Civil War movie

Saw this last night at an IMAX theatre. Was so immersed in the story and particularly the sound that I thought I was going to have panic attack at one point. Still bouncing around my head this morning, which is the sign of a great movie I think. It’s not a state of the nation film as you would expect, it’s really about journalism and photo-journalism in particular. As a photographer, it did make me sweat, despite the little liberties. Kirsten Dunst was excellent, and, as usual, if Jesse Plemmons turns up, you’re ****.

Highly recommended.

Also loved Plemon’s cameo. He’ll always be Landry Clarke to me, but he’s just great.

If you’re interested, Garland does a really good interview on the latest Pod Save America episode. He said himself at the end, that it had been the interview he most enjoyed out of all the recent ones he’s done about the film. Seems a decent guy with some interesting things to say.

Will listen to that. Have followed his career with interest since reading The Beach on the Kho San Road many years ago!

We saw it last week. Thought it was good, but somehow not entirely satisfying. I think I wasn’t really convinced by the depiction of life in a civil war, it all seemed too… nice. Despite all the shooting.

I’m not going to see it but what roughly is the plot? Does it involve some Trump like person and all the idiots that follow him?

The film doesn’t focus on the politics, but encourages you to paint that picture.

Saw it a couple of nights ago.. also thought it was brilliant, immersive and thoughtful.

Came away thinking I would have liked to understand more about the war situation, but then read an article where Garland explains why he doesn’t go into great detail. I was satisfied.

Does it involve some Trump like person and all the idiots that follow him?

Not really, no. But, I think they are there.. somewhere

I was very disappointed. Very poor/flat characterization. No explanation for the cause of the civil war. All just a bit vacuous/empty.

To enlarge upon my mixed review above, having read the comments so far and had a bit of a think:

The film is clearly not a political intrigue drama, nor is it an action adventure where the shooty bits are what it is about. To the extend it it about anything, it appears to me to be about the moral/ethical issues facing journalists caught in the middle of a morally difficult conflict. By treading very lightly over the politics, it makes journalism appear a politics free zone, which it is clearly not. (But US journalists tend to have a rather pie in the sky high view of journalistic ethics that is at odds with reality – remember that guy Glenn Greenwald* who got caught up with the UK courts over disclosing sources in the Snowden affair and argued that journalists should not be subject to the rules that affect normal people, much to the bemusement of the judge.) This left a kind of vacuum at the centre of the film, and led to the main characters apparently not giving a fig about the politics of their own country. I am not sure journalists were intended to be portrayed as cynical in quite that way. I have seen other films that are about political upheavel that manage to create authentic characters and raise difficult general issues without detailing the politics, for example Transit.

As to the shooty fighty stuff (I don’t go to see shooty fighty films, though I see some on TV), this was dealt with as if it was a shooty fighty film and that treatment turned me off a bit. Other films have managed better, for example Apocalypse Now manages not to be a war film exacctly despite there being a lot of war in it.

So what you are left with is a rather shallow treatment of the issues of journalistic morals in a time of conflict, with an OK “road trip through a dystopian view of the future” middle and a well done shooty bit at the end.

*A very good journalist whose work I admire

ETA

“No explanation for the cause of the civil war. ”

There is a reference to the president’s third term…

Like most ‘art’ that polarises opinion… it must be something special.
Read a few of the negative reviews on IMDB and mostly thought ‘Yep, I can tell you like very different films to me!’

Just back from seeing it .. A solid 8/10 for me
As above –>>thought it was brilliant, immersive and thoughtful<<
The filming and still shots were excellent,and the way that the bomb blast was used along with the shutter sound was brilliant.
It’s not a stretch to imagine things going that way in a fractured America with easy access to weapons.
Would love to hear a war photographers take on it,and how much as a job they need to stop/switch off caring while working in those areas.

Saw it tonight and thought it was excellent. Intense, gripping and believable.

I’m going to say 9

As per the OP the sound design and score was absolutely fantastic and that alone was worth seeing it at the cinema for.

If you get a chance, read Alex Garland’s piece in May’s Empire magazine about the making of the film. It’s fascinating and really makes me want to see the film again.
From the wrongness of the music, the real looking shootings, the camera used for some of the action.. so interesting .
(Will checkout DD’s podcast recommendation too 👍)

As to the shooty fighty stuff (I don’t go to see shooty fighty films, though I see some on TV), this was dealt with as if it was a shooty fighty film and that treatment turned me off a bit.

The story is the strength and the tension that the actors help build through their performance works wonders.

Some of the ‘action’ it was done well, some of it was truly awful.

Apache hovering in the street, a chain gun with the rate of fire of a minigun and letting hellfire off within the minimum arming range got an audible ‘wtf’ from me.

