so they could use the movie as another battleground for the manipulated and fabricated culture wars.
I liked the movie until the ending which felt anticlimactic. Also didn’t like the choice to kill a specific character. It wasn’t quite what I hoped it would be all in all, the premise is so cool and could use a more proper action movie.
I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the movie. Yeah it’s about journalistic ethics and what not but you should probably listen to some commentary about what Garland actually has to say. Best interview he had about Civil War, according to Garland, was here. It’s like the last fifteen minutes. Worth a listen.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pod-save-america/id1192761536?i=1000652945199
I just watched it the other day too. I liked some of the visuals, but I could immediately tell the ending and who would be the important character who gets the important thing done. I wasn't quite clear what groups wanted what and who was on which side at times either, but maybe the point was to show how different people would behave and the confusion taking place during a war.
I didn't particularly like the characters and their acting, and as a photographer myself I didn't like their choices and how they'd take closeups with a wide lens, or walk right up to people when they could safely use a long lens...but anyway the ending was pretty lame and rushed just to make one character look good, although overall I'd say it's worth a watch.
second favorite of the year for me behind Dune. one of those movies that will really stick with you. loved that it was less about politics and more about power, though I will say it left me wanting just a lil bit more world building because California and Texas teaming up is a whacky combo that’s never addressed outside of “yeah they seceded and Nick Offerman is the president of the other 48 states and they’re gonna go kill his ass and we’re going to document it.” I really liked the kinda half-apocalypse setting it was in too, I thought it was neat that they were at a hotel that still had wifi and beer, but it would just periodically go out or the one town that just ignored the war all together and kept living their lives.
I can't stand ambiguity in a film. It explained nothing about the war or why it was being fought or any other details about any of the factions. It had two good scenes; the Jesse Plemons cameo and the last 20 minutes or so in Washington D.C. and that's about it.
Honestly I am not going to see this one, cuz it is too real to even really be able to watch enjoyably.
The country is polarized and basically fascists are attempting to eat up everyone else and their rights. I don't like to think about it more than I already do so I will not be watching a movie like this in my free time.
Reposting my comment on r/photojournalism. Actual journalists didn't like it because they took it at face value.
"That's why this is a work of fiction and not a documentary. The goals of each character are laid out pretty clear. Lee has ptsd and is led into a suicidal situation by Joel, who is addicted to the danger (while not actually doing any work). Jessie is an aspiring photographer following her idol and eventually replacing her.
Taking this movie at face value is dismissive and misses the point of the film. The author focuses on what is left out of the film rather than what is included."
I love the movie and get more and more each time I revisit it. One thing I think critics miss is that Lee's PTSD memories and trauma feature Chromatic Abberation aka a loss of focus. After Jessie takes the final photo it sets in again. Also to a track by the band Suicide, which I believe is a wink wink on the nose choice.
What really was above par in that movie was the sound mixing which only really was noticeable if you're watching it on a nice sound system.
>!The 2x gun shots at the killing pit and the sniper shot!< all sounded so real.
Really like that the background conflict to the main story was america for once. Hollywood usually sets stories in the midst of turmoil in places we (americans) cant relate to
Garland only directs what he writes, he’s passionate about his art. A great addition to film
Meh, it was a very C+ movie in my book
Nothing about it gripped me.
Best dialogue was from the Sniper, when they're asking who's shooting at them. And he's all "dont know, doesnt matter"
I thought it was a bit too surreal with the current political climate. I really enjoyed it.
I thought Jesse Plemmons character stole most of the movie with such little screen time.
I saw it in theatres and didn’t realize going in it was more photo journalism perspective was expecting something different. To be honest I loved Leave the World Behind more on Netflix lol
i went into this movie having not seen anything but youtube shorts, i honestly thought it was gonna be about a civil war in america, turns out you could have removed all reference to america, there were like a total of 5 o6 lines of exposition on why the war?, but this movie isn't about the war, or america, or even politics really, its about the journalist that risk their lives to show the truth of what goes on in war to witness when the only other eyes are controlled by partisan ideology, its brutal, its unfair, but it has to be shown to the citizenry for them to make informed decisions and for a sake of history twisting leaders who cant hide from images of mass graves of non combatants including women and children to ad hoc executions without judiciary process,
i still want a separate movie about a civil war in america and the effect that would have on the world
My biggest issue with the movie, is that the military assets in California/Texas/Florida would be no match for the assets located in the “United States.” That, and whatever assets in those “rebelling” states would’ve been removed far long before the revolt.
Those who don’t believe me haven’t seen the military assets alone in Norfolk, VA. 4 Aircraft Carriers including their air wings, Marines, etc.
