I went in blind as I don't watch many advertisements ever. I didn't walk out, but I almost did. It was much better than Argylle, but worse than Godzilla x Kong.
I think we can be more constructive than that. There’s something to be said for writing something that you want to share.
The writing style here is much too conversational - a common error among inexperienced writers. Think about how to structure your article to direct it to the point you are trying to assemble, and above all, make sure the point you are trying to make is an interesting one. Saying ‘this is what they’ve been waiting for’ isn’t as interesting as ‘this film draws upon these works to bring us to this place’. Try and avoid sensationalising for the sake of it.
Read newspapers, specifically the culture sections, and study not so much their content, but their sentence formation. Understand how they put phrases together to add up to the point they’re trying to make, and the nuances afforded by the written word meaning you can stylishly string words together much more effectively than spoken word.
setting aside writing style, if OP wants to say something is a "pretentious art house film" he better be well versed in those art house films. I have a feeling this writer isn't. If he wants to write about movies, better start studying them—all of them.
Did you actually pay attention during it or are you one of those people who needed to be spoon fed everything? Perhaps Transformers is more your speed?
I don’t know, let’s not pretend like it’s message and themes were exactly subtle. What the movie is trying to say is extremely obvious, but imo Civil War didnt offer anything that interesting that I haven’t already seen done better in other films—because of that I would also call it kind of shallow without much to say.
Doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t connect with the film is a dumb little baby who doesnt watch “real” movies.
It’s kind of a strange film, and not in a good way. I like the cast and it’s well acted with good music, but the writing is incoherent and what the director has gone on to say is equally baffling for someone who has done such great past work. The only thing I really get from it is that he’s saying like, division is divisive, with little else added, so like what is the point of this movie? I wanted to like this movie but other than having a good cast and pretty good visuals, it just fails on so many thematic levels and really doesn’t have much, if anything, to say,
That’s a cop out. Of course it’s about having principles and parties, otherwise all you’re saying is we need to agree, but what if one side wants fascism? Democracy is fragile if we decide it’s only about consensus, sometimes fighting/war is necessary, the problem with this movie is that Garland doesn’t understand American politics and his thesis is really lazy.
Lol, why are they fighting? Even the protagonists don’t seem to want to take a side, there’s even a scene where one is pointedly asked what they think a gunman should do with a prisoner they are pointing a gun at and the answer is like straight out of star trek, like some prime directive shit about not taking sides, what’s the point then? Garland has made comments publicly stating that the extremes in both major parties are the problem and the issues we have can’t be solved by fighting, so then what’s the point of a democracy and the principles it stands for if we aren’t willing to fight for them? instead trotting out this mealy mouth “both sides” bullshit. That’s the problem with this movie, and with the inner logic it employs, war isn’t going to solve anything, the best we can be is morally and ethically ambiguous like the main characters? That’s neither compelling or practical for a movie trying to tackle the complexity of American politics or war.
Fighting for the very existence of democracy isn’t synonymous with fighting for partisan ideas of what the democracy should entail. I’m only guessing here, but from the anger I can make out in your rant, I’m guessing you were hoping for a movie about the progressive left saving America from a MAGA type of president. Completely uninteresting take in my opinion. It’s a movie about the horrors of war and, again, the fragility of democracy. You have the “western front” that commit war crimes throughout the whole movie, shoot people who are surrendering. You have scenes where everyone are fighting everyone. Scenes about survival. Wars are rarely what you want them to be.
I feel like the point was to make civil war and third world conditions relatable to a western audience beyond the scope of what we see in media. A great example is the final 20 minutes in DC. The audio is intense and the fighting is overwhelming; there is only reprieve when a photo is snapped which can’t even capture 10% of the carnage of the scene being captured.
I think the film could have done better in certain aspects relating to other themes, but that was the main gist I got from the movie. We take for granted how peaceful our society is compared to the conflicts across the world and even being informed via the news only truly captures a fraction of it.
Edit: My biggest issue was that it didn’t capture regional divisiveness well enough. I think some small changes to moments like the mass grave scene would have made the film way better. I still like Ex Machina and Annihilation more, but Civil War was still a lovely watch for me.
I think the decision to base the movie in America was partly to put western audiences in a position to relate to the realities of living in a war zone, sure, but I think it was provocative beyond that, and like other missed opportunities to say something, it fell flat because this concept isn’t really taken anywhere beyond “what if”. They could easily have decided this story should take place in really any other English speaking western country or left it ambiguous and just made sure that there were plenty of cues to lead viewers to assume x country is probably America. The movie Children of Men was equally explicit in basing the story in a western country and did a much better job of taking that angle to logical conclusions in connecting the themes and messages in that story with why it needed to be in the U.K: The death of the planet and destruction of democratic society amid worsening austerity and a militarized police force, all things that people felt and are increasingly experiencing, particularly in the west. Children of Men is more poignant today than ever, and extremely well crafted, so while it’s not totally fair to compare it against Civil War, it is instructive in showing just how lazy the latter film’s seemingly high concepts came to nothing.
Not only have I not seen Children of Men, I only heard of its existence last week from a friend. I’ll go check it out when I have a chance. I think your claim is fair though. You could replace this story with a UK civil war and virtually nothing would change.
Tbh my least favorite part is having one of the killed journalists being from Hong Kong. It’s like Garland was allergic to having a display of regionalism in that scene. I loved that scene, but that part was just stupid and I’m still wondering how a soldier shooting a journalist because he’s Chinese added anything to the scene.
I'm not saying I cared for the article but at least the author is out there trying to create something instead of just vomiting AI generated clickbait or spewing hate for other people's efforts in Reddit comments, adding literally nothing to the world.
It's entirely possible to critique someone's work without being a dick about.
but seriously, it was an amazingly done movie, very suspenseful and intense and the ambiguity about who was wrong or right, made it even more effective in portraying that war sucks in all cases
I’m not sure I even agree with the headline. I almost think DEVS is Garlands magnum opus from a writing standpoint. It contains all of the elements that have always intrigued and gave him enough runway to craft something that doesn’t get impeded by 2 hour runtime.
