Civil War (2024)

[harry713]

10 hours ago, cinema pal said:

Quick question, everybody: who was fighting who here?

 

 

 

 

Trader Joe’s uniform guys were WF. 

[WittyUsername]

After having just got back from seeing it, I can see why some would accuse this film of having a “centrist” take on the division in the United States. Ultimately, any potential commentary on the current state of U.S. politics is more of a backdrop to the general anti-war message the movie is going for. 

[cinema pal]

5 hours ago, harry713 said:

Trader Joe’s uniform guys were WF. 

I don't know what  "Trader Joe" is

 

Well "Plot" segment on Wikipedia says:

Quote

Following an overnight stop close to ongoing fighting, the group document the combat the next day as a group of militiamen attempt to assault a building held by a small number of loyalist forces. During the fighting, Lee begins to see Jessie's potential as a war photographer while Jessie takes photographs of the militia executing captured loyalist soldiers.

While Grace Randolph in her review  states:

Quote

[...] to be embedded with  loyalist State militias and watch them execute prisoners of war from I believe the Western forces and then turn around and ask the Western forces for medical assistance is some of the most heartless and hypocritical behavior I have ever seen depicted 

))

 

Edited April 14 by cinema pal

[cinema pal]

 

Interesting final moments of the movie: b/w footage in slo-mo with startled, almost hostile, expressions on their faces, when Jessie starts taking pictures

 

But during final credits we see a photo of smiling soldiers. Did Jessie choose it as her  The "1 in 30" one?

 

P.S. Deleted the image as it may or may not break the policy here. I don't really know

Edited April 14 by cinema pal

[filmlover]

This was pretty good, I thought. I feel like people are getting way too hung up on the politics and the logistics behind how this movie's universe of the United States came to be, which I assume wouldn't be true if the movie had taken place in a fictional country and not clearly rooted in present day. Which I get, but also seems like a simple case of "overthinking the premise" to me, at least for most of the movie until the climax arrives. The Nick Offerman POTUS didn't seem obviously inspired by Trump (or Biden, for that matter) to me. Such is the nature of anything related to government affairs in the US these days I suppose, where the division is incredibly apparent and both democratic and conservative parties seem incapable of getting along with each other (and the latter, among many other things, openly embracing the repulsive "you don't belong in this country" mentality towards minorities, which the despicable Jesse Plemons character was clearly meant to be the manifestation of - I found his only scene to be arguably the most unnerving in the entire movie). 

 

But beyond that, I found this to be an exhilarating and tense take on war journalists and the work they do on the front lines that also marks a comeback for Alex Garland from the atrocious Men. His eye for haunting imagery is put to well use here (for me the most unsettling being the overpass with "Go Steelers" sprayed on while a pair of corpses hang off the side), and he's recruited a solid cast led by a capable lead performance from Kirsten Dunst (nabbing her juiciest film role in quite a while as a war-torn individual) alongside Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, and Stephen McKinley Henderson as other journalists who end up forming a family of sorts amidst the chaos surrounding them.

 

I do think it flies a bit off the rails once we reach the raid of the Oval Office because the film actually does call attention to the aforementioned politics behind the universe at that moment after avoiding them directly up until that point. But I don't think it detracts from the movie's overall power otherwise. And I actually thought the last photo of the soldiers standing proudly over the President's dead body being developed over the end credits was the perfect frame to end the movie on. As @TMP said, it really did feel like something straight out of the Bush era. 

 

B+

[cinema pal]

36 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

I do think it flies a bit off the rails once we reach the raid of the Oval Office because the film actually does call attention to the aforementioned politics behind the universe at that moment after avoiding them directly up until that point.

 In what way it calls attention?

 

By the way, today I read Garlands' interview and he shared some political views:

"I'm left-wing. I'm a member of the Labour Party, which is the left-wing party in the U.K. For political health, every now and then, I would want my party not to win, because governments tend to get corrupt when they're in power for too long.

 

 I have very good right-wing friends. What we're arguing about is things like how tax is used or whether you have free markets or regulated markets. It's that sort of zone. But, somehow, we are expected to start hating each other, or take it away from, "This is a right argument or a wrong argument," but make it into, "You as an individual are good or bad." And there's something about that which is just really stupid. It's really flat-out stupid."

 

Sounds like a nice guy

Edited April 14 by cinema pal

[ringedmortality]

This is an exploitation film at it's core. Exploitation films like this have used politics as a backdrop just for the sake of shock like Goodbye Uncle Tom or Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS.

 

It'd be called usxploitation is such a thing existed.

[crazydom]

3 hours ago, cinema pal said:

 In what way it calls attention?

 

By the way, today I read Garlands' interview and he shared some political views:

"I'm left-wing. I'm a member of the Labour Party, which is the left-wing party in the U.K. For political health, every now and then, I would want my party not to win, because governments tend to get corrupt when they're in power for too long.

 

 I have very good right-wing friends. What we're arguing about is things like how tax is used or whether you have free markets or regulated markets. It's that sort of zone. But, somehow, we are expected to start hating each other, or take it away from, "This is a right argument or a wrong argument," but make it into, "You as an individual are good or bad." And there's something about that which is just really stupid. It's really flat-out stupid."