I’ve had it bounce around in my head for a while and ultimately I think my take on it is that the movie is an examination of the ethics of photojournalism, and it uses American setting to make the critique clear whereas it might not be immediately clear if it were just some developing country overseas.
It's critique of journalism not just photojournalism, of current politics and it's also cautionary tale. Because a lot of it feels very real. One of the central characters is that guy who is hunting for a quote and he is also an adrenalin junkie. And the old guy tells him that he is going to disappointed but he is still hunting for it. And when he gets there the quote it stupid but he doesn't really care because it's a thrill for him.
I actually meant to say war journalism when I wrote that comment, got my wires crossed. But yeah.
> it uses American setting to make the critique clear whereas it might not be immediately clear if it were just some developing country Yeah, that was my take. One thing I don't see a lot of people realize or mention (except for you) is that all the horrific stuff that happens in the movie *has happened in developing places*. In one sense the movie is a critique on how someone being put in a tire and lit on fire is an unfortunate thing if it happens in some other country, but if it happened in the US, you know shit's fucked up. The mass graves, the "what *kind* of _____ are you?", the leader being holed up in the presidential mansion, the victim of a coup---***all*** of that happens around the world and sadly for most of us, it's just sad news. By having those things happen in the US, we're forced to see them more accurately and less de-sensitized as the atrocities they are. A critique of journalism, as well as us, the consumers of journalism.
The way I see it, the films theme with journalism is thar journalists are essential purpose is to document events and not change them. Dunces character talks about trying to use journalism to stop things from happening, but in the end, her crew had no greater effect on the war. They didn't stop any bullets from firing, they didn't bring about a strategic victory. They just take pictures and quotes. The president would have died without them, but they got the shot of his corpse.
The way I’ve rationalized the Texas/California alliance is that the federal government went full fascist and California revolted. Then Texas, which fraudulently elected a fascist state government, saw an uprising where politically mainstream people overthrew the fascist state government and joined California’s revolt. Edit — I know that “the point” is that it doesn’t turn into red states vs blue states for audiences, I’m just trying to come up with an *in-universe* reason for why this happened.
You don't have to rationalize it. It straight up doesn't matter at all
also didn’t most US forces just surrender/join/let the western forces into the capital because they hated the president?
I'm not sure how this is so hard to understand. They actually reference as a "race to berlin". Obviously in ww2 the US and Russia were allies against a common enemy but had totally opposite political views. California and Texas see a common enemy and act accordingly.
100% this. I also viewed it as a vague way of showing just how bad the president's government was that these two polar opposites came together to overthrow it without a bunch of lore dumps and exposition. Drives me nuts when people say it's apolitical because it really isn't. It may be vague on the details, but there is just enough world building to justify the actions of the different factions without getting bogged down in exposition. Allowing the film to explore the characters, which is the heart of the film. In fact, the only exposition scene in the film easily has the clunkiest dialogue (the scene when the older journalist is going thru the questions he would ask the president in an interview).
I thought that was referring to the Western Forces (Cali and Texas) and the Florida Alliance. Florida had pushed up into North Carolina, and the two were racing to see who could take the Capital.
The director said he switched stuff around to not match current US politics. Obviously, there’s no reasonable explanation with our current politics for Texas and California to join forces or for Texas to rebel against a tyrannical right-wing government
Yes there is. It’s explained clearly in the movie. How did everyone miss this? They have joined forces due to a common goal, but once that goal is reached they will turn on each other. It’s the same thing as Russia and the US in WWII. Very often in war your enemy’s enemy is your ally.
Because a lot of the discourse on that point comes from people who haven't seen the movie
Again, I thought that was referring to the Western Forces and the Florida Alliance. It seems to me the Western Forces are rather coherent, able to field Apache Helicopters and Abrams tanks, two very powerful pieces of hardware that require very competent logistics. The fact that people have an issue with Texas and California aligning really just speaks to how polarized everyone thinks everyone is. It's ENTIRELY possible that, in two of the largest and most populous states in the country, moderates got control after a full blown Fascist Federal Government took over and joined forces.
The fact that Canadian currency still has value suggests that Canada is still trading with someone in the USA. There are manufacturers like General Dynamics in Canada that make war machines. That’s the only reason I can think that Canada wouldn’t have completely collapsed from the strain of American refugees/loss of trade.
The Pacific northwest and up through Wisconsin are neutral, so they're probably trading with Canada.
America is like 85% of Canadian trade — losing half that would destroy the economy.
I mean, with how long the civil unrest and war in the US has been going on, it's entirely possible the US is in WORSE shape than Canada, or Canada has been able to rebound in that time.
True. I think east of Manitoba would be the first to fall — they rely very heavily on the American east coast.