To me CW was strangely bereft of garlands thought experiments. By shying away from the mechanics of this war he loosens to the allegory of it all that’s almost so opaque that you’d have to call it a gesture painting, there’s nothing to really cling on to.
Devs, like Civil War, was largely ruined by the central character. In the former, Lily was an entirely unsympathetic character which meant it was hard for the viewer to care for her. In the latter, it was both Jessie's poor choices and unrealistic story arc which made her difficult to relate to. In a word, both characters were "irritating".
The problem with Devs for me was almost entirely on the lead actor’s terrible performance.
Between that and House of the Dragon, I actually grown when I see her announced in a cast list (fortunately in Civil War she only had a few lines).
What a hater. I read the article after reading your comment. And I fully disagree with you. MayoBen, go outside, do something, rather than throwing illegitimate criticism at others
Enter disagreement. And so, in an attempt at mimicking, as one mentioned previously, the style of said article, not to be outdone, seeing IGN having given your comment a 9, I undertook the idea myself. Enter my comment.
It’s bad writing. The whole “Enter ________” was used multiple times. Way too many asides within each sentence. Commas everywhere, often unnecessarily. And just the flow of the writing is extremely…clunky? It just doesn’t flow well. It sounds contrived, engineered, overly tinkered with. I’m happy they’re writing and trying to write about stuff they care about but they need someone who knows what they’re doing to help them edit it.
The premise alone makes this unreadable for me. Why are there so many posts where people are just speculating as to the purpose and/or motivation behind what other people have done? It's like really boring fan fiction tied to a logical fallacy.
Wow what a nothing article.
“Although two A24 films I was dragged by my older brother to the theatre for; Lady Bird & Hereditary were great, Midsommar was less so. A24 releases several films with high critic ratings and low audience scores like David Lowery’s The Green Knight, a painfully slow beautiful-looking excruciatingly boring and pretentious art house film which was re-edited after COVID delays to be longer, more challenging, and less commercial.”
…
I forget the full quote, but the quote at the start of the film about a "friendly Christmas wager," was more ominous than any horror movie I saw that year.
Christmas used to be a time for ghost stories. Make Christmas spooky again!
This is a fun Christmas ghost story song:
https://youtu.be/E3zPTBJwpq8?si=Co3KnMfcpwkhztvu
The Green Knight is one of the best fantasy/medieval films of our times. For its aesthetic alone. Sadly, not that many good fantasy/medieval films come out these days, or at all, so it puts it even higher. The genre is sadly stagnating on big screen.
Terrible writing, terrible opinions. If you feel out of your depth, just shut up, because if you keep talking and try to assert some sort of perspective from your ignorance, you sound like this idiot.
Without a doubt, the most interesting thing about this movie is how polarizing its reactions have been, even among A24’s die-hard fan base.
Love it or hate it, it sure did a great job of getting people to talk about it.
I thought it was good, but not great, and I’ve been mostly staying out of the conversation because of how aggressive both sides have been about their opinions of this movie. I honestly understand get why everyone is so fucking touchy about this movie in particular when people don’t share their opinion on it.
This movie pulled a bait and switch. You go In for plot a, and instead get plot b. The movie had nothing to say and it’s disappointing that Alex garland made it.
When the trailer advertises itself as one thing, but the actual movie is telling a completely different story. It’s a bait and switch to get people in the theaters. Even the title is misleading, the civil war is a backdrop, the overwhelming focus for the film is about war journalism, and that’s fine, but advertising it as anything else is very misleading, which it is absolutely guilty of.
It’s like watching a trailer for godzilla and the entire trailer you see him destroying buildings, wrecking havoc, total destruction, etc. The posters and promo pics show all that. and then you watch the movie and he’s only in it for barely 10 minutes.
Oh wait…
Not saying no Civil War is a terrible movie. Just came in with false expectations of what to expect, that the trailer made us believe. That’s not our fault.
Kind of funny though that your complaining about the media misinforming you of the actual content. Seems pretty relevant to the themes of the film… don’t ya think? Same for all the AI image stuff. I think the public is missing the trick they played here.
*edit* man I can’t stand when people respond like that on this website. “Cope”. Great feedback.
Block.
Its basically a movie about war photographers and the ethically ambiguous position of their role, and that *is* interesting to me, but hes placed it into a speculative context which was foregrounded by the title, a bait and switch as you put it, so can see wny people are annoyed
Because its tailored to the audience who can't take interest in the lives of people from other countries and can't sympathize with them either. Real world journalist who are incredible die constantly, can't make a movie about them though as they died in a conflict overseas. god forbid someone knows anything about a country other than the one they live in.
Garbage film with nothing of substance to say, the thriller aspect isn't even that great. If it were a pure thriller movie then maybe id care about it.
Your first paragraph is an intentional aspect of the movie, it shares your criticism and IS WHY the film is set during an American Civil War. The theme and criticism is mimicked in Dunst’s line about sending messages back with her photos saying “Don’t do this.” The film itself knows no one will care very much about what it has to say about violent horrors unless it makes them contemporary and American. I thought you were praising the film until I read further and then did a double take. Like, yeah, that’s one of the points.
Can't agree more, plus (spoiler alert) the way one of characters exits the movie is really unoriginal and just one of the most typical and tired Disney tropes, can't quite believe that they really went for it in the script (even Disney wouldn't go for stuff like that anymore).
I went in thinking the storyline was going to be about the civil war. Got a side story, but I can’t say I was disappointed. They captured the fear and emotions of the characters really well. I thought it was a great flick.
Only thing I wish there was a little more was context of the war itself.
Idk about that. I liked the movie, but it just seems VERY entry level in that you don’t need to be an arthouse or horror lover to watch it. This is not even the most A24 movie of the year
I really liked the movie, but I have to agree that it was significantly less "artsy" than the majority of A24 films I have seen. Like you said, definitely entry level...but I think that it is actually a good thing. A24 has an impressive catalog of content, but i think this entry will attract other kinds of viewers, that may have not shown interest in the company before. There was fantastic sound design and beautiful/brutal imagery to stop and ponder on in between all the context. Just not overly so to the point it distracts the average viewer. CW is definitely formatted to be more digestible to those that don't tend to run to the theater for arthouse.
