Current Events > I thought Civil War was great

(+) Yeah! (+)

Weird how the reviews are so polarizing and people saying wheres the wOrLD bUiLdIng

but imo it didnt need that at all.

best combat action on screen in history of cinema, period

It was great. I posted my Letterboxd review in another thread. I could do so here too.

bsp77 posted...

It was great. I posted my Letterboxd review in another thread. I could do so here too.

yes please

gna647 posted...

best combat action on screen in history of cinema, period

I haven't seen it yet but I got some doubts on this shit at the very least lol

Was there a scene where the main character stopped, looked dead into the camera and says, "What's so civil about war, anyways?"

If not, no want.

gna647 posted...

best combat action on screen in history of cinema, period

Bro, I've seen Hardcore Henry.

OLDULI? what is that? some secret civil war code?

Smashingpmkns posted...

I haven't seen it yet but I got some doubts on this shit at the very least lol

im not kidding. Ive seen apocalypse now, full metal jacket, saving private Ryan, jarhead

this movie without a doubt has the best modern warfare combat in cinematic history

absolutely watch it with the best sound you can get

bOTh SidES: The Movie

GrandConjuraton posted...

bOTh SidES: The Movie

Wrong. It simply isn't about sides, which is not the same thing.

I will add that I know that some people feel it is bad to not take a side with the current state of the United States. However, I feel that would just have been preaching to the choir and not accomplished anything. I also don't review movies based on what they are not, I review them based on what they are.

GrandConjuraton posted...

bOTh SidES: The Movie

That was the movie The Hunt

gna647 posted...

yes please

The easy part of the review - the filmmaking. It's near flawless. The cinematography, the editing, the sound design. All fantastic, which helps lend a very taut, uncomfortable feel throughout. This is a very gripping film.

The harder part of the review - the story and the themes. I was unsure when I walked out exactly what I thought. But in the hour since I walked out, I can think of nothing else. It is starting to make sense, but I also keep finding contradictions. So yeah, it's a Garland film. This is the exact same thematic haziness seen with Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Men, but they aren't hazy because of a flaw in the writing. On the contrary, they inspire thought and discussion, as, similar to real life, things aren't simple. I could spend serious time debating them with fellow film goers. Yes, even the flawed Men warrants discussion.

I guess I haven't said anything about the themes, but it takes having seen the whole movie to get too specific. That said, apathy, disenchantment, and desensitization are at the heart of the film, while also having the desire to actually see and know everything. Let's stare at the deadly car crash, but detach ourselves from actually caring. The movie is entirely apolitical and we rarely even know whose "side" most of the characters are on. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the others are the enemy. We also don't need the backstory; it is way too easy for all of us to make up a very feasible one.

Finally, I just want to mention that both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny are wonderful. Dunst still has it in her, and Spaeny likely has a very bright future ahead of her.

9 / 10

I haven't seen the film yet though I plan on doing so. My understanding is that the journalist characters are portrayed as being neutral and impartial observers or wt least attempting to be. (If I'm incorrect here people who have seen the film can correct me) Which I take issue with. I have an problems with the idea that journalism, especially war journalism, should be inherently neutral.

Robert Evans, who is extremely critical of the modern state of journalism put it something like this "if one group is claiming that it's raining and another claims that it isn't, it's not your job as a journalist to report both sides claims uncritically. It's to go outside for yourself and see if it's raining or not and report on that, who is lying about it, and why."

ScazarMeltex posted...

I haven't seen the film yet though I plan on doing so. My understanding is that the journalist characters are portrayed as being neutral and impartial observers or wt least attempting to be. (If I'm incorrect here people who have seen the film can correct me) Which I take issue with. I have an problems with the idea that journalism, especially war journalism, should be inherently neutral.

Robert Evans, who is extremely critical of the modern state of journalism put it something like this "if one group is claiming that it's raining and another claims that it isn't, it's not your job as a journalist to report both sides claims uncritically. It's to go outside for yourself and see if it's raining or not and report on that, who is lying about it, and why."

You are assuming that the journalists are being portrayed in an inherently positive light

Close 2nd best MCU after Infinity Wars.

ScazarMeltex posted...

