Civil War (2024) (1 Viewer)

[Carl David]

Sooo... does this need to be seen in IMAX... even though it's apparently just 1.9:1 for IMAX?

I'm debating between seeing this in Dolby and the giant Lincoln Square IMAX -- probably not gonna see it in the smaller (2K?) IMAX screens.

_Man_

As far as I can tell man this is not a movie made
specifically for IMAX.

Booked my ticket at a standard theatre for this Thursday.

If it was would not have done so and chosen a different place and time.

That being said it looks like a movie where you are better off selecting a cinema with the biggest screen possible.

If it wasn't a special preview I would have chosen a place with the best sound system as I feel that might be more important than screen.

Looks like a movie where the sound plays a big part and many cinemas have systems that are underwhelming from my perspective.

Would make my selection based on that if this helps.

But pure conjecture on my part.

 

[benbess]

After reading a couple of strong reviews of this movie my hopes were raised too high. Although the performances of the actors are all strong, I found the screenplay had some issues for me. My rating: B-

Spoiler

The director is British, and from my pov doesn't have a firm grasp on the politics or military of the United States, which is important for this movie to really work from my pov. There were things that just didn't didn't make sense and/or just weren't explained at all.

Even bigger for me is that all the main characters are journalists—and they never file a story or file a picture during the whole movie. Reporters who are side characters clearly are reporting, and it's clear people are still watching and reading the news, but our reporters don't actually report on any of the news that they are witnessing. Presumably surviving characters do when the movie is over, but....to me this was a major weakness.

Nick Offerman, who plays the President, and gets substantial play in the trailer, has a very small amount of screen time in this movie. He's really good in the scenes he's in, but it's less than 5 minutes total for the whole movie.

Until the last 20 minute or so much of the movie also seemed kinda low budget to me. I feel for this topic a bigger budget might be useful.

 

[Patrick Sun]

While I take a bunch of photos as a hobby (as some small subset of HTFers know), so from that standpoint, some things in the film tickles my interest in the search of "that" photo in war zones as this film follows a small group of photographers and journalists. But the story that unfolds come across like a film that follows folks on a long road trip and their bathroom stops tend to be really really hazardous, but it's not compelling cinema for a lot of the run time, and by the time we get to the 3rd act, all that time invested in these characters falls short for me. I wanted to like it more, but it's like shooting many rolls of film with very few keeper frames. Sigh...

 

[Carl David]

Like others who have given their verdict I was a little underwhelmed too.

Don't think it helps by the title.

Wondering if the studio changed it to "Civil War" to help sell the movie because you can't categorize it as that.

Can't imagine Alex Garland used that title because if he did then it's a very weak movie.

My view is this is a picture about war photojournalists who will go to extremes to capture the truth of the front lines.

Why it used a fictional USA civil war set in the present day to tell that story baffles me.

If you have seen Salvador or any movie similar to that you can use it as a barometer of how to approach going to watch this movie.

However, this film does not make us think about photojournalists any different from any other picture in this genre.

Yes. The cast is good. It's well acted. Some of the war scenes are immersive and the sound is impressive in those scenes too.

It's well structured and I think it avoids any cliches. Never seems predictable so there is that.

Overall not a bad film but far from great too.

Probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Anyone else think Cailee Spaeny (Jessie) resembles a young Natalie Portman?

 

[Tino]

Well I thought it was great. A harrowing “what if” near future scenario that seems all to possible now.

While episodic in nature, I thought Garland did a great job of not taking sides and letting us decide for ourselves. The enemy was whoever is shooting at you as one of the characters says.

And following these journalists on their journey who above all else value getting that one great shot…at any cost, I thought was a smart decision. You feel as you’re right there with them.

All the performances were great especially a convincingly haggard Kirsten Dunst who has come along was since Bring It On. She’s terrific here.

I was never bored and was enthralled throughout. It’s smart suspenseful and action packed. A thought provoking piece of “entertainment”.

 

[Tommy R]

All the performances were great especially a convincingly haggard Kirsten Dunst who has come along was since Bring It On. She’s terrific here.

I’ve always been a huge fan of hers, even before Bring It On. Almost want to see this movie just for her, but on the fence if I want to go to the theater to see it.

 

[Tino]

but on the fence if I want to go to the theater to see it.

Definitely worth seeing in a theater on the largest screen you can. I saw it in IMAX and the sound was awesome.

 

[Josh Dial]

This was a really good movie.

It's an A24 action drama by Alex Garland about war journalism. Right there is all you need to know to decide if you should go see this.

Everything was great. The leads are all fantastic. Jesse Plemons shows up and ratchets tension up to eleven. The directing, cinematography, and camera work are excellent. Some shots are beautiful (I especially liked the wide shot of Dunst and Spaeny in the graffiti riddled bleachers).

But the sound is something truly astounding. This movie will win the Oscars for best sound. Atmos is used to great effect here.

I'm going to write something that might be controversial: I think the last 15 minutes of action are better than any action in the Dune movies.

The action sequences reminded me of Black Hawk Down and Master and Commander and The Matrix.

9/10 (sound is 10/10)

 

[Tino]

‘Civil War’ Takes Box Office Spoils With $25.7M Opening, Best Ever For A24​

‘Civil War’ Takes Box Office Spoils With $25.7M Opening, Best Ever For A24 – Sunday AM Update

Alex Garland's 'Civil War' opened to $25.7M, a record for an A24 movie.

deadline.com

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Anyone else think Cailee Spaeny (Jessie) resembles a young Natalie Portman?

Nope. She looks a lot like Brie Larson to me (other than the hair color of course).

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

As far as I can tell man this is not a movie made
specifically for IMAX.

Just saw it a couple days ago in Dolby Cinema... and it's apparently composed for 1.9:1 IMAX (or maybe plain 1.85:1), so it was pillarboxed on the Dolby 2.4:1 screen. Kinda waste of screen real estate and wish I had sat at least another row closer because of that.

I might try seeing it again though... maybe on a 1.9:1 IMAX screen... or maybe on an AMC Prime screen or something like that as it might get squeezed out of IMAX this coming week -- mostly for the sound (as many, including you, have noted).

_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

Nope. She looks a lot like Brie Larson to me (other than the hair color of course).

_Man_

I don't see it (the Brie-ness). I still mostly just saw a mini-Portman when she was on-screen.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't see it (the Brie-ness). I still mostly just saw a mini-Portman when she was on-screen.

During the movie, I thought she looked a bit like a very young Jennifer Lawrence. I think she looks like a cross between JL and BL, but nothing like Portman at all other than being very petite (and I suppose the hairstyle), heh...

_Man_

 

[AlexF]

Watched this tonight on IMAX. Sat in the fourth row.

To put things into perspective in terms of movie theatre movies, the last one I saw was last Friday -- Monkey Man. I posted previously about that film, noting its visceral and brutal nature.

Well, this movie was just as visceral, but incredibly more suspenseful. From the moment at the Christmas village onward, my heartrate didn't drop below 110bpm (resting heart rate in the low 60s over the last week or so). I could feel it in my chest the entire time.

I thought it was quite interesting throughout the film that it NEVER made any clear definitions of anyone's politics or "which side" they belonged to. The only time it was clear who was on "which side", it was only which side of the conflict, not what their political leaning was, and that was the last segment of the film with the Western Forces (the combination of Texas and California, two states known (in Canada at least) for having diametrically opposite political leanings).

The film did an excellent job of immersing the viewer (me) in the situations at hand and made them incredibly tense, mostly because we never really had a first-hand view of what was actually happening, just that we knew it was happening around us.

Garland also used black and white still shots throughout the film to show us what the journalists were capturing over the course of their journey.

It left me with a lot to think on and process and I'm really interested in watching this film again.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

(the combination of Texas and California, two states known (in Canada at least) for having diametrically opposite political leanings).

The interesting thing about that is they’re not necessarily as opposite as they get credit for being. Both are very large states and each has a large number of people that lean one way, and another large number of people that lean another way. It’s actually very conceivable that large parts of Texas share political views with large parts of California, it just depends on where in each state you are. Because we have a winner-takes-all electoral system for national elections, though, you don’t really always get to see that in the news coverage.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Wish I could see it again w/ excellent sound (and in 4K on a big screen), but it's apparently indeed being squeezed out of all the premium screens over here w/ too little exception (and seemingly none that works well enough for me).

Ah well, guess I'll probably just wait for the disc release to revisit this instead...

_Man_

 

[AlexF]

Because we have a winner-takes-all electoral system for national elections, though, you don’t really always get to see that in the news coverage.

I think that's where a lot of the feel that each lean strongly the opposite way (at least here in Canada). We, for obvious reasons, don't hear as much of the nuance about local politics in other countries as we do in our own.

 

[TravisR]

Since it's a forbidden topic, I'll be delicate here but did anyone see this movie as not particularly political? I mean you can read what you want into a few elements but the way that I saw people crying on Twitter about this movie as if it was some kind of screed against or in favor of X or Y is silly to me. The movie just used the concept of a civil war to tell a story about war journalism.

 

[Carl David]

Since it's a forbidden topic, I'll be delicate here but did anyone see this movie as not particularly political? I mean you can read what you want into a few elements but the way that I saw people crying on Twitter about this movie as if it was some kind of screed against or in favor of X or Y is silly to me. The movie just used the concept of a civil war to tell a story about war journalism.

Yes.

There's nothing political at all in the picture.

That's why I wrote my basic description of it to give potential viewers an idea of the movie.

It's a movie about photojournalists. That's it.

The choice was made to use an American civil war to tell that story.

Very strange from my perspective but probably done to help sell the movie.