SummaryFrom filmmaker Alex Garland comes a journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.
SummaryFrom filmmaker Alex Garland comes a journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.
Forget such questions of whether 'Civil War' is good or bad, fresh or rotten, and any other gradation scale that comes to mind. This film is mandatory.
While bound to spark hundreds of think pieces, Alex Garland’s stirring Civil War will undoubtedly go down, too, as one of the most provocative films of the year. It’s also an early contender for one of the best, offering a stunning warning: no matter what the cause, war is hell.
This is the best movie I’ve watched this year, and I doubt any other film will surpass it(for this year). The movie’s ending is cleverly explained using just three questions during a conversation. The fight scenes are so realistic, they truly depict the nature of war.
Wow! Great Film. Different than other war movies following the soldiers and I enjoyed the pace here as you have moments of brevity and calm. Followed by insane moments of visceral action and stunning moments.
The scene famously seen in the trailer of Jesse Plemons in the red sunglass is worth the price of admission alone. But their are several moments in the film that really get the adrenaline going and I loved how it was paced and the finale was really epic and satisfying imo.
With horrific wars raging in other parts of the world, and with politically charged violence part of the fabric of this country, “Civil War” will hit home no matter where you live.
It is a film about journalistic ethics and, in its own way, the interpretation of images is grounded in [Dunst’s] outstanding performance. It isn’t an easy role to inhabit, but she does so perfectly.
Civil War works on the level of intellectual exercise: a film clear-eyed on the horrors of war and trauma in which journalists are the unsentimental heroes, and which relies on the audience to supply their own assumptions of American politics rather than spoon-feed reality. But the distance makes for an at times frustrating watch – stimulating on the level of adrenaline, not emotions.
This is a stark, harrowing reminder of why we can't let our nation's politics be led again by weak-minded politicians any longer.
As a lifelong party man, this turned me from Blue to Red. This movie sits back and asks you smack bang between the eyes, "How can we leave this country to our children in its current state?"
It's truly a political horror story.
It was certainly an intense experience, and a shock to the system to see much of the violence of modern warfare enacted on American streets. But I do wonder exactly what point Alex Garland was trying to convey. By deliberately stripping the two warring sides of political context and political resemblance to current factions, he certainly avoided stepping on sensitive toes, but he also removed some very important opportunities to explore the deeper meaning of the war and its causes. It was very well done, but ultimately felt hollow. Seeing a strangely apolitical war play out through the eyes of apolitical journalists left me wondering what it was all for. What exactly IS the "peaceful" America that our characters remember? How did they lose it, and what is the path to getting it back? This movie makes a lot of noise, but on the questions that really matter, it has nothing to say.
Missed Opportunities
The topic of civil war is a weighty one, filled with historical significance, moral dilemmas, and complex human emotions. Unfortunately, the film "Civil War" falls short of its potential, leaving viewers with a sense of missed opportunities.
1. **Empty Scenes and Lack of Depth:** The film fails to delve into the heart of the conflict. Instead of exploring the causes and consequences of war, we're presented with superficial scenes that do little justice to the gravity of the situation. It's as if the filmmakers merely scratched the surface, leaving us wanting more substance.
2. **Parallelisms Ignored:** In a world where civil unrest and political turmoil are all too real, "Civil War" could have drawn powerful parallels. Imagine if the characters grappled with the same issues we see in our own societies—divisions, power struggles, and the clash of ideologies. Unfortunately, the film shies away from this opportunity, opting for safe storytelling instead.
3. **Photographers Over Substance:** The film inexplicably spends too much time on scenes featuring photographers. While their perspective could have added depth, it becomes a distraction. We're left wondering why the characters aren't engaging in meaningful debates about their crumbling nation. It's a missed chance to explore the human psyche during times of crisis.
4. **Unrealistic Approach:** Perhaps the most disappointing aspect is the lack of realism. When a country is on the brink of collapse, people don't treat it as a joke. They grapple with fear, uncertainty, and desperation. By glossing over these emotions, "Civil War" misses an opportunity to connect with its audience on a visceral level.
In summary, "Civil War" had the potential to be a thought-provoking exploration of conflict, but it falls short. Let's hope future filmmakers tackle this topic with the depth and sensitivity it deserves.---Feel free to make any further adjustments or let me know if you'd like additional content.