I haven't seen the film yet though I plan on doing so. My understanding is that the journalist characters are portrayed as being neutral and impartial observers or wt least attempting to be. (If I'm incorrect here people who have seen the film can correct me) Which I take issue with. I have an problems with the idea that journalism, especially war journalism, should be inherently neutral.

Robert Evans, who is extremely critical of the modern state of journalism put it something like this "if one group is claiming that it's raining and another claims that it isn't, it's not your job as a journalist to report both sides claims uncritically. It's to go outside for yourself and see if it's raining or not and report on that, who is lying about it, and why."

Very true, and thats a major problem with journalism surrounding trans rights as well.

Im going to see the film soon. Ive seen and appreciated good films about war journalism before, but trying to play the both/no sides angle does not bode well. This film really sounds like it shit the bed in a bad way for lack of care in handling the narrative.

Heres the setting for the film about a modern US civil war, and by the way that does not matter to the film

CSCA33 posted...

Very true, and thats a major problem with journalism surrounding trans rights as well.

Im going to see the film soon. Ive seen and appreciated good films about war journalism before, but trying to play the both/no sides angle does not bode well. This film really sounds like it shit the bed in a bad way for lack of care in handling the narrative.

Heres the setting for the film about a modern US civil war, and by the way that does not matter to the film

But both sides! Compromise with fascists!

ScazarMeltex posted...

I haven't seen the film yet though I plan on doing so. My understanding is that the journalist characters are portrayed as being neutral and impartial observers or wt least attempting to be. (If I'm incorrect here people who have seen the film can correct me) Which I take issue with. I have an problems with the idea that journalism, especially war journalism, should be inherently neutral.

Robert Evans, who is extremely critical of the modern state of journalism put it something like this "if one group is claiming that it's raining and another claims that it isn't, it's not your job as a journalist to report both sides claims uncritically. It's to go outside for yourself and see if it's raining or not and report on that, who is lying about it, and why."

buy they arent. They have a better relationship with the western forces than they do with the presidents side and they talk about the shit the president doesnt throughout the movie.

people saying both sides are digging their head into the ground. What actually happens is you see how journalist act with competing sides to get the scoop, which is absolutely different from how you and others make it out to be.

I thought the lack of world building was really annoying. The fact there were four separate warring groups and at no point did I know who was who or who was the good guys / bad guys really ruined it for me as I spent most of the film trying to work that out. I read BSPs review and maybe thats the point but still I feel at least a little more world building would have been appropriate to help the film flow better.

GrandConjuraton posted...

But both sides! Compromise with fascists!

Keep crying. Not everything in the world is going to cater to your precious little echo chamber. The majority of the country is sick of hearing people like you bitch and moan about everything constantly.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

Keep crying. Not everything in the world is going to cater to your precious little echo chamber. The majority of the country is sick of hearing people like you bitch and moan about everything constantly.

I dont imagine theres a single person on CE who gives a shit what you think or are sick of.

GrandConjuraton posted...

But both sides! Compromise with fascists!

I see you won't respond to me. I have always been supportive of you, but when you post shit like this, I just think, "go outside"

There doesnt even have to be good or bad guys, but its doing a disservice to make a film about a literal civil war and give the audience zero context or information about the conflict. Thats pretty crucial information for the narrative.

I mean is this trying to be some really far out performance piece? It doesnt seem like that to me.

It could still be a good film in other aspects.

Zeeak4444 posted...

I dont imagine theres a single person on CE who gives a shit what you think or are sick of.

Based on how popular this movie is, it appears the only ones crying about it are a very vocal minority. It's best to shut them down before they get any louder.

CSCA33 posted...

There doesnt even have to be good or bad guys, but its doing a disservice to make a film about a literal civil war and give the audience zero context or information about the conflict. Thats pretty crucial information for the narrative.

I mean is this trying to be some really far out performance piece? It doesnt seem like that to me.

It could still be a good film in other aspects.

Not every movie needs to be about narrative, but I can understand the frustration

Zeeak4444 posted...

I dont imagine theres a single person on CE who gives a shit what you think or are sick of.

I do!
j/k

bsp77 posted...

Not every movie needs to be about narrative, but I can understand the frustration

As an artist myself I can very much appreciate the different aspects in a film with actor performances, what story the director wants to tell, visually and otherwise, and the whole thing treated as a work of art.

