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!
Same. When I saw the trailer, teenaged me—who loved the (original) RED DAWN—was totally stoked for some "what if America disintegrated into warring factions?" dystopian action. 2024 me, however, is considerably less stoked, given the real possibility of America disintegrating into warring factions.
I had the same reaction to Contagion back in 2020. Why??? (I did finally watch it a couple of years later, and had a good laugh at the idea of everyone clamoring to get the vaccine. I wonder how Soderbergh feels about his film turning out to be the overly-optimistic rose-tinted vision of the pandemic?)
I probably won't watch CIVIL WAR—not until next January, at any rate—because I just don't need this energy in my life. By all appearances, it's the cinematic equivalent of doomscrolling.
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 shared your skepticism going in, but Keith’s review eloquently describes Garland’s rationale for making the politics vague. I think he’s more interested, per films like 28 Days Later, in what happens when society breaks down and “this could never happen here” happens. I think you need to get past the left/right political dichotomies behind the war in order to engage with what actually interests Garland here. (That said, I think the film makes it reasonably clear where it stands in the end.)
For what it's worth, I also think the California-Texas thing makes more sense in the film than it does on paper (and in the trailer). The political landscape of the war might not be clearly defined, but there are enough tidbits in the script to give you a sense of how we might've gotten here.
I also don't think the politics are _entirely_ vague. The language Offerman's president uses in the opening scene, the ties he wears, they're evocative of another politician.
I viewed this like ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK or THE WARRIORS: this is an America, just not our America. Was very skeptical of the ‘backstory’ seeing the trailers, but just turned off my brain and enjoyed the ride
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!
Same. When I saw the trailer, teenaged me—who loved the (original) RED DAWN—was totally stoked for some "what if America disintegrated into warring factions?" dystopian action. 2024 me, however, is considerably less stoked, given the real possibility of America disintegrating into warring factions.
I had the same reaction to Contagion back in 2020. Why??? (I did finally watch it a couple of years later, and had a good laugh at the idea of everyone clamoring to get the vaccine. I wonder how Soderbergh feels about his film turning out to be the overly-optimistic rose-tinted vision of the pandemic?)
I probably won't watch CIVIL WAR—not until next January, at any rate—because I just don't need this energy in my life. By all appearances, it's the cinematic equivalent of doomscrolling.
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 shared your skepticism going in, but Keith’s review eloquently describes Garland’s rationale for making the politics vague. I think he’s more interested, per films like 28 Days Later, in what happens when society breaks down and “this could never happen here” happens. I think you need to get past the left/right political dichotomies behind the war in order to engage with what actually interests Garland here. (That said, I think the film makes it reasonably clear where it stands in the end.)
For what it's worth, I also think the California-Texas thing makes more sense in the film than it does on paper (and in the trailer). The political landscape of the war might not be clearly defined, but there are enough tidbits in the script to give you a sense of how we might've gotten here.
I also don't think the politics are _entirely_ vague. The language Offerman's president uses in the opening scene, the ties he wears, they're evocative of another politician.
I viewed this like ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK or THE WARRIORS: this is an America, just not our America. Was very skeptical of the ‘backstory’ seeing the trailers, but just turned off my brain and enjoyed the ride
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.
I think that's a clear fault of the movie. I don't want it about 2024 Dems vs Republicans but I need SOME world building
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.
Just to give credit where it's due: The shrewdness of that observation is Keith's. He wrote the review.
(Though I have a big piece planned this week on Garland that will dig into this very thing in the context of his other work.)
Ah, thanks for pointing this out. It was a canny pickup by Keith and unlocked a lot of what Garland's getting at.