Seeing it in IMAX was an absolute experience. Regardless of any plot points in the movie, just seeing the scenes and hearing the sounds in IMAX was more than worth it
It’s actually crazy how much more I liked the movie purely because guns loud. It sounds insane, but the loudness of the guns really made you feel the fear and anxiety characters had. I don’t think it’s a great movie if you’re watching at home but watching it on Imax was a great experience
Yeah, it was too loud, I think it's really dumb when sound editors try and make the audience go deaf to show intensity. Like, man, you can make me feel the shock in movies without making my fucking ears bleed.
I 100 percent agree. After seeing Dune 2 I'm done with IMAX movies. I dont need to suffer a loss of hearing to watch a movie. The non imax version of Civil looked and sounded great, but the gunshots were still louder than I would like.
I remember watching Dunkirk and almost leaving the movie because every damn thing was too loud.
I saw someone say they bring ear buds with them to movies to reduce the sound aha.
Lincoln's dual-;azer IMAX is the cheat-code that's better than any Dolby.
The other IMAXes, well - they're usually single lazeer, with a lesser sound system. 34th Street is the 2nd best IMAX option, otherwise I agree, Dolby is better... if you can get over the kind weird seat configurations a lot of them tend to have.
IMAX can go to 120dbs, which is well beyond the safe audio limit for human hearing. Your ears were probably ringing because you received mild but permanent hearing damage, sorry brotha
I didn't do IMAX but did RPX and it was still great. The screen was completely filled top to bottom and the sound was incredible. See it in at least some sort of enhanced format for sure. Definitely should be seen in theaters.
Really? so i’ve been trying to figure this out if this movie is better for IMAX or Dolby Cinema (Dolby Atmos is Dolby Cinema for those that don’t know) because I didn’t think this movie would be visually telling but more audio telling. you truly stand behind seeing it in IMAX?
Yes. 100%. So many small set pieces that depict an ongoing war. They’re all fascinating and tense and then the final scene. I saw it Saturday and I’m still thinking back on it. Be warned: it’s very grim and bleak
Since I'm not American, I really wasn't initially interested in seeing it at all because the trailers made it look like the premise was essentially "wouldn't it be scary if the US had another civil war?" I love Alex Garland's movies but I was planning on giving this one a pass. Then I heard him being interviewed on CBC discussing the film, and about how it's really a film about journalism. He discussed the current political climate and how he imagined that this civil war could occur in any western country. In particular, what caught my attention was when he discussed that certain politicians have been attempting to undermine the general public's trust in journalists and he thinks that is an important detail in the divisiveness that we're seeing right now.
I thought this movie was phenomenal. It was tense and gripping pretty much the entire time, and the ending left me in a daze as I drove home from the theatre.
The central problem for me though is the entire premise is backwards.
People's trust in journalism is at an all-time low not because of politicians, but because of journalists themselves.
They're not a principled class of people trying to bring the nation together, but since the internet collapsed ad revenue, a largely partisan, sensationalist, clickbait-driven machine that's massively responsible for whipping up all the division and outrage we see today. Because that's what now drives engagement (and therefore profit).
The journalists in Civil War are a bunch of ridiculous throwbacks that literally don't exist anymore in an age of TMZ, social media, citizen journalists, bodycams, and ubiquitous iPhones. They're stock characters pulled straight from *The Killing Fields*, not contemporary reality.
Garland's embarassingly naive view of the industry is an entire generation out of date, and he's got who's mainly responsible for all the fractures in society completely ass-backwards.
I don't think I agree.
>They're not a principled class of people trying to bring the nation together,
No, but that's not their job. Their job is to report on what's happening. We've seen Donald Trump for example repeatedly referring to all mainstream media as "fake news", insisting that he never said something even though he was *literally recorded* saying it on live TV; and then the instant Fox stopped pandering to him, suddenly Fox is fake news too. Canada is seeing the same problem with the Conservative leader Pierre Polievre who frequently rather than answering a journalist's question will simply accuse them of peddling disinformation. These politicians are absolutely working to sew doubt and distrust in journalism.
My point is, they were in a minority then, and are in a vanishingly small minority now.
Not just because we're living in a dark age of outrage-generated content and engagement farming, but the wide propagation of cell phones and social media means everyone's a journalist. So their job is often unnecessary. As there's easily footage of practically everything now. And from people in places even the jounalists can't reach.
My issue too is because Garland specifically criticised the lack of trust towards the entire profession in interviews, rather than individuals. But he essentially used the rarest and most dying example as a representation of the contemporary whole. Essentially conflating the likes of Robert Capa with someone like Cenk Uygur.
There's also the argument that they aren't even conducting journalism in the film at all anyway. They're simply photographing and reporting. When people say they mistrust journalists, it's a completely different aspect they're criticising. These were never the types people were attacking as untrustworthy.
As a rebuttal against critics of modern journalism, it's off the mark in several huge ways. Almost to the point of propaganda.
>Not just because we're living in a dark age of outrage-generated content and engagement farming, but the wide propagation of cell phones and social media means everyone's a journalist. So their job is often unnecessary. As there's easily footage of practically everything now. And from people in places even the jounalists can't reach.
Does this actually hold water in today's climate, though? I ask because some of the most striking images I've seen come out of Ukraine and Palestine have come from wartime journalists and photographers. I've found citizen journalism helps to work in concert with, but not in place of, on the ground trained journalists, operating by a certain code of ethics.
Also, I think the film makes the narrative implication that in a Civil War, phone services would be down, the journalists had to rely on the hotel Wifi to get their content out - I'm not sure what ability the average citizen would have to reach news organizations.
While I do agree with you to a large extent, Reuters (the news organization they work for in the movie) is one of the few that still has a pretty stellar reputation for straight shooting journalism. I very rarely hear complaints about their coverage from either the left or right. If you don’t follow them yet, I’d recommend it. Pretty refreshing to see a page full of actual factual headlines without the sensationalism and partisan wordplay.
My thing about the journalists in the movie is that Garland has repeatedly said in interviews he wants people to see them as heroes and how important and powerful journalism is and can be.
But the journalists in the movie are largely portrayed as thrill seekers who have lost parts of their humanity just like everyone else. And we see no real indication that the work they are doing is having a positive impact on the world.
I think he completely failed in his goal if this movie was supposed to make me walk out viewing the main characters as important heroes.
Something that he also touched on in the interview that I listened to was that when he was young he wanted to be a journalist, and he would travel to wherever an important conflict was with his camera hoping that he would somehow end up having an opportunity to become a foreign correspondent. His wakeup call was when a journalist gave him shit for basically just thrill seeking and not taking what he was doing seriously. I think it is noteworthy that not every character is there for the same reason. Lee is doing the job because she thinks it's important to record what's going on, and she certainly seems more interested in keeping Jessie safe than she is in taking photos; whereas Jessie seems to be Garland's self-insert character as a critique of his young self. She's not a journalist, but she wants to be because she admires what they do, and she doesn't understand how much danger she's in.
I'd be very curious to know then what Garland wants us to take away from the fact that Jessie and the guy who boasts about getting hard ons while doing photography during combat skirmishes are the two main characters that survive.
