Civil War by Alex Garland

We have Second American Civil War as a recurring trope, much like World War III. The movie generally feels like a one-off, it's fairly thorough in terms of Worldbuilding but not so specific that it feels like the start of a new franchise. Which is common with Garlands films. The theme of the movie relies on these specific characters in this situation and any sort of expansion with more story and new characters turns that theme into a gimmick.

Edited by EmeraldSource on Apr 15th 2024 at 4:03:58 AM

Initially I was against seeing this film because of how utterly uncomfortable of a topic it is, or how it might end up eerily predicting potential near future events in America. The mere idea that some Americans romanticize such a conflict and portray themselves as being hardcore survivalists who would somehow be badass enough to survive and sit out events as the nation fell apart while enacting vigilante justice is far too common online, and my fear was the film would just further incentivize these idiots into thinking they were correct. But after mustering up the courage to go and see the darned thing? I'm glad I did.

Thematically I got the feeling this was more about the phenomenon of "War Porn" and desensitization towards extreme violence and political unrest. The film makes it clear this chaotic state of affairs has become the new norm for the United States, and citizens are well aware of the dangers around them. With one odd (and deliberately creepy) exception SPOILER: that sniper roadblock/killzone with all of the Christmas decorations in the middle of nowhere everyone knows the dangers of navigating the country side and what to expect. The War Porn thing applies to the journalists and their insistence upon getting so insanely close to the combat, often to the point of being suicidal and obstructive, or even taking photos of people dying, being mutilated, tortured, executed... stuff you'd expect to see about some far-away conflict in the Middle East or Africa on a news site like VICE, not here at home.

The film builds tension brilliantly too, but in an oddly obvious way: you often know something very bad is about to happen because of how the journalist team frequently insists upon diving into danger, somehow thinking they are immune or it's a manageable risk, when often it isn't. Yeah, you end up thinking they're over-eager idiots for it - and I suspect that's intentional - but seeing the consequences play out is often brutal.

The film does have a few annoying moments of stupidity or Hollywood tactics though: that scene with the Apache gunship flying low and attacking a building with it's chin-mounted cannon and missiles while being less than a block away is a big no-no for attack helicopters. In addition to the possibility of the helo getting snagged on low-hanging electric cables or tall lightposts, firing at a target so close not only means infantry could easily shoot you down with an RPG rocket or a heavy machinegun but also that the resulting shrapnel from blasting the buildings could actually damage the chopper. Heck, I'm not even sure if the missiles would even arm or fly accurately if being shot at such short ranges. But again, it's Hollywood, and the film is meant to give spectacle; the reality of the Apache flying above the buildings at a much higher altitude and distance wouldn't be as exciting.

Same goes with (SPOILER ALERT) Lee's death near the end: she oddly chooses to shield Jessie by standing up and exposed in the middle of a shootout, not diving to push her out of the way or top of her, both which would've worked a heckva lot better and still been plausible. But nooo, she's gotta stand up, arms spread out, all dramatic-like, before being shot. Personally, this last one just came out feeling more dumb than symbolic.

And yeah, the film tries to be vague as possible with it's politics - until the end of the film you're never aware of just who the heck is fighting who in a region - but it kinda works since the film's more interested in showing the effects of the war on everyday American life, and how everyone's now at each other's throats.

TL;DR Sometimes art isn't meant to be comfortable, but can still be worth viewing. This is one of those films. And if it starts making certain Boogaloo folks go "man, do I really want this hellhole to happen to us in the future?" then I'd say the film absolutely did it's job.

And the fact that these consequences are reflected on Jessie, the youngest and most inexperienced of the characters we follow; she makes a lot of stupid, reckless, and extremely short-sighted decisions throughout the movie and ends up paying for them dearly. This film might've been entirely different had she not decided to switch cars.

Sorry, I'm late but I wasn't interested in this movie, but I heard about how people complained about this movie's latest posters because it's AI-generated apparently. So I looked it up myself to see if that's true and I thought it wasn't AI generated until the last image (the one on the right). So, yeah I understand why people complain but what are your guys' thoughts on this? Here are some posters I'm talking about.

Edited by Bubblepig on Apr 23rd 2024 at 7:44:55 AM

I guess this is the new CGI now.

Bar that last pic with the boats they're actually pretty OK looking and passable, at least on first glance. Don't really see what the fuss is about.

I don't think they look good. The images become incoherent when you look close enough, plus the lighting is just . . . off. A poster is supposed to grab your attention and make a movie look appealing. These all just look random

The quality is ok. The problem is that it takes away jobs from hardworking artists and a.i. usually steals assets from other artists without giving them credit.

Edited by Freshwater on Apr 24th 2024 at 1:48:20 AM

The twist villain of the film, giant swans.

