Movies A24 - Civil War Trailer - 2024

[Fizzzzle]

2 minutes ago, SoberChef said:

 

Fizz, respectfully, I have a freaking SS officer in my familial history and yeah, I've never felt like that over dead ancestors that I've never met. Chill & be easy.

Fuck your SS officer family member.

 

I don't know, how much leeway we give to our racist families is something I struggle with. Personally... If I didn't know them, then fuck 'em. I also don't believe in an afterlife and therefore have very little care for speaking ill about the dead.

[Moa]

[johnny]

18 hours ago, Moa said:

freaky ass xbox states. switch and ps5 states need to form an alliance. if xbox is most popular they must also be low PC states. 

[Greatoneshere]

West Virginia being the only state with an Xbox One, stuck in the past. 

[stepee]

lol it’s such a horrible idea to release this movie I love it 

[TUFKAK]

3 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

West Virginia being the only state with an Xbox One, stuck in the past. 

I mean it’s wv so

[Greatoneshere]

45 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

I mean it’s wv so

 

The fact it's not even a PS4 but an Xbox One, terrible. 

[SoberChef]

 

 

[Brick]

Cinematically it looks great, but it's all going to come down to the writing on this one to not feel ham-fisted and implausible.

[ort]

I bet they are going to gloss over the politics and details of what happened and just drop us into the middle of a situation in this world without trying to explain everything...

[skillzdadirecta]

5 hours ago, ort said:

I bet they are going to gloss over the politics and details of what happened and just drop us into the middle of a situation in this world without trying to explain everything...

I guarantee this is the approach they are going to take... the fact that they have Texas and California banding together to secede makes me think they're glossing over the politics.

[Kamusha]

I'm sorry but it's so distasteful to put something like this out on election year, specifically this election year. It feels more exploitative than it does zeitgeisty. No thank you.

[ort]

I just hope they don't make it some sort of fantasy fulfillment for violent weirdos... we're already at the point where Fox News comments sections are full of people fantasizing about gunning down people in the street... people literally calling for civil war... we don't need to throw fuel on that fire and we also don't really need a preachy liberal finger wagging movie about it either... we just need everyone to cool the fuck down...

[Greatoneshere]

Worrying about this movie was like worrying about Joker when it was about to release in theaters. It's a whole bag of nothing. If the movie is good, it's good, if it's not, because of this worry it'll be eviscerated more than normal. Alex Garland did stumble a bit with his last film, Men, but I do find it hard to believe the guy who wrote 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go and Dredd as well as writing and directing Ex Machina, Annihilation and Devs is gonna do some empty, superficial fantasy escapist BS. A24, the studio, whether you like what they put out or not, don't typically make sensational nonsense like Sound of Freedom, but far more dense and/or thoughtful movies. That doesn't mean this movie won't be peoples' worst fears realized, just that it's unlikely.

[sblfilms]

 

Having just walked out of the screening at SXSW and reading this thread. Lol, never change fam. Movie is excellent, as I expect from a talent like Garland. I’ll have more to say when I do my entry in the other thread.

[Greatoneshere]

15 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Having just walked out of the screening at SXSW and reading this thread. Lol, never change fam. Movie is excellent, as I expect from a talent like Garland. I’ll have more to say when I do my entry in the other thread.

 

This is what I hoped/expected. It's Alex Garland.

[TheLeon]

I’ve kinda been dreading The Discourse on this one, but now having seen it, the most controversial thing about it… is that it’s not particularly controversial.

[TheLeon]

 

LMAO

 

I wonder who is more likely to give this movie 1 star. People who didn’t see it and just hate it on principle, or people who wanted a “how to overthrow the government” instructional film and were disappointed that it’s basically just about journalists on a dangerous road trip. 

[Kamusha]

I’ll admit it’s kinda funny that a movie called Civil War turned out to be divisive.

[SoberChef]

I didn't think I'd love this film as much as I found myself doing just that a day after my IMAX screening. Like this film is harrowing AF for sure and seeing the ugliness inherent in our country mirrored back to us is soul crushing. Sound design is GTFO of here bonkers crazy! Never heard gunshots sound SO real in another film before. Everyone did a tremendous job, the moments of action showcased in still photography in the moment, what a phenomenal choice. I'll be owning this in 4K for sure!!

[Kamusha]

An incredibly dumb and shallow movie masquerading as something important and profound. It has so little to actually say about the state of the world or humanity in general, and what it chooses to say is pretty obvious and communicated in ham-fisted ways. It has the look and appearance of an A24 movie but with the intellect and subtlety of Michael Bay. 

To address some concerns people had, I personally don’t see it as a dangerous movie that encourages violence. It's not really a movie where you are rooting for sides, though I guess ultimately you are siding against the president. I don’t see it as a right-wing wish fulfillment movie either, but it also avoids saying much of anything that would offend conservatives other than Offerman as president basically being Trump-lite (and really lite at that)

 

But if the trailers turn you off from the very idea of this movie I don't think you will be won over by this movie. I suspected early on this one would appeal to me, but I wanted to like it because Garland is interesting. A few people I trust approved so I gave it a shot and it turns out my initial feeling was correct.

[Kamusha]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:55 PM, Kal-El814 said:

Having the thumbnail be someone aiming down sight with their fingernails painted trans flag colors is… a choice.

For the record those aren’t the trans flag colors. But it’s certainly was a deliberate choice for the sniper to have brightly painted nails.

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, Kamusha said:

For the record those aren’t the trans flag colors. But it’s certainly was a deliberate choice for the sniper to have brightly painted nails.

Are blue, pink, and white not the trans flag colors?

[Kamusha]

5 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Are blue, pink, and white not the trans flag colors?

Light blue, light pink, and white, yes.  But his nails are hot pink, green, and I think I saw some purple when I saw it last night.

[TwinIon]

Going into this movie without any expectation that it is a decisive political statement turned out to be pretty helpful. The only real political stance the film takes is that fascism is bad and that perhaps resistance to fascism should overcome our other political differences. Honestly, I think that's probably enough. 

 

As purely a setting for the small stories that Garland is telling here, it works. The tension is visceral. Jesse Plemons completely steals his scene (as usual), and is a real highlight. Kirsten Dunst basically only had one expression on her face the entire film, but it worked for me. There are some real tragic stories of conflict photographers who have witnessed terrible things to get iconic shots and I thought Dunst channeled that well.

 

I also appreciated how high of a regard Garland has for press in general and photographers specifically. Even as everyone has become a photographer, I think there's still room for images to shape and change the world. I also think there's something tragic about these characters and how they're risking their lives to tell stories, but we never get any sense of how those stories are being received.

 

I do have one tiny issue that has zero bearing on the quality of the film:

Spoiler

I hate that Jessie shoots on film. I'm a Nikon guy, I understand the affinity for The Fe2. I don't shoot film, but I understand the appeal. I just don't think that it's a good choice for front line conflict photography. You're sacrificing so much ability to both quickly get a shot and to share it that it seems almost idiotic to primarily shoot on film in her position. Yeah, it's great we see her developing in the field, but come on. I'm not entirely sure what the audience is supposed to think about that choice, if anything at all, but I read that as a sign of her inexperience.

 

[Moa]

So despite thinking this is a fundamentally ill-conceived subject I wasn't going to not see it as a curious person and general Garland fan. As a movie, I thought it was mostly brilliant. The direction, cinematography, SOUND, music, composition, etc, every aspect of film making was top-notch. The decision to follow journalists was wise and well-integrated, and the road trip setup was pure Americana. The only other movies I can think of that made me sweat this much were The Hurt Locker and Hereditary. Somehow every loud noise, no matter how telegraphed, startled me. Overall, I don't think the movie should exist, but it was also a spectacular spectacle.

 

Ending:

Spoiler

The DC scene was incredible, but I didn't like the way Kirsten Dunst's character died. Throughout the road trip the movie does a great job maintaining the feeling of progression and escalation while also embracing the stochastic nature of actually navigating a war zone, where anything could happen. The way Dunst died felt too setup, too tidy and predictable, and it felt at odds with the rest of the movie. I also think that the movie didn't need it, photographing the execution of the president would have given it sufficient oomph, and in many ways not having any of the journalists die at the end would have been more surprising.

 

I also enjoy that the post-release reception seems to be 'big whoop.' The movie wanted to have it both ways in terms of courting controversy, and ultimately its release and reception seem to have had very little cultural impact. Two rappers beefing has caused orders of magnitude more buzz than this movie, and that just tickles me.

[SoberChef]

@Moa thanks for teaching me a new word today, greatly appreciated. "stochastic" 

[TwinIon]

8 hours ago, Moa said:

So despite thinking this is a fundamentally ill-conceived subject I wasn't going to not see it as a curious person and general Garland fan. As a movie, I thought it was mostly brilliant. The direction, cinematography, SOUND, music, composition, etc, every aspect of film making was top-notch. The decision to follow journalists was wise and well-integrated, and the road trip setup was pure Americana. The only other movies I can think of that made me sweat this much were The Hurt Locker and Hereditary. Somehow every loud noise, no matter how telegraphed, startled me. Overall, I don't think the movie should exist, but it was also a spectacular spectacle.

 

Ending:

  Hide contents

The DC scene was incredible, but I didn't like the way Kirsten Dunst's character died. Throughout the road trip the movie does a great job maintaining the feeling of progression and escalation while also embracing the stochastic nature of actually navigating a war zone, where anything could happen. The way Dunst died felt too setup, too tidy and predictable, and it felt at odds with the rest of the movie. I also think that the movie didn't need it, photographing the execution of the president would have given it sufficient oomph, and in many ways not having any of the journalists die at the end would have been more surprising.

 

I also enjoy that the post-release reception seems to be 'big whoop.' The movie wanted to have it both ways in terms of courting controversy, and ultimately its release and reception seem to have had very little cultural impact. Two rappers beefing has caused orders of magnitude more buzz than this movie, and that just tickles me.

 

As to the ending:

Spoiler

I thought it mostly worked. The film seemed to be setting up Jessie to die and Lee as a person who would always capture horrors rather than prevent them. The sequence itself might be a little melodramatic, but both as a way for Lee to have changed and for Jessie to have taken up her mantle, I think it works. I also wasn't entirely sure if she did die. They're facing small arms fire, she's wearing a vest, we don't see any blood I can recall, and no one checks her vitals. I think the point is largely that it doesn't matter, what matters is getting the shot, and either way, it had to be Jessie to step up.

 

[Kamusha]

I actually I had to stop myself at laughing during the ending. It was so ridiculous.

[Moa]

2 hours ago, TwinIon said:

 

As to the ending:

  Reveal hidden contents

I thought it mostly worked. The film seemed to be setting up Jessie to die and Lee as a person who would always capture horrors rather than prevent them. The sequence itself might be a little melodramatic, but both as a way for Lee to have changed and for Jessie to have taken up her mantle, I think it works. I also wasn't entirely sure if she did die. They're facing small arms fire, she's wearing a vest, we don't see any blood I can recall, and no one checks her vitals. I think the point is largely that it doesn't matter, what matters is getting the shot, and either way, it had to be Jessie to step up.

 

 

Spoiler

I hadn't really thought about it in the context of journalistic intervention, which upon reflection is an obvious throughline, and thinking about it that way I like it more. I do think it still felt a little too tidy and cute for an otherwise deliberately messy movie.

 

[Kamusha]

You can only defend the last scene on an intellectual level but on an emotional level it reigns so false. Clearly a movie made by a man. 
 

Garland is an ideas guy. He makes movies about ideas, not characters. I think a more humanist director would been better suited for this material.

[TwinIon]

2 minutes ago, Kamusha said:

You can only defend the last scene on an intellectual level but on an emotional level it reigns so false. Clearly a movie made by a man. 

Honestly, I kind of feel like the opposite is true.

 

Spoiler

At least when you're talking about the whole ending chapter and not just Lee's sacrifice.

 

Intellectually, I found it kind of hard to buy into the way the President's last stand played out and that a couple random journalists end up being the first ones in the White House. It's also a bit hard to believe that the President would just be executed immediately. Presumably the western forces are basically just US Armed forces that opposed a fascist, and it seems very unlike US armed forces policy to just execute a head of state in that way, especially with journalists standing there. Disbelief at that was the first thing I heard from other viewers as I left the theater.

 

Emotionally, Garland gives us so much more closure than I really expected. You want to see a definitive end to this conflict. You want to see these journalists, after all their trauma and sacrifice, achieve their goal and get that quote and that shot that would live on forever. For a film that begins en media res, it's such a clear conclusion to a story we have so little real information about.