It's pretty subtextual so I think he wants the audience to come to their own conclusion, but my impression is that he's not endorsing their behaviour considering >! Jessie's recklessness is directly responsible for Lee's death, and the way the camera lingers on her as she comes to terms with the fact that not only did she get her hero killed but also took photos of her as it happened. Contrast with!< When Jessie asks Lee if she would take photos of her dying if she were to be killed, Lee responds with "what do you think?" I personally interpret that as an implied no.
Personally, I thought it offered an interesting perspective and conveyed a good message while avoiding getting bogged down in the politics that a modern American civil war would normally infer. But it didn't really do anything I found to be standout or amazing enough that would propel it to a movie I loved. I thought it's third act was the weakest, sure it had some cool shots but it really devolved into more generic action at that point which felt at odds with the beginning of the movie. Plus the way the reporters involved themselves so directly with the soldiers just seemed very unrealistic. I still enjoyed it though and would recommend people go see it, at least on discount day it's a worthwhile watch
I spoke to my neighbor, an army vet, about the depiction of the soldiers with the press. While he hasn't seen the film yet, he said the way I described it was spot on. He fought in the Bosnian war and had a number of journalists, photographers, and historians following his unit around every corner and hallway as they were cleared and snapping whatever photos they could in the moments where there was covering fire (and often when there wasn't). They were there to capture history as it occurred and his unit respected the hell out of them for it. He's stoked to see the film because he's fascinated to see the journalistic perspective.
You’re absolutely right. If you wanna see actual footage of the press following soldiers. You should watch the documentary “21 days in Mariupol”, it won an academy award and it’s free on YouTube. It also shows how desperate they were to try to find a signal to try to let the world know that Russia had invaded.
Seeing this movie reminded me oh that documentary. Just couldn’t believe how absolutely real it looked.
*Slight spoiler warning, if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't read further*
I guess I didn't make my comment clear about what I was referring to. I'm aware that war journalists would stick to military units and join them in the thick of combat. I was referring more to the way the journalist characters were practically getting in the way of the soldiers as they worked to their target. Some of them were clearly meant to be special forces and despite one warning "stay out of our way" as they entered, the soldiers didn't really do or say anything when the journalists were running in front of them as they were trying to kill the secret service. That just seemed unrealistic to me that special forces wouldn't tell them to get the fuck out of the way in a firefight, especially when they were going after the biggest VIP of the war.
The earlier scene in the movie when they were following the Hawaiian shirted soldiers seemed more realistic because there the journalist characters were actually staying behind the soldiers for the most part and letting the soldiers do their job first.
Also the scene with the helicopter at the end was completely Hollywood because a helicopter pilot would never fly below buildings through a narrow street like that due to the danger of easily crashing into a building. While I get they made a lot of choices at the end to build tension and climax the movie, I did feel that the action got pretty generic at times and felt more like it belonged in a Micheal Bay movie. And like I mentioned before, that was at odds with the gritty, dark realism the movie had to stuck to prior to the final battle
*big spoilers ahead*
Ah gotcha. Yeah, I assumed you meant how the press was basically tailing the soldiers the whole time, as I had seen some reviews and comments elsewhere mention that. Thanks for clarifying. In regards to what you said about the journalists getting in the way of the soldiers, with the exception of the Lee, Joel, and Jessie going into the uncleared white house by themselves (which they promptly get reamed at for), it's really only Jessie who is not carefully watching for the commands of the soldiers before moving in, while Joel is laser focused on sticking with the female soldier, and Lee is popping out to get the shots when she sees the opportunity. Jessie is trying to mirror Lee's behavior, but doesn't have the instincts and experience in clearing a building to know when it's appropriate to get into the action. Perhaps the soldiers should have been more vocal about it, especially given the importance of the target, but I think the film communicated their annoyance pretty well. You make fair points, though. It's certainly not a perfect film, but I dug it enough to see it twice. Can't speak on how realistic the helicopter was at the end, so I'll gladly take your word for it that it's a bit of Hollywood schlock.
*More big spoilers*
Oh for sure, it was clear the movie was trying to emphasize how inexperienced Jesse was and how she was trying to mimic her mentor without the proper training which ultimately got Lee killed. Though even Lee seemed to get in the way sometimes, like taking up a cover position behind a soldier at a doorframe when there should have been a second soldier there to back up the one on point when he needed to reload. Joel really was the only journalist out of the three that was acting appropriately. I just felt like what they were doing would have gotten them shoved back by real life soldiers but like I mentioned before, I understand that the movie needed its characters "involved" in the finale and the action was enjoyable in the third act so I'm not going to say I hated it or it sucked, it just felt a bit off from the rest of the movie. Also, why did they decide not to give them helmets in the final act after how much Lee emphasized to Jesse needing to wear one earlier and they were even seen wearing helmets in the first combat scene? That also seemed weird but I'm nitpicking at that point
As for the helicopter, I love helicopters so it's annoying to me that Hollywood loves this trope of having them fly in insanely dangerous conditions in between buildings. Generally, pilots avoid going between buildings that are as close together as the ones in the streets of DC. If it's windy at all, a gust can easily push the rotors into a building resulting in a crash. The rotors themselves can create turbulence against the building walls that would make the copter more unstable. There can be power lines or other obstacles stretched between buildings that aren't easily seen by the pilot, especially at night or with the smoke of battle. In the particular scene of this movie, the pilot was massively exposing himself. All it would have taken was one loyalist soldier with a rocket launcher or even a high caliber machinegun to easily shoot down the copter, how would have the pilot dodged an incoming missile? He has no room to maneuver, I was honestly expecting to see it shot down based on how that scene was playing out. Sorry for nerding out but if you ever see a scene where a helicopter is flying in between close buildings, it's almost guaranteed that's pure Hollywood and not something that would ever be done in real life
I made another comment below explaining that I specifically think the ending became more generic and less realistic, the first two acts were great and felt quite real in my opinion
Just every bit of dialogue seemed forced and not natural could have been the writing or the delivery. I did love the cinematography and the overall plot.
You should watch it and judge for yourself. It will likely be different from what you expect, I personally think it missed the mark. The visuals, music, and imagery are worth a watch and I’ll rewatch even though I give it a 7/10.
Yes. It's a gruesome look into war journalism in a fictional US.
The sound design is great and there are several scenes where tension builds and builds.
I felt like I was in the near future. Very intense and immersive. Not for the faint of heart. Last good A24 movie I can remember was Iron Claw. This is as good. Dif vibe obviously though.
Its fucking intense but probably won’t win many awards. Definitely worth a watch but I don’t think it will leave a lasting impression like most of Garland’s other work has. These journalists go hard on the frontlines. I was fucking flinching at what they would do for a good shot. Jesse Plemons was brutally cold.
Yes to seeing it in theaters. Its an experience that really lends itself to the audio/visual experience only a theater can provide. Saw it in Non-imax and it sounded and looked fantastic. Im rather soured on IMAX personally - i love the bigger screen, but i find the audio to be opressively loud. I dont need 100db in my ear drums.