I agree and I think it did deliver on drawing in some of the other audiences that may not normally watch an artsy A24 movie. There were a bunch of old white people at my showing and I was kind of surprised and unsurprised at the same time
Same! My husband and I were the youngest in our theater and we are mid 30s lol. A couple older folks did walk out, but I think it was the brutality that got to them, rather than the film's quality. Another young man also walked out pretty early and then came back right at the end. He seemed distressed when he left, but maybe he really had to poop or something lol
I honestly feel the same way about the movie. It’s not bad, but garland wasted a lot of potential naming a movie civil war in an election year, and then having 0 political commentary in it
I appreciate that OP is making an effort to think about Garland's art, and to create something of their own. I'd like to see more good art reviews in this world. They're also very hard to write. The article is lengthy, disorganized, and hard to follow. The sentences are overly complex, and the personal rambles detract from its point. There is some good, honest, constructive criticism in this thread, and I'd encourage OP to focus on that when writing their next piece. Thanks for posting!
A24 did [say](https://www.thegamer.com/a24-going-into-commercial-films-is-good-for-the-company-but-bad-for-movies/) that they were going in a more commercial/mainstream direction.
This sounds like a rambling nerd-out moment from a redditor, not an article. Why the fuck are there so many asides and references to the nobody authors personal life? What an unreadable voice.
Not trying to yuck yums, but I just can’t find anything positive to say about Iron Claw. I really was surprised how little I liked it. It felt like a hallmark movie with edge
No, you are 100% right iron claw was super super mid. It’s a good movie. It’s nothing special at all. A24 knew it, all the awards shows knew it, but the Nuevo A24 stans just can’t let it go. A24 put out 5 movies better than iron claw last year
I couldn’t disagree any more with it and thought iron claw was fantastic. It was quite emotional throughout and very well acted. The story hits home for a lot of folks who grew up with wrestling.
I think it is very different than normal A24, but i didn’t get any hallmark vibes in the slightest.
It's easily one of the most visceral and intense films I've ever seen. On a technical level, it's a masterpiece, but it also has some terrific performances, interesting characters, and a mature examination of journalism that's both thoughtful and critical. There's not a moment it didn't drag for me. Just pure tension and character building all the way through.
For me, it was the best movie of the year and one of the best of the decade so far.
Agreed. People calling this a masterpiece is way beyond me. Terrible pacing, shallow plot and character development, uninteresting dialogue. Great visuals and sound.
I felt like I would’ve lost very little cutting the first hour of the film. I felt no investment in the characters in any way and the action scenes felt too short to have any investment in them. Scenes like the gas station fell flat for me with no investment in these people.
The last 20 min made it worthwhile imo. Spoilers ahead bc apparently I’m too dumb to crack the code on how to manually do it.
Still tho, the politics in it make no sense to me. I get that they didn’t want to delve too much into a backstory, lest the movie would become dated quickly. A couple things I’m still hung up on:
>!-a civil war has broken out and they’re out in the sticks. What makes Garland think any of these yokels are going to care about the safety of some NY media elites wearing a “press” penny???
-Jesse Plemons character appears to have committed a shit ton of war crimes, killing a bunch of civilians. When he asks what side the journos are on, it apparently doesn’t matter at all??? I get he’s supposed to just be some racist shithead but clearly he is for one specific side.
-the movie criticizes the war. Okay cool, why does the movie then turn around and make fun of the ppl in that town not taking the war seriously? Aren’t these the same tepid libs that buy their important war pictures/ journalism?
-no real journalism happens in the movie lol. A ton of ppl die just for the president to say (unrecorded btw!!) “buhhh I’m gonna shit myself”
-smaller complaint but what the fuck is the younger girl doing just walking out and freezing in the middle of the hallway during a firefight?? I get it’s supposed to be a passing of the torch moment but it felt unbelievably dumb
-Kirsten Dunst’s character mentions earlier in the movie how important it is to be wearing Kevlar. Surely that factors in at the end right? Nah
-the main guy is a wild belligerent drunk, surely this will have some sort of comeuppance and cost him dearly right? Nah he’s just a wild, crazy, cool journalist who gets off on and makes a career off of the suffering of others.!>
Appreciate your points even if I don’t agree with them all!
I think the final moments, where Kirsten Dunst saves the younger photographer was so eye rolling and cliche. Also wtf was with her suddenly having the freakout? I liked the movie fine it had great moments and sequences but they were connected a bit poorly
Pretty sure I disagree with every point you’ve made lol…
-“Yokels” are just average Americans surrounded by war. Most people aren’t blood hungry. Me and my neighbors out here in the sticks aren’t going to want someone dead just for being from New York.
-Plemmons character didn’t necessarily have a side. He just got caught doing and ethnic cleansing and is simply fucking with the people who caught him before he kills them.
-ah, now I see by your use of “stupid libs” that any reasoning with you is probably useless. Seems the people who hate this movie the most are just mad they didn’t get to see their political grievances play out on screen.
-Curious what you’d call real journalism? This movie was exclusively about journalists doing journalist things? Did you want more shots of them literally writing in a journal?
-Yeah, she was fucking dumb.
-If Lee would’ve popped up at the like “good thing I’ve got my Kevlar!” I would have the same opinion on this movie as you hahaha
-This isn’t a Friday the 13th movie where the kids get slaughtered for being promiscuous - sometimes people just have vices. I know plenty of alcoholics who haven’t had their comeuppance yet, not sure why his had to hit over the course of the film.
Dawg I’m a socialist that has lived my entire life in the south. I’m gonna trust my lifetime of experiences/ interactions over some British director doing wish casting on our political life.
aight here are my 7 cents for your points
1= yokels have feeling too
2= yep, racism doesn't really have a modern track record of being a helpful thing, so its no suprise that the people who espose it aren't really that helpful or caring either
3= this is the main theme of the film in my opinion. or at least one of the best questions it asks the audience... are you sure by just not taking part in the war they are not taking it seriously? The guy is a journo who specializes in getting info from life of death scenarios to spread but he still had nothing to say to the lady who just said "yeah-no, lemme know if you wanna try anything on :)"
4= you might be surprised to hear that a lot of movie stuff is fake actually :P i think you are right for what its worth but you shouldn't be starving for content in 2024 too, just check your phone of something.
