Relentlessly provocative (/s).

They say an image is worth a thousand words. This movie is as deep as that cliche. Speaking of which, was there any other way this film was going to end? No not the 28 Days Later like raid of the White House, but the central war journalism story. And then the last exchange…was it really worth it? This seems to be a critical darling, but does this really paint journalism in a good light? And not that it has to, but the response is a little puzzling to me.

What isn't puzzling to me is that the one thing this has going for it is that Garland is very good at building tension. If you don’t like tension and sudden violence this isn’t the movie for you. I didn’t like Civil War but there are sequences that are scarier than most horror movies. The only problem is that I wish the movie felt like a cohesive story and not just a string of sequences. (the Civil War tie-in game soon to be available on all gaming consoles)

I knew not to go in expecting any sort of reflection or scathing commentary of American society and politics, and to be fair Americans have made many films at other countries expenses so someone returning the favor feels due. But, I don’t know, I did expect something more than war journalists riding the fine line between feeling alive and dