|
 Civil War is a dystopian war film by Alex Garland about an American Civil War and follows several journalists as they travel the country to document the conflict. That's all i know about the film tbh, but people asked for a thread and by god I'll make it prevent a CD civil war The film stars Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith:  and Jessie Plemons is involved somehow looking like this  handy historical document:  and some swag for you superfans out there https://x.com/A24/status/1778105939632996358 Runtime is 109 minutes. comes out March 12
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
What a weird map. Gonna need some of your worldbuilding notes on how the northeast and flyover states managed to unify in the post apocalypse Mr Garland
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
The movie probably has something interesting to say maybe but I feel like Garland has gone out of his way to downplay the politics of the movie which feels like a copout. The entire apparent conflict that kicks off the civil war is never outright stated. The closest it gets is mentioning ”the mssacre of Antifa” which in itself gives away where the politics of the movie land. Then you have other poo poo like the movie crediting noted shithead Andy Ngo for archival footage (which, like almost everything else he posts, was probably not actually shot by him) and thanks noted transphobe Helen Lewis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:The movie probably has something interesting to say maybe but I feel like Garland has gone out of his way to downplay the politics of the movie which feels like a copout. The entire apparent conflict that kicks off the civil war is never outright stated. The closest it gets is mentioning ”the mssacre of Antifa” which in itself gives away where the politics of the movie land. Then you have other poo poo like the movie crediting noted shithead Andy Ngo for archival footage (which, like almost everything else he posts, was probably not actually shot by him) and thanks noted transphobe Helen Lewis. Andy Ngo also doxxes people online, opening them up to dangerous situations. Real piece of human trash and should not be thanked in any capacity for anything. Every piece of info I see about this film just puts me off of it. "Apolitical stance in a movie about a theoretical civil war" is some major liberal brainworms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
Saw a preview of this, and though I liked Men while a lot of other people didn't, this film just annoyed me. It's well shot, and the action sequences are very intense and tense when needed, but it's very centrism.txt in how it refuses to say anything political (which unintentionally says something political). A couple of the things I found most annoying: the reference to Dunst's character photographing the 'Antifa massacre', implied to be 20 or so years ago - Antifa as an organised force was not really a thing then so why wouldn't you just reference something more relevant like the Seattle WTO protests? There's apparently not much of a media infrastructure left (there's a mention of the NYT being decimated) and yet there still seems to be a load of big name journalists roaming around but to what end? Are these photos getting published anywhere? A character is wounded but no-one thinks to provide them with first aid, and I'm sure that's something experienced warzone journalists would have training in. While the climactic battle on the streets of DC looks great (as do all the other action sequences), the final storming of the White House appears to consist of one tank and a couple of Humvees, with just one squad of soldiers (plus about an equal number of journalists) going inside to find the President. There's also hardly anybody defending it either. This squad is searching for the Pres but don't first try the obvious location of the underground bunker, though seeing as he's hanging out in the Oval Office I guess they didn't need to. I suppose all this could be down to budgetary reasons, but still Oh yeah, and the credits to that fascist dweeb and noted terrible "coffee is middle class" transphobe writer rankled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TAW8_23ao Carpet fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Saw a preview of this last night, with Garland there. He called himself a 'centrist' and then later said 'centre left' which, well, i think is a chickenshit position. The idea he's spreading that we would all be okay if we just had a 'conversation' or something is not realistic. So for his actual goal of the film, I think its inherently naive and fails. That said.. I'm not hung up on the Texas/California alliance or the absence of politicians other than the president, demagogues, rhetoric etc. I dont necessarily agree with some of that worldbuilding, but get the decisions he made there. I like the movie overall because it showcases both people who get caught up in the moment as well as people who are reveling in the opportunity to start mass killing those they find undesirable. As a story itself, the "we're all bad" hedging works - if you remove the context/knowledge of what they're fighting for or against, and all we see is the violence, its more horrifying. When we have an opinion on who is right or wrong, we may start