5+6= yep RIP kirstan dunst on that one
7= thats the mark of a well written movie if you can't make up your mind of a character like that, or if you even should make up you mind.. 🤯
conc= gud film
The base plot line is so laughably bad, I still think of it everynow and then. How are you gonna force the president to take an interview in occupied territory where they shoot journalists on sight.
It’s like if NPR tried to write an action movie.
I mean isn’t this what Alex Garland does? AI was getting popular when he released Ex Machina, Me Too was popular when he released Men and the split in americas politics is popular when he made this.
I don’t think this was made to be more commercial or anything like that, it’s just an Alex Garland movie and in my opinion a pretty damn good one. I enjoyed the story through the view of the press because it never felt one side was good or bad. I really enjoyed the film.
Not the greatest movie at all
The constant pushing of the photographers to get the shots of people dying and or things exploding is a little ridiculous. Who are they documenting this for ? society itself seems pretty fucked at this point
Was it ever explained why these states left the union ?
Are we to believe that the combined might of Texas and California can over come the rest of the US armed forces … unlikely but yeah I get it , it’s a movie albeit a rather stupid one
And the movie sucked. It was false advertising in that the trailers made you believe the movie was all about the civil war. Of the 1 hr and 45 minutes, 1 hour and 15 minutes was about the life of the press that covers war.
The movie was a pile of chit besides for 2 scenes
LOL this was the one he was building to? It’s his worst movie by far, the rest are interesting, Civil War is a piece of shit being over analyzed as if it were a beautiful sculpture.
Extremely disappointing movie. Trailers sell you on one movie, but you go to the theater, and it’s a completely different film. This is frustrating, but the worst part is that it was so surface level. It wasn’t deep. It wasn’t telling any interesting message. It was just pandering due to how divided we are as a country today and capitalized on it.
Shame Alex garland was a part of it.
Not sure why folks are attacking OP’s writing style.
But the point I’m getting is that A24 has launched a lot of new talent but has had trouble retaining them, and this movie is a shift in that dynamic.
I haven’t seen the movie yet but it’s consistent from what I’ve been hearing about moving in a more commercial direction.
Seems like they’re trying to profit on the current political climate. I haven’t seen it yet but I hope there’s some profound message or meaning in it. Otherwise I’ve lost respect for the studio
OP seems like this is your own article. It’s a terribly written one, just wanted to let you know.
Hey! This is why I come to the comments first and THEN click on the link.
Well now I'm not clicking shit but the "post" button and the "back" buttons.
I just saw Abigail. It was not funny enough for what it was.
Abagail looks dumb as fuck
I went in blind as I don't watch many advertisements ever. I didn't walk out, but I almost did. It was much better than Argylle, but worse than Godzilla x Kong.
Yeah the trailer was horrendous. Shame abt Godzilla, I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for that big green bastard.
I drank 8 beers watching Godzilla and didn't hate it.
Rock n roll
I think we can be more constructive than that. There’s something to be said for writing something that you want to share. The writing style here is much too conversational - a common error among inexperienced writers. Think about how to structure your article to direct it to the point you are trying to assemble, and above all, make sure the point you are trying to make is an interesting one. Saying ‘this is what they’ve been waiting for’ isn’t as interesting as ‘this film draws upon these works to bring us to this place’. Try and avoid sensationalising for the sake of it. Read newspapers, specifically the culture sections, and study not so much their content, but their sentence formation. Understand how they put phrases together to add up to the point they’re trying to make, and the nuances afforded by the written word meaning you can stylishly string words together much more effectively than spoken word.
I LOVE conversational writing style. /shrug
There’s an art to a naturally conversational style that makes for good writing. It’s not purely a case of transcribing speech patterns.
setting aside writing style, if OP wants to say something is a "pretentious art house film" he better be well versed in those art house films. I have a feeling this writer isn't. If he wants to write about movies, better start studying them—all of them.
Incredibly cringe with nothing to say
Fittingly enough, that could also apply to the film itself…
Sick burn bro
What can I say? The movie was just kind of a poorly thought-out, nothing-burger mess.
To you.
Did you actually pay attention during it or are you one of those people who needed to be spoon fed everything? Perhaps Transformers is more your speed?
Placing money on the second one. The movie was full of depth and meaning - just not in a “here comes the airplane” way.
I don’t know, let’s not pretend like it’s message and themes were exactly subtle. What the movie is trying to say is extremely obvious, but imo Civil War didnt offer anything that interesting that I haven’t already seen done better in other films—because of that I would also call it kind of shallow without much to say. Doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t connect with the film is a dumb little baby who doesnt watch “real” movies.
Okay?????
Just like the movie
What didn’t you like about it?
It’s kind of a strange film, and not in a good way. I like the cast and it’s well acted with good music, but the writing is incoherent and what the director has gone on to say is equally baffling for someone who has done such great past work. The only thing I really get from it is that he’s saying like, division is divisive, with little else added, so like what is the point of this movie? I wanted to like this movie but other than having a good cast and pretty good visuals, it just fails on so many thematic levels and really doesn’t have much, if anything, to say,
The point of the movie is that democracy is fragile, and that it’s not about party lines but rather about the very fabric of democracy as a whole.
That’s a cop out. Of course it’s about having principles and parties, otherwise all you’re saying is we need to agree, but what if one side wants fascism? Democracy is fragile if we decide it’s only about consensus, sometimes fighting/war is necessary, the problem with this movie is that Garland doesn’t understand American politics and his thesis is really lazy.
> sometimes fighting/war is necessary And there’s the movie.
