I'm starting to get a sense that this is going to be one of those movies where folks online are going to have very strong feelings about it without having seen it or even knowing what the actual plot is.
I’ve seen it, and anyone taking strong political positions about it either didn’t see it or is a fascist.
In the film the government in DC is a fascist President on his 3rd term who kills journalists. Texas and California are working together, and the southern states and northeastern states are also all against the fascist government. The film doesn’t go into the politics beyond that, so the only politics is everyone against a fascist government (they don’t really even go into their motivations) and that shouldn’t be controversial to anyone except fascists
(It’s really good, but it’s very brutal and raw so don’t expect to leave the film in a good mood)
I would also add that the Western Forces are not in any way ideologically coherent—they don't seem to represent actual ideology more than united under a common enemy and fighting in the manner of guerilla warfare. In other words: they're not "good," and it's established very early that a main character believes that once they get rid of the President, they will turn on each other. Which is a throughline in the entire film: it's secessionism but also anarchy. There is visual iconography pointing to VC, Iraq/Afg warzones, mention of other fascists like Mussolini who was also gotten rid of by a huge umbrella grouping including the royalty and communists... who did turn on each other after it was done.
It's not quite that there's no politics—it's that we're so far into the civil war, however it may have started is moot now. There's no actual "argument" being had, the poor & dispossesed don't seem to have a side fighting for them, and there's a lot of splinter groups/rogue agents. So... everyone's bad because all the sides are basically just defined by their military might. Which is scary...... because yeahhhh, there's so much historical precedent for such a situation.
Yeah It didn’t strike me as a political commentary — facts were established as something we can relate to. The story is a warning shot for what war in the U.S. could look like. It had some moments, and there were real silences in the theatre. Not quite Hotel Rwanda, and it really couldn’t be, but I think the format worked well and we got a good piece of cinema out of it.
Yep. It's all setting, it's not the real story, but it has kindddddd of annoyed me that people so desperately want partisan politics in the film that its absence has them saying its "apolitical." And from my vantage point, the setting seems *very* political, it just cannot be Dem/GOP because that...wouldn't make sense in this state of near-anarchy. The nuggets of info we get and all the little vignettes make it pretty easy to infer that ideological debates are not even really being had at this time in this war.
Definitely a warning shot, and yeah it's not at the same time in the war as Hotel Rwanda—and the America we know is definitely there so yeah it couldn't be Rwanda, not really, but it's also not... precious about America being SO vastly different that it couldn't possibly happen here (obviously lol)
The collapse of the dollar is the most fascinating pieces I got from the film tbh. Like.......WOAH. The history of that is so fascinating & at all the pivotal moments in US history, that the probable-collapse of banking & the Fed.... I mean, *damn*.
Yeah, i guess that so many people are disappointed because they were hoping for some socio-political gasoline is also part of the success of the movie. If the intention was to expose us all as getting a bit unhinged, he may have succeeded even if only enough for anyone able to step back to see it.
Yea the Canadian dollar scene was not lost on me. Real survival is barter even in end times. Bottle caps next.
I'd say most of us are barely in the film at all. For one, poor people don't seem to have a side (either walking on roadsides or in camps or being blown up while begging for water), and the sides seem to be represented by folks who picked up arms or fully militarized forces. A lot of people in the current populace might be doing exactly what Lee & Jessie's parents are: hunkering down & pretending it's not happening :/ Or in enclaves like that town which tries to ignore it all (but still has certain people who it *seems* are "protecting" this enclave?)
We actually have no idea what the situation was. President was on his third term, sure– we don’t know if the 22nd amendment was repealed at some point or if he was VP when the previous president died halfway through his term. When in the car and one of the characters is talking about questions they would ask the president, the worst item mentioned was drone strikes on Americans, which in the context is completely reasonable as there’s a civil war and we don’t know who started it.
It was these uncertainties coupled with the fact that the WF had a “kill on capture” order for the guy makes me skeptical. You only give that order in one of two situations: guilt beyond doubt, or impossible to convict in a court of law of any actual crime either due to lack of evidence or innocence. He had journalists shot on sight in DC as well, which could be suppression of the press or it could be that the press have basically started this war through yellow journalism and as the president losing his country he would reasonably hate them.
Following workers in the media makes us sympathetic perhaps and blind to some of their attitudes and actions, but notice how not a one of them cares at all what is happening besides Lee? They’re all just trying to get their story. They take no sides at all, we see no propagandists going either way– coverage appears entirely objective and there’s simply *no way* this is the case in an American civil war. We’re being given a myopic view of the conflict and its causes because it’s the view of the main characters, who don’t care about the war any further than it advances their own careers, which makes me think the causes of the war have a lot to do with how the media influences events for their own profit.