justifying or rooting for one set of people or another. The film also touches on the fact the war photographers arent just journalists, but are to some degree artists and/or thrill jockeys and makes you wonder to what degree its okay to take pride or enjoyment in any art that comes out of the suffering of real people. Because certainly there's a ton of dark documentaries made artfully, or have tried to have 'fun' in editing, etc, etc. I just think the fact its called "Civil War" and is out at this time puts pressure on it to do more, say more, be more, if not be everything, and it was never going to be able to rise to that level. I'm seeing more daggers out about what it isn't doing than what is actually on screen. You give it a different title and maybe people give it more grace. Flawed and not the kind of New Civil War movie I'd make, but interesting and well made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Carpet posted:
Remember how they had Canadian dollars? My assumption is they're able to sell beyond their borders A friend talked to Garland about that and told me he had no idea who Andy Ngo was and its not an endorsement. And based on things he said about January 6 in the Q and A, I believe him. They did not mention Helen Lewis. I do believe that was actually in the producer thanks (I dont know myself, they cut off the credits for a Q and A) but its not unreasonable to suspect a British centrist is apathetic to TERFism if not a TERF themself. I'm hesitant to jump to conclusions, but I do very much wish both of those credits were not there. MasterSitsu fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
The movie as a concept is far more interesting to me as a neutral look as to how a civil war would actually affect unaligned civilians, which based on all previews, appears to be the primary focus. The centrism doesn't bother me, and honestly I struggle to see how you tell that specific story without having a neutral approach to it. Also, relevant to a lot of criticism I saw, the word "world building" and criticisms along those lines should be deleted from any film watchers vocabulary, I'm sorry, it's just not very important to have a detailed background on how the on-screen situation came about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The movie as a concept is far more interesting to me as a neutral look as to how a civil war would actually affect unaligned civilians, which based on all previews, appears to be the primary focus. The centrism doesn't bother me, and honestly I struggle to see how you tell that specific story without having a neutral approach to it. World building is about the world the characters live in feeling fleshed out. Children of Men probably would've still been a good movie had it just been about a burnt out bureaucrat helping a special woman get to a ship but what makes it an all-timer is the world Cuaron built around them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:World building is about the world the characters live in feeling fleshed out. Children of Men probably would've still been a good movie had it just been about a burnt out bureaucrat helping a special woman get to a ship but what makes it an all-timer is the world Cuaron built around them. but it wasn't, really. not in the modern way worldbuilding is used which implies thoroughly logical and thought out world details. it said "ok people stopped having kids. go." and built the rest by actually being a movie with good characters, good dialogue, and good set design. no one was complaining that the world map released before the movie showing the borders between Europe and the UK didn't make sense, and how did the military work, and what about....
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:but it wasn't, really. not in the modern way worldbuilding is used which implies thoroughly logical and thought out world details. it said "ok people stopped having kids. go." and built the rest by actually being a movie with good characters, good dialogue, and good set design. People stopped having kids 20 years before the movie started. And the movie alludes to plenty of things that we do not see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:but it wasn't, really. not in the modern way worldbuilding is used which implies thoroughly logical and thought out world details. it said "ok people stopped having kids. go." and built the rest by actually being a movie with good characters, good dialogue, and good set design. Yeah, agreed, so much of the pre-watch criticism of this film is bullshit. Also, I don't really care what Garland says in interviews, there is absolutely no way this film is apolitical if you actually watch it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:00
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The movie as a concept is far more interesting to me as a neutral look as to how a civil war would actually affect unaligned civilians, which based on all previews, appears to be the primary focus. I do feel like its designed more to horrify other centrists than it is to try and win points with (or annoy) anyone else. The centrism of it is to warn of extremism without defining the positions of any extremists themselves, leaving it to the audience to determine what 'extremism' is. I'm not saying that puts it in a "not for me" zone where its beyond criticism. In fact it invites it. Given a core theme in the film among the reporters is to put images out there and let other people decide what to make of it... it's messy, it's arguably cowardly or irresponsible to balk on saying what extremism is, but open to criticism of itself in a way i find more admirable than say, South Park and how dogmatically centrist bothsidesism it can be. CelestialScribe posted:
In the Q&A last night, he very very very clearly stated that despite the lack of rhetoric he considers it a political film. MasterSitsu fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
MasterSitsu posted:it's messy, it's arguably cowardly or irresponsible to balk on saying what extremism is The film is very clear about what extremism is. The film does not make it ambiguous in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
There is a scene in the film where there's a standoff of people shooting at each other. The forces the main characters are with have no idea if the people shooting back at them are of an opposing force, or just people shooting at anyone who gets close to their property. There's another in a small town where the danger is definitely there, but everyone goes about their day as if nothing is happening. Both of these scenes to me were interesting to me, making the point that even in extreme times there will be people who want to pretend its not happening, and that there are those who will violently resist taking a side at all. I can at least say, as far as the films' centrism goes, I enjoyed seeing such a harsh criticism of apathy, that in such extreme conditions that there is no 'staying out of it'. I think years of South Park have suggested that just carrying on with the status quo is both morally correct as well as safe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
MasterSitsu posted:There's another in a small town where the danger is definitely there, but everyone goes about their day as if nothing is happening. The entire reveal about the snipers on the roof was that they aren't going about as if nothing is happening. They're engaged in the conflict just as much as anyone else, if only to keep it "out".
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:33
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:The entire reveal about the snipers on the roof was that they aren't going about as if nothing is happening. They're engaged in the conflict just as much as anyone else, if only to keep it "out". That's kind of what I meant, that those snipers are basically(probably) the same as the Winter Wonderland guy shooting at whoever comes near, they are just pushing away anything... which allows other people such as the shopkeeper to more or less operate as if its not there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
MasterSitsu posted:That's kind of what I meant, that those snipers are basically(probably) the same as the Winter Wonderland guy shooting at whoever comes near, they are just pushing away anything... which allows other people such as the shopkeeper to more or less operate as if its not there. Interesting, I didn't take the Winter Wonderland sniper as that, but you could interpret it that way. I thought the combat in the White House was very well done. I have no idea what Kirsten Dunst was doing in this movie. I think she's a decent actress but her performance in this was so minimalist as to be completely empty. I got absolutely nothing from her in this movie. Maybe it's just her face? She had one expression the entire movie. The young photographer was much better imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
The very first scene with the President practicing his speech is a pretty obvious "This is Donald Trump" approach. "People Are Saying" is one of his signature lines. The Director isn't going to come out and say it in public. I am sure it's not-Melenia in the final battle scene too. I didn't mind the White House being near-empty at the end. When the Russians got to Hitler's Bunker it was empty for everyone except some staff (and you see several bodies as they walk in). This movie had to end in the Oval Office, not some grey underground boring room. It makes the final photo the point. The battle scenes are very well done and it's a movie of it's times and a big fat warning on who to not vote for this November. The Director apparently got the actors to watch Come and See to get in the right frame of mind. Will not want to watch it again any time soon (it is very violent and intense and has scenes that will be hard to forget), but the next time I do, I need to take note of the staff in the background I didn't see the first time. There's a lot you'll miss on a TV that will show up more on the Big Screen. I give 5 out of 5 battle-scene stars. Comstar fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:but it wasn't, really. not in the modern way worldbuilding is used which implies thoroughly logical and thought out world details. it said "ok people stopped having kids. go." and built the rest by actually being a movie with good characters, good dialogue, and good set design. Having a logical and thought out world in a movie isnt a modern idea
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