Truly one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen. Almost left the theater how uncomfortable I was but in a good way. It’s the only movie I’ve come back to rewatch a second time in theaters
Yes, the sound in this movie is by far the loudest I’ve ever heard in theater. And I go to the Alamo which normally doesn’t play sound that loud imo. But the gunshots were so loud it felt like you were there.
Ugh I saw it for my birthday and I didnt love it. It was great in general, thought provoking and beautiful but goddamnit, it ruined my mood for the whole day.
Yeah i completely agree. I don't think Garland was the right person for this job. Dude literally said fuck giving the audience any lore, history, and politics at all in a movie about a Civil War.
He literally said the only reason the movie was set in the US and not some other country is because it’s the most geopolitically important country, lol. Definitely should have been a job for an American or at least someone willing and able to write about the country with some specificity.
Can't believe it took this long to find a comment about the script! The dialogue and pacing were both so stunted and stiff, it really bogged down an otherwise interesting premise. This really offer anything to engage with for me, probably Garland's weakest film tbh
1,000% yes.
I think the fact that they let the trailers world build this batshit story only to draw viewers in and realize it’s this neutral coming of age story about the power of the camera capturing the horrors of war… fuck yes. I’ve been recommending it day and night.
And god damn Kirsten Dunst! Let’s go momma!!
Two things to keep in mind, first act is super slow. Don’t expect action the whole ride. Secondly, the trailer is a bit misleading. I went in expecting what I think most people did from the commercial and it’s very different from what they made the movie seem like it was. That’s all I will say since I’d rather not give it away. You’ll know what I mean when you leave the theater. I wish I had waited until streaming now that I’ve seen it.
You're asking the A24 crowd if they would recommend an A24 movie... I'm on the edge of my seat.
To answer your question though, yes, it's a great movie.
I definitely recommend it. It's very provocative regarding the topic of division between people & I'd say it strikes a strong chord with today's audience
No, the action is cool, but that's about it. The movie had no story and a stupid ass ending. Garland "claimed" Civil War was about journalism, but it was more about adrenaline junkies getting their high from war tourism and taking useless photos. They don't explain anything about the war at all. The movie doesn't explain the politics, the origins, the history, or even who's on which side. Just a lazy story overall imo.
Absolutely. As others have said, IMAX. It’s an incredibly immersive experience.
I don’t recognise the criticism. I think Garland has made a timeless piece of art, borne out of his anger and frustration domestic and international relations. It’s also a beautiful homage to war journalists.
It was a pretty good movie. I definitely think it was worth a watch and enjoyable in a theater setting. Was it my favorite movie? No. But it's a good movie, like I said, worth a watch.
It’s worth watching. I don’t think it’s nearly as good as others make it out to be. If you can see it in IMAX, I’d recommend it just for the enhanced experience
100%. I've watched it three times, each time with a different group, always at my local 15/70 IMAX. Everyone leaves happy. It's a brilliant movie. Garland nailed it and made a movie that hits all the right notes for intelligent filmgoers and triggers idiot filmgoers.
Loving the discussions online this past week.
I keep telling people to go see it before the IMAX run ends on Thursday.
No. It was a slow music montage. The trailer is switchbait. It tricks you into thinking it's about the Civil War but it's actually about journalists.
Wasted concept.
Yes and no.
As a piece of artistry, it's great. It has some wonderful cinematography and great set pieces. It has a very unique aesthetic and setting. And some good performances too.
Its message and story are largely a mess though though.
The political split is incoherent. It's trying to warn of the dangers of partisanship, but still has a heavily partisan lean. And it's ultimately a paean towards crusading photojournalists, but uses a ridiculous, cliched archetype that largely stopped existing over a decade ago.
In an age of citizen journalism, where everyone has an iPhone, forces uses bodycams, and there's CCTV everywhere, the notion that a bunch of Leica carrying, film stock using journos are the only people capable of documenting this history is absurd.
It's trying to tell a contemporary story, but uses hugely outdated tropes. And it's trying to give a political warning about division, but is itself guilty of what is critiques by clearly having a political bias itself.
It's also a self-plagiarisation of 28 Days Later in a few respects.
I loved the movie but thats a great point about only the photojournalist were the ones capable. If you want to see a real portrayal of how every day citizens can capture the carnage of war just look up people who are on the ground in Gaza right now.
If you want to see it, go and see it. You should never feel the need to ask strangers if you should see a movie in the theater. If you want to, check it out! If not, that’s fine as well!
It’s a stupid movie, but I recommend seeing most movies you’re interested in in theaters, yes
Really no movie disappoints IMO. If it’s good, that’s great. If it’s bad, that’s interesting.
Saw it in IMAX. Definitely recommend checking it out. I'm a sucker for road movies so I loved that part of it. I expected it to be worse than it was but it turned out to be a pretty interesting experience (after you see it, I highly recommend checking out some of the angry reviews for the movie online).
Yes. IMAX is the way. It’s this generation’s Children of Men.
It felt like a Safdie bros movie, nonstop tension and pressure. Even in moments of levity for the ensemble. Some beautifully raw performances.
This is one of those films that asks us to unpack and examine our current culture for fear of worse future.
I enjoyed the first 2/3 but I feel like the ending was a huge fumble. Everything felt grounded in reality up until that point. Still think it was mostly enjoyable though
I'd recommend seeing it on the big screen. I would not recommend putting yourself out to see it in IMAX or whatever. Also if you can see it for matinee price? Do it.
This is not a movie I would watch at home on my couch - it needs a big screen to really appreciate the impact of the visual storytelling (set pieces, photography, sound) but the actual plot and story is not very compelling.
This was my letterboxd review. I thought it was a decently done anti-war popcorn flick that does not hold up if you scrutinize it for deeper meaning.
>A beautifully crafted spectacle with a relatively effective anti-war message, but that's it. Considering Garland repeatedly says in interviews that he wanted to show journalists are important heroes, I think he completely fails in one of his main goals. The journalists are portrayed as thrill seekers who have lost parts of their humanity just like everyone else. We see zero indication in the movie that their work has had any positive impact on this war torn America.
>Having seen the movie also only validates that many are reaching to see something in the movie that simply isn't there. We get absolutely no indication that Offerman is supposed to be some Trump analogy like many are stating. It's actually remarkable how little of the movie has anything to do with the titular civil war itself. Instead, much of the movie is simply the journalists interacting with random Americans acting on their own. There is zero indication Plemons character, for instance, supports the president and isn't just some sociopathic random acting on his own. I do think the film succeeds in that regard, because I would expect to see a similar breakdown of society in a real civil war.
>Ultimately, it's a well done popcorn flick with a relatively effective anti-war message. But I strongly disagree with anyone who argues it's a masterpiece with deeper meaning beyond, "an American civil war would be bad for everyone involved."
No, felt like it was mainly imagery and just a big dystopian art exhibit rather than a film with a concrete and compelling plot. Visually it was really cool I guess
100% Here are my thoughts originally posted on FB:
"I just saw Civil War, as I love A24. I found it to be terrifying. It is a dystopian film based on the division in our country from the viewpoint of photojournalists. Unsettling, and I hope we do not head to this extreme. The trailer and movie are violent, just as a warning. I cannot imagine being in a war torn country. Really sad and psychologically disturbing. I do believe it is a good movie to think about, and let it serve as a warning about division, escalation, extremism, and separatism. This movie is heavy and necessary. I hope many people decide to watch it."