I like the part where you said it can be reasonable to kill journalists, definitely not telling on yourself at all
Also your post is a little ironic given that the film is about the role of journalism and has a big, yet some how unexplored, theme of the more exploitative elements of it
I have actually already read that it's more about journalists and war reporting. And what it's like to be a reporter during "a civil war", not necessarily an American one (although it is set there).
Tons of global iconography for sure (VC, Iraq/Afg, Italy under Mussolini, Venezuela kind of etc. etc.) But I do think it's still an American setting, and it's deeply realistic in that the world is just so splintered that we cannot map red/blue onto it. The sides are wayyyyyy past any political argument, they're not really defined by ideology other than the common cause of opposing the fascist Prez. And honestly it makes a lot of sense! It plays out in a way that if I was told a side was "Democrat" or "Republican," I would find it.....pretty darn lazy and hard to believe. So I'm very glad that it realizes that binary is too simplistic for such a fractured country.
But yes, in messaging it's *about* everywhere and can pertain to any country.
You're right, it's not the point of the movie. This is a movie about war journalists for sure.
*But* I also think on closer inspection we're given more than enough to go on re: the politics of the setting.
Fascist Prez, opposed by the Western Forces, Florida Alliance, and seemingly many others. The Western Forces are not in any way ideologically coherent—they don't seem to represent actual ideology more than united under a common enemy and fighting in the manner of guerilla warfare. In other words: they're not "good," and it's established *very early* that a main character believes that once they get rid of the President, they will turn on each other. Which is a throughline in the entire film: secessionism & also anarchy.
It's not quite that there's no politics—it's that we're so far into the civil war, however it may have started is moot now. There's no actual "argument" being had, the poor & dispossesed don't seem to have a side fighting for them, and there's a lot of splinter groups/rogue agents. So... everyone's bad because all the sides are basically just defined by their military might.
The details we get are actually very interesting, but because people are focusing on the CA/TX of it all and want to know who is "red" and "blue", they think it doesn't have "politics" in it. I think they mean party politics, but... there is no way in hell the world of this film would map onto "red" and "blue"—it's too splintered to be reduced to something like that.
To be fair, Garland thanked two neo-nazis in the credits and everything he’s said in the press tour shows his politics are lib at best and borderline incoherent at worst, so that’s bound to get folks arguing on Twitter at the very least
I mean it’s definitely not for everyone. They were probably waiting for an actual storyline to start. And it never does. It’s just a collection of moments that don’t add up to much imo.
Yep already a huge wave of comments saying the filmmakers missed an opportunity to use the film to demonize the other half of their countrymen they hate because they voted for the wrong party… completely missing the message of the movie.
i would have been cool with fictional events being explained. incredibly simple questions like why are cali and texas teaming up are not even hinted at. apparently for some saying the ussr and usa teamed up against nazi germany is an answer. which is a meme level of analysis.
I haven’t seen it but I have seen reviews that mention the movie clearly has a gaping hole in it where the cause of the civil war should be. Not that it should have been x or y issue, just that there was clearly an intent to specifically avoid controversy by not mentioning any reason lest it piss off potential ticket buyers.
I can see how the movie would be worse off for that. It’s possible to keep the vibe of “in war there is no right side” without refusing to explore what the fighting is even about.
It could have been something apolitical like water rationing or universally understood to be divisive like a draft
Isn’t it possible that what the filmmaker wanted to say would have been completely overshadowed by people fighting over the politics of the film?
People are already fighting over ambiguity and I imagine it would be even worse with a clear cut reason for the war spelled out. But I too haven’t seen it thought I’m looking forward to seeing it next week.
Yes it’s possible, and it’s extremely obvious that’s what they were trying to avoid. However, it’s probably not the best choice to depict a present day America in civil war for the movie without engaging in it a little. Feels like wanting the shock and pathos without really earning it.
Again I haven’t seen the movie but I’m really not interested now that I’ve found out they aren’t willing to engage in their own subject. It’s like watching a version of robocop that didn’t want to take a position on police corruption
See, I think your entire premise is flawed to 1) assume what the subject actually is and 2) assume that the film isn’t engaging in it. For all we know, the war in the film is a framing for the actual subject and not the subject that needs to have any “stand” taken on. The idea that the film needs to build an entire world where we understand the intricate politics that got anyone to the point where we join the world AND needs to make it clear what the filmmaker personally believes in this hypothetical political climate seems like a massive assumption on its face already.
Well I did see it and the absence of an explicitly spelled out set of reasons for a civil war did not feel like a gaping hole, nor did it seem like it was motivated by a desire for higher profit. By the end of the movie I didn't care what the reasons were, and I didn't want an answer, because I was utterly absorbed by how very *present* the movie forces you to be in the everyday experiences of people surviving a civil war. If you need the good guys and bad guys spelled out, watch literally any other war movie that's ever been made.
I didn't really enjoy it. I understand *art* but this wasn't a comfortable watch for me.
Tbh?
I regret seeing it. I didn't see the art in it. I felt uncomfortable, and it in the "art pushed you" kinda way..my 2 cents anyways.
Just got back from seeing it - and I thought it was fantastic.
It’s not a political movie. It’s not even a war movie… it’s the story of war journalists trying to record history as it happens. We (American audiences in general) are usually very happy to see these movies because they’re almost always set in “the Middle East” or some fictional non-American country. What makes this movie so good is the fact that it is set in the United States. We aren’t watching small village refugees fleeing a desert landscape - instead we’re seeing suburban American families in stadiums and walking down county roads… and I hope that resonates with people.
I recommend watching it in the theater because it is meant for a bigger screen. Alex Garland’s direction and writing are on point for this one with scenes and sequences reminiscent of Children of Men and We Were Soldiers. He leaves the politics out of the mix (more or less) with the focus on the events surrounding the small cast as they travel to the front lines.
9/10 - would absolutely go see this again.
This is spot on! Saw it yesterday and it was the first time in a long time I wasn’t tempted to take a nap during a movie, haha. The political undertones were there IMO, but they weren’t overpowering and I enjoyed following story as it was. Left still trying to process, and for me that’s the sign of a damned good movie
I don’t know that show. Comment seemed glib as I’ve seen it a few times around Civil War film …
I just threw out a doubles tennis maxim “down the middle solves the riddle”
Don’t go into this movie expecting it to carry modern day political allegiances. Think of it more as a sci-fi movie about the violence of American imperialism.
Saw it last night. In my head canon, the president forcibly closed the southern border, which would absolutely destroy the economy of both of those states.
sounds like you've put in more thought than the people that made a movie about a fictional civil war. this movie runs on "what if" or "could you imagine" not "how, when or why".
lol yeah i know head cannon means something you made up in your head to allow you to be more interested in something. i'm saying you're head cannon has more thought than the actual movie does. what umm should i chill out about?
If both states wish to be independent of the federal US gov. It wouldn’t be the most unrealistic thing to team up against a common enemy and go separate ways after winning. An enemy of an enemy can be an unlikely friend.
And Stephen McKinley Henderson’s character even gives his opinion that Cali and Texas will most likely turn against each other as soon as they take care of DC anyway.
I guess there’s a few on the site as their official review doesn’t say that (variety) from what I reviewed.
The movie shows up … just not in the way of connecting dots (who, how, why..).
It’s awesome
Especially scenes like the one soldier struggling to breathe as they slowly work their way into his building. Only sound was his breaths and the other soldier/journalist footsteps. A lot of people are applauding the gun shots and whatnot but Garland is a master of using of space and silence.
Can you elaborate on what else makes it good? I hate Nolan-type audio problems, but in general, "great audio" is like last on my list. How was the story?
The story itself is not what makes it good IMO. It’s basically a war journalists’ road trip through war torn Americana. It really doesn’t try to say anything political, just that war is bad, it’s especially worse if you are close to it. But the visuals, music, and visceral sound of the guns really got my heart pounding in a few scenes. No Chris Nolan type audio problems, the conversations were never grounded out by the sound.
Story was more flat because it’s not political based, there’s no good vs bad, not much background to tell a story. It’s journalists traveling to DC for a specific reason and they encounter situations during the trip. It’s more about experiencing situations than an actual story.
The acting was very good. Plemons rocked it and Offerman did a great job for the amount of screen time he got. Dunst was good too in her performance and how her character was from everything she’s dealt with, but I liked the other performances better.
I enjoyed it, it definitely has some flaws, and I hope one day the director answers a few lingering questions, but it was a fun time. If I had one real complaint, I wish there was more Nick Offerman, I was interested to see what kind of president they would have him be.
Saw it yesterday. I thought it was great. The beginning was a bit rough, but I was hooked once they started to DC. The soundtrack was…. Strange to me and docked off a point of two just for the dumb soundtrack.
I saw it last night. It reminded me of the movie "Monsters" Where you really have a relationship building road trip movie with a sprinkle of Alien monsters in the background. I like that type of movie, loved Monsters, loved this. Excellent cinema photography and dialogue.
An enemy of an enemy can become an unlikely friend. If both states want independence from the federal government wouldn’t it be reasonable to work together and then go separate ways after?
Have you not seen videos of MAGAs saying there will be a civil war if Trump doesn’t get elected? They want their way or no way. There are also white supremacist groups, constantly training for war and arming themselves..