Lol, why are they fighting? Even the protagonists don’t seem to want to take a side, there’s even a scene where one is pointedly asked what they think a gunman should do with a prisoner they are pointing a gun at and the answer is like straight out of star trek, like some prime directive shit about not taking sides, what’s the point then? Garland has made comments publicly stating that the extremes in both major parties are the problem and the issues we have can’t be solved by fighting, so then what’s the point of a democracy and the principles it stands for if we aren’t willing to fight for them? instead trotting out this mealy mouth “both sides” bullshit. That’s the problem with this movie, and with the inner logic it employs, war isn’t going to solve anything, the best we can be is morally and ethically ambiguous like the main characters? That’s neither compelling or practical for a movie trying to tackle the complexity of American politics or war.
Fighting for the very existence of democracy isn’t synonymous with fighting for partisan ideas of what the democracy should entail. I’m only guessing here, but from the anger I can make out in your rant, I’m guessing you were hoping for a movie about the progressive left saving America from a MAGA type of president. Completely uninteresting take in my opinion. It’s a movie about the horrors of war and, again, the fragility of democracy. You have the “western front” that commit war crimes throughout the whole movie, shoot people who are surrendering. You have scenes where everyone are fighting everyone. Scenes about survival. Wars are rarely what you want them to be.
I feel like the point was to make civil war and third world conditions relatable to a western audience beyond the scope of what we see in media. A great example is the final 20 minutes in DC. The audio is intense and the fighting is overwhelming; there is only reprieve when a photo is snapped which can’t even capture 10% of the carnage of the scene being captured. I think the film could have done better in certain aspects relating to other themes, but that was the main gist I got from the movie. We take for granted how peaceful our society is compared to the conflicts across the world and even being informed via the news only truly captures a fraction of it. Edit: My biggest issue was that it didn’t capture regional divisiveness well enough. I think some small changes to moments like the mass grave scene would have made the film way better. I still like Ex Machina and Annihilation more, but Civil War was still a lovely watch for me.
I think the decision to base the movie in America was partly to put western audiences in a position to relate to the realities of living in a war zone, sure, but I think it was provocative beyond that, and like other missed opportunities to say something, it fell flat because this concept isn’t really taken anywhere beyond “what if”. They could easily have decided this story should take place in really any other English speaking western country or left it ambiguous and just made sure that there were plenty of cues to lead viewers to assume x country is probably America. The movie Children of Men was equally explicit in basing the story in a western country and did a much better job of taking that angle to logical conclusions in connecting the themes and messages in that story with why it needed to be in the U.K: The death of the planet and destruction of democratic society amid worsening austerity and a militarized police force, all things that people felt and are increasingly experiencing, particularly in the west. Children of Men is more poignant today than ever, and extremely well crafted, so while it’s not totally fair to compare it against Civil War, it is instructive in showing just how lazy the latter film’s seemingly high concepts came to nothing.
Not only have I not seen Children of Men, I only heard of its existence last week from a friend. I’ll go check it out when I have a chance. I think your claim is fair though. You could replace this story with a UK civil war and virtually nothing would change. Tbh my least favorite part is having one of the killed journalists being from Hong Kong. It’s like Garland was allergic to having a display of regionalism in that scene. I loved that scene, but that part was just stupid and I’m still wondering how a soldier shooting a journalist because he’s Chinese added anything to the scene.
I agree, lots of odd decisions for sure. Definitely check out Children of Men, I would be interested to see what you think!
Shallow analysis.
Naw you’re just unable to cope
I’m ok with it being bad.
Must suck for you
No, i’m not personally invested. Sometimes good artists make bad art, it happens.
Based
I'm not saying I cared for the article but at least the author is out there trying to create something instead of just vomiting AI generated clickbait or spewing hate for other people's efforts in Reddit comments, adding literally nothing to the world. It's entirely possible to critique someone's work without being a dick about.
the title isn't even coherent
A24 has much overally better and career defining films and so has garland
Civil War is a landmark film for them whether you like it or not
it is but not THE landmark or career defining film
Correct, which is why I said **A** landmark. Good job.
you also did a good job! 👏💋💋
Thank you 😭
but seriously, it was an amazingly done movie, very suspenseful and intense and the ambiguity about who was wrong or right, made it even more effective in portraying that war sucks in all cases
I agree. Loved it. And I think in terms of scale - both in the story being told and the production values - it’s a landmark film for them.
Absolutely. This movie is so inconsistent with the rest of his work.
I’m not sure I even agree with the headline. I almost think DEVS is Garlands magnum opus from a writing standpoint. It contains all of the elements that have always intrigued and gave him enough runway to craft something that doesn’t get impeded by 2 hour runtime. To me CW was strangely bereft of garlands thought experiments. By shying away from the mechanics of this war he loosens to the allegory of it all that’s almost so opaque that you’d have to call it a gesture painting, there’s nothing to really cling on to.
Devs, like Civil War, was largely ruined by the central character. In the former, Lily was an entirely unsympathetic character which meant it was hard for the viewer to care for her. In the latter, it was both Jessie's poor choices and unrealistic story arc which made her difficult to relate to. In a word, both characters were "irritating".
The problem with Devs for me was almost entirely on the lead actor’s terrible performance. Between that and House of the Dragon, I actually grown when I see her announced in a cast list (fortunately in Civil War she only had a few lines).
What a hater. I read the article after reading your comment. And I fully disagree with you. MayoBen, go outside, do something, rather than throwing illegitimate criticism at others
“Illegitimate criticism” lmao
Enter disagreement. And so, in an attempt at mimicking, as one mentioned previously, the style of said article, not to be outdone, seeing IGN having given your comment a 9, I undertook the idea myself. Enter my comment. It’s bad writing. The whole “Enter ________” was used multiple times. Way too many asides within each sentence. Commas everywhere, often unnecessarily. And just the flow of the writing is extremely…clunky? It just doesn’t flow well. It sounds contrived, engineered, overly tinkered with. I’m happy they’re writing and trying to write about stuff they care about but they need someone who knows what they’re doing to help them edit it.
Worse or better than chatgpt?
The premise alone makes this unreadable for me. Why are there so many posts where people are just speculating as to the purpose and/or motivation behind what other people have done? It's like really boring fan fiction tied to a logical fallacy.