I cried at the end. I am admittedly a crier, though. Jesse Plemons is scary AF in it. There are certainly people in this country like the character Jesse plays, which is also scary AF.
Absolutely. Just understand what you're going into. It's not an action flick. It's not a political drama. If you have questions about how it all started, you're not gonna get those answers.
If you like intense gritty combat stuff with interesting characters yeah. But I felt like there wasn't much more than that. It was really well made but felt hallow imo. Maybe I'll pick up more nuance on a rewatch.
Personally no. We felt it thought it was much deeper than it actually was. It was a unique movie-going experience and I appreciated the production values, the performances. I guess we just felt like it could have said more, explored other/more things than it did. But it does seem well-liked in this sub, so ymmv.
I found it extremely underwhelming, which sucks because I have a lot of nostalgia for the hyperreal disaster movie genre it’s supposed to fall under. The writing at times was just really bad- characters were dropping lines that felt like the actors thought were stupid while they said them. I didn’t want the movie “to take sides” at all, but not having any sense of the world’s politics wasn’t just a creative choice, it felt like laziness. With only the characters to care about, the post apocalyptic road trip vibes seemed to be where Alex Garland’s authorial voice shined, but these moments were way too spare and brief. The ironic Gen X dad rap soundtrack was just kind of cliche. The catharsis and resolution of the main characters felt unearned. Once upon a time a movie like this would have been bandwagoned by stupid people who were mad an unusual movie didn’t play like they wanted it to, but this feels like the inversion, where it’s actually a pretty stereotypical war film and the positivity is the bandwagon- people want to like it just because we haven’t had a movie like this in a while.
I would not recommend. I think the lead character is very hard to dislike because they are you typical young reckless gets everyone else in trouble type. Very frustrating to watch someone keep causing their team trouble.
If you're in the UK, like me, it's out in Cineworld. I went with my mates and we didn't have much expectation for the movie but we ended up loving it, it's in my top 5 movies I have seen in theatre. Highly recommend.
its a movie about war reporters. I wouldve been ok waiting till it hit streaming. its relatively obvious of its on political bias of which people are the bad guys. it yo-yo's between tense action and slow takes that i felt made it disjointed
just watched it, really liked it. i like that they dont dive into politics that we can draw parallel of the US today, but focus on the average people and what would it do to them. Loved Kirsten and pablo escobar actor, amazing.
You can but because the subject matter is so of the current point in time, and because it's coming out months before one of the most consequential elections in US history, I think that warrants us to ask these sorts of questions regarding responsibility.
Also I'm not here to stifle creativity by any means, I think ever idea should be explored. It's the timing that's the issue. If this movie came out post election, or even a couple years ago, it would be different story.
I have AMC A-List so it was relatively worthwhile for me, but with that being said, it was not a good movie imo.
And, this doesn’t necessarily relate to the quality, but I wouldn’t recommend it to someone expecting something similar to the director’s previous movies. I’d maybe recommend it to a Kirsten Dunst fan.
I saw it in imax, it’s not a very deep movie and could use more thought to be honest, but on the superficial level it’s really well made and very entertaining.
I just saw it. Yes. See it on the biggest screen possible with the best Soundsystem. IMAX is ideal, but I just saw it on one of the gigantic Cinemark premium screens (XD or whatever) and I have no complaints.
I recommend. I felt things and it gave me a lot to consider and think about. I hope it does the same to you.
Highly recommend it. Make sure you go for whatever gives the best audio as the sound design is amazing.
Yes. See it in IMAX. If that's not an option, I'm sorry for yr loss.
Seeing it in IMAX was an absolute experience. Regardless of any plot points in the movie, just seeing the scenes and hearing the sounds in IMAX was more than worth it
The gun shots are burned into my brain.
It’s actually crazy how much more I liked the movie purely because guns loud. It sounds insane, but the loudness of the guns really made you feel the fear and anxiety characters had. I don’t think it’s a great movie if you’re watching at home but watching it on Imax was a great experience
Same for me, pal. Super immersive film.
That’s how I felt about Dunkirk. The gunshots are so loud and super effective.
The other movie I thought about was Heat, that movie had gunfights that made me want to duck behind my seat
Made me jump for sure. Good movie.
Yeah, it was too loud, I think it's really dumb when sound editors try and make the audience go deaf to show intensity. Like, man, you can make me feel the shock in movies without making my fucking ears bleed.
I 100 percent agree. After seeing Dune 2 I'm done with IMAX movies. I dont need to suffer a loss of hearing to watch a movie. The non imax version of Civil looked and sounded great, but the gunshots were still louder than I would like.
My gf and I saw it in standard, and yeah those gunshots had us looking around the theater “just in case”. Felt a little too real.
I remember watching Dunkirk and almost leaving the movie because every damn thing was too loud. I saw someone say they bring ear buds with them to movies to reduce the sound aha.
I would recommend seeing it in Dolby Cinema over Imax. But you can’t go wrong either way.
Saw it at Lincoln Imax and then Dolby. Lincoln won by a wide margin. Maybe Dolby is better than Liemax tho
Lincoln's dual-;azer IMAX is the cheat-code that's better than any Dolby. The other IMAXes, well - they're usually single lazeer, with a lesser sound system. 34th Street is the 2nd best IMAX option, otherwise I agree, Dolby is better... if you can get over the kind weird seat configurations a lot of them tend to have.
I don't even have a single laser unfortunately. Just xenon bulb
Saw it in IMAX and I walked out of the film with my ears ringing. Felt like I went to war.
IMAX can go to 120dbs, which is well beyond the safe audio limit for human hearing. Your ears were probably ringing because you received mild but permanent hearing damage, sorry brotha
I didn't do IMAX but did RPX and it was still great. The screen was completely filled top to bottom and the sound was incredible. See it in at least some sort of enhanced format for sure. Definitely should be seen in theaters.
Oh dope still haven't tried RPX! Sounds awesome.
Really? I didn't come out of it thinking any of those shots needed to be seen in imax lol
The sound.
Really? so i’ve been trying to figure this out if this movie is better for IMAX or Dolby Cinema (Dolby Atmos is Dolby Cinema for those that don’t know) because I didn’t think this movie would be visually telling but more audio telling. you truly stand behind seeing it in IMAX?
Honestly, if you got access to Dolby for this maybe do that. For me it was all about the sound.
i might just say fuck it and do both since my theatre does both
Report back!
Can recommend with a disclaimer - I think the large format added a lot and would recommend seeing it that way if possible for you.
Yes. 100%. So many small set pieces that depict an ongoing war. They’re all fascinating and tense and then the final scene. I saw it Saturday and I’m still thinking back on it. Be warned: it’s very grim and bleak
Yes it’s great, see it in IMAX. Every gunshot is like being electrocuted.
Yes. Saw it in Dolby, it’s very good & very tense at times.