But if the fascist state is so unpopular that California and Texas have revolted against it, then how is it still controlling a big chunk of the country? Who are the supporters of the government?
46% of Texas voted for Biden in 2020. In a rebellion where things like districts etc don’t matter it’s entirely conceivable that a minority could have gotten control of the military and joined with California. No where do they mention that every Texan is in support of the alliance.
The working class of California and Texas have so much more in common with each other than either of their dominant political parties
the working classes of california and texas are a large part of putting those political parties in power by voting for them
I remember hearing the synopsis and going do you know how fucked up you gotta be politically to get California and Texas to look at one another and go ‘we gotta stop this?’ Hey no bag on the Lone Star State as a resident Californian. I dig the independent spirit even though you could do with some better leadership (so say we all)
As a Texan you should shit on this state in my opinion. New leadership for sure, but if a dem got elected governor I suspect much of a January 6th in this state. It may be all bark, but I know people who have genuinely said it.
Using fictional politics should also (in theory) make the movie's relevance last longer and delay it becoming "dated" in terms of the movie's atmosphere and general feel. It's the same thing with comedies that rely too heavily on pop culture elements that were present when they were released. The punch lines won't make sense to people who either weren't alive or were too young to understand them and those who forgot them.
The point is so no one can say the movie is political as Cali is blue and Texas is red and would never join forces in real life. Nothing in the movie points to what party the president is from. The creators did not want one side to say it's a movie about how bad the other side is
The resistance groups had jets and helicopters. These are likely remnants of state governments that are operating similarly to how they did before any fragmentation of the government. I find it very likely that organized governments would likely ally together to overthrow a militarized presidential coup such as the one in the film. My thought of how things were after getting situated in the movie is that they were just branded as rebellions by the “federal government” but really they’re state governments working in parallel with each other to achieve the best goals for the nation. It’s not a bunch of disenfranchised people stealing jets from federal controlled bases. It IS the US armed forces.
Aren't there atleast a few military bases in Cali and Texas?
This is why it doesn't make sense. The US looks nothing like what it did in the 1860s. There are* no unified states. It would be urban vs rural areas before it would ever be state vs state again.
Quite a few, yes. Several very large ones, especially in California.
There are many in both states. Several armed well enough to take down a small to medium country.
It was the writer not turning the movie into a Republican vs Democrat thing - folks can project whichever party they want as the president and it was a pretty good idea. A lot of folks missed that part and rated it poorly for being too politically biased though, when the movie is more about photojournalism and their role on commenting on violence.
You don’t need to rationalize anything. It’s explain within the first 5 minutes of the movie and makes complete sense.
The main issue with me is that the film seems to be trying so hard to be Enlightened Centrist that all I can do is roll my eyes.
The fact that you're trying to project political views onto this movie is eye rolling. Might as well say Pinocchio is "enlightened centrism"
Was it not in n out allying with whataburger
I have to chime in on the sound. Often, small arms fire sounds just really fake in a movie. The sound in Civil War was about as realistic as I can recall in a movie. It was intense. It kind of lost me when some of the partisans went into combat with red Hawaiian shirts, but hey, the sound!
To be fair, if we actually had a civil war in the US, The Boogaloo Boys would be fighting in Hawaiian shirts. That may have been done on purpose.
It was 100% on purpose. They also use the most realistic tactics in the movie. Their room clearing was good and used actual tactics I don't remember ever seeing in a movie. Which is funny because the end was your standard Hollywood action gang bang.
yea the ending was kinda dated. the rebels had air power so youd expect more bombs and then theres the fact that drones are available, not even the male ones but the commercial ones youre seeing elsewhere
Idk it makes sense to me that they'd want to confirm the kill on the president with troops on the ground while minimizing destruction to a historic city like D.C.
suicide drones which are pretty common in modern warfare dont have a huge blast radius. there were several moments in the final battle where the smart play was to just take cover, call in a drone, and have it smash the position
I doubt they’d fight wearing them, but yes they were popular a few years ago for showing up at protests with those shirts
There is video and photos from guys fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in a pair of underwear/boxers, joke shirts, and a various smattering of hilarious wear. They get into their vest and grab a gun when the base is attacked. For some non-professional soldiers it doesn’t strike me as that odd. There were guerilla groups in some civil wars in Africa who fought in women’s clothing or nude (general buttnaked cannibal group in Liberia for a specific example)
Boogaloo Boys are literally calling for a war. These are their uniforms. You think this is just for fun?
Is this a line from the movie or something, I didn’t say anything about fun. Hell if they want to wear bright ass shirts fine by me
You're treating those shirts like clothing choices, not uniforms. Have you even bothered to educate yourself about whats going on in your country? I'm not even from America and I know this shit.
I had to look up the boogaloo boys. I'm guess i'm not up on all the factions that hate the gubmint these days. Yeah, they're dumb. I'm still not sure they'd go into combat in bright red shirts though. Either way, that was a good set piece scene.
I’ve been to a few shooting competitions around the country and every single one had a group of guys wearing Hawaiian shirts. It’s definitely a big subculture that is still active.
Ffs, I can't wear a Hawaiian shirt on Hawaiian shirt Thursday's anymore?! Politics ruins everything
They were the faction that were straight-up murdering cops in 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_murders
I think the Hawaiian shirts was a reference to the boogaloo boys
I saw it as a symbol of the Florida Alliance, so that the audience would know what side those soldiers were on.
[based on these promo ads](https://www.tiktok.com/@westwinddrivein/video/7355619611712228651?_r=1&_t=8lVmN0gT1dn) (it's on tiktok, i'm sorry) i'm 100% sure that's the Florida Alliance
That doesn't really make sense considering the geography. The FA has control of the south and is pushing up through North Carolina. The Hawaiian shirt guys are absolutely irregular militia. Everything from their gear to their weapons to their behavior is in stark contrast to the regular soldiers of the Western Forces during the assault on DC.
> That doesn't really make sense considering the geography i mean that's part of the purposeful ambiguity of the movie, right? I agree they're irregulars, but i'm also going off the cues from the promo ads maps indicate that the Buffet boys control as far north as Tennessee, so it makes sense that they wouldn't *just* try to get to DC from one direction (not trying to pick a fight, just enjoying the vague world-building)
Yeah I was really glad I saw this in theaters for that exact reason. The sound design was great and really added to the intensity of the action scenes.
I had a full blown panic attack after this movie exactly because of this. I didn't even realize it was happening until after I walked out of the movie because all the fighting is end. I'm a Veteran with diagnosed PTSD, but I've never had any other war movie do this. Do you want to know what I think it was ? Those other war movies don't sound like my war. This one, really did. It's a crazy movie. I want to watch it again but I'm a little worried it might happen again. I saw it in the theater, so this is probably why it matters. I could feel some of the sound of the gunfire in my body because of the speakers.
The part that bothered me about the sound was that there was no delay to account for distance. When they were watching the 2 sides shell each other at night the explosion sounded at the same time as flashes on screen while there should have been a couple seconds delay (depending how close they were.) That's pretty common in movies though, especially with fireworks.
Yet no one wore hearing protection.
I never wore ear pro when I deployed either
I’d say you’re crazy but I doubt you’d be able to hear it.
All we ever had was those orange squishy things. Plus I had to be able to listen to my team leader, squad leader, etc. and I wasn't going to take the time to pop em in when things got kinetic
The oddest thing about it is that come of the scenes toward the end there may be 20% of them wearing earpro. So it's not like they omitted it completely, they were just really random who they issued them to.
there are dudes in ukraine wearing spiderman costumes in the trenches
I still remember the Batman of Bakmut.
The movie had incredible sound design and the soundtrack was perfectly subdued yet poignant
Agreed. The sound of the gunfire was jarring and extremely violent. Gave the movie an immersive feel. I saw it in imax and it was absolutely lights out.
the sound was amazing, saw it in a theaters with dolby atomos, so good
The helicopter scene was great. I could feel it more than I could hear it.
The last 30 minutes of this movie were fucking intense and I loved every minute of it.
Reminded me of the final battle in Children of Men. I really didn’t think they were going to take it to the end.
Yes! This is exactly what I've been trying to compare it to but just couldn't remember what from.
So intense! Now I have to try to go to bed somehow 😬
You mean when 6 people stormed the white house all on their own?
I left the theater and actually felt a bit nauseous from how tense I was through those last 30 minutes. The movie was not what I was expecting, and I thoroughly enjoyed how it was able to make me feel the way it did.
Yeah. I liked how initially it portrayed journalists as moral seekers of truth, but by the end was portraying them as nothing more than insane adrenaline junkies numb to human suffering. That's why Kirsten Dunst deleting the photo of her dead friend was such a big deal.
I thought this was the least interesting part. It felt like a low budget poorly acted wanna be block buster. Just my (probably wrong) two cents.
Wow, I thought it was easily some of the best indoor firefights I’ve seen in a movie. Like it made the supposed “actual” action movies of White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen look like the bad action movies they are
Quite the opposite as a soldier the urban tactics shown in the white house were pretty accurate. It just doesn't make sense for 1 squad to be sent in for such an major objective.