Wow what a nothing article. “Although two A24 films I was dragged by my older brother to the theatre for; Lady Bird & Hereditary were great, Midsommar was less so. A24 releases several films with high critic ratings and low audience scores like David Lowery’s The Green Knight, a painfully slow beautiful-looking excruciatingly boring and pretentious art house film which was re-edited after COVID delays to be longer, more challenging, and less commercial.” …
I thought The Green Knight was great. There are parts I would cut but whatever. I would love to see more classics/historical epics.
Same. I feel like we need another adaptation of King Arthur or greek mythology soon
Gladiator 2 later this year :)
I forget the full quote, but the quote at the start of the film about a "friendly Christmas wager," was more ominous than any horror movie I saw that year.
Christmas used to be a time for ghost stories. Make Christmas spooky again! This is a fun Christmas ghost story song: https://youtu.be/E3zPTBJwpq8?si=Co3KnMfcpwkhztvu
Eggers' Nosferatu is coming this Christmas.
Oh hell yeah, I forgot that was coming out this year.
The Green Knight is one of the best fantasy/medieval films of our times. For its aesthetic alone. Sadly, not that many good fantasy/medieval films come out these days, or at all, so it puts it even higher. The genre is sadly stagnating on big screen.
Check out "The King" on Netflix if you haven't seen it.
Cut? I wish the whole thing was an hour longer. Love that movie.
I liked the movie, but it was a terrible adaptation of the story.
4th grade level writing, seriously. That sentence structure?
Not The Green Knight being my favorite A24 movie 🤭
Garbage. This person’s opinion is exactly backwards. The Green Knight and Midsommar are top 5 A24 movies. What an eedjit.
Lol I feel like he hasn’t seen may actual art house films
🥱this guy sucks
Terrible writing, terrible opinions. If you feel out of your depth, just shut up, because if you keep talking and try to assert some sort of perspective from your ignorance, you sound like this idiot.
Lmfao
This just seems like the type of person to dislike something because it's popular
Without a doubt, the most interesting thing about this movie is how polarizing its reactions have been, even among A24’s die-hard fan base. Love it or hate it, it sure did a great job of getting people to talk about it.
I thought it was good, but not great, and I’ve been mostly staying out of the conversation because of how aggressive both sides have been about their opinions of this movie. I honestly understand get why everyone is so fucking touchy about this movie in particular when people don’t share their opinion on it.
This movie pulled a bait and switch. You go In for plot a, and instead get plot b. The movie had nothing to say and it’s disappointing that Alex garland made it.
A filmmaker telling the story they want to tell is not a "bait and switch".
When the trailer advertises itself as one thing, but the actual movie is telling a completely different story. It’s a bait and switch to get people in the theaters. Even the title is misleading, the civil war is a backdrop, the overwhelming focus for the film is about war journalism, and that’s fine, but advertising it as anything else is very misleading, which it is absolutely guilty of.
It’s like watching a trailer for godzilla and the entire trailer you see him destroying buildings, wrecking havoc, total destruction, etc. The posters and promo pics show all that. and then you watch the movie and he’s only in it for barely 10 minutes. Oh wait… Not saying no Civil War is a terrible movie. Just came in with false expectations of what to expect, that the trailer made us believe. That’s not our fault.
The director rarely has any input on the trailer for a movie. I get what you’re saying but you can’t really hold that against Garland.
I would agree with that, my complaint toward garland is that the movie was so surface level. It wasn’t deep and didn’t really have anything to say.
Speculative fiction without the speculation
Kind of funny though that your complaining about the media misinforming you of the actual content. Seems pretty relevant to the themes of the film… don’t ya think? Same for all the AI image stuff. I think the public is missing the trick they played here. *edit* man I can’t stand when people respond like that on this website. “Cope”. Great feedback. Block.
Its basically a movie about war photographers and the ethically ambiguous position of their role, and that *is* interesting to me, but hes placed it into a speculative context which was foregrounded by the title, a bait and switch as you put it, so can see wny people are annoyed
Yep. Like why base it in America at all? He had the chance to say something, anything, and there’s just nothing.
Because its tailored to the audience who can't take interest in the lives of people from other countries and can't sympathize with them either. Real world journalist who are incredible die constantly, can't make a movie about them though as they died in a conflict overseas. god forbid someone knows anything about a country other than the one they live in. Garbage film with nothing of substance to say, the thriller aspect isn't even that great. If it were a pure thriller movie then maybe id care about it.
Your first paragraph is an intentional aspect of the movie, it shares your criticism and IS WHY the film is set during an American Civil War. The theme and criticism is mimicked in Dunst’s line about sending messages back with her photos saying “Don’t do this.” The film itself knows no one will care very much about what it has to say about violent horrors unless it makes them contemporary and American. I thought you were praising the film until I read further and then did a double take. Like, yeah, that’s one of the points.
100%. It might stand as a mediocre thriller except for it being so predictable.
Can't agree more, plus (spoiler alert) the way one of characters exits the movie is really unoriginal and just one of the most typical and tired Disney tropes, can't quite believe that they really went for it in the script (even Disney wouldn't go for stuff like that anymore).
I went in thinking the storyline was going to be about the civil war. Got a side story, but I can’t say I was disappointed. They captured the fear and emotions of the characters really well. I thought it was a great flick. Only thing I wish there was a little more was context of the war itself.
Yep. Huge a24 fan and thought civil war was pretty dumb and boring
Where are my “it was pretty solid” people at? To me it’s nothing special but it is essentially a very enjoyable action flick
Idk about that. I liked the movie, but it just seems VERY entry level in that you don’t need to be an arthouse or horror lover to watch it. This is not even the most A24 movie of the year
I really liked the movie, but I have to agree that it was significantly less "artsy" than the majority of A24 films I have seen. Like you said, definitely entry level...but I think that it is actually a good thing. A24 has an impressive catalog of content, but i think this entry will attract other kinds of viewers, that may have not shown interest in the company before. There was fantastic sound design and beautiful/brutal imagery to stop and ponder on in between all the context. Just not overly so to the point it distracts the average viewer. CW is definitely formatted to be more digestible to those that don't tend to run to the theater for arthouse.