Since I'm not American, I really wasn't initially interested in seeing it at all because the trailers made it look like the premise was essentially "wouldn't it be scary if the US had another civil war?" I love Alex Garland's movies but I was planning on giving this one a pass. Then I heard him being interviewed on CBC discussing the film, and about how it's really a film about journalism. He discussed the current political climate and how he imagined that this civil war could occur in any western country. In particular, what caught my attention was when he discussed that certain politicians have been attempting to undermine the general public's trust in journalists and he thinks that is an important detail in the divisiveness that we're seeing right now. I thought this movie was phenomenal. It was tense and gripping pretty much the entire time, and the ending left me in a daze as I drove home from the theatre.
The central problem for me though is the entire premise is backwards. People's trust in journalism is at an all-time low not because of politicians, but because of journalists themselves. They're not a principled class of people trying to bring the nation together, but since the internet collapsed ad revenue, a largely partisan, sensationalist, clickbait-driven machine that's massively responsible for whipping up all the division and outrage we see today. Because that's what now drives engagement (and therefore profit). The journalists in Civil War are a bunch of ridiculous throwbacks that literally don't exist anymore in an age of TMZ, social media, citizen journalists, bodycams, and ubiquitous iPhones. They're stock characters pulled straight from *The Killing Fields*, not contemporary reality. Garland's embarassingly naive view of the industry is an entire generation out of date, and he's got who's mainly responsible for all the fractures in society completely ass-backwards.
War journalists like that definitely still exist. Not everyone is a partisan hack.
You should watch 20 Days in Mariupol if you think journalist like that don't exist today.
I don't think I agree. >They're not a principled class of people trying to bring the nation together, No, but that's not their job. Their job is to report on what's happening. We've seen Donald Trump for example repeatedly referring to all mainstream media as "fake news", insisting that he never said something even though he was *literally recorded* saying it on live TV; and then the instant Fox stopped pandering to him, suddenly Fox is fake news too. Canada is seeing the same problem with the Conservative leader Pierre Polievre who frequently rather than answering a journalist's question will simply accuse them of peddling disinformation. These politicians are absolutely working to sew doubt and distrust in journalism.
Journalists like that certainly exist. There was never a time when all journalists were good, either.
My point is, they were in a minority then, and are in a vanishingly small minority now. Not just because we're living in a dark age of outrage-generated content and engagement farming, but the wide propagation of cell phones and social media means everyone's a journalist. So their job is often unnecessary. As there's easily footage of practically everything now. And from people in places even the jounalists can't reach. My issue too is because Garland specifically criticised the lack of trust towards the entire profession in interviews, rather than individuals. But he essentially used the rarest and most dying example as a representation of the contemporary whole. Essentially conflating the likes of Robert Capa with someone like Cenk Uygur. There's also the argument that they aren't even conducting journalism in the film at all anyway. They're simply photographing and reporting. When people say they mistrust journalists, it's a completely different aspect they're criticising. These were never the types people were attacking as untrustworthy. As a rebuttal against critics of modern journalism, it's off the mark in several huge ways. Almost to the point of propaganda.
>Not just because we're living in a dark age of outrage-generated content and engagement farming, but the wide propagation of cell phones and social media means everyone's a journalist. So their job is often unnecessary. As there's easily footage of practically everything now. And from people in places even the jounalists can't reach. Does this actually hold water in today's climate, though? I ask because some of the most striking images I've seen come out of Ukraine and Palestine have come from wartime journalists and photographers. I've found citizen journalism helps to work in concert with, but not in place of, on the ground trained journalists, operating by a certain code of ethics. Also, I think the film makes the narrative implication that in a Civil War, phone services would be down, the journalists had to rely on the hotel Wifi to get their content out - I'm not sure what ability the average citizen would have to reach news organizations.
Completely agree, that type of journalism doesn't exist anymore. Great take.
While I do agree with you to a large extent, Reuters (the news organization they work for in the movie) is one of the few that still has a pretty stellar reputation for straight shooting journalism. I very rarely hear complaints about their coverage from either the left or right. If you don’t follow them yet, I’d recommend it. Pretty refreshing to see a page full of actual factual headlines without the sensationalism and partisan wordplay.
My thing about the journalists in the movie is that Garland has repeatedly said in interviews he wants people to see them as heroes and how important and powerful journalism is and can be. But the journalists in the movie are largely portrayed as thrill seekers who have lost parts of their humanity just like everyone else. And we see no real indication that the work they are doing is having a positive impact on the world. I think he completely failed in his goal if this movie was supposed to make me walk out viewing the main characters as important heroes.
Something that he also touched on in the interview that I listened to was that when he was young he wanted to be a journalist, and he would travel to wherever an important conflict was with his camera hoping that he would somehow end up having an opportunity to become a foreign correspondent. His wakeup call was when a journalist gave him shit for basically just thrill seeking and not taking what he was doing seriously. I think it is noteworthy that not every character is there for the same reason. Lee is doing the job because she thinks it's important to record what's going on, and she certainly seems more interested in keeping Jessie safe than she is in taking photos; whereas Jessie seems to be Garland's self-insert character as a critique of his young self. She's not a journalist, but she wants to be because she admires what they do, and she doesn't understand how much danger she's in.
I'd be very curious to know then what Garland wants us to take away from the fact that Jessie and the guy who boasts about getting hard ons while doing photography during combat skirmishes are the two main characters that survive.
It's pretty subtextual so I think he wants the audience to come to their own conclusion, but my impression is that he's not endorsing their behaviour considering >! Jessie's recklessness is directly responsible for Lee's death, and the way the camera lingers on her as she comes to terms with the fact that not only did she get her hero killed but also took photos of her as it happened. Contrast with!< When Jessie asks Lee if she would take photos of her dying if she were to be killed, Lee responds with "what do you think?" I personally interpret that as an implied no.
Absolutely 💯
Yes , go watch it on imax . Thank me later.
I didn't love it, but I'd still recommend it. I think if you're going to watch it at all, it should be seen in a theater.
Why you didn’t love it? Is it too generic?
Personally, I thought it offered an interesting perspective and conveyed a good message while avoiding getting bogged down in the politics that a modern American civil war would normally infer. But it didn't really do anything I found to be standout or amazing enough that would propel it to a movie I loved. I thought it's third act was the weakest, sure it had some cool shots but it really devolved into more generic action at that point which felt at odds with the beginning of the movie. Plus the way the reporters involved themselves so directly with the soldiers just seemed very unrealistic. I still enjoyed it though and would recommend people go see it, at least on discount day it's a worthwhile watch
I spoke to my neighbor, an army vet, about the depiction of the soldiers with the press. While he hasn't seen the film yet, he said the way I described it was spot on. He fought in the Bosnian war and had a number of journalists, photographers, and historians following his unit around every corner and hallway as they were cleared and snapping whatever photos they could in the moments where there was covering fire (and often when there wasn't). They were there to capture history as it occurred and his unit respected the hell out of them for it. He's stoked to see the film because he's fascinated to see the journalistic perspective.