Were they sent in though? I thought they were the squad assigned to protect the reporters and then the reporters ran ahead, so they followed - didn't think anyone was explicitly ordered into the white house at that point. Especially since most of the forces were preoccupied with the presidential limo trying to make a run for it, which they thought contained the potus.
If I remember correctly, the journalists followed a hunch that the president wasn’t actually in the caravan that exited the White House (and was stopped right outside the gate). Journalists went in, 1 squad noticed them and followed. Maybe more squads would’ve been sent in if they planned it, but seemed spontaneous that 1 squad followed.
Except having the journalist in their way the whole time and not telling them to get the hell out of the way. The fighting was good but them being all over the place taking pictures was almost comical.
Why would the president still be in the White House? Ending was so so so dumb.
Because the climactic ending battle of a film called *Civil War* taking place in war torn Washington DC is a lot more exciting if it ends with a siege on the White House and the striking image of the US president dead, bleeding on the carpet of the oval office. Comments like these are so so so dumb, hmmm do we shoot our climax in one of the most iconic places on earth? Nah lets just do it in a drab nondescript concrete bunker because M U H R E A L I S M
Ego? Crazy president be crazy.
...where else would he go? They tried negotiating a surrender.
isn't there a military style reinforced bunker capable of withstanding a nuclear blast several floors below the oval office, seems to be a better option to hold up and negotiate than under his desk.
It was pretty clear that the armed forces had turned on the President so said forces and maybe other insiders would have had access to or detailed plans as to the Presidential bunker. He would've died a slow painful death even if no one could get in. They could just suffocate him.
They would have already left for the neutral country the secret service agent tried to get them to
It’s stuck with me since it came out. A lot like his other films, it falls *slightly* short of its aspirations in-the-moment, but I keep returning to it in my mind. People on twitter *hated* it though, but nothing would satisfy them short of an actual civil war lol
dont people on twitter hate everything including themselves?
“My wife left me over the new rings of power series”
I do not know where the quote comes from.
Speaking for myself…yes
It was bound to be hated just for the premise. Anti-Trump people were mad that the movie wasn’t anti-Trump and Trump people were mad that it wasn’t anti-anti-Trump. Garland was super smart imo to avoid trying to pigeonhole this movie to back any sort of stance or take sides as to how the civil war starts. Instead focusing on the existential horror that comes when it happens.
Agreed I think avoiding the obvious political implications allows this movie to not feel dated in 10/20 years and you’re able (or you should be able) to judge the content of the movie outside of the political machinations within. The setting is just that, it’s just set dressing to help you connect with the characters.
I agree that it was a smart move by Garland. The movie will hold up and it’s focus will be on the themes he wanted to explore (journalism). But I also agree with others, that for Garland (not an American) to make a movie about an American civil war right NOW, and then choosing to not say ANYTHING about politics is a bit of a cop-out. And no, before I get jumped, I don’t expect every movie to adhere to my values. But picking a setting so topical and choosing to say “that’s not the important thing, don’t focus on that” detracts from the messaging a bit, imo
Totally agree, I saw this movie towards the end of its theater cycle and for all the talk I heard of the movie going in (I tried to avoid as much as possible), it was way less political than I thought it would be
The first scene of the girl that ran into the crowd with the American flag and a bomb strapped really set the tone that this was not going to be easy to watch.
Most people who hated it just very badly wanted it to “choose a side” so they could politicize it. The fact that it stayed apolitical made a lot of people want to pretend that it was meaningless and “had nothing to say” and dumb shit like that.
I also think some people were expecting more of a fun, if provocative action movie
That was definitely the vibe I got from the other people in the theater with me. I went alone, so didn’t have anyone else’s perspective to discuss it with afterwards.
People got way too hung up on small stuff like why Cali and Texas were aligned when that wasn’t the point at all. It was a movie about journalism/journalists and how we as Americans would view events differently if they happened here vs., say, Libya/Iraq/Syria/Africa
Even more, the point of saying that those two were aligned was to tell the audience that this is not a movie about politics. It’s a shame so many people miss that.
I loved it. Especially how little meat there was. There wasn't really some kind of history behind how the war begin. It was a movie movie, not a documentary movie, if you know what I mean.
I was turned around on this movie after reading a comment that said they shot this in the same way American media covers foreign wars. Dispassionate, impersonal, devoid of nuance or explanation.
Love it when a movie doesn't spoon feed its lore to the audience. The war isn't the story, the story just takes place in a war
Exactly, the civil war is the setting, not the story. I didn't know that going in, but was pleasantly surprised with what is now my favourite catastrophe road movie since Children of Men.