I typically love A24 and other independent films made in such a manner with artistic considerations.

And I really love some of Garlands other work, particularly ex machina.

SHRlKE posted...

The fact there were four separate warring groups and at no point did I know who was who or who was the good guys / bad guys really ruined it for me as I spent most of the film trying to work that out.

haven't seen it yet, but despite the film's purported lack of plausibility or worldbuilding, that's precisely how civil wars tend to be

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

Based on how popular this movie is, it appears the only ones crying about it are a very vocal minority. It's best to shut them down before they get any

Shut them down? You're overestimating how much sway you can have on pretty much anyone, because you definitely don't have any on me.

bsp77 posted...

I see you won't respond to me. I have always been supportive of you, but when you post shit like this, I just think, "go outside"

To be fair, I read your post before you edited the second it in.

I'm not going to cede any ground to anyone who thinks my life (or anyone like me) is for debate. More people not taking a stance against fascism in places like Florida is actively killing people like me, so I very much fault anyone who doesn't actively push back against it.

CSCA33 posted...

As an artist myself I can very much appreciate the different aspects in a film with actor performances, what story the director wants to tell, visually and otherwise, and the whole thing treated as a work of art.

I typically love A24 and other independent films made in such a manner with artistic considerations.

And I really love some of Garlands other work, particularly ex machina.

Just go in with an open mind.

I get annoyed with people having preconceived notions about something they haven't seen just because of it starring impartial journalists or it has 2 seconds of footage from a sketchy source.

There is a point when political outrage is going too far, and this is definitely that point. I always vote Democrat, I surround myself with liberal & LGBTQ people, I support causes and events. I put my time and money into fighting conservatives and fascists, but it's a goddamn movie with themes that aren't about politics. People need to chill.

GrandConjuraton - this works for you too. Sorry if I was rude because I do like you personally.

Wars center on politics of some kind, whether it be as simple as expanding your territory for arbitrary reasons, expanding a religion, or something like quelling certain ideas or people, or even for liberation purposes. To portray a war where nothing is given any context at all does seem to have a political agenda of its own because reasons for conflict or disagreement DO matter; not all sides are created equally, morally or otherwise. Most of the time, there is always a "good" side, and that's important to remember.

GrandConjuraton posted...

Wars center on politics of some kind, whether it be as simple as expanding your territory for arbitrary reasons, expanding a religion, or something like quelling certain ideas or people, or even for liberation purposes. To portray a war where nothing is given any context at all does seem to have a political agenda of its own because reasons for conflict or disagreement DO matter; not all sides are created equally, morally or otherwise. Most of the time, there is always a "good" side, and that's important to remember.

I don't disagree. But that is not what it is about. You are simply saying it should be what it is about, which isn't how art works.

GrandConjuraton posted...

Most of the time, there is always a "good" side, and that's important to remember.

The problem is you are acting like this movie is real life. It's not a documentary. It's a popcorn flick with actors playing fake characters about a fake war. There doesn't have to be a good side or a bad side. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and stop trying to change it to be something it doesn't want to be.

I think the below is an important part based on what I took away.

bsp77 posted...

apathy, disenchantment, and desensitization are at the heart of the film, while also having the desire to actually see and know everything. Let's stare at the deadly car crash, but detach ourselves from actually caring.

I feel that the movie could potentially make more people care and want to get involved. Now the movie doesn't tell you which side to get involved with, but recent US history shows that more voters means more democrat votes. That is why there are all these programs to get young people to vote. You don't need to advocate a side, it will push it more liberal.

The majority of the US is pro choice, the majority of the US is pro gay marriage. Yet many of those who are the most disenchanted and don't vote are moderate or even politically on the left.

This movie could do some good, more so than if they just beat you over the head with "Republicans bad".

Just finished it. It's a visually well-executed film and the acting was great. That's about all I'm going to say about it.

TheMikh posted...

haven't seen it yet, but despite the film's purported lack of plausibility or worldbuilding, that's precisely how civil wars tend to be

Yeah, people always want to look at civil wars through the lens of the American war. 2 sides, one a clearly bad slaver's revolt. Most civil wars look very different. Especially when preceded by a collapse of the central governing authority's power. The Chinese Warlord period of 1916 1928 is a perfect example. Or the Civil Wars in Africa of the last 50 years. Or the ongoing Syrian civil war.