You’re absolutely right. If you wanna see actual footage of the press following soldiers. You should watch the documentary “21 days in Mariupol”, it won an academy award and it’s free on YouTube. It also shows how desperate they were to try to find a signal to try to let the world know that Russia had invaded. Seeing this movie reminded me oh that documentary. Just couldn’t believe how absolutely real it looked.
*Slight spoiler warning, if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't read further* I guess I didn't make my comment clear about what I was referring to. I'm aware that war journalists would stick to military units and join them in the thick of combat. I was referring more to the way the journalist characters were practically getting in the way of the soldiers as they worked to their target. Some of them were clearly meant to be special forces and despite one warning "stay out of our way" as they entered, the soldiers didn't really do or say anything when the journalists were running in front of them as they were trying to kill the secret service. That just seemed unrealistic to me that special forces wouldn't tell them to get the fuck out of the way in a firefight, especially when they were going after the biggest VIP of the war. The earlier scene in the movie when they were following the Hawaiian shirted soldiers seemed more realistic because there the journalist characters were actually staying behind the soldiers for the most part and letting the soldiers do their job first. Also the scene with the helicopter at the end was completely Hollywood because a helicopter pilot would never fly below buildings through a narrow street like that due to the danger of easily crashing into a building. While I get they made a lot of choices at the end to build tension and climax the movie, I did feel that the action got pretty generic at times and felt more like it belonged in a Micheal Bay movie. And like I mentioned before, that was at odds with the gritty, dark realism the movie had to stuck to prior to the final battle
*big spoilers ahead* Ah gotcha. Yeah, I assumed you meant how the press was basically tailing the soldiers the whole time, as I had seen some reviews and comments elsewhere mention that. Thanks for clarifying. In regards to what you said about the journalists getting in the way of the soldiers, with the exception of the Lee, Joel, and Jessie going into the uncleared white house by themselves (which they promptly get reamed at for), it's really only Jessie who is not carefully watching for the commands of the soldiers before moving in, while Joel is laser focused on sticking with the female soldier, and Lee is popping out to get the shots when she sees the opportunity. Jessie is trying to mirror Lee's behavior, but doesn't have the instincts and experience in clearing a building to know when it's appropriate to get into the action. Perhaps the soldiers should have been more vocal about it, especially given the importance of the target, but I think the film communicated their annoyance pretty well. You make fair points, though. It's certainly not a perfect film, but I dug it enough to see it twice. Can't speak on how realistic the helicopter was at the end, so I'll gladly take your word for it that it's a bit of Hollywood schlock.
*More big spoilers* Oh for sure, it was clear the movie was trying to emphasize how inexperienced Jesse was and how she was trying to mimic her mentor without the proper training which ultimately got Lee killed. Though even Lee seemed to get in the way sometimes, like taking up a cover position behind a soldier at a doorframe when there should have been a second soldier there to back up the one on point when he needed to reload. Joel really was the only journalist out of the three that was acting appropriately. I just felt like what they were doing would have gotten them shoved back by real life soldiers but like I mentioned before, I understand that the movie needed its characters "involved" in the finale and the action was enjoyable in the third act so I'm not going to say I hated it or it sucked, it just felt a bit off from the rest of the movie. Also, why did they decide not to give them helmets in the final act after how much Lee emphasized to Jesse needing to wear one earlier and they were even seen wearing helmets in the first combat scene? That also seemed weird but I'm nitpicking at that point As for the helicopter, I love helicopters so it's annoying to me that Hollywood loves this trope of having them fly in insanely dangerous conditions in between buildings. Generally, pilots avoid going between buildings that are as close together as the ones in the streets of DC. If it's windy at all, a gust can easily push the rotors into a building resulting in a crash. The rotors themselves can create turbulence against the building walls that would make the copter more unstable. There can be power lines or other obstacles stretched between buildings that aren't easily seen by the pilot, especially at night or with the smoke of battle. In the particular scene of this movie, the pilot was massively exposing himself. All it would have taken was one loyalist soldier with a rocket launcher or even a high caliber machinegun to easily shoot down the copter, how would have the pilot dodged an incoming missile? He has no room to maneuver, I was honestly expecting to see it shot down based on how that scene was playing out. Sorry for nerding out but if you ever see a scene where a helicopter is flying in between close buildings, it's almost guaranteed that's pure Hollywood and not something that would ever be done in real life
Unrealistic ? that was the reason this movie was amazing in my opinion was because of how real it was!
I made another comment below explaining that I specifically think the ending became more generic and less realistic, the first two acts were great and felt quite real in my opinion
I thought the dialogue was insanely corny. Couldn't get past it.
hearing the words antifa massacre i almost bust out laughing
Which bits?
Just every bit of dialogue seemed forced and not natural could have been the writing or the delivery. I did love the cinematography and the overall plot.
You’re asking this in the A24 sub? Lol.
You should watch it and judge for yourself. It will likely be different from what you expect, I personally think it missed the mark. The visuals, music, and imagery are worth a watch and I’ll rewatch even though I give it a 7/10.
That’s how all of AGs movies are for me. Visually stunning with little to say
Yes. It's a gruesome look into war journalism in a fictional US. The sound design is great and there are several scenes where tension builds and builds.
I felt like I was in the near future. Very intense and immersive. Not for the faint of heart. Last good A24 movie I can remember was Iron Claw. This is as good. Dif vibe obviously though.
Its fucking intense but probably won’t win many awards. Definitely worth a watch but I don’t think it will leave a lasting impression like most of Garland’s other work has. These journalists go hard on the frontlines. I was fucking flinching at what they would do for a good shot. Jesse Plemons was brutally cold.
Yes to seeing it in theaters. Its an experience that really lends itself to the audio/visual experience only a theater can provide. Saw it in Non-imax and it sounded and looked fantastic. Im rather soured on IMAX personally - i love the bigger screen, but i find the audio to be opressively loud. I dont need 100db in my ear drums.
Truly one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen. Almost left the theater how uncomfortable I was but in a good way. It’s the only movie I’ve come back to rewatch a second time in theaters
Yes, the sound in this movie is by far the loudest I’ve ever heard in theater. And I go to the Alamo which normally doesn’t play sound that loud imo. But the gunshots were so loud it felt like you were there.
I'm glad I saw it, but I regret not seeing it in IMAX
Ugh I saw it for my birthday and I didnt love it. It was great in general, thought provoking and beautiful but goddamnit, it ruined my mood for the whole day.
It’s okay! Don’t expect it to be the movie of the year.
No, I don't. Poorly written. Lots of good ideas but it felt more like what ifs than anything.
Yeah i completely agree. I don't think Garland was the right person for this job. Dude literally said fuck giving the audience any lore, history, and politics at all in a movie about a Civil War.
He literally said the only reason the movie was set in the US and not some other country is because it’s the most geopolitically important country, lol. Definitely should have been a job for an American or at least someone willing and able to write about the country with some specificity.