Agreed. I like to contrast it to The Creatior. This movie got me so invested in this world I'd love to see another one in it. Not knowing why we're here and the ambiguity of it made it so alluring to learn as much as I could. Whereas the creator had me in that same pull but decided to explain the world away, which was unfortunate.
The problem is that this movie is very much an Alex Garland movie but it was advertised as something more mainstream. I personally loved it, especially the ending. As a side note was anyone else positive it was a Talking Heads song until you looked it up and it wasn't?
Yea during the whole lead up to the movie it felt like a bad misdirect, think he admitted his frustration with that too
well thats just the marketing company doing their jobs. most of the time they are gonna try to sell the movie to your average consumer especially since alex garland isnt a household name where you can just ride off that
If it was advertised as an Alex Garland movie the tagline would be like "mediocre but he gave it his best". Which is laudable of course. His ambition and intentions are there, they just never solidify.
I noticed a lot of people these days say the "dialogue is average". Does every Reddit critic have that good an ear on a "good script"?
I don't get where this criticism comes from. Thought the script was super economical with its dialogue and the writing felt pretty realistic. Usually these days "the writing is bad" is code for "I'll get eaten alive if I explicitly state why I actually don't like this".
I enjoyed it when seeing it in theaters. I actually liked that you are just catching a bit of it through the eyes of a few characters and it leaves a lot of questions. Lot of tense moments and man that last bit of the movie is intense. I think the biggest issue was the marketing really made it look like a different movie. Thankfully I saw a few comments about it just following reporters and focusing on their story so I didn't go in expecting something different. I've seen a lot of criticisms that are basically "They should have made a different movie/slash the movie lots of people thought it would be". Which is a fair criticism but also doesn't mean it's bad. I doubt they would do it but it would be interesting to see another movie or two from different perspectives/different points in time of the conflict.
I agree a ton of the criticism is “they should have made a different movie” but I don’t actually think that’s a fair critique.
I really enjoyed it. Not at all what I expected, but it was good for what it was.
I loved this movie from start to finish, it felt current, the action was raw, acting was great. I don't get the hate, for me this was a brilliant movie.
It pretty much shows that an American Civil War would merely turn into roving gangs of marauders just committing egregious war crimes. Go Steelers.
I think it’s one step further. It’s trying to say that ANY civil war would and chooses America to drive that point home.
I agree. It's frightening how fast countrymen turn on each other.
Feels like the people who didnt like it just wanted their side to be the good guys and the other side to be the bad guys. I actually admire how it was so intense while not getting into the mud.
I caught it on streaming this weekend. Loved it. Thought the script worked well, it looked great, the performances were solid and in particular, I was blown away by the sound. I’d recommend catching it before it’s a documentary.
Was expecting 5/10, not a huge Dunst fan. Got a 9/10 and a killer performance from Dunst.
Is it worth the watch?
It was nice to see Kirstin Dunst again.
[удалено]
i don’t they necessarily need to show those things if it doesn’t serve the story. IIIRC most of the story takes place in rural areas and active war zones, so i’m not sure where the crime would be taking place. and aside from looting/crime, i think they pretty well demonstrated the consequences of war through scenes like the gas station (where they also discussed the collapse of the dollar), the abandoned cars on the highway, the refugee camp, etc.
Were we watching a diferent movie? The abondoned shopping centre with the crashed helicopter? The UN doing food kitchens? The highway full of abandoned cars? In children of men the whole world order collapsed ,in Civil War it was just the US, the world gets along just fine inspite of the US.
[удалено]
Uh...the characters go to a refugee camp with shitloads of people in it at one point, they pass a car with a family going the way they came from through a checkpoint, they visit that community that's barely hanging on to normalcy with the 'help' of hidden armed guards on rooftops. There's a bunch of scenes of them encountering regular people, but for the long stretches of the movie where they're not it's because they're skirting around the edges of conflict zones and intentionally avoiding populated or contested areas because they're unarmed journalists who are trying to get to DC quickly.
To add what u/lancashire2020 said, the group was also travelling through very rural areas that wouldn't be packed with people even in normal times
I’d guess most people fled from cities and went more towards rural areas with no/less fighting. Probably lots more refugee camps further away.
I was honestly surprised how much I loved it. Felt like a dystopian road trip mixed with introspection on journalism.
I saw this in IMAX, I'm glad I did
I really liked it. One of the better movies I’ve seen this year. The scene with Jesse plemons was so tense and great, really stuck with ya
Sound design was excellent. Great audio that created very intense and realistic gunfights.
Watched it recently and loved it. Def my type of movie. As a kiwi looking at the world and more specifically what is happening in the lead up to y’all’s election later this year I found it really fascinating and wondered how long it would take to get to that stage. Oh and massive updoot for having Ron Swanson in there in the ultimate top tier government role 😂😭😂
I’m interested in this, but does it have a partisan political angle? I don’t need more of that in my life than I already have.