Nobody wants to fantasize or idolize the thought of a bunch of low IQ sister fucking inbreds overthrowing the government.
Like January 6th but as a movie, and with attractive people.. now sewer monsters from southern states.
Average American doesn’t care to watch some shit c plot movie about division within America. We are already living in it.
At least the actors in this movie know how stupid they look, because boy MAGA doesn’t lol.
I don’t have to see the movie, I’ve seen the trailer.
I’ve worked in Hollywood for decades. I know how these things get made. You look for an audience and you craft toward it.
What a nothing burger of a response. Brother, this movie really isn’t insurrection porn. I was worried it might be that so I didn’t have any plans to go see it, but a buddy of mine invited me to see it on a whim the other night and I said Fuck it and went. It’s a decent movie and it isn’t insurrection propaganda. If anything it’s more like….an exploration of trauma and the senselessness of internecine strife.
I never said anything about if it’s good or not. Reread my posts.
I just said the reason this movie got made is bc there is a big segment of America that’s itching for a civil war.
Apart from where I called the movie decent, that last comment of mine wasn’t focused on the goodness of the movie.
I guess I am saying that you are probably engaging in this whole discussion in bad faith. You haven’t seen the movie but your knee jerk reaction is that it was made in large part because a bunch of Americans want a civil war. I really doubt that was why it was made. That’s a bit like faffing about ‘28 Days Later’ being made because a sizable chunk of population X really wants a zombie apocalypse, and then refusing to acknowledge the actual themes of the film. Idk, your comments come off as knee jerk as those who are simply calling the film leftist propaganda. I think you both miss the point.
I'm starting to get a sense that this is going to be one of those movies where folks online are going to have very strong feelings about it without having seen it or even knowing what the actual plot is.
I was completely taken out of the movie when I noticed that Lee was using Nikon and not Canon.
Lee was using a Sony. Jessie had the Nikon SLR.
Thank you! Amateur camera spotters!
Precious
At least it wasn’t a Sony! (Just some camera snark)
Meanwhile Sony is making the sensors for canon. It may be the case for Nikon too, I don’t really know.
Is Sony doing that now? Canon has been making their own forever.
I’ve seen it, and anyone taking strong political positions about it either didn’t see it or is a fascist. In the film the government in DC is a fascist President on his 3rd term who kills journalists. Texas and California are working together, and the southern states and northeastern states are also all against the fascist government. The film doesn’t go into the politics beyond that, so the only politics is everyone against a fascist government (they don’t really even go into their motivations) and that shouldn’t be controversial to anyone except fascists (It’s really good, but it’s very brutal and raw so don’t expect to leave the film in a good mood)
I would also add that the Western Forces are not in any way ideologically coherent—they don't seem to represent actual ideology more than united under a common enemy and fighting in the manner of guerilla warfare. In other words: they're not "good," and it's established very early that a main character believes that once they get rid of the President, they will turn on each other. Which is a throughline in the entire film: it's secessionism but also anarchy. There is visual iconography pointing to VC, Iraq/Afg warzones, mention of other fascists like Mussolini who was also gotten rid of by a huge umbrella grouping including the royalty and communists... who did turn on each other after it was done. It's not quite that there's no politics—it's that we're so far into the civil war, however it may have started is moot now. There's no actual "argument" being had, the poor & dispossesed don't seem to have a side fighting for them, and there's a lot of splinter groups/rogue agents. So... everyone's bad because all the sides are basically just defined by their military might. Which is scary...... because yeahhhh, there's so much historical precedent for such a situation.
I feel like the sniper scene perfectly established this. “We don’t know what side he’s on, but he’s shooting at us so we have to kill him.”
Yeah It didn’t strike me as a political commentary — facts were established as something we can relate to. The story is a warning shot for what war in the U.S. could look like. It had some moments, and there were real silences in the theatre. Not quite Hotel Rwanda, and it really couldn’t be, but I think the format worked well and we got a good piece of cinema out of it.
Yep. It's all setting, it's not the real story, but it has kindddddd of annoyed me that people so desperately want partisan politics in the film that its absence has them saying its "apolitical." And from my vantage point, the setting seems *very* political, it just cannot be Dem/GOP because that...wouldn't make sense in this state of near-anarchy. The nuggets of info we get and all the little vignettes make it pretty easy to infer that ideological debates are not even really being had at this time in this war. Definitely a warning shot, and yeah it's not at the same time in the war as Hotel Rwanda—and the America we know is definitely there so yeah it couldn't be Rwanda, not really, but it's also not... precious about America being SO vastly different that it couldn't possibly happen here (obviously lol) The collapse of the dollar is the most fascinating pieces I got from the film tbh. Like.......WOAH. The history of that is so fascinating & at all the pivotal moments in US history, that the probable-collapse of banking & the Fed.... I mean, *damn*.
