Civil War

[Richard]

I've just seen a trailer for Alex Garland's new film Civil War, and it looks brilliant. He's writer and director. Out in Spring. Looking forward to seeing that.

[JayzusB.Christ]

It sounds brilliant.  I'm looking forward to it, but the premise also scares the bejesus out of me, given the real situation across the pond right now.

[Hawkmumbler]

Well. That was fucking wank.

[Richard]

Damn, really?

[Hawkmumbler]

Wan centrist hand wringing. Seen arguments being made Garlands unwillingness to make any sort of socio-political statement is the point but...NOT making a statement is still making a statement. Make some sort of argument one way or another on binary political Pidgeon holing at least, lest all you're left with is what we got. Vague, hollow gesturing in the general direction of demarcations and echoing 'really makes you think, huh?'.

Craven in its cowardice, ugly in its mediocrity. Stank.

[Funt Solo]

Empire gives it four stars, and summarizes thusly:

"As a political statement, Civil War is provocative and occasionally exasperating; as a purely cinematic experience, it is urgent, heart-in-mouth, extraordinary stuff."

I don't always agree with Emp, but it's higher on my respect-o-meter than random net-worriers. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing it's going to lean anti-populist, anti-fascist, anti-militant - but subtly because they want MAGA-heads to watch it as well.

[Hawkmumbler]

Curious review, especially given the last two paragraphs seem to wholesale misrepresent pretty boilerplate aspects of the narrative.

The ever readable Matt Lynch sums up my own take away (with a few derivations, of course) better than I actually could.

[Funt Solo]

He opens by pissing all over Alex Garland's other films, so can I suggest his review is going to lack balance? Then he complains that Civil War is about a Civil War - which is, well, it's moronic, isn't it? Snakes on a Plane should've been called what?

I think I'll stick with Empire, for at least an attempt at balance, and a hiring and editorial process that would sort the wheat from the chaff.

[Richard]

83% on Rotten Tomatoes (based on 253 reviews).

[Funt Solo]

I haven't seen it, but I've realized an irony based on the trailer. So, trailer-spoilers...

The complaint percolating through reviews seems to be that Alex Garland hasn't taken sides. Of course, this is entirely deliberate on his part, and he even has a scene in the trailer that explains clearly why.

A uniformed, armed man has stopped the protagonists on a roadside and is asking them which side they're on. One of the protagonists says that he's American. The gunman asks "which kind of American?" It's clear here that the wrong answer may well result in their summary execution.

Now reviewers are demanding to know what side Garland is on...

[Richard]

Very good point.

Based on Garland's track history, I'm still expecting this to be a great film.

[nxylas]

I haven't seen the film yet, but calquing it onto current red state/blue state geography would be a lazy and obvious option, and doesn't seem to be what Garland is interested in.