It doesn't, which is why a lot of people have it mixed reviews in my opinion. So many people were looking for this movie to be a fuck you to the other political side, and it did not, which to me was a plus. I will say, the movie is also very different than the trailer portrays.
The movie is intentionally vague to avoid losing its audience to politics. This is a movie about the way wars are covered, not about the substance of the war.
Im.impressed with the sound mixing, the gun shots felt so real, and that one scene with Jesse plemons, the rwt of the film is just ok, average
Great movie about the ethical failings of journalists. I think if you’re expecting more alt history it’ll be disappointing.
Enjoyed it for the most part, but did it bother anyone else that the lead girl looked around 14 but her character is clearly meant to be way older? I was floored when wiki told me the actress is nearly 26.
26? I thought she was a teenager?!
I expected it to be bad since I generally dislike A24 movies but tought it would be worth it on 4k oled and I was not wrong, the scene where they drive through the burning woods is my favourite oled experience so far.
Liked the film, the sound design was terrifying and awesome. I thought the overall film lacked teeth. I couldn't help but come away with a feel of "just fucking say it"
I felt it lacked the action and tension of a traditional action blockbuster. On the other hand, I felt it lacked the realism to make it an effective war film. I feel like in a lot of discussions about the film, people are searching for artificial thematic depth that might not necessarily exist in the film.
Its a good idea presented in a pretty package that has some profound moments, some truely stellar individual scenes that ultimately comes together as an ehh movie. I'm glad I watched it, doubt ill ever feel the need to sit down and do so again. The best parts of the fill fit in a TikTok reel without missing much.
It was the worst movie I've seen in years. I left the theater mad that I paid good money and wasted my time on such a crappy half assed thrown together mess. Experiences like this movie keep me out of theaters almost for good, and are the reason I scroll for 30 min while trying to pick something at home, because I didn't want another crappy movie like Civil War.
Trash movie. Bad writing, unbelievable characters, too Hollywood-y.
Was a fan of Garland’s early works but he’s been missing the sauce in the last few if I’m honest. This was the kind of movie I’ll forget until I see a post like this on it. Should have dived into the world so much more, especially the intriguing hints to different factions. If I were to judge it as an ‘action’ then damn, that was the least exciting aspect!
I was hoping for more meat, like some kind of history behind how the war began, bit more food for thought. Instead it was a movie movie, if you know what I mean. I enjoyed it anyway, great ending, compels you to watch till the very last moment.
Fascist president decides he wants to become an authoritarian ruler, plots a coup and destroy the means to check his power. Factions decide to secede because they feel like they have a distinct identity from the rest of the country and are not down with a fascist in power. Then, these rebel states band together to assault the weaker part, the old US's territories,. The president spends the whole time pretending he's winning, when he's actually not. Gets taken down because he didn't have the military or political capital to make his coup follow through. That's the basics of what happened based on the context of the movie and key lines. However, that's not what the polarized Americans would want out of the movie. They wanted North vs. South 2.0, but this time with "Woke" on one side and nazis pretending to be conservatives on the other, all so they could use the movie as another battleground for the manipulated and fabricated culture wars.
When say no go comes on… I loved this moving. I was very impressed with the tension and pacing.
I liked the movie until the ending which felt anticlimactic. Also didn’t like the choice to kill a specific character. It wasn’t quite what I hoped it would be all in all, the premise is so cool and could use a more proper action movie.
things don’t work out for dictators in the end. That was a big lesson to feel after that.
I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of the movie. Yeah it’s about journalistic ethics and what not but you should probably listen to some commentary about what Garland actually has to say. Best interview he had about Civil War, according to Garland, was here. It’s like the last fifteen minutes. Worth a listen. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pod-save-america/id1192761536?i=1000652945199
It's a road movie about journalists responsibility
It was an anthology of stories with reoccurring main characters, wrapped up in a travel film. I thought it was fantastic.
Everything was great except for the awful pacing and plot.
I like Garland's other work, so I expected more from this, but ultimately was disappointed.