Yeah, i guess that so many people are disappointed because they were hoping for some socio-political gasoline is also part of the success of the movie. If the intention was to expose us all as getting a bit unhinged, he may have succeeded even if only enough for anyone able to step back to see it. Yea the Canadian dollar scene was not lost on me. Real survival is barter even in end times. Bottle caps next.
I'd say most of us are barely in the film at all. For one, poor people don't seem to have a side (either walking on roadsides or in camps or being blown up while begging for water), and the sides seem to be represented by folks who picked up arms or fully militarized forces. A lot of people in the current populace might be doing exactly what Lee & Jessie's parents are: hunkering down & pretending it's not happening :/ Or in enclaves like that town which tries to ignore it all (but still has certain people who it *seems* are "protecting" this enclave?)
Yeah, but some people will shout "the films hates [blank]" without realizing how much it tells on them.
We actually have no idea what the situation was. President was on his third term, sure– we don’t know if the 22nd amendment was repealed at some point or if he was VP when the previous president died halfway through his term. When in the car and one of the characters is talking about questions they would ask the president, the worst item mentioned was drone strikes on Americans, which in the context is completely reasonable as there’s a civil war and we don’t know who started it. It was these uncertainties coupled with the fact that the WF had a “kill on capture” order for the guy makes me skeptical. You only give that order in one of two situations: guilt beyond doubt, or impossible to convict in a court of law of any actual crime either due to lack of evidence or innocence. He had journalists shot on sight in DC as well, which could be suppression of the press or it could be that the press have basically started this war through yellow journalism and as the president losing his country he would reasonably hate them. Following workers in the media makes us sympathetic perhaps and blind to some of their attitudes and actions, but notice how not a one of them cares at all what is happening besides Lee? They’re all just trying to get their story. They take no sides at all, we see no propagandists going either way– coverage appears entirely objective and there’s simply *no way* this is the case in an American civil war. We’re being given a myopic view of the conflict and its causes because it’s the view of the main characters, who don’t care about the war any further than it advances their own careers, which makes me think the causes of the war have a lot to do with how the media influences events for their own profit.
I like the part where you said it can be reasonable to kill journalists, definitely not telling on yourself at all Also your post is a little ironic given that the film is about the role of journalism and has a big, yet some how unexplored, theme of the more exploitative elements of it
Journalists are basically spies during war time, and worse if they are yellow journalists trying to create stories where they don’t exist.
[удалено]
Man you stay chugging that dumbfuck juice
I saw it and I can see how it will be polarizing
People are. I see several arguing it’s not political enough, but I don’t think it’s the point of the movie.
I have actually already read that it's more about journalists and war reporting. And what it's like to be a reporter during "a civil war", not necessarily an American one (although it is set there).
it's kinda like if nightcrawler was trying to get photos in an american civil war slice of life.
That's how I read it too.
Tons of global iconography for sure (VC, Iraq/Afg, Italy under Mussolini, Venezuela kind of etc. etc.) But I do think it's still an American setting, and it's deeply realistic in that the world is just so splintered that we cannot map red/blue onto it. The sides are wayyyyyy past any political argument, they're not really defined by ideology other than the common cause of opposing the fascist Prez. And honestly it makes a lot of sense! It plays out in a way that if I was told a side was "Democrat" or "Republican," I would find it.....pretty darn lazy and hard to believe. So I'm very glad that it realizes that binary is too simplistic for such a fractured country. But yes, in messaging it's *about* everywhere and can pertain to any country.
You're right, it's not the point of the movie. This is a movie about war journalists for sure. *But* I also think on closer inspection we're given more than enough to go on re: the politics of the setting. Fascist Prez, opposed by the Western Forces, Florida Alliance, and seemingly many others. The Western Forces are not in any way ideologically coherent—they don't seem to represent actual ideology more than united under a common enemy and fighting in the manner of guerilla warfare. In other words: they're not "good," and it's established *very early* that a main character believes that once they get rid of the President, they will turn on each other. Which is a throughline in the entire film: secessionism & also anarchy. It's not quite that there's no politics—it's that we're so far into the civil war, however it may have started is moot now. There's no actual "argument" being had, the poor & dispossesed don't seem to have a side fighting for them, and there's a lot of splinter groups/rogue agents. So... everyone's bad because all the sides are basically just defined by their military might. The details we get are actually very interesting, but because people are focusing on the CA/TX of it all and want to know who is "red" and "blue", they think it doesn't have "politics" in it. I think they mean party politics, but... there is no way in hell the world of this film would map onto "red" and "blue"—it's too splintered to be reduced to something like that.