The reason for the war is stated early- the president got a 3rd term and 2/3 of the country revolted into different factions and judging by the war crimes we see they were right to do so. Faulty Towers had a better explanation for WW2 than nearly every other WW2 movie and you don’t complain about the lack of world building. Does the new Fallout series explain what caused the war?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Overall I liked it. It tried to say it wasn't political but obviously it had something to say about people. I'd like to call out the sound design. Really incredible. I saw in the same Dolby theater I saw Dune in and the sandworms had nothing on the Apache helicopter in DC. Carpet posted:Saw a preview of this, and though I liked Men while a lot of other people didn't, this film just annoyed me. It's well shot, and the action sequences are very intense and tense when needed, but it's very centrism.txt in how it refuses to say anything political (which unintentionally says something political). I’m not certain they meant it to be “Anti Fa”. To be honest I just assumed from context clues it was referring to some foreign war like we saw in her flashbacks. I guess it could have been but as you said the timeline would be weird. quote:
This is a civil war in America. It’s not the end of the world. The NYT might be out but for the most part it seems like most services are functional (WiFi, gas stations, bars and hotels). Plus a lot of the other journalists we meet are foreign journalists. Just like Lee was talking about reporting on foreign wars and hoping it would be a message to her home, these foreign journalists are reporting on the Civil War in America to the BBC or Hong Kong media. quote:
Tactical Realism wasn't the point of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:20
|
|
|
I thought this was pretty good. Very tight, very entertaining, and very nicely shot. The most interesting element is simply seeing a bombed-out American landscape. North Americans are so accustomed to the visual language of modern war being about exploding slums raining impoverished middle-Easterners onto crowded bazaars and whatnot so it's kind of a novel shock to see our sprawling drive-through-mall culture get the same treatment (very Walking Dead). As an anti-war film, it's pretty striking, and even feels like a criticism of centrism. The main throughline hammers down on the typical theme of "it's not personal until it's personal", but it works as a hook for a series of road movie skits, though I wouldn't have minded even just another ten minutes of runtime to round out some of those scenes. I also kind of think that it works directly against Garland's dumbass quote about left and right not being a moral issue, because Civil War is all about how the personal is unavoidably political (and vice versa) and that pretending otherwise is akin to delusion. It's all fun and games to take totally rad pictures of people's heads blowing up until the head that's blowing up belongs to someone you care about. It's at its best when it's embracing the surreal vibes "it CAN happen here!" element (Sturgill Simpson crooning "it's all a dream...it's all a dream..." over Wagner Moura screaming silently in agony was particularly good). As a story about ethics in photojournalism it's fine but pretty simplistic, it really feels like Garland just wanted to make his own Last of Us movie and uses journalism as a handy hook. Mostly it's just nice seeing a movie that gets in and gets out and has consistent momentum. It's dynamic and entertaining and that's all I ask for from a regional apocalypse. Garland's weenie-rear end centrist comments hang around the neck of this movie like a millstone, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1778581810772894036
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
The Antifa massacre was told so you can’t work out if it’s Antifa killing people or the people of Antifa got killed. Garland would have been strict orders not to be able to claim one side of the other caused the war because that would be bad for making money for the movie. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I would like to see the Ken Burns 24 part documentary about the war though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
I won't be seeing it until Saturday, so I can't post any real takes on it, but it seems weird to me that a few people have called it cowardly for not aligning itself with a specific ideology. Kind of seems like the entire point of the movie. Also if it was just doomer "oooh look what the republicans are gonna do to us" poo poo it would be so weak. Like a lefty version of a Kirk Cameron movie. Ditching ideology to focus on the division itself frankly seems kind of ballsy to me, because it's bound to make a lot of people uncomfortable and pander to no one. Anyways, Alex Garland is one of the loving GOATs and I can't wait to see it this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 04:01