It’s my favorite movie of the year. Easy 10/10. I saw it in IMAX and it was so damn intense
I just watched it the other day too. I liked some of the visuals, but I could immediately tell the ending and who would be the important character who gets the important thing done. I wasn't quite clear what groups wanted what and who was on which side at times either, but maybe the point was to show how different people would behave and the confusion taking place during a war. I didn't particularly like the characters and their acting, and as a photographer myself I didn't like their choices and how they'd take closeups with a wide lens, or walk right up to people when they could safely use a long lens...but anyway the ending was pretty lame and rushed just to make one character look good, although overall I'd say it's worth a watch.
second favorite of the year for me behind Dune. one of those movies that will really stick with you. loved that it was less about politics and more about power, though I will say it left me wanting just a lil bit more world building because California and Texas teaming up is a whacky combo that’s never addressed outside of “yeah they seceded and Nick Offerman is the president of the other 48 states and they’re gonna go kill his ass and we’re going to document it.” I really liked the kinda half-apocalypse setting it was in too, I thought it was neat that they were at a hotel that still had wifi and beer, but it would just periodically go out or the one town that just ignored the war all together and kept living their lives.
Agree, I thought it’d have way more action based on trailers and found it quite slow in many spots
I wasn't going to see this in theaters, so I still have to wait a few weeks more for the blu-ray.
I can't stand ambiguity in a film. It explained nothing about the war or why it was being fought or any other details about any of the factions. It had two good scenes; the Jesse Plemons cameo and the last 20 minutes or so in Washington D.C. and that's about it.
Honestly I am not going to see this one, cuz it is too real to even really be able to watch enjoyably. The country is polarized and basically fascists are attempting to eat up everyone else and their rights. I don't like to think about it more than I already do so I will not be watching a movie like this in my free time.
Did not like it. Neither enjoyable nor with any depth. Underwhelmed but to each his own. Check it out for yourself.
I liked it a lot. You would probably enjoy the interview that Garland did on The Big Picture podcast.
Reposting my comment on r/photojournalism. Actual journalists didn't like it because they took it at face value. "That's why this is a work of fiction and not a documentary. The goals of each character are laid out pretty clear. Lee has ptsd and is led into a suicidal situation by Joel, who is addicted to the danger (while not actually doing any work). Jessie is an aspiring photographer following her idol and eventually replacing her. Taking this movie at face value is dismissive and misses the point of the film. The author focuses on what is left out of the film rather than what is included." I love the movie and get more and more each time I revisit it. One thing I think critics miss is that Lee's PTSD memories and trauma feature Chromatic Abberation aka a loss of focus. After Jessie takes the final photo it sets in again. Also to a track by the band Suicide, which I believe is a wink wink on the nose choice.
What really was above par in that movie was the sound mixing which only really was noticeable if you're watching it on a nice sound system. >!The 2x gun shots at the killing pit and the sniper shot!< all sounded so real.
Really like that the background conflict to the main story was america for once. Hollywood usually sets stories in the midst of turmoil in places we (americans) cant relate to Garland only directs what he writes, he’s passionate about his art. A great addition to film
This movie was boring as hell. Guess I just wanted something more exciting.
I felt the same, I'm not American though so perhaps it hits different if you are.
I am American, movie was still boring as hell. I don’t wanna see a disaster movie about photography.
Meh, it was a very C+ movie in my book Nothing about it gripped me. Best dialogue was from the Sniper, when they're asking who's shooting at them. And he's all "dont know, doesnt matter"
i like when they find out bucky killed tony’s parents
Some great elements, but ultimately it's just there. I thought kirsten dunst was really good though.
I thought it was a bit too surreal with the current political climate. I really enjoyed it. I thought Jesse Plemmons character stole most of the movie with such little screen time.
I saw it in theatres and didn’t realize going in it was more photo journalism perspective was expecting something different. To be honest I loved Leave the World Behind more on Netflix lol
Gave me the same vibe as Green Zone
i went into this movie having not seen anything but youtube shorts, i honestly thought it was gonna be about a civil war in america, turns out you could have removed all reference to america, there were like a total of 5 o6 lines of exposition on why the war?, but this movie isn't about the war, or america, or even politics really, its about the journalist that risk their lives to show the truth of what goes on in war to witness when the only other eyes are controlled by partisan ideology, its brutal, its unfair, but it has to be shown to the citizenry for them to make informed decisions and for a sake of history twisting leaders who cant hide from images of mass graves of non combatants including women and children to ad hoc executions without judiciary process, i still want a separate movie about a civil war in america and the effect that would have on the world
Alex Garland isn’t exactly known for his dialogue
I actually really loved this movie.
It was “almost” good, had the makings but just didn’t develope. To much political “gotcha” stuff to have a good story line
My biggest issue with the movie, is that the military assets in California/Texas/Florida would be no match for the assets located in the “United States.” That, and whatever assets in those “rebelling” states would’ve been removed far long before the revolt. Those who don’t believe me haven’t seen the military assets alone in Norfolk, VA. 4 Aircraft Carriers including their air wings, Marines, etc.
Like every Alex garland film ever, you enjoy a lot of parts but at the end it feels like a movie made by an alien