Civil War | A24 | Alex Garland action thriller | 04/12/2024

[crazydom]

 

58 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

I don't understand why they didn't just make Texas and Florida allies in the film. Should have been a no brainer.

Because if Garland made them allies he would actually be saying something political and can't have that in a movie called Civil War.

[SnokesLegs]

1 hour ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

Guess will have to judge the movie on its own.

As for grace Randolph. She always blows shit out of proportion.

 

She clearly wanted to it to be something it wasn't meant to be.

 

" Refused to take a stand" .......

 

 

Can you imagine her reaction if Garland DID take a stand? 
 

“HOW DARE THIS ENGLISH MAN TRY TO TAKE A SIDE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!! WE KICKED YOU OUT IN CIVIL WAR 1!!”

[Reddroast]

2 minutes ago, SnokesLegs said:

Can you imagine her reaction if Garland DID take a stand? 
 

“HOW DARE THIS ENGLISH MAN TRY TO TAKE A SIDE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!! WE KICKED YOU OUT IN CIVIL WAR 1!!”

Ok that's good 

[Mojoguy]

2 minutes ago, crazydom said:

 

Because if Garland made them allies he would actually be saying something political and can't have that in a movie called Civil War.

I guess the title is just something to bring in the far right

 

This will remain the REAL Civil War movie anyway 

[excel1]

oh brother, not everything is about taking a stand from extreme, this looks like its about the many people stuck in the indifferent middle

[dudalb]

yeah, is ounds more and more like another Sci Fi Futuristic shoot em up.

Nothing wrong with that, except is is a missed opportunity.

I will give it a miss. The "Fallout" series on Amazon Prime seems to be a much better get for some apocalupitc fun.

[dudalb]

And wow, war is ugly and a bad thing?

Who Knew?

[dudalb]

13 minutes ago, SnokesLegs said:

Can you imagine her reaction if Garland DID take a stand? 
 

“HOW DARE THIS ENGLISH MAN TRY TO TAKE A SIDE IN AMERICAN POLITICS!! WE KICKED YOU OUT IN CIVIL WAR 1!!”

And My opinion is to make a film about a civil war in future America and not have a political take beyond "War is Bad" is a major cop out.

[Mojoguy]

I remember The Purge Election Year taking advantage of an upcoming election, which was fine for marketing.

 

But this movie pitting the right vs the left is going to put off some people just as much as they bring in. I don't see any controversary helping when people can turn on the news and already see Amercans kill each other, and the ringleader of Jan 6th likely walking free due to corrupt courts.

Edited April 9 by Mojoguy

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

Why does everything have to be dumbed down / explained / made obvious though? 
 

The film doesn’t mention or reference the real history of America. 

Is character development and worldbuilding really "dumbing down" a plot?

[crazydom]

The funny thing is that putting in footage from a fascist and giving him a movie credit is about as close to being "political" as Garland gets in the movie.

 

Not a good look for him!

Seeing this movie will now forever be linked to seeing a movie giving credit to Andy Ngo.

Edited April 9 by crazydom

[Blaze Heatnix]

So, does the trailer sell the real movie or is it misleading?

 

I want to see a movie about Civil War, but some are claiming this flick

Spoiler

focus on journalism

. Is that real?

 

Anyway, for thosewho watched it already, any prediction on the CinemaScore? Garland's previous movies got very bad CinemaScores, so is this gonna do better in that regard?

[MysteryMovieMogul]

I don't doubt this is a good film. I just doubt it'll be the Box Office hit that A24 seems to be hoping based on all the marketing I've been seeing everywhere.

[kestrel]

Something has been bothering me regarding the main criticism of the movie, that it supposedly doesn't take a stand or have a clear message, and that is: why did that become a bad thing? It use to be that movies raising questions and not providing definitive answers, letting the audience come to their own conclusions, was not just acceptable, but preferable even. Many movies that were overtly didactic and message focused were derided as preachy.

 

It seems over the last decade, people have shifted to wanting movies to have an overt message, telling people what to think rather than letting them think for themselves. Maybe it's just wanting to see their beliefs validated. Maybe it's just a byproduct of polarization. I don't know. I'm reserving judgement on Civil War until I see it, especially if this is another Zero Dark Thirty situation, but I felt that needed to be said. 