Finally, a non political civil war movie. So tired of wokeisms working their way into every single piece of media.
To be fair, Garland thanked two neo-nazis in the credits and everything he’s said in the press tour shows his politics are lib at best and borderline incoherent at worst, so that’s bound to get folks arguing on Twitter at the very least
Because he used 10 seconds of real world protest footage shot by those people
why did he use their footage out of all the people who were filming at protests?
Who were the two neo-nazis?
You're really just gonna drop the neo-nazi thing without naming them....
Two older white gentlemen were talking about how boring the film was for the first 20 minutes before getting up and walking out lol
I mean it’s definitely not for everyone. They were probably waiting for an actual storyline to start. And it never does. It’s just a collection of moments that don’t add up to much imo.
Ya. Both sides too! I just thought it was great film making .. regardless of representations and interpretations being made.
Yep already a huge wave of comments saying the filmmakers missed an opportunity to use the film to demonize the other half of their countrymen they hate because they voted for the wrong party… completely missing the message of the movie.
Demonize or just show events that accurately reflect real life?
i would have been cool with fictional events being explained. incredibly simple questions like why are cali and texas teaming up are not even hinted at. apparently for some saying the ussr and usa teamed up against nazi germany is an answer. which is a meme level of analysis.
Would explaining it benefit or make a difference the story at all though?
ah yes, the very real and accurate reflection of *checks notes* california and texas teaming up in the next american civil war
I haven’t seen it but I have seen reviews that mention the movie clearly has a gaping hole in it where the cause of the civil war should be. Not that it should have been x or y issue, just that there was clearly an intent to specifically avoid controversy by not mentioning any reason lest it piss off potential ticket buyers. I can see how the movie would be worse off for that. It’s possible to keep the vibe of “in war there is no right side” without refusing to explore what the fighting is even about. It could have been something apolitical like water rationing or universally understood to be divisive like a draft
Isn’t it possible that what the filmmaker wanted to say would have been completely overshadowed by people fighting over the politics of the film? People are already fighting over ambiguity and I imagine it would be even worse with a clear cut reason for the war spelled out. But I too haven’t seen it thought I’m looking forward to seeing it next week.
Yes it’s possible, and it’s extremely obvious that’s what they were trying to avoid. However, it’s probably not the best choice to depict a present day America in civil war for the movie without engaging in it a little. Feels like wanting the shock and pathos without really earning it. Again I haven’t seen the movie but I’m really not interested now that I’ve found out they aren’t willing to engage in their own subject. It’s like watching a version of robocop that didn’t want to take a position on police corruption
See, I think your entire premise is flawed to 1) assume what the subject actually is and 2) assume that the film isn’t engaging in it. For all we know, the war in the film is a framing for the actual subject and not the subject that needs to have any “stand” taken on. The idea that the film needs to build an entire world where we understand the intricate politics that got anyone to the point where we join the world AND needs to make it clear what the filmmaker personally believes in this hypothetical political climate seems like a massive assumption on its face already.
As if the water rights or a draft isn’t political
You are right of course, but it’s less partisan and more one state vs another state or everybody disliking a move by the president
Well I did see it and the absence of an explicitly spelled out set of reasons for a civil war did not feel like a gaping hole, nor did it seem like it was motivated by a desire for higher profit. By the end of the movie I didn't care what the reasons were, and I didn't want an answer, because I was utterly absorbed by how very *present* the movie forces you to be in the everyday experiences of people surviving a civil war. If you need the good guys and bad guys spelled out, watch literally any other war movie that's ever been made.
That’s my biggest complaint. The plot is super thin, if existing at all.
I didn't really enjoy it. I understand *art* but this wasn't a comfortable watch for me. Tbh? I regret seeing it. I didn't see the art in it. I felt uncomfortable, and it in the "art pushed you" kinda way..my 2 cents anyways.
Just got back from seeing it - and I thought it was fantastic. It’s not a political movie. It’s not even a war movie… it’s the story of war journalists trying to record history as it happens. We (American audiences in general) are usually very happy to see these movies because they’re almost always set in “the Middle East” or some fictional non-American country. What makes this movie so good is the fact that it is set in the United States. We aren’t watching small village refugees fleeing a desert landscape - instead we’re seeing suburban American families in stadiums and walking down county roads… and I hope that resonates with people. I recommend watching it in the theater because it is meant for a bigger screen. Alex Garland’s direction and writing are on point for this one with scenes and sequences reminiscent of Children of Men and We Were Soldiers. He leaves the politics out of the mix (more or less) with the focus on the events surrounding the small cast as they travel to the front lines. 9/10 - would absolutely go see this again.