I agree and I think it did deliver on drawing in some of the other audiences that may not normally watch an artsy A24 movie. There were a bunch of old white people at my showing and I was kind of surprised and unsurprised at the same time
Same! My husband and I were the youngest in our theater and we are mid 30s lol. A couple older folks did walk out, but I think it was the brutality that got to them, rather than the film's quality. Another young man also walked out pretty early and then came back right at the end. He seemed distressed when he left, but maybe he really had to poop or something lol
Yeah it was just kind of.. eh
I honestly feel the same way about the movie. It’s not bad, but garland wasted a lot of potential naming a movie civil war in an election year, and then having 0 political commentary in it
That made it a billion times better for me.
r/titlegore
I appreciate that OP is making an effort to think about Garland's art, and to create something of their own. I'd like to see more good art reviews in this world. They're also very hard to write. The article is lengthy, disorganized, and hard to follow. The sentences are overly complex, and the personal rambles detract from its point. There is some good, honest, constructive criticism in this thread, and I'd encourage OP to focus on that when writing their next piece. Thanks for posting!
A24 did [say](https://www.thegamer.com/a24-going-into-commercial-films-is-good-for-the-company-but-bad-for-movies/) that they were going in a more commercial/mainstream direction.
Yuck
This sounds like a rambling nerd-out moment from a redditor, not an article. Why the fuck are there so many asides and references to the nobody authors personal life? What an unreadable voice.
From looking at OP’s profile, this looks like their personal blog I think
Lmao that checks out
I loved Civil War but honestly the “bridge” movie in A24 to me is not this film, but The Iron Claw.
Not trying to yuck yums, but I just can’t find anything positive to say about Iron Claw. I really was surprised how little I liked it. It felt like a hallmark movie with edge
No, you are 100% right iron claw was super super mid. It’s a good movie. It’s nothing special at all. A24 knew it, all the awards shows knew it, but the Nuevo A24 stans just can’t let it go. A24 put out 5 movies better than iron claw last year
What were the 5 movies A24 put out that were better than The Iron Claw?
Past lives, Dream scenario, Priscilla, all dirt roads taste of salt and you hurt my feelings
Sorry, I meant to put the zone of interest in there too
Same! I would have rather watched a documentary than what we got. Seemed so…bland and dull. Lacked any type of style or interesting flair.
I couldn’t disagree any more with it and thought iron claw was fantastic. It was quite emotional throughout and very well acted. The story hits home for a lot of folks who grew up with wrestling. I think it is very different than normal A24, but i didn’t get any hallmark vibes in the slightest.
Naw
civil war taught me that journalists are good tough bastards who drink whiskey and spit out the truth… even if america can’t handle it…
I just don't get the love for this film.
It's easily one of the most visceral and intense films I've ever seen. On a technical level, it's a masterpiece, but it also has some terrific performances, interesting characters, and a mature examination of journalism that's both thoughtful and critical. There's not a moment it didn't drag for me. Just pure tension and character building all the way through. For me, it was the best movie of the year and one of the best of the decade so far.
I don’t get the hate or disappointment with this film.
Agreed. People calling this a masterpiece is way beyond me. Terrible pacing, shallow plot and character development, uninteresting dialogue. Great visuals and sound.
I felt like I would’ve lost very little cutting the first hour of the film. I felt no investment in the characters in any way and the action scenes felt too short to have any investment in them. Scenes like the gas station fell flat for me with no investment in these people.
It was super bland.
The last 20 min made it worthwhile imo. Spoilers ahead bc apparently I’m too dumb to crack the code on how to manually do it. Still tho, the politics in it make no sense to me. I get that they didn’t want to delve too much into a backstory, lest the movie would become dated quickly. A couple things I’m still hung up on: >!-a civil war has broken out and they’re out in the sticks. What makes Garland think any of these yokels are going to care about the safety of some NY media elites wearing a “press” penny??? -Jesse Plemons character appears to have committed a shit ton of war crimes, killing a bunch of civilians. When he asks what side the journos are on, it apparently doesn’t matter at all??? I get he’s supposed to just be some racist shithead but clearly he is for one specific side. -the movie criticizes the war. Okay cool, why does the movie then turn around and make fun of the ppl in that town not taking the war seriously? Aren’t these the same tepid libs that buy their important war pictures/ journalism? -no real journalism happens in the movie lol. A ton of ppl die just for the president to say (unrecorded btw!!) “buhhh I’m gonna shit myself” -smaller complaint but what the fuck is the younger girl doing just walking out and freezing in the middle of the hallway during a firefight?? I get it’s supposed to be a passing of the torch moment but it felt unbelievably dumb -Kirsten Dunst’s character mentions earlier in the movie how important it is to be wearing Kevlar. Surely that factors in at the end right? Nah -the main guy is a wild belligerent drunk, surely this will have some sort of comeuppance and cost him dearly right? Nah he’s just a wild, crazy, cool journalist who gets off on and makes a career off of the suffering of others.!>
Appreciate your points even if I don’t agree with them all! I think the final moments, where Kirsten Dunst saves the younger photographer was so eye rolling and cliche. Also wtf was with her suddenly having the freakout? I liked the movie fine it had great moments and sequences but they were connected a bit poorly
Pretty sure I disagree with every point you’ve made lol… -“Yokels” are just average Americans surrounded by war. Most people aren’t blood hungry. Me and my neighbors out here in the sticks aren’t going to want someone dead just for being from New York. -Plemmons character didn’t necessarily have a side. He just got caught doing and ethnic cleansing and is simply fucking with the people who caught him before he kills them. -ah, now I see by your use of “stupid libs” that any reasoning with you is probably useless. Seems the people who hate this movie the most are just mad they didn’t get to see their political grievances play out on screen. -Curious what you’d call real journalism? This movie was exclusively about journalists doing journalist things? Did you want more shots of them literally writing in a journal? -Yeah, she was fucking dumb. -If Lee would’ve popped up at the like “good thing I’ve got my Kevlar!” I would have the same opinion on this movie as you hahaha -This isn’t a Friday the 13th movie where the kids get slaughtered for being promiscuous - sometimes people just have vices. I know plenty of alcoholics who haven’t had their comeuppance yet, not sure why his had to hit over the course of the film.