AI generated art basically searches for elements from other artists and combines them.

Which is stealing and passing it off as original.

Finally saw this movie (Please do not ask me how. I was desperate because in the Philippines, it came out close to another movie I wanted to see so badly that I was more focused on that movie (knowing when to buy tickets and when to leave my house out of traffic concerns), which prevented me from seeing this one in a theater). Two things:

1. Can we consider Joel the bigger Unwitting Instigator of Doom? Why? He was the one who told Tony and Bhai about the trip to Washington D.C. because he drank too much back in NYC, which led to them catching up with Joel's group and Jessie foolishly jumping into the SUV used by Tony.

2. Based on how the Western Forces managed to reach Washington D.C. at the third act of the movie, would it be possible that the Loyalist generals who surrendered to make this possible only chose to do so because they didn't want the civil war to continue to the point they would have been ordered to use nuclear weapons?

Edited by HallowHawk on Apr 26th 2024 at 12:44:01 PM

TL;DR answer is Mutually Assured Destruction.

Long answer is Nukes would be completely pointless for a nation to use in a civil war, unless you're a massive idiot looking to be despised by everyone or in such a position of power that nobody can even retaliate against you anyways (in which case, why bother?). Because the moment you launch one, not only will every other party with nukes now have a plausible reason to retaliate with theirs, your nation will be the phariah amongst the group for starting first and guaranteed to suffer a nuclear counter-attack. It's a lose-lose situation. Plus, you're irradiating your own soil: once the war's over you're still going to have to clean up all the damage, which takes forever.

Now, ideological extremists looking to destroy something they despise, regardless of the consequences? They're the ones to worry about if they ever obtain a nuke. Can't reason with someone who's unreasonable to begin with.

Edited by SgtRicko on Apr 26th 2024 at 6:49:41 PM

If not nukes, what do you suppose made those Loyalist generals surrender? Why didn't they do so when the civil war start? Heck, why didn't they join the Western Forces from the get-go since the Loyalists physically keep Texas and California (the Western States) apart?

Edited by HallowHawk on Apr 26th 2024 at 2:05:53 AM

I mean, the prospect of total defeat and possible execution was certainly a motivator. Considering the Federal Government couldn't protect Washington DC and all.

And yet the Loyalists still controlled most of the US to the point they kept Texas and California apart as I said in .

I get worldbuilding was the least of Alex Garland's concerns but with this map◊ being contradicted in the movie itself over who's winning, that is the biggest plot hole. I get the President was lying but why bother making the Loyalists control most of the country if that wasn't going to be of much strategic help?

Edited by HallowHawk on Apr 26th 2024 at 2:17:23 AM

I mean, the fact that the Loyalist states were unable to protect the capital implies that they were very much not winning.

Fair. Considering how the movie ends with the President being executed and the idea that it'll be a free for all, what'll happen to the nukes in this case?

That entirely depends on what the other states do. The president, the man who caused the war, is now dead. Will the Loyalist Forces fight on without him, or with the top generals also surrendering in DC, will there be peace and a new election as the nation gets on the road to recovery?

There's a good likelihood the supplemental material was largely made at the studio level without direct oversight of those making the film, taking broad footnotes and filling in the details. That's how most Expanded Universe stuff is done, though the likes of Star Wars at least tries to maintain a unified front.

As for Unwitting Instigator of Doom, Joel drunkenly letting others know what their plans were is a pretty abstract example. The event with disastrous consequences was a nightmarish convergence of things and not tied directly to one domino effect. The characters were acting pretty stupid, realistically stupid, but that alone doesn't explain how things took such a sharp turn for the worse and it's actually left vague what happened because all we see is the abandoned van and not the original capture.

Regarding nukes, as horrible as the idea is their primary usage comes in being able to lay waste in someplace foreign. Out of sight, no personal consequences. Using it on your neighbor is an infinitely quicker way to destroy your own infrastructure and turn other neighbors against you.

Edited by EmeraldSource on Apr 26th 2024 at 3:57:38 AM

Film Brain has posted his review of Civil War:

Just a PSA announcement about the movie for those who want to see it in I Max, like Matthew did: this movie is really loud. Maybe consider bringing ear protection, just in case.

Oh god, just like Dunkirk, right?

I watched this film, I liked it.

I was warned that the gunshots and explosions might be too loud, but I forgot taking any ear protection, and in the end it was ok. I guess it depends on theaters. Or maybe I am already deaf .

That's just every Christopher Nolan movie.

In that regards it's pretty realistic. Lotsa films don't really convey just how damned loud even a simple handgun or rifle can be, let alone a .50 cal or tank cannon firing. The latter can blow out your eardrums and make you deaf & shellshocked if you're too close, and the prior is strong enough that you can even feel the pressure change in the air if standing next to it.