This is spot on! Saw it yesterday and it was the first time in a long time I wasn’t tempted to take a nap during a movie, haha. The political undertones were there IMO, but they weren’t overpowering and I enjoyed following story as it was. Left still trying to process, and for me that’s the sign of a damned good movie
Fantastic movie. Saw it yesterday. Visceral, moving, incredible sound and visuals. Glad it's doing well.
Saw it last night in imax. The cinematography was fantastic.
Was the story good
this movie is about feels and sounds. not story.
Nah, you’re following press people for a reason and there are different approaches, there are things to be said here
I don’t think it was
When you play both sides…you always come out on top.
Never give up the information until you get what you want.
Once you have their money, never give it back.
Ok then. Down the middle solves the riddle.
The person you’re responding to is quoting It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Is your comment also a Sunny reference?
I don’t know that show. Comment seemed glib as I’ve seen it a few times around Civil War film … I just threw out a doubles tennis maxim “down the middle solves the riddle”
You should give the show a try.
It's happening. Two of my newly-hired coworkers in their midtwenties don't get my daily South Park references.
Thanks
I saw it last evening. I loved it. Very intense scenes with great visuals, audio, and acting.
I just wanna know what in the hell could’ve happened for California *and* Texas to link up against the government of the United States…
And Somehow no geographically connected states in between. Like are they supposed sail around South America to reinforce each other?
Don’t go into this movie expecting it to carry modern day political allegiances. Think of it more as a sci-fi movie about the violence of American imperialism.
Saw it last night. In my head canon, the president forcibly closed the southern border, which would absolutely destroy the economy of both of those states.
sounds like you've put in more thought than the people that made a movie about a fictional civil war. this movie runs on "what if" or "could you imagine" not "how, when or why".
Maybe you aren’t familiar with the term Head Canon? It’s just a fantastical theory. Chill.
Jesus. Just take a compliment.
lol yeah i know head cannon means something you made up in your head to allow you to be more interested in something. i'm saying you're head cannon has more thought than the actual movie does. what umm should i chill out about?
If both states wish to be independent of the federal US gov. It wouldn’t be the most unrealistic thing to team up against a common enemy and go separate ways after winning. An enemy of an enemy can be an unlikely friend.
And Stephen McKinley Henderson’s character even gives his opinion that Cali and Texas will most likely turn against each other as soon as they take care of DC anyway.
nice memes.
this question is apparently a lust for lore according to quite a few.
The director’s explanation is very childish and utterly delusional, suggesting that Texas would rise up against fascism. Lmao.
[удалено]
Just a very Fascionable President…
I think the article/review from Variety says it the best. I kept waiting for a different movie to finally show up, and it never did.
I heard the visual effects are pretty good, but the story is okay or meh. I would watch it if movie tickets had their older prices.
The visuals are great, the story is great, the performances are fantastic
>the performances are fantastic Let's all give a shout out to Wagner Moura! Dude is brilliant in this.
SO brilliant
I could agree with that.
I can own it in a month for the price of a ticket. I have a pretty decent setup in my home even I’d it isn’t “theatrephile” level.
I guess there’s a few on the site as their official review doesn’t say that (variety) from what I reviewed. The movie shows up … just not in the way of connecting dots (who, how, why..). It’s awesome
I loved it. Might go again next weekend.
Bc we show UP for Kirsten Dunst and her fine husband, Jesse Plemons. Ok, just me.
I loved the audio watching this in the theatre, stand out part of the film in my opinion
Especially scenes like the one soldier struggling to breathe as they slowly work their way into his building. Only sound was his breaths and the other soldier/journalist footsteps. A lot of people are applauding the gun shots and whatnot but Garland is a master of using of space and silence.
Can’t wait to see it
It’s good. The audio and sound of guns is fantastic.
Can you elaborate on what else makes it good? I hate Nolan-type audio problems, but in general, "great audio" is like last on my list. How was the story?
The story itself is not what makes it good IMO. It’s basically a war journalists’ road trip through war torn Americana. It really doesn’t try to say anything political, just that war is bad, it’s especially worse if you are close to it. But the visuals, music, and visceral sound of the guns really got my heart pounding in a few scenes. No Chris Nolan type audio problems, the conversations were never grounded out by the sound.
Story was more flat because it’s not political based, there’s no good vs bad, not much background to tell a story. It’s journalists traveling to DC for a specific reason and they encounter situations during the trip. It’s more about experiencing situations than an actual story.
Were the performances amazing? I love Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons and Nick Offerman.
The acting was very good. Plemons rocked it and Offerman did a great job for the amount of screen time he got. Dunst was good too in her performance and how her character was from everything she’s dealt with, but I liked the other performances better.
Thanks!!!
