Civil War (A24 - Alex Garland, Spring 2024) • Page 8

Even if the script for this movie is truly God awful he still has written several classics at this point, I would think he'd be entitled to one miss

 

not making my mind up on this until i see it bc im not a buffoon but after men i kinda wouldn’t mind him directing someone else’s script. his visual language is pretty stunning at times

 

I haven't made up my mind about anything. For me it's more see in theater vs wait for streaming and I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

Seeing this Saturday at 4:15. Going to try to go in with little to no expectations.

 

IIRC, I think polling in 2020 or 2016 showed Vietnamese-Americans being the only Asian American group that was majority for Trump so yeah that checks out haha

 

Pretty cool the apolitical civil war movie uses footage from Andy Ngo

 

You’re right. I was referencing him saying he wants to retire from directing but at this point between Men and Civil War - him not writing scripts he directs for a while would be better for everyone.

He should just do Dredd 2

 

It’s funny that people talking about this and Garland’s work as a whole kind of gloss over “Devs,” which I thought was pretty great. I guess “Men” really threw him out of favor with people.

 

TBF men really is that bad tho

 

i say all of this having not seen the film but having done some digging based primarily on Garland's own words and other reviews to understand the goal of this film - and its discourse - better. so for those who have seen it, feel free to correct me if i get anything wrong.

i get that he's trying to make a movie focusing more on the actual atrocities of war and the means people take to either sensationalize it or block it out. i get that he believes the film works better by divorcing the narrative from the sociopolitical justification for the conflict, even if it's divisive for a good number of viewers. i can understand wanting to present somewhat of a "war is hell" story from the vantage point of someone on the front lines but who's also not actively fighting on one side or the other. i get why he thinks this story needs to be told, and i'm not upset about it. but in light of the news that he worked with/credited folks like Ngo and Lewis, and the bothsidesism he tried to argue about the American political landscape a few weeks ago, i don't know if i trust him to tell that story without it appearing shallow.

haven't seen Ex Machina or Men, but i loved Garland's work on Annihilation, even if it's vastly different from the book (it's my partner's favorite novel, so even though he liked the film for what it was, he still has qualms about how the story was told on screen). but the more i hear about this movie and the intent of its filmmaker, the more i'm expecting to be disappointed when i eventually get around to seeing it.

 

All of those are good points but everyone should still see the movie before 100% making up their mind about it and what it does and doesn’t accomplish.

 

That’s a lot to write about him for not having seen 3 of his 4 features

 

I would never say don't go see something just because I didn't like it. It's more fun to argue with people that have actually seen it

 

Men is good

 

don't get me wrong, i'm still gonna watch the other 3 at some point soon, Civil War included. not saying my mind is 100% made up on it. maybe i'm wrong and it ends up being effective in its messaging. but from everything i've heard so far, it's hard not to be a tiny bit skeptical beforehand.

 

he definitely is, but he really should answer for the Andy Ngo and TERF shoutouts

I loved it when I saw it in theaters but have cooled on it over time, definitely the weakest of those first three but I'd like to revisit it soon to see how it sits with me.

 

I will say, the Jesse Plemmons section of the movie is good

 

Jesse Plemmons is good

 

Always show up for the Plemdog and Kirsten Dunst.

 

rewatched Breaking Bad and El Camino recently and forgot just how good he was in that.

 

Not really seeing anything suggesting he is endorsing them, just footage is used in a movie seemingly about the horrors and consequences of the polarization of politics. I don't think it's that fucked up to use polarizing figures if that's your intention. I get that the "both sides" comment rubs people the wrong way, but the flip side of it and having this movie portray one side being deserving of getting killed in the streets because of their ideologies sounds a million times more toxic no matter which way it's pointing. I haven't seen the movie though so I'll just have to wait and see.

Men was good on rewatch, it's kind of baffling but it's so specific and bold that it's hard to call it either a mess or directionless. It's just a very unique little film, and we could use more like it.

 

weren't they literally credited under special thanks? lol

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt too, but that's a really bad look even without all of the other discourse surrounding the movie.

 

I was not interested in seeing this if it truly mirrored our current politics and had the movies 'civill war' stem directly from parallels that we're experiencing in real life.

I'm intrigued now to know that it's more 'neutral' as far as displaying an actual modern day political bias. I'll see it for the action and suspense.

 

basically agree with this. it's dumb and sucks but short of Garland coming out and verbally talking about these people I don't really know how else to feel about it!

 

"I saw the film yesterday. There is an opening montage that lasts maybe 25 seconds, and it seems to splice footage of modern protests with some b-roll made for the film. Each image lasts only an instant. I am 99.9% sure that’s the extent of it."

another reddit comment on that thread (in r/blankies if anyone cares)

can anyone that's seen it confirm?