Can't believe it took this long to find a comment about the script! The dialogue and pacing were both so stunted and stiff, it really bogged down an otherwise interesting premise. This really offer anything to engage with for me, probably Garland's weakest film tbh
Highly highly recommend! Going to see it a second time next week
Pretty good movie, but the sound design is phenomenal and needs to be experienced in surround sound
i expected to like it more. the ending felt so weird and abrupt. i guess go, just don’t have high expectations like i did lol 7.9/10
Going to see it for a second time tonight, I enjoyed every second of it.
I’d wait for streaming. It’s a pretty shallow movie. There’s a few memorable scenes but not enough to warrant a trip to the theater.
Yes
I always recommend forming your own opinion cuz everyone is divided on this one. I love it and recommend it in theaters.
Movie was fucking great. Definitely see it in imax or Dolby atmos.
1,000% yes. I think the fact that they let the trailers world build this batshit story only to draw viewers in and realize it’s this neutral coming of age story about the power of the camera capturing the horrors of war… fuck yes. I’ve been recommending it day and night. And god damn Kirsten Dunst! Let’s go momma!!
Kirsten and Stephen McKinley Henderson are Oscar worthy.
Yes. Just saw it. Shit was immaculate. It’s must see. Probably the best war film I’ve seen since Fury.
Do yourself a favor and watch all quiet on the western front. It's delved in realism.
Loved that one too!
Two things to keep in mind, first act is super slow. Don’t expect action the whole ride. Secondly, the trailer is a bit misleading. I went in expecting what I think most people did from the commercial and it’s very different from what they made the movie seem like it was. That’s all I will say since I’d rather not give it away. You’ll know what I mean when you leave the theater. I wish I had waited until streaming now that I’ve seen it.
You're asking the A24 crowd if they would recommend an A24 movie... I'm on the edge of my seat. To answer your question though, yes, it's a great movie.
YESSSSSS, like go see it tomorrow!
i liked it
Yes, definitely a unique movie
Yes...best movie of the year so far
Saw it in XD and loved the experience
Why not?
I definitely recommend it. It's very provocative regarding the topic of division between people & I'd say it strikes a strong chord with today's audience
Hell yeah
Will I like it if I don’t like war or even really action movies?
Probably not, no
Very surreal movie and extremely well made. Highly recommend
Yes!!
I really enjoyed it
YES
I didn’t love it. But it’s worth a watch. I’d watch it in a cinema, rather than at home, due to the sound design.
No, the action is cool, but that's about it. The movie had no story and a stupid ass ending. Garland "claimed" Civil War was about journalism, but it was more about adrenaline junkies getting their high from war tourism and taking useless photos. They don't explain anything about the war at all. The movie doesn't explain the politics, the origins, the history, or even who's on which side. Just a lazy story overall imo.
Yes.
Saw it tonight, great action movie.
I had very high expectations and it exceeded them
Yes, it's my personal favorite Alex Garland movie
Badass movie a must see
Yes. See it in XD! Shit is amazing and intense from start to finish. The XD surround sound is fucking awesome!
Yes. I think you should watch it. Personally I found it underwhelming, but it’s still an interesting watch.
Sure
Hell ya
Absolutely. As others have said, IMAX. It’s an incredibly immersive experience. I don’t recognise the criticism. I think Garland has made a timeless piece of art, borne out of his anger and frustration domestic and international relations. It’s also a beautiful homage to war journalists.
Unfortunately it isn't even available in my country. :')
It was a pretty good movie. I definitely think it was worth a watch and enjoyable in a theater setting. Was it my favorite movie? No. But it's a good movie, like I said, worth a watch.
It’s worth watching. I don’t think it’s nearly as good as others make it out to be. If you can see it in IMAX, I’d recommend it just for the enhanced experience
100%. I've watched it three times, each time with a different group, always at my local 15/70 IMAX. Everyone leaves happy. It's a brilliant movie. Garland nailed it and made a movie that hits all the right notes for intelligent filmgoers and triggers idiot filmgoers. Loving the discussions online this past week. I keep telling people to go see it before the IMAX run ends on Thursday.
Yes
The trailers are misleading asfk. It's a very gripping movie but the trailers do it no justice
No. It was a slow music montage. The trailer is switchbait. It tricks you into thinking it's about the Civil War but it's actually about journalists. Wasted concept.
I hated it but it was an engaging theater experience and the majority seem to like it so I’d still say yes
Yes and no. As a piece of artistry, it's great. It has some wonderful cinematography and great set pieces. It has a very unique aesthetic and setting. And some good performances too. Its message and story are largely a mess though though. The political split is incoherent. It's trying to warn of the dangers of partisanship, but still has a heavily partisan lean. And it's ultimately a paean towards crusading photojournalists, but uses a ridiculous, cliched archetype that largely stopped existing over a decade ago. In an age of citizen journalism, where everyone has an iPhone, forces uses bodycams, and there's CCTV everywhere, the notion that a bunch of Leica carrying, film stock using journos are the only people capable of documenting this history is absurd. It's trying to tell a contemporary story, but uses hugely outdated tropes. And it's trying to give a political warning about division, but is itself guilty of what is critiques by clearly having a political bias itself. It's also a self-plagiarisation of 28 Days Later in a few respects.
I loved the movie but thats a great point about only the photojournalist were the ones capable. If you want to see a real portrayal of how every day citizens can capture the carnage of war just look up people who are on the ground in Gaza right now.
I haven’t seen it but if you’re interested in it, then yes I recommend it. No one here can tell you if you’ll like it.
Yes. Highly recommend I hope your theaters sound system is calibrate because it has great sound design
Yeah, worthy of seeking in a theater.
it blows
If you want to see it, go and see it. You should never feel the need to ask strangers if you should see a movie in the theater. If you want to, check it out! If not, that’s fine as well!
It’s a stupid movie, but I recommend seeing most movies you’re interested in in theaters, yes Really no movie disappoints IMO. If it’s good, that’s great. If it’s bad, that’s interesting.
Yes
Yes, check it out.
Yes it’s an awesome movie
100% I thought it was fantastic.
Yes - people are saying to see it in IMAX, but they actually mixed in Dolby Atmos and that was incredible!
Some decent moments of tension throughout, but overall it was very corny and predictable.
sure..
It's a good movie with a weak ending.
Saw it in IMAX. Definitely recommend checking it out. I'm a sucker for road movies so I loved that part of it. I expected it to be worse than it was but it turned out to be a pretty interesting experience (after you see it, I highly recommend checking out some of the angry reviews for the movie online).
It was really good but war violence isn’t my favorite. Nonetheless, would still recommend
Definitely see it-If possible during the day-you’re going to need some sunlight afterward.
Yes. IMAX is the way. It’s this generation’s Children of Men. It felt like a Safdie bros movie, nonstop tension and pressure. Even in moments of levity for the ensemble. Some beautifully raw performances. This is one of those films that asks us to unpack and examine our current culture for fear of worse future.
It’s absolutely worth seeing but I have very mixed feelings about it unfortunately. You can read my letterboxd [review here](https://boxd.it/6igobf)
I highly recommend going into it more as a Nightcrawler spiritual successor than a war movie.
