MBAR said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

MBAR said:

---

Just got out. I've seen people say its neutral but I don't think that's the case at all. I think there are very clear indications about who the president is. He abolishes the FBI for ****s sake. There's not much exposition in the film which is nice. I've also seen reviews that this film praises journalists? I got the exact opposite from the film, but maybe I'm missing something. I think its a fairly damning take on journalism in this country, honestly.

---

Counterpoint. The use of drone strikes against American citizens was a not-so-subtle poke at the Obama Administration. All the DSA kids I covered in Chicago years back loathed Obama for his broad use of drone strikes.

Plus, if you're an autocrat, you're obviously abolishing the law enforcement and regulatory agencies that pose a threat. Probably even the bicameral legislature.


Not to mention the president's style bears a striking resemblance to Bill Clinton.

---

The president practicing his lines was textbook Trumpisms IMO. I don't remember drone strikes being mentioned. I do remember them talking about using airstrikes against Americans but I agree that drone strikes were a hallmark of Obama's admin so if they mentioned that and I missed it then I see your point.

Definitely feel that your right about what an autocrat would do (which is why Trump's rants are relevant here IMO) but I also feel there's a reason they were subtle about it all.

---

Yep, when he proudly said something along the lines of "This will end up being the greatest achievement in the history of mankind", or something like that, while rehearsing his lines, i did get that feeling. And we know Trump and other GOP'ers want to gut the hell of the FBI (I don't think anyone wants to abolish it)? They were caught colluding with big tech and media to support the Democrat opponent, and never tried to hide it. Then there was the whole Russia-Collusion hoax.

I say all of this as a Desantis guy who doesn't really like Trump and just sees him as "not Biden" tbh.

But yeah, I think they were trying to throw the leftist crowd a few anti-Trump bones in there.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

MBAR said:

---

Just got out. I've seen people say its neutral but I don't think that's the case at all. I think there are very clear indications about who the president is. He abolishes the FBI for ****s sake. There's not much exposition in the film which is nice. I've also seen reviews that this film praises journalists? I got the exact opposite from the film, but maybe I'm missing something. I think its a fairly damning take on journalism in this country, honestly.

---

Counterpoint. The use of drone strikes against American citizens was a not-so-subtle poke at the Obama Administration. All the DSA kids I covered in Chicago years back loathed Obama for his broad use of drone strikes.

Plus, if you're an autocrat, you're obviously abolishing the law enforcement and regulatory agencies that pose a threat. Probably even the bicameral legislature.


Not to mention the president's style bears a striking resemblance to Bill Clinton.

---

Don't want to debate or anything, but I don't think a single person aside from some of us political nerds would pick up on that. That being said, the film had more of a libertarian feel to it than anything, if you must assign a politicalorientation to it.

Struggle and Strifer said:

---

No. Just showed the soldiers taking pics with the deceased President. Kind of surreal because they are all laughing and smiling around the body.

---

Definitely got big Bin Laden vibes with the ending.

Saw this tonight.

I think that the framing was pretty smart. Sure there are hints at what each side represents, but in steering clear of the details and using war correspondents to be the way into the story, Garland underlines how out of control a war becomes. These journalists have been covering wars across the globe and seem first hand over and over again how everyone loses in a war. It does feel unnerving watching it all unfold on US soil.

I thought the cast was all really excellent and I loved the photo breaks in the action. We were truly seeing events from their eyes.

calling it in advance. at least 7 edits.

This movie was incredible.

Anyone who says it wasn't good filmmaking is being hyper critical. It's better than 95% of all movies released in theaters in the last 5 years

Yeah, that was incredible.

The filmmaking, the action, the tension, the sound design, the soundtrack, that insane final act… just amazing stuff all around.

I absolutely loved the visceral, roadtrip vibe too. It was so simple, with such a clearly defined goal. Being embedded like that, objectively, with a group of (for the most part) neutral journalists/photojournalists, was such a smart approach too. No on-the-nose political stances, no distractions in that regard, we're just along for the ride, seeing the world exactly as they needed to see it. Cold and courageous, so that everyone else could form an opinion/react to the horrors accordingly.

I don't know that I'll ever own it or watch it again, but man, what an experience.

C@LAg said:

---

calling it in advance. at least 7 edits.

---

Pre-wrote the whole thing in my notes app just to stick it to you!

Saxsoon said:

---

MBAR said:

---

Just got out. I've seen people say its neutral but I don't think that's the case at all. I think there are very clear indications about who the president is. He abolishes the FBI for ****s sake. There's not much exposition in the film which is nice. I've also seen reviews that this film praises journalists? I got the exact opposite from the film, but maybe I'm missing something. I think its a fairly damning take on journalism in this country, honestly.