 

Sounds like a nice guy

This is not what people in America are arguing about. This is why the movie is such a failure. He flat out does not understand what is at stake in America. Or he’s simply too ignorant as a white man to understand how dangerous it is for many people if the GOP takes power. 

[cinema pal]

17 minutes ago, crazydom said:

This is not what people in America are arguing about. This is why the movie is such a failure. He flat out does not understand what is at stake in America. Or he’s simply too ignorant as a white man to understand how dangerous it is for many people if the GOP takes power. 

Of course it isn't. That's why he chose California-Texas alliance cuz the conflict in the movie is not about democrats vs republicans. It's about alliance against authoritarian threat. Its a dystopian antiwar movie. A timeless one.

And please let's not start a-white-man rethoric. Have mercy 

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

36 minutes ago, cinema pal said:

Of course it isn't. That's why he chose California-Texas alliance cuz the conflict in the movie is not about democrats vs republicans. It's about alliance against authoritarian threat. Its a dystopian antiwar movie. A timeless one.

And please let's not start a-white-man rethoric. Have mercy 

He chose not to engage in class politics or race politics. A vague authoritarian threat must gain power from somewhere. 

[crazydom]

41 minutes ago, cinema pal said:

Of course it isn't. That's why he chose California-Texas alliance cuz the conflict in the movie is not about democrats vs republicans. It's about alliance against authoritarian threat. Its a dystopian antiwar movie. A timeless one.

And please let's not start a-white-man rethoric. Have mercy 

 

Have mercy when Alex Garland is apparently too uninformed to understand why women losing the right to have an abortion or trans people being unable to access their hormone therapy any longer in states like Tennessee might see his "I'm just arguing about taxes with my right wing friends. Why can't we all get along?!" take on US politics as misguided at best and outright malignant at worst?

[cinema pal]

10 hours ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

He chose not to engage in class politics or race politics. A vague authoritarian threat must gain power from somewhere. 

 

As if  individuals of certain parties are immune to corruption and others are not?

Also this authoritarian threat could position itself as something entirely different at first.

[cinema pal]

10 hours ago, crazydom said:

 

Have mercy when Alex Garland is apparently too uninformed to understand why women losing the right to have an abortion or trans people being unable to access their hormone therapy any longer in states like Tennessee might see his "I'm just arguing about taxes with my right wing friends. Why can't we all get along?!" take on US politics as misguided at best and outright malignant at worst?

Well its not that simple.

One side defend women's right for abortion and the other side defend unborn babies' right to live. One side fight for trans health care and the other fight against what they perceive as mutilation/sterilisation of confused children.

One side argue that America was build by immigrants and slaves and you are racist to question liberal migrant policy and others are afraid of their safety cuz criminals among illigals pour into the country.

Now pay attention, I don't take sides here. Just pointing out how people percieve each other as bad guys.

 

The question is not "why can't  we all  just get along", it is "why can't we even TRY to find a middle ground"

 

And it's funny how people say the film just  divides and polaryzes America further when it literally dipicts a red and a blue state alliance to fight a dictator stomping the  constitution.

 

And at the same time its a dystopian antiwar film with ugly war crimes on both (several, actually ) sides

[Claire of Themyscira]

Hmm.

 

Lemme not drag, lol.

[Becker]

On 4/13/2024 at 5:46 PM, harry713 said:

It wasn’t 2 states vs 48. It was mentioned that other states had seceded as well, even if not part of the WF. Point being it wasn’t just two dissenting states up against a powerful and united 48. The established govt in DC was crumbling under a third term president whose cabinet and generals were turning angainst, and most of the unaffected population were indifferent, like the parents in Colorado/ Missouri. 

 

California and Texas bulldozes over all those Loyalist States? I highly doubt it. 

[Avatree]

Ahhhh I thought this was great. Super strong imagery. The horrors of war hit a lot harder when it's in a place you recognise and your own people.

 

I thought the anti-war messaging was very effective. It was tense and a few moments where I was completely shocked. Kirsten Dunst was terrific and the rest of the cast was good.

 

Edited April 15 by Avatree

[cinema pal]

19 minutes ago, Becker said:

 

California and Texas bulldozes over all those Loyalist States? I highly doubt it. 

Between California and Texas are only two Loyalist states : Arizona and New Mexico. And between Texas  and Virginia is Florida Alliance, not a bunch of Loyalist states. 

[Torontofan]

On 4/14/2024 at 3:57 PM, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

He chose not to engage in class politics or race politics. A vague authoritarian threat must gain power from somewhere. 

could be a resource issue

 

[cinema pal]

What's weird to me: nobody talks about the fact that Plemons' character and his soldiers are not the government folks. This is spelled out by Joel (Wagner Moura)

 

Also, only today it  occurred to me why the sniper and the spotter had pink, blue and green colors on them

 

 

 

[harry713]

Weekend thread disappeared before we ever got actuals. 🙃 A24 is going to need to hire another accountant. C’mon big bois.