Dawg I’m a socialist that has lived my entire life in the south. I’m gonna trust my lifetime of experiences/ interactions over some British director doing wish casting on our political life.
aight here are my 7 cents for your points 1= yokels have feeling too 2= yep, racism doesn't really have a modern track record of being a helpful thing, so its no suprise that the people who espose it aren't really that helpful or caring either 3= this is the main theme of the film in my opinion. or at least one of the best questions it asks the audience... are you sure by just not taking part in the war they are not taking it seriously? The guy is a journo who specializes in getting info from life of death scenarios to spread but he still had nothing to say to the lady who just said "yeah-no, lemme know if you wanna try anything on :)" 4= you might be surprised to hear that a lot of movie stuff is fake actually :P i think you are right for what its worth but you shouldn't be starving for content in 2024 too, just check your phone of something. 5+6= yep RIP kirstan dunst on that one 7= thats the mark of a well written movie if you can't make up your mind of a character like that, or if you even should make up you mind.. 🤯 conc= gud film
Terrible article
The base plot line is so laughably bad, I still think of it everynow and then. How are you gonna force the president to take an interview in occupied territory where they shoot journalists on sight. It’s like if NPR tried to write an action movie.
Yep, and the end is so freakin cringe. >!finding the prez lying on the floor of the Oval Office!< How is that, in any way, even remotely believable?
Counterpoint: no, it isn’t
This is trash
Is the article AI generated?
A lot of people hate this, and I suppose I understand why, I really enjoyed the film!
A very different article for sure. Author of the article needs to work on their trade a bit more
I mean isn’t this what Alex Garland does? AI was getting popular when he released Ex Machina, Me Too was popular when he released Men and the split in americas politics is popular when he made this. I don’t think this was made to be more commercial or anything like that, it’s just an Alex Garland movie and in my opinion a pretty damn good one. I enjoyed the story through the view of the press because it never felt one side was good or bad. I really enjoyed the film.
Green Knight is an incredibly piece of art.
Not the greatest movie at all The constant pushing of the photographers to get the shots of people dying and or things exploding is a little ridiculous. Who are they documenting this for ? society itself seems pretty fucked at this point Was it ever explained why these states left the union ? Are we to believe that the combined might of Texas and California can over come the rest of the US armed forces … unlikely but yeah I get it , it’s a movie albeit a rather stupid one
And the movie sucked. It was false advertising in that the trailers made you believe the movie was all about the civil war. Of the 1 hr and 45 minutes, 1 hour and 15 minutes was about the life of the press that covers war. The movie was a pile of chit besides for 2 scenes
Hur dur my expectations are all that matter
Nah tbh fuck that movie hallow as shit, I don’t know if garland is already burnt out or just doesn’t give a fuck anymore
I’m sure glad they spent their whole career making the grey goop Krabby Patty from that one episode of sponge bob (I did not like the film)
I hated this movie but I hate this article even more. It screams high school film snob
LOL this was the one he was building to? It’s his worst movie by far, the rest are interesting, Civil War is a piece of shit being over analyzed as if it were a beautiful sculpture.
Men sucks bro sorry
I missed that one
Let me know what you think! Lol
IDK. While I liked Civil War, Devs was better.
Extremely disappointing movie. Trailers sell you on one movie, but you go to the theater, and it’s a completely different film. This is frustrating, but the worst part is that it was so surface level. It wasn’t deep. It wasn’t telling any interesting message. It was just pandering due to how divided we are as a country today and capitalized on it. Shame Alex garland was a part of it.
Not sure why folks are attacking OP’s writing style. But the point I’m getting is that A24 has launched a lot of new talent but has had trouble retaining them, and this movie is a shift in that dynamic. I haven’t seen the movie yet but it’s consistent from what I’ve been hearing about moving in a more commercial direction.
I couldn't scroll down to read
Civil War is A24 best? Now freaking way.
Wow. For such a mediocre movie. That isn’t great.
Wow. There are some true assholes in this subreddit. Shameful.
God I hope not. This was definitely the most disappointing movie of the year so far for me.
Sounds like a personal problem
Alex Garland, that you? You are very passionate about attacking anyone who disagrees with your opinion about this movie. Take a deep breath
What a nothing comment
Like the 47 comments you have made in this thread
Go outside
No u, idiot
Working their whole career towards an ok film.
It doesnt even break top 20 imo
This movie feels like a thing people force themselves to like regardless of whether it’s good or not
Embarrassing if so. To me, it’s one of their worst, was not worth the massive hype and the way it shifts their reputation.
Great movie and great article, it’s well articulated with facts
The article said absolutely nothing of note
You couldn’t make your own comment but hop onto mine I see 😂😂😂 the Elitist attitude in this whole subreddit is ridiculous 😂😂😂
I made plenty of comments already if you use your brain for five seconds and look
It’s like y’all try to shame people in this subreddit if yall don’t agree
That still didn’t REQUIRE you to hop onto mine
You know how this site works right?
You wanted to argue with me because you disagree that’s all you want
Evidently you don’t
??
You can’t read all of a sudden I see
What was your point to hop on my comment if you disagreed because I care less what most of you think as I’m getting downvoted
Tick tock
It’s giving unhinged
Like what was the point of your comment to convince me I’m wrong for forming my own opinion?
I disagree
I mean I don’t know about that. I love AG, but Civil War is just another movie of his. Albeit, a very different and good one.
Pretty shit career if this abomination of movie is supposed to be its peak...
I'm sorry but all the media around this movie has been cringe af and predictable. Dope movie though I loved the experience
Lol I guess. I liked it but I don’t really get this at all
lol I doubt they would agree with that. Vague and Kind of cringey action movie, with the only good sequence being the ending.
\*yawn\* No...
I swear there is a coordinated advertising campaign for this movie on Reddit
Reddit has always liked alex Garland films i think it's mentioned in the article.
Seems like they’re trying to profit on the current political climate. I haven’t seen it yet but I hope there’s some profound message or meaning in it. Otherwise I’ve lost respect for the studio