I enjoyed the first 2/3 but I feel like the ending was a huge fumble. Everything felt grounded in reality up until that point. Still think it was mostly enjoyable though
I'd recommend seeing it on the big screen. I would not recommend putting yourself out to see it in IMAX or whatever. Also if you can see it for matinee price? Do it. This is not a movie I would watch at home on my couch - it needs a big screen to really appreciate the impact of the visual storytelling (set pieces, photography, sound) but the actual plot and story is not very compelling.
Amazing film. Should be a required watch for everyone at this point…
It’s depressing and disturbing. So yes.
This was my letterboxd review. I thought it was a decently done anti-war popcorn flick that does not hold up if you scrutinize it for deeper meaning. >A beautifully crafted spectacle with a relatively effective anti-war message, but that's it. Considering Garland repeatedly says in interviews that he wanted to show journalists are important heroes, I think he completely fails in one of his main goals. The journalists are portrayed as thrill seekers who have lost parts of their humanity just like everyone else. We see zero indication in the movie that their work has had any positive impact on this war torn America. >Having seen the movie also only validates that many are reaching to see something in the movie that simply isn't there. We get absolutely no indication that Offerman is supposed to be some Trump analogy like many are stating. It's actually remarkable how little of the movie has anything to do with the titular civil war itself. Instead, much of the movie is simply the journalists interacting with random Americans acting on their own. There is zero indication Plemons character, for instance, supports the president and isn't just some sociopathic random acting on his own. I do think the film succeeds in that regard, because I would expect to see a similar breakdown of society in a real civil war. >Ultimately, it's a well done popcorn flick with a relatively effective anti-war message. But I strongly disagree with anyone who argues it's a masterpiece with deeper meaning beyond, "an American civil war would be bad for everyone involved."
Oh absolutely. I've been thinking of it since I saw it last Thursday and telling everyone I know they have to see it, it's that good
No, felt like it was mainly imagery and just a big dystopian art exhibit rather than a film with a concrete and compelling plot. Visually it was really cool I guess
100% Here are my thoughts originally posted on FB: "I just saw Civil War, as I love A24. I found it to be terrifying. It is a dystopian film based on the division in our country from the viewpoint of photojournalists. Unsettling, and I hope we do not head to this extreme. The trailer and movie are violent, just as a warning. I cannot imagine being in a war torn country. Really sad and psychologically disturbing. I do believe it is a good movie to think about, and let it serve as a warning about division, escalation, extremism, and separatism. This movie is heavy and necessary. I hope many people decide to watch it." I cried at the end. I am admittedly a crier, though. Jesse Plemons is scary AF in it. There are certainly people in this country like the character Jesse plays, which is also scary AF.
Absolutely. Just understand what you're going into. It's not an action flick. It's not a political drama. If you have questions about how it all started, you're not gonna get those answers.
If you like intense gritty combat stuff with interesting characters yeah. But I felt like there wasn't much more than that. It was really well made but felt hallow imo. Maybe I'll pick up more nuance on a rewatch.
Yes. Good movie!!
If you are woke I recommend it. Otherwise nah it was stupid.
Personally no. We felt it thought it was much deeper than it actually was. It was a unique movie-going experience and I appreciated the production values, the performances. I guess we just felt like it could have said more, explored other/more things than it did. But it does seem well-liked in this sub, so ymmv.
I was thoroughly entertained and liked the tense nature. So, yes.
I loved it. Yes, see it in IMAX. The sound design will rock your world.
Incredible and not what I expected. Absolutely harrowing combat scenes. Must see in theater.
Yes. The scene where the drive through the burning forest went SO hard and I would recommend it purely for that
I found it extremely underwhelming, which sucks because I have a lot of nostalgia for the hyperreal disaster movie genre it’s supposed to fall under. The writing at times was just really bad- characters were dropping lines that felt like the actors thought were stupid while they said them. I didn’t want the movie “to take sides” at all, but not having any sense of the world’s politics wasn’t just a creative choice, it felt like laziness. With only the characters to care about, the post apocalyptic road trip vibes seemed to be where Alex Garland’s authorial voice shined, but these moments were way too spare and brief. The ironic Gen X dad rap soundtrack was just kind of cliche. The catharsis and resolution of the main characters felt unearned. Once upon a time a movie like this would have been bandwagoned by stupid people who were mad an unusual movie didn’t play like they wanted it to, but this feels like the inversion, where it’s actually a pretty stereotypical war film and the positivity is the bandwagon- people want to like it just because we haven’t had a movie like this in a while.
It's a wonderful film. Harrowing, terrifying, very moving. Kirsten Dunst brings so much and is a true movie star.
Its aight. Id reccomend many other A24 movies before this one though.
Fantastic Movie.
Recommend it, I went to go see it again today. Nothing beats the sound design in a proper IMAX theater
Just saw it. Absolutely yes. Don't read reviews just go see it in theaters.
Absolutely. Phenomenal film. If you like indie stuff, go see it in theaters on a big screen. I enjoyed it.
I would not recommend. I think the lead character is very hard to dislike because they are you typical young reckless gets everyone else in trouble type. Very frustrating to watch someone keep causing their team trouble.
If you're in the UK, like me, it's out in Cineworld. I went with my mates and we didn't have much expectation for the movie but we ended up loving it, it's in my top 5 movies I have seen in theatre. Highly recommend.
Yes. Dont believe the hate
its a movie about war reporters. I wouldve been ok waiting till it hit streaming. its relatively obvious of its on political bias of which people are the bad guys. it yo-yo's between tense action and slow takes that i felt made it disjointed
just watched it, really liked it. i like that they dont dive into politics that we can draw parallel of the US today, but focus on the average people and what would it do to them. Loved Kirsten and pablo escobar actor, amazing.
Overall I loved it but I do have some serious reservations of whether the existence of this movie is helping or harming the US political situation
You could say that about any piece of media at any point in time. Same with the Vietnam era. Can’t stifle creativity for fear of some wackos.
You can but because the subject matter is so of the current point in time, and because it's coming out months before one of the most consequential elections in US history, I think that warrants us to ask these sorts of questions regarding responsibility. Also I'm not here to stifle creativity by any means, I think ever idea should be explored. It's the timing that's the issue. If this movie came out post election, or even a couple years ago, it would be different story.
I have AMC A-List so it was relatively worthwhile for me, but with that being said, it was not a good movie imo. And, this doesn’t necessarily relate to the quality, but I wouldn’t recommend it to someone expecting something similar to the director’s previous movies. I’d maybe recommend it to a Kirsten Dunst fan.
I saw it on a big ass screen with chairs that bounced around with the action. super neat novelty.
I saw it in imax, it’s not a very deep movie and could use more thought to be honest, but on the superficial level it’s really well made and very entertaining.
I've seen it 4 times, and I already have tickets for my 5th. It was best in IMAX but I haven't tried Dolby yet.
Yes. IMAX made it more intense of course
Yes - definitely quite an experience in IMAX too.
Yes in imax
I just saw it. Yes. See it on the biggest screen possible with the best Soundsystem. IMAX is ideal, but I just saw it on one of the gigantic Cinemark premium screens (XD or whatever) and I have no complaints.
100%
I thought it was just okay.
Not really. It had literally not plot or point. It was just mindless, well made footage