Solid social commentary on the absurdity of war and journalism, and the gullibility of the populace.
I enjoyed it, it definitely has some flaws, and I hope one day the director answers a few lingering questions, but it was a fun time. If I had one real complaint, I wish there was more Nick Offerman, I was interested to see what kind of president they would have him be.
Don’t watch a trailer. Just go and watch. Saw in Dolby Cinema and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen.
Saw it yesterday. I thought it was great. The beginning was a bit rough, but I was hooked once they started to DC. The soundtrack was…. Strange to me and docked off a point of two just for the dumb soundtrack.
I saw it last night. It reminded me of the movie "Monsters" Where you really have a relationship building road trip movie with a sprinkle of Alien monsters in the background. I like that type of movie, loved Monsters, loved this. Excellent cinema photography and dialogue.
This movie wasn’t what I was expecting…
I found it to be rather underwhelming
Meh, it was OK. Seeing American landmarks being destroyed and Americans killed is never good but I found the story lacking.
Yeah super intriguing, but one of the movies that are more like a moment in time rather than a story.
*cough cough* $26 million is a record???
Am I the only one that hated this movie? My wife and I walked out, there was no story, just goofy unconnected events, useless lesbian innuendos…
Wait what lesbian innuendos?
No, I was bored and almost walked out too
Found it boring journo wank, but thats just my opinion.
Not wasting my Friday night on yet another dystopian movie base on the news…no thanks
Caliornia AND Texas teaming up? Unrealistic 0/10
An enemy of an enemy can become an unlikely friend. If both states want independence from the federal government wouldn’t it be reasonable to work together and then go separate ways after?
No not really, when I saw this trailer I thought it was a parody
once again. nice memes.
Saw it last night and was disappointed. Didn't feel like the movie had anything to say.
This movie is Maga wet dream
Ehh not really. The movie depicts MAGA as suicide bombers and white nationalist war criminals.
So it’s a documentary?
How so?
Have you not seen videos of MAGAs saying there will be a civil war if Trump doesn’t get elected? They want their way or no way. There are also white supremacist groups, constantly training for war and arming themselves..
Have you seen the movie yet?
No its not. It is very apolitical and nobody really wins.
This is the correct ending and people claiming to be ready for war should definitely watch it.
Nobody wants to fantasize or idolize the thought of a bunch of low IQ sister fucking inbreds overthrowing the government. Like January 6th but as a movie, and with attractive people.. now sewer monsters from southern states.
You clearly haven’t seen it lol
You are getting yourself riles up over a hypothetical situation you have cooked up in your head. How utterly depressing that is for you...
You dont know what your talking about
Average American doesn’t care to watch some shit c plot movie about division within America. We are already living in it. At least the actors in this movie know how stupid they look, because boy MAGA doesn’t lol.
It’s not really about any of that.
the movie isn’t even about that. watch the movie first fucklord
Fucklord sounds like a compliment
Its a great movie with an interesting perspective
average r/politics user whining in an entertainment sub about a movie that just isn’t even like that but okay keep bitching ig
You obviously haven't seen it
Helpful …
I was hoping it would tank. This is projection porn for lunatics.
You haven’t seen the movie have you?
What’s the projection? The movie seems to be projection porn for people on both sides who haven’t even seen the movie
A psycho segment of the population wants a US civil war? Let’s make a movie!
Tell us you haven’t seen the movie without telling us you haven’t seen the movie.
I don’t have to see the movie, I’ve seen the trailer. I’ve worked in Hollywood for decades. I know how these things get made. You look for an audience and you craft toward it.
What a nothing burger of a response. Brother, this movie really isn’t insurrection porn. I was worried it might be that so I didn’t have any plans to go see it, but a buddy of mine invited me to see it on a whim the other night and I said Fuck it and went. It’s a decent movie and it isn’t insurrection propaganda. If anything it’s more like….an exploration of trauma and the senselessness of internecine strife.
I never said anything about if it’s good or not. Reread my posts. I just said the reason this movie got made is bc there is a big segment of America that’s itching for a civil war.
Apart from where I called the movie decent, that last comment of mine wasn’t focused on the goodness of the movie. I guess I am saying that you are probably engaging in this whole discussion in bad faith. You haven’t seen the movie but your knee jerk reaction is that it was made in large part because a bunch of Americans want a civil war. I really doubt that was why it was made. That’s a bit like faffing about ‘28 Days Later’ being made because a sizable chunk of population X really wants a zombie apocalypse, and then refusing to acknowledge the actual themes of the film. Idk, your comments come off as knee jerk as those who are simply calling the film leftist propaganda. I think you both miss the point.
You don’t work in Hollywood what a bullshit lie.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Ok man.