It is funny to see people who haven't seen the movie criticize it for how it portrays certain things when they have no idea.

I thought it was fantastic btw.

SHRlKE posted...

at no point did I know who was who or who was the good guys / bad guys

That may be the point though. In every conflict ever fought, all sides consider themselves the good guys. Reality is way more complex than what the winners ultimately write in the history books.

The movie is going to go down in history as a controversial classic

GrandConjuraton posted...

Wars center on politics of some kind, whether it be as simple as expanding your territory for arbitrary reasons, expanding a religion, or something like quelling certain ideas or people, or even for liberation purposes. To portray a war where nothing is given any context at all does seem to have a political agenda of its own because reasons for conflict or disagreement DO matter; not all sides are created equally, morally or otherwise. Most of the time, there is always a "good" side, and that's important to remember.

So, if you get the opportunity, I would recommend seeing this film in theater. Without getting into spoilers there are users here responding to you in ways that are somewhat misleading, IMO.

This film has a very powerful message that is anti-fascist at its core (among other things.) It doesnt play the line of both sides or anything, and while there is space intentionally left open for interpretation and discussion, in no way is it open to interpretation in such a way as to be pro Republican or pro Trump.

It lays just enough groundwork to keep your footing while allowing you breathing room to explore and absorb the film without distractions. At no point did I feel confusion about what was happening, or like the plot was lost. On the contrary, it is very basic and straightforward, intentionally so, like planting the seed that allows for manifestation of complexity naturally and not forced.

Good film, couldve been better, but its got great roots and legs with a powerful message.

It was great. Also saw a Trump supporter throwing a tantrum after the movie about getting tricked and that was great!

For people who dont like trump, this film also plays into revenge fantasy a little bit. Its not kill bill levels but its definitely one of the aspects of the movie.

SuperExcitebike posted...

It was great. Also saw a Trump supporter throwing a tantrum after the movie about getting tricked and that was great!

Oh that sounds like a real treat, bonus feature

Saw this not long ago and I had some thoughts.

I knew going in there was no world-building, but damn it really is just a few sentences said by Samuel that establishes like anything (that the President is on his 3rd term). I actually liked the feeling of being randomly dropped into the setting on what is the last 2-3 days of the war and seeing how this way of living is totally normal for them, as opposed to seeing a movie with a zombie/monster outbreak that has normal society being shown turning to shit. In this one society is already shit and everybody is accustomed to it.

I will say, though, that as much as I thought no world building would bother me, there were a few things that did. Like how the Western Front has the exact same kind of gear and training as official military. So this led to the question "were these service members who revolted against the POTUS and absconded with this equipment, or was it spoils of war from militia members who defeated U.S. soldier to acquire them?" Talking about things like helicopters, humvees, fucking tanks, mortars and RPG. And if it's the latter then how did so many people get the training to operate those vehicles? I also wasn't a fan of almost everybody wearing military uniforms which made it hard to figure out who was who at times. One example is when they're pinned down by the sniper from the house with those 2 dudes. Those 2 dudes were rather amusing in their banter with the main press guy. I liked that guy overall, however he was pretty fucking dumb in that scene when he was trying to take some moral high ground against people who had a friend sniped in the head and were clearly unable to leave the area because they'd die themselves.

The characters were pretty well-done overall, however other than Samuel they all had at least one scene where they said or did something pretty stupid that was bleh.

Ok, now some other thoughts:

The POTUS talks and acts like Trump would in that situation. When he's rehearsing his victory speech his first iteration is literally Trump speak when he says "perhaps the greatest victory mankind has ever known", or something. Was verbatim the way Trump talks and with each subsequent rehearsal of the line he moved further away from that. Also the fact that any journalists near the WH get shot on sight is something Trump has already pretty much advocated for, or at least would seeing as how he's promising retribution against those who have criticized him. Also when Samuel mentions how the POTUS air strike civilians it was reminiscent of Trump saying to drone strike the family members of terrorists. Also him disbanding the FBI, which is Trump I believe has said should happen, though I don't know if this movie was still being made when he did. And finally the fact that Charlottesville was "the frontline" made me obviously think about the Unite The Right rally and Trump's connection to it.

One thing that felt weird is that while the POTUS seems like Trump, a lot of the domestic terrorists seemed like they would be more MAGA than not:

The first terrorist felt like a very emblematic youthful MAGA woman. She looks like a southern blonde, blue-eyed white girl and literally carries an American flag into a crowd she suicide bombs. I also noticed the crowd she blows up looked like a ton of impoverished minorities begging for water primarily made up the crowd.

And here's where it gets annoying that nobody really identifies their faction except U.S. soldiers getting shot at by obvious civilians in that one scene and at the end with the Western Front.

At the gas station when they see those 3 dudes outside they give 300 CN to for gas, Jesse goes with that one guy to see the people hanging in the car wash. Lee asks to take a picture of him with them, which they talk about him doing before shooting them. The guy says they're looters and one of the people said his family was hungry and he was trying to feed them. They were beaten up badly, strung up for 2 days, and then ultimately executed. That type of sick and twisted behavior is definitely not uncommon from what I've seen right-wingers express in regards to looters. Those guys were dressed in civilian clothing, but literally everybody has military-grade hardware uniform or no.

Then as I mentioned previously during that one firefight where Jesse snaps that shot of the dude dying with his friend asking for help, they encounter the wounded soldier who clearly is no threat and execute him on the spot. They then capture 3 soldiers, put a bag over their head, take them out to a field, and execute them with a mounted turret. The smile and expression on that dude's face as he executes them is the sickest shit ever and instantly made me think that the right-wingers who insist they "need their firearms incase they need to resist a tyrannical government" who seemingly express glee at the thought of using them for said purpose.

Later when Jesse and the guy driving are taken by those people with the mass grave, they are in full military uniform and are questioning them like right-wing domestic terrorists would. Dude literally asks where they're from, making sure to say "American" after Missouri & Colorado and "Central America" for Florida, and he made a point of telling the Chinese guy to "speak English clearly" before saying "China?" and immediately executing him. They are also prepared to seemingly kill anybody who saw what they were doing or happened to run across them.

And then finally at the end we see the Western Front and they are the most well-presented and civilized military force in the entire movie. They are almost presented too well in their civility and mannerisms, so it distinguishes them from almost all combat fighters shown thus far except the 2 dudes trying to snipe the sniper. They also professionally protected (as the military is trained) the press people who were following them around which is one of the things that made me wonder why they behaved like that as we don't know their faction's origin. Seeing the respect they gave the press and their presence would not be expected of right-wing ideological force.

Since they are increasingly heading towards DC, based off the factions as described per geographical location I concluded that everybody shown who wasn't the U.S. military was part of the Western Front, which would be odd given the difference in behavior. The people fighting in civilian clothes could have been local militias who just happened to have guns, or they could have been guards armed by the WF to keep controlled territories out of U.S. military hands. But then there's also the guys in military uniforms salting the mass grave of civilians they obviously murdered. This is one of the things that actually makes the lack of worldbuilding suck as I have a ton of questions that may never get answered.

But a side note in regards to factions, when Jesse is talking about Miller's backstory, I'm pretty sure she said "you covered the AntiFa Massacre, and then became the youngest MAGA photojournalist", two things. 1) Do you think the "AntiFa Massacre" is meant to depict them as the as the aggressors or the ones who were massacred? 2) I doubt myself on that second part, she did say MAGA, right? This is the only time in the movie I remember political ideology actually being discussed.

it would have been better with wolverine.

I thought it was okay. It was basically another Odyssey adventure.

While I'm down with them, I was hoping for something more than a generic road trip movie.

The one with Captain America? Absolutely.

Definitely top 3 MCU by far.

Id probably rate it around 6.7 / 10

Pretty good movie overall; it wont be a classic or ever listed among the greatest top films, that is for sure

I enjoyed it but the marketing was god awful for this movie. It's hard to blame the audience going into it thinking it's a political thriller cuz that's how the trailers painted it (coming out during an election year no less) when in reality its a road movie about war journalists with nothing really political to say. Which is fine, the story was good and the beats were good too. It just wasn't the movie I was expecting at all.