[Orestes]

4 hours ago, dudalb said:

And wow, war is ugly and a bad thing?

Who Knew?

 

Get a generation or so removed from a big war, and folks seem to forget. Might even happen faster now with how sanitized war has been presented in the US since 'Nam. Then you get dumbasses doing things like taking picnic baskets and opera glasses to a battlefield to watch, or saying "over by Christmas," or "we'll be greeted as liberators."

[Speedorito]

1 hour ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

So, does the trailer sell the real movie or is it misleading?

 

I want to see a movie about Civil War, but some are claiming this flick

  Reveal hidden contents

focus on journalism

. Is that real?

 

Anyway, for thosewho watched it already, any prediction on the CinemaScore? Garland's previous movies got very bad CinemaScores, so is this gonna do better in that regard?

I’m terrible at predicting Cinemascores for anything that’s not a franchise blockbuster, but I wouldn’t be surprised by if it lands in the C range. Maybe a B-.

 

Really depends on how misled people feel and how they respond to the ending.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

1 hour ago, kestrel said:

Something has been bothering me regarding the main criticism of the movie, that it supposedly doesn't take a stand or have a clear message, and that is: why did that become a bad thing? It use to be that movies raising questions and not providing definitive answers, letting the audience come to their own conclusions, was not just acceptable, but preferable even. Many movies that were overtly didactic and message focused were derided as preachy.

Wouldn't war journalists have an opinion on a Civil War happening in their own country? I would assume a war journalist would be politically more knowledgeable than the average person, so wouldn't they be discussing their political beliefs in relation to their profession? So yeah, I would expect a lot of politics, even if it wasn't politics I agreed with, because some journalists have politics I don't agree with, but all of them have agendas.

No one takes a photo of a cool mural in their city just because it's art and that's what people do. They do it because they have an opinion on the mural.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

1 hour ago, kestrel said:

Something has been bothering me regarding the main criticism of the movie, that it supposedly doesn't take a stand or have a clear message, and that is: why did that become a bad thing? It use to be that movies raising questions and not providing definitive answers, letting the audience come to their own conclusions, was not just acceptable, but preferable even. Many movies that were overtly didactic and message focused were derided as preachy.

 

It seems over the last decade, people have shifted to wanting movies to have an overt message, telling people what to think rather than letting them think for themselves. Maybe it's just wanting to see their beliefs validated. Maybe it's just a byproduct of polarization. I don't know. I'm reserving judgement on Civil War until I see it, especially if this is another Zero Dark Thirty situation, but I felt that needed to be said. 

Giving people context about what precipitated a war =/= spoon feeding people what to think. I don’t understand why a lack of perspective or lack of politics is considered evolved when it could just as easily be called cowardly.  

[MysteryMovieMogul]

25 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Giving people context about what precipitated a war =/= spoon feeding people what to think. I don’t understand why a lack of perspective or lack of politics is considered evolved when it could just as easily be called cowardly.  

I hesitate to bring up current events, but look at the situation in Gaza. Look at photos and video from Gaza taken by Palestinians. A vast majority of it focuses on the IDF/Israel being the perpetrator of violence. Whether or not you agree with that, it has a point of view. And it has to because Palestinians are living with the violence.

 

If there was an American Civil War, I would expect every American Journalist to hold an opinion on the war. Because it's their home. So yeah, I expect politics. But not "the president is actually Trump" style politics. I expect "I'm covering the war because my state is going through a genocide led by the Western Forces and people need to see" style politics.

[kestrel]

1 hour ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I hesitate to bring up current events, but look at the situation in Gaza. Look at photos and video from Gaza taken by Palestinians. A vast majority of it focuses on the IDF/Israel being the perpetrator of violence. Whether or not you agree with that, it has a point of view. And it has to because Palestinians are living with the violence.

 

If there was an American Civil War, I would expect every American Journalist to hold an opinion on the war. Because it's their home. So yeah, I expect politics. But not "the president is actually Trump" style politics. I expect "I'm covering the war because my state is going through a genocide led by the Western Forces and people need to see" style politics.

Well I haven't seen it, so I can't say what views the characters have, or the movie (which is not the same thing). For all I know, the movie does actually have a clear stance and a lot of people are missing it because the movie doesn't beat you over the head with it. I wouldn't be shocked if that's the case, which is why I mentioned Zero Dark Thirty.