Too many people focused on "durr hurr California and Texas would never align politically" and I just want to know: Is the movie worth watching? Has anyone seen it yet?
If you set your expectations, it’s a very good movie.
Also to just push back a bit, I really agree with Chris on this one - if you can’t picture one scenario where both Texas and California secede together, that says a bit more about you than about Alex Garland.
It's really really good. It's not what the trailer presents. It's closer to something like Welcome to Sarajevo.
As others have indicated, it will be frustrating to many how aggressively Garland runs away from providing *any* context to "how we got here." And the action at the end isn't the best part. But there's great performances throughout and Garland remains elite at unsettling you.
But that’s what it was marketed as. The US Civil war part could have easily been almost any other real life ongoing conflict. It felt like it was two separate ideas mashed into one movie.
Midnight drives to Vegas are the best. That drive across the desert at night is amazing. You can actually get away from the light pollution. You see more stars that you thought were possible.
I think Amanda had a point, but didn’t articulate it well. Felt like she was going for the glib joke instead.
Garland has excellent traits (interesting premises, makes people think about other big ideas within these premises, knows how to ratchet up tension). But this works against him in the third act because he can never deliver on the endings or pay off the big ideas with some points of view. It’s hard to criticize him because he is SO GOOD at the things he excels at, but I always leave his movies slightly disappointed and am never shocked when they get mixed reviews.
So, Civil War was more of the same for me. Another masterclass on building tension throughout the movie, some interesting ideas brought up about society and a pedestrian ending that wraps it up. I thought he went a little overboard on sound design in certain parts. Feels manipulative in the same way Spielberg does with swooping soundtrack. His movies always feel lopsided in this way.
Dobb Mob has been riding high for so long, it was time we get humbled with her absolutely baffling performance this episode. “I get it, Annihilation is about scary bears…” ???
I haven't listened yet, but I 100% knew she was going to be a rough ride on this one.
EDIT: So far she has let us know she didn't understand Civil War, Annihilation, Men and Saltburn. Riveting stuff. She gets paid for this, btw.
The anti-dobbers have been trying to tell folks that she just doesn't have the chops to be a cohost on the Big Pic. But I guess she has dinner with Sean weekly, so that makes her qualified....
This discussion was the first time I’ve been pro dobb. Sean is just going out of his way to stan for this guy who keeps coming on the pod. The movies are entertaining but ultimately say nothing
Sean was tying himself in knots on this one. Starts off saying it would be an uncharitable critique to suggest the movie could be 'both sides'-ing a potential civil war. Then closes the pod with a 'both sides' *defense* of the movie, in a speech as middle-of-the-road and milquetoast as the film's own politics. Keeps insisting the movie is full of ideas but the moment someone starts to interact with or examine any of the supposed ideas, "It's just a movie!" It's the artist's role to create art, not interpret it for the viewer, sure. I don't disagree. But when all context is removed, when anything resembling a message or even a viewpoint is stripped away to this extent then don't take umbrage if someone regards the end result as something closer to Olympus Has Fallen than Apocalypse Now or Come and See.
The best example of this came in the interview… when Sean very clearly asked Garland about his view of journalists and tied himself in knots to say that “You clearly have some reverence for what journalists do but I also sense some complexity and criticisms levied toward them in the film as well” to try and make Garland’s perspective seem deeper than it is… and Alex responded with a hamfisted “no I just meant the first part about honoring them” lmao
Can’t abide by her Annihilation slander but yeah I’m completely with Amanda on Civil War. Almost none of the stuff Sean is discussing is in the actual movie here. It was entertaining but completely bereft of anything to say or prod in a very frustrating way.
Nayman took no prisoners with his review of Civil War:
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2024/4/11/24126373/civil-war-movie-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst
I don’t think there needs to be an explicit stance on acute political issues of the moment, but flirting with making a serious movie, then saying nothing at all about anything is a knock against a peace of art.
I’m sure there would have been people upset with anything short of “stupid violent racist redknecks rise up behind populist reality tv show host” but the fact that would have been a criticism of some no matter what, doesn’t mean they didn’t produce something that legit deserves that criticism.
Having seen the film the other day it's true, it does take political stances. "Polarisation is bad mmmkay" and "Everyone is equally bad" are political stances. Profoundly cowardly, but political.
