The latest from Alex Garland sends Kirsten Dunst through a self-destructing United States while, elsewhere, a group of Sasquatch faces a perilous future.
I love love love Alex Garland (Ex Machina is in my all time top 3), but I cannot imagine watching Civil War. This reminds me of April 2020 when everyone was watching Contagion: oh god, why? I believe you that it's excellent, I know Garland is a fantastic filmmaker, and having Offerman and Plemons in standout supporting roles is certainly enticing... but, oh god, why? I don't even like seeing the trailer that has been playing nonstop at the Alamo Drafthouse.
Jesse Eisenberg in a sasquatch suit petting a skunk on the other hand- sign me up!
I saw the trailer for Civil War for the first time earlier this week and also felt like it might feel a little too plausible. Will probably want and see what happens post November 2024 before deciding if and when to watch.
Willing to be surprised but a movie about an American civil war that basically avoids politics seems like an incredibly bad idea. Texas and California being on the same side is very... interesting! Surely Alex put a lot of thought went into convincing himself it was plausible, but then he won't even show his work? Just so odd to me.
I walked out of Civil War having no idea about who was what and fighting for xyz. I didn’t think the film was interested in politics, and I felt that was on purpose from the screenplay and some apparent “gaps” in logic. But it didn’t matter because the point was something else entirely, like an epic tale.
My experience with CIVIL WAR was similar to Keith's, I think, in that the lack of clearly stated casus belli mostly worked for me, and gave the whole thing an extra layer of nauseating plausibility. I definitely understand why some people might recoil from this one, or why they might want a more full-throated political statement, given...well, everything. But I also think it has a stronger and clearer point of view than Garland has advertised in his pressers. Love it or hate it, I can't imagine walking out of this and thinking it had nothing to say.
I appreciated the review of CIVIL WAR, especially while rereading it after watching the picture yesterday. I've been baffled by reactions that seem to ding Garland and co. for not making the more politically specific movie viewers expected. Maybe someone could have made that movie, and maybe it would have been a freakin' masterpiece; but as Scott nods to with his shrewd observation about the phrasing of "Antifa Massacre," Garland isn't shrinking from politics out of cowardice or moral muddiness: In my view, he's chasing a more intimate, visceral story about the thrill and corrosiveness of violence.
I love love love Alex Garland (Ex Machina is in my all time top 3), but I cannot imagine watching Civil War. This reminds me of April 2020 when everyone was watching Contagion: oh god, why? I believe you that it's excellent, I know Garland is a fantastic filmmaker, and having Offerman and Plemons in standout supporting roles is certainly enticing... but, oh god, why? I don't even like seeing the trailer that has been playing nonstop at the Alamo Drafthouse.
Jesse Eisenberg in a sasquatch suit petting a skunk on the other hand- sign me up!
I saw the trailer for Civil War for the first time earlier this week and also felt like it might feel a little too plausible. Will probably want and see what happens post November 2024 before deciding if and when to watch.
Willing to be surprised but a movie about an American civil war that basically avoids politics seems like an incredibly bad idea. Texas and California being on the same side is very... interesting! Surely Alex put a lot of thought went into convincing himself it was plausible, but then he won't even show his work? Just so odd to me.
I walked out of Civil War having no idea about who was what and fighting for xyz. I didn’t think the film was interested in politics, and I felt that was on purpose from the screenplay and some apparent “gaps” in logic. But it didn’t matter because the point was something else entirely, like an epic tale.
SASQUATCH SUNSET sounds like a grosser, more wistful HUNDREDS OF BEAVERS (which I saw last night and is my film of the year so far)
My experience with CIVIL WAR was similar to Keith's, I think, in that the lack of clearly stated casus belli mostly worked for me, and gave the whole thing an extra layer of nauseating plausibility. I definitely understand why some people might recoil from this one, or why they might want a more full-throated political statement, given...well, everything. But I also think it has a stronger and clearer point of view than Garland has advertised in his pressers. Love it or hate it, I can't imagine walking out of this and thinking it had nothing to say.
I appreciated the review of CIVIL WAR, especially while rereading it after watching the picture yesterday. I've been baffled by reactions that seem to ding Garland and co. for not making the more politically specific movie viewers expected. Maybe someone could have made that movie, and maybe it would have been a freakin' masterpiece; but as Scott nods to with his shrewd observation about the phrasing of "Antifa Massacre," Garland isn't shrinking from politics out of cowardice or moral muddiness: In my view, he's chasing a more intimate, visceral story about the thrill and corrosiveness of violence.