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I won't be seeing it until Saturday, so I can't post any real takes on it, but it seems weird to me that a few people have called it cowardly for not aligning itself with a specific ideology. Kind of seems like the entire point of the movie. Also if it was just doomer "oooh look what the republicans are gonna do to us" poo poo it would be so weak. Like a lefty version of a Kirk Cameron movie. Ditching ideology to focus on the division itself frankly seems kind of ballsy to me, because it's bound to make a lot of people uncomfortable and pander to no one. Ditching ideology to focus on division itself has been the party line for every single american liberal media outlet for the last 30ish years. It's literally the polar opposite of ballsy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
Seeing Andy Ngo's footage of the 2020 Portland protests in the first 5 minutes hit the audience like a brick to the face here at the Hollywood Theater, considering that all happened literally less than 4 miles from where we were sitting. Overall I enjoyed it. If you set this movie in any other country (say Miramar or Yemen which are having actual civil wars right now) I bet a lot of detractors wouldn't be bent out of shape about the political landscape of the movie. Decompressing afterward at the bar with friends discussing it and we agreed that if a civil war in America happened a lot of things would probably play out as the film depicts some scenes. I'm going to take another first aid class to brush up on the latest techniques & work on fostering better community connectivity… just in case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 07:41
|
|
|
Majkol posted:Ditching ideology to focus on division itself has been the party line for every single american liberal media outlet for the last 30ish years. It's literally the polar opposite of ballsy. you know, they call it the United States and yet it seems... we're more divided than ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 13:05
|
|
|
I don't understand how people think it should be more political. They clearly portrayed POTUS as a fascist. Did people want the journalists to take up arms themselves? Wax poetic directly into the camera about Nick Offerman being an rear end in a top hat, which sort of happens when they're in the truck anyway? It nailed the fly on the wall following these journalists vibe. When those plain clothes dudes were fighting in that building and took the uniformed prisoners, I wonder if those were Florida Alliance people? Kaddish fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Overall I enjoyed it. If you set this movie in any other country (say Miramar or Yemen which are having actual civil wars right now) I bet a lot of detractors wouldn't be bent out of shape about the political landscape of the movie. Yemen's a funny example to bring up here. Almost certainly where you're from and where you live has taken a side, yet it's presented to you as "complicated", "assholes and douches" South Park style, so you can remain an agnostic know-nothing. This is the issue with the chilling political divide or whatever, we haven't gone astray because we abandoned enlightened centrism, lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
Kaddish posted:I don't understand how people think it should be more political. They clearly portrayed POTUS as a fascist. Did people want the journalists to take up arms themselves? Wax poetic directly into the camera about Nick Offerman being an rear end in a top hat, which sort of happens when they're in the truck anyway? They also noted this which was seen in one of the main trailers:  The sniper in a US MultiCam uniform has dyed multicolor hair and both blue & pink nail polish, which could be code that the sniper is trans. I'm fascinated how this movie is not letting the audience know where each faction's ideologies lie. The only thing we know is POTUS got a 3rd term & dissolved the FBI. The Boogaloo Boys do capture the soldiers in uniform then black bag them, but then execute them with a mounted M2 general purpose machine gun. Jesse Plemons & his crew are in uniform (I did note they removed their name tapes & ID patches) while doing what looks like an overt war crime. The Western Alliance soldiers straight up shoot the unarmed folks in SCOTUS's limo* & the woman trying to negotiate the President's surrender, and then execute the President after he says his final words to Joel. This movie is intentionally messy & ambiguous. If this movie took place in any other country having a civil war like some are right now Americans wouldn't be reacting so severely. Anybody that thinks "This can't happen here (in America)!" are literally the woman in the clothing store looking bored & reading a book while armed men are on the rooftops of nearby buildings. *I did like the somewhat accurate moment when the Western Alliance soldiers yelled "Beast! Beast! Beast!" when the limo peeled out of the White House. "Beast" is the code word for the presidential state car. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yemen's a funny example to bring up here. Almost certainly where you're from and where you live has taken a side, yet it's presented to you as "complicated", "assholes and douches" South Park style, so you can remain an agnostic know-nothing. This is the issue with the chilling political divide or whatever, we haven't gone astray because we abandoned enlightened centrism, lol. This is a very fair point. I was born in a large American Midwest city, but my family moved to a very rural part of northern New England when I was young and grew up there. Went to college in the South, now I live in the Pacific Northwest. I've been to 49 of the 50 states (guess where I haven't been to yet!) and I hope I learned a thing or two about how Americans are, but I also acknowledge I am no expert in the matter. The "it's complicated" rethoric sounds like a simplistic cop-out but we don't have time in a 1 hour 49 minute movie to dig deep into the weeds on why these things are happening. That's left for the eventual 10-part Ken Burns Civil War sequel documentary series. Android Apocalypse fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