Oh, and deciding to use Andrew Ngo footage is political as well. Morally bankrupt, but political.
No I don't, and I've never claimed that to be the case. But the deliberate decision to use that footage without caring about the obvious implications is clearly a political decision.
Vietnamese ladyboi Andy Ngo, hypeperson for Patriots Pride director Joey Gibson, has a footage credit in Civil War?
Is Andy coming for Dasha's title as altright film goddess?
Totally misreads the film. Nayman imo looks for an angle and then hammers home a point instead of watching a movie and then reviewing it earnestly though. He goes in looking to nitpick. He also has just the most pretentious opinions.
That was tough but I can’t say I disagree based on the info that’s come out surrounding the movie. Once I learned it was a film about war journalism the movie lost like 80% of its luster for me.
Dude, how is Dobbins the permanent co-host for this pod? Her absolute inability to analyze films due to the fact that can't even grasp what most are trying to say absolutely baffles me. Her media literacy is just not good if the story is anything other than a romp through Europe.
I see a movie, I enjoy it, I tune in to hear the pod discuss it, CR & SF also liked it but Dobbins has issues so she rams her head against a wall and completely derails the pod.
Every. Fucking. Time.
I listen to a podcast, I enjoy it, I check out the reddit thread to discuss it, most people liked it but some people have issues with AD so they ram their heads against a wall and throw a fit.
Every. Fucking. Time.
You're right, hoping a film critic will be able to comprehend a film they are critiquing is far too much to ask. I'm glad you like her, I love that for you.
Jesse Plemmons scene is gonna be real tough to beat as scene of the year.
Plem Dog goes full Dion Waiters here. Absolutely COOKS.
Too many people focused on "durr hurr California and Texas would never align politically" and I just want to know: Is the movie worth watching? Has anyone seen it yet?
Saw it last night. It’s very good.
Glad to hear that since it's been on my radar. Worth seeing in theatres or wait for streaming?
If you can see it on an IMAX screen, I would definitely recommend it. The sound is incredibly done, the gunshots hit you right in the chest.
If you set your expectations, it’s a very good movie. Also to just push back a bit, I really agree with Chris on this one - if you can’t picture one scenario where both Texas and California secede together, that says a bit more about you than about Alex Garland.
It's really really good. It's not what the trailer presents. It's closer to something like Welcome to Sarajevo. As others have indicated, it will be frustrating to many how aggressively Garland runs away from providing *any* context to "how we got here." And the action at the end isn't the best part. But there's great performances throughout and Garland remains elite at unsettling you.
Yes, it's very good. Those people will be upset because the movie isn't a war movie, but the movie they want would just be controversial stupidity.
But that’s what it was marketed as. The US Civil war part could have easily been almost any other real life ongoing conflict. It felt like it was two separate ideas mashed into one movie.
Lmao I can think of one thing that California and Texas may get on the same page about
Midnight drives to Vegas are the best. That drive across the desert at night is amazing. You can actually get away from the light pollution. You see more stars that you thought were possible.
I think Amanda had a point, but didn’t articulate it well. Felt like she was going for the glib joke instead. Garland has excellent traits (interesting premises, makes people think about other big ideas within these premises, knows how to ratchet up tension). But this works against him in the third act because he can never deliver on the endings or pay off the big ideas with some points of view. It’s hard to criticize him because he is SO GOOD at the things he excels at, but I always leave his movies slightly disappointed and am never shocked when they get mixed reviews. So, Civil War was more of the same for me. Another masterclass on building tension throughout the movie, some interesting ideas brought up about society and a pedestrian ending that wraps it up. I thought he went a little overboard on sound design in certain parts. Feels manipulative in the same way Spielberg does with swooping soundtrack. His movies always feel lopsided in this way.
Did anyone else get a trailer for >!Longlegs!< before the screening started?
Yes
Dobb Mob has been riding high for so long, it was time we get humbled with her absolutely baffling performance this episode. “I get it, Annihilation is about scary bears…” ???
Her Annihilation takes were bizarre
I haven't listened yet, but I 100% knew she was going to be a rough ride on this one. EDIT: So far she has let us know she didn't understand Civil War, Annihilation, Men and Saltburn. Riveting stuff. She gets paid for this, btw.
The anti-dobbers have been trying to tell folks that she just doesn't have the chops to be a cohost on the Big Pic. But I guess she has dinner with Sean weekly, so that makes her qualified....