And that sniper scene… Oh my days.

But that’s cinematography for you, there’s not many movies that get it ‘right’ without some or a lot of artistic licence.

Some of the ‘action’ it was done well, some of it was truly awful.

Interesting – the article I mention above covers some of this. What do you judge “truly awful” on – your comparison to other films covering the same type of action, or your real life experience of this action? Not saying it should be one or the other, but it’s worth thinking about 🙂

If you get a chance, read Alex Garland’s piece in May’s Empire magazine about the making of the film.

He speaks well about it on the Empire Podcast as well, clearly very clued up politically and gave very good measured responses.

One of the reasons I often avoid war movies is often the absence of a coherent story or lack of detail and horrific inaccuracy.

My benchmark is unrealistic on the whole for cinema because it’s about entertainment not to please a has been. 😂

To use the examples I shared, that pair of snipers are using ghillie suits within the confines of an urban backdrop, framed between a building and vehicle with clear air behind them, whilst their adversary is in a building with freedom of movement and excellent concealment.  It’s like a open invitation for heads to be turned into fruit bowls.

Apart from the visual inaccuracies, that Apache is punching high explosive, top attack munitions into buildings well within the blast radius of their own munitions, with all manner of debris flying back outwards whilst exposing their most vulnerable element to top attack.

What would have made a great scene is if someone pushed a load of office furniture out of an elevated window down into the rotors. 😂

As I said, they don’t make movies to appeal to boring has beens like me, thankfully the story and characters made up for some of the clunkier parts of the movie.

He speaks well about it on the Empire Podcast as well, clearly very clued up politically and gave very good measured responses.

Some of the responses to the movie from some sections of the internet are interesting. I think some people feel seen by this movie.

The film doesn’t focus on the politics, but encourages you to paint that picture.

I like that this is unsaid. It’s a very ‘matter of fact’ movie. Rather than a idealogical driven piece.

Some of the responses to the movie from some sections of the internet are interesting. I think some people feel seen by this movie.

That doesn’t surprise me, it does point quite a large finger, but he did say whilst it is clearly aimed at the US, that it could apply to the UK and many other countries.

That doesn’t surprise me, it does point quite a large finger, but he did say whilst it is clearly aimed at the US, that it could apply to the UK and many other countries.

No doubt, although I’m less worried about frustrated airsofters with a gear fetish than I am people with real firearms.😂

I really enjoyed it apart from a few moments (the ending was totally out of whack that’s all I’ll say).

It is basically a character study of photojournalists, borrowing elements well from the book The Bang Bang Club (very interesting and harrowing read apart Kevin Carter et al). Really doesn’t delve into the politics or even the war in general really…kind of a road movie with a few brutal stop-offs.

That being said – I can’t quite reconcile why Garland decided that an American Civil War would be the best setting, rather than just any war…as that doesn’t really come into it much at all. Although I suppose it still gets you thinking about the possibility, and for Americans seeing some of the fighting going on around national monuments like that must be quite striking.

The sound was the best part for me. Those gunshots in the cinema were so loud and jarring.

Also Jesse Plemons almost kicked off my own fight or flight response watching his scene, dude is solid at his job. Apparently his role was initially meant to go to Oscar Isaac, but he pulled out due to scheduling and Plemons was on set with Dunst just hanging out and they gave him the part instead. Can’t imagine Oscar Isaac being the dude to play that character.

The sound was the best part for me. Those gunshots in the cinema were so loud and jarring.

As a Nikon FM manual shutter user, I approve of the camera sound. enjoyed the film more that I thought. Could (and should imho) have been set in any war, anywhere.

Haven’t seen it yet but pretty keen to.

I own the camera it was partly shot on (a Ronin 4D 8K) – it’s a vertically stabilised cinema camera with a gimbal built in.

Pretty much an electronic version of Steadicam.

It’s revolutionised the way I shoot and have done many music/corporate films with it.

Sadly I wasn’t asked to do Civil War. 🤣 But we did shoot our own feature with it last year which we’ve more or less completed – bar the sound mix.

Garland wanted something light/small that could run with the action.

Some of the ‘action’ it was done well, some of it was truly awful.

Apache hovering in the street, a chain gun with the rate of fire of a minigun and letting hellfire off within the minimum arming range got an audible ‘wtf’ from me.

And that sniper scene… Oh my days.

But that’s cinematography for you, there’s not many movies that get it ‘right’ without some or a lot of artistic licence.

Lol, sounds similar to my reaction whenever the “computer expert” turns up and does their stuff.

Lol, sounds similar to my reaction whenever the “computer expert” turns up and does their stuff.

600 keystrokes, 3 words on screen; boom, into the CIA mainframe.