I will probably see and be superficially thrilled by this film but we gotta be real here. You can't say it's timely and evocative, then when asked what it evokes, tell people to shut up. We just went through this with LEAVE THE WORLD BEHIND (executive producers Michelle and Barack Obama). These people are bringing their politics to us, then saying "relax, it's just a movie".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
I haven't seen Leave the World Behind yet and as much as I liked Esmail's Mr. Robot I just didn't feel interested enough to bother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Seeing Andy Ngo's footage of the 2020 Portland protests in the first 5 minutes hit the audience like a brick to the face here at the Hollywood Theater, considering that all happened literally less than 4 miles from where we were sitting. I was extremely removed from these events watching the movie in St Johns. I did like the little quip about the Portland Maoists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Saw this last night. I felt absolutely brutalized by the end of it. I was starting to lose my appetite by the time they showed up to DC. Garland has always been grasping for greatness to me, and this movie again came up short. I realize he's quite divisive and lots of people loved Devs/Annihilation, but those were both fairly flawed imo. I wasn't expecting this film to feel like such a synthesis of 28 Days Later, Children of Men, and Black Hawk Down. And I may be an idiot because I definitely had my antennae up for it and I couldn't really suss out what the ideologies were of the various factions (the California/Texas thing just underscores how intentionally ambiguous its supposed to be). But even the fact that the POTUS had a third term didn't signal anything to me because it feels as much like a fascist takeover as a FDR-reprise. I'm in the camp of people wishing that he put his thumb on the scale a bit more. If this came out in an era of less asymmetric polarization I might feel differently, but at time when the US is actually staring down a fascist takeover in a matter of months, it seems very cowardly to not call that out directly. I left the movie without a very clear take on things, and I'm still gathering my thoughts about it all. My initial reaction is that it feels like an empty provocation that was nonetheless gripping and well-made. I'm certain I'll never have wherewithal to watch it again. A few other stray thoughts: - Kirsten Dunst pushing the younger photographer out of the way was an irksome cliche in a movie that mostly did a good job steering away from that. - There was a shot where their SUV drives under an overpass that has "Lets Go Steelers" spraypainted onto it, which elicited a sort of ineffable nostalgia, and then as the car moves from the left part of the frame to the right, my eye moved directly to the bodies that were hanging from that same overpass (which was reminiscent of Sicario). Did anyone else take that frame in the same way? I don't know if it was intentional, but the way my eye moved across the frame felt like a brilliant forced move on Garland's part. - The Jesse Plemons scene was just excruciatingly scary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 17:49
|
|
|
zelah posted:I was extremely removed from these events watching the movie in St Johns. I did like the little quip about the Portland Maoists. The "Portland Maoists" got a chuckle from the audience. Mods please change my username to Portland Maoist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:If you set this movie in any other country (say Miramar or Yemen which are having actual civil wars right now) I bet a lot of detractors wouldn't be bent out of shape about the political landscape of the movie. If Garland made effectively the same movie but set in China, it would be considered profoundly misguided and racist instead of just implicitly so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
Or "chillingly plausible"??
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2024 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
What else this movie is missing despite have a 2 male and 2 females in the lead- any and all romantic angle. Which is a good thing! Not many other movies with 2 men and 2 women in a road trip wouldn't have had one. Also it didn't menace the women in a conflict zone with any sexual assault overtones (though it starts to set one up at the Gas station but then immediately stops you worrying about it because there's a bigger problem hanging in front of you). I don't know he made this movie on 50 million. And they got to use a lot of US Military vehicles - did they loan them from them or can you hire them out now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2024 00:48
|
|