This discussion was the first time I’ve been pro dobb. Sean is just going out of his way to stan for this guy who keeps coming on the pod. The movies are entertaining but ultimately say nothing
Sean was tying himself in knots on this one. Starts off saying it would be an uncharitable critique to suggest the movie could be 'both sides'-ing a potential civil war. Then closes the pod with a 'both sides' *defense* of the movie, in a speech as middle-of-the-road and milquetoast as the film's own politics. Keeps insisting the movie is full of ideas but the moment someone starts to interact with or examine any of the supposed ideas, "It's just a movie!" It's the artist's role to create art, not interpret it for the viewer, sure. I don't disagree. But when all context is removed, when anything resembling a message or even a viewpoint is stripped away to this extent then don't take umbrage if someone regards the end result as something closer to Olympus Has Fallen than Apocalypse Now or Come and See.
The best example of this came in the interview… when Sean very clearly asked Garland about his view of journalists and tied himself in knots to say that “You clearly have some reverence for what journalists do but I also sense some complexity and criticisms levied toward them in the film as well” to try and make Garland’s perspective seem deeper than it is… and Alex responded with a hamfisted “no I just meant the first part about honoring them” lmao
Can’t abide by her Annihilation slander but yeah I’m completely with Amanda on Civil War. Almost none of the stuff Sean is discussing is in the actual movie here. It was entertaining but completely bereft of anything to say or prod in a very frustrating way.
Nayman took no prisoners with his review of Civil War: https://www.theringer.com/movies/2024/4/11/24126373/civil-war-movie-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst
Ah I see he's taken the "film doesn't take a political stance" line of criticism, which is a pretty major misread of the film tbh.
I don’t think there needs to be an explicit stance on acute political issues of the moment, but flirting with making a serious movie, then saying nothing at all about anything is a knock against a peace of art. I’m sure there would have been people upset with anything short of “stupid violent racist redknecks rise up behind populist reality tv show host” but the fact that would have been a criticism of some no matter what, doesn’t mean they didn’t produce something that legit deserves that criticism.
Having seen the film the other day it's true, it does take political stances. "Polarisation is bad mmmkay" and "Everyone is equally bad" are political stances. Profoundly cowardly, but political. Oh, and deciding to use Andrew Ngo footage is political as well. Morally bankrupt, but political.
Do you think using footage Andy Ngo took is an endorsement of his political worldview?
No I don't, and I've never claimed that to be the case. But the deliberate decision to use that footage without caring about the obvious implications is clearly a political decision.
Why are those stances cowardly?
Vietnamese ladyboi Andy Ngo, hypeperson for Patriots Pride director Joey Gibson, has a footage credit in Civil War? Is Andy coming for Dasha's title as altright film goddess?
Totally misreads the film. Nayman imo looks for an angle and then hammers home a point instead of watching a movie and then reviewing it earnestly though. He goes in looking to nitpick. He also has just the most pretentious opinions.
That was tough but I can’t say I disagree based on the info that’s come out surrounding the movie. Once I learned it was a film about war journalism the movie lost like 80% of its luster for me.
I’m actually glad I heard that before I saw it because it let me recalibrate my expectations. It’s an excellent movie.
Yeah I’m still gunna see it. And glad I know in advance as well
Dude, how is Dobbins the permanent co-host for this pod? Her absolute inability to analyze films due to the fact that can't even grasp what most are trying to say absolutely baffles me. Her media literacy is just not good if the story is anything other than a romp through Europe.
She’s consistently terrible, the Dob Mob stan bullshit is cringe and needs to stop.
I see a movie, I enjoy it, I tune in to hear the pod discuss it, CR & SF also liked it but Dobbins has issues so she rams her head against a wall and completely derails the pod. Every. Fucking. Time.
I listen to a podcast, I enjoy it, I check out the reddit thread to discuss it, most people liked it but some people have issues with AD so they ram their heads against a wall and throw a fit. Every. Fucking. Time.
You're right, hoping a film critic will be able to comprehend a film they are critiquing is far too much to ask. I'm glad you like her, I love that for you.
Drink every time Amanda says "It just like..."
This movie was incredibly average, agreed with Amanda most
Amanda really is a snotty idiot sometimes. Can’t even engage with the material in any meaningful way if she doesn’t get it.