---

I kind of see what they mean in that these people sacrifice their emotions to send the message home. I kind of saw Kirsten and the girl at the end as sociopaths. I get they need to put it aside for the story but **** me I wasn't exactly rooting for them either


Great film, was pleasantly happy to see Texas and California are the good guys. I groaned though when the girl pulled out the ****ing camera as her life was save which again, sociopath. Loved seeing going through the small towns and the sniper at Santa's wonderland really drives home how hard a civil war would be, you would have no idea

I don't get that messed up seeing war films but this one struck a chord

---

This is a big theme in a lot of Alex Garland's work. A number of his stories feature a protagonist trying to do a good thing, or invent some new tech that could help humanity in some way, but then ego gets in the way which of course ultimately causes the thing to go to sh*t.

And that's kind of how I interpreted the ending here. Cailee Spaeny's character got too ambitious in the end, wanted that money shot for herself, threw caution into the wind, and ended up getting her mentor killed for it in the process. In other words, their overall mission was a noble one, but then ego got in the way and made an otherwise triumphant moment bitter sweet, if not horribly heartbreaking.

That said, part of the point was that you have to be a bit of sociopath to even do that job. Dunst's character even told Spaeny's character early on that she'd still get the shot, if even Spaeny's character was dead. The irony was that it ended up being the exact opposite in the end, which was a nice little twist.

That, and karmically speaking, you could argue that Dunst's life had to be "traded" for Spaeny's character ultimately getting what will probably go on to be the most famous photo in the history of that world.

Thinking on it a bit more, Dunst's character actually showed growth in the sense that she chose to delete the pic of Sammy's bloodied body in the car. So she went back on her initial word of putting the shot above all, evolving past her sociopathic tendencies in that moment.

TCTTS said:

---

Thinking on it a bit more, Dunst's character actually showed growth in the sense that she chose to delete the pic of Sammy's bloodied body in the car. So she went back on her initial word of putting the shot above all, evolving past her sociopathic tendencies in that moment.

---

I felt like Lee regained her humanity as the film went on…and it ended up getting her killed.

That was a movie about journalism wrapped in a civil war dystopian package. It was a movie about relationships and how those in different generations pass their craft down to each other and do or don't look out for one another.

The movie had a few minor political references ("Maoist state", disbanding the FBI, drone strikes), but honestly it was almost apolitical. I think that was the right call and to completely focus the story on the core four rather than trying to explain how and why the conflict started.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I guess for me, that was part of my issue with it. The whole civil war conceit was kind of irrelevant. It could've been any conflict in any part of the world.

But setting it in the US felt a little cheap to me in the end. That was just a way to get people interested and in the theater. I guess it worked though.

---

I think that's part of the point. We are not immune to those same fights that take place in third-world hellholes. That's what made the whole thing so unsettling.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I guess for me, that was part of my issue with it. The whole civil war conceit was kind of irrelevant. It could've been any conflict in any part of the world.

But setting it in the US felt a little cheap to me in the end. That was just a way to get people interested and in the theater. I guess it worked though.

---

I think this is really the wrong read on the us setting. Garland is concerned that this is in our future and he was is to thibk about how we view journalism as well. The US setting matters and who he is concerned about is very clear from the film it's just not given via exposition but after watching some some interviews he's done I have zero doubts about that. I mean tbh after Offerman's first scene I had no doubts but the interviews rammed it home.

MBAR said:

---

Also, I get that most people don't understand the Texas/California alliance based on what they feel could happen in reality, but why is it so hard for people to stop and consider it through the view of what Garland thinks SHOULD happen?

---

There's a great thread on Reddit about how the two would form a war alliance, which essentially revolved around two of the world's ten largest economies teaming up to protect themselves from a system whose structures have collapsed and threaten to drown them with it. Essentially, the alliance isn't set upon political or social lines, but along economic survival.

This is absolutely incredible & an amazing reminder of why I love filmmaking.

In CIVIL WAR, are we seeing the actual photos taken by Kirsten Dunst & Cailee Spaeny?

This answer went beyond anything I could have imagined. What an insanely cool idea. I need BTS footage. #CivilWar pic.twitter.com/G7IFSMww63

— Kevin McCarthy (@KevinMcCarthyTV) April 14, 2024

If I ever run into Jesse Plemons and he asks where I'm from... might sh** my pants

zgood10 said:

---

If I ever run into Jesse Plemons and he asks where I'm from... might sh** my pants

---

The pride of Mart, TX.

TCTTS said:

---

Beat the tracking, which was $22M...

‘CIVIL WAR’ opens with $27.5M domestically, making it:

• A24’s first ever film to be #1 at the domestic box office

• A24’s highest grossing opening weekend ever pic.twitter.com/0CGCFvItIQ

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) April 14, 2024

---

Really hope this movie ends up profitable. Would love to see A24 try more films like this where they have bigger budgets but still have the A24 feel. Just an amazing combo to see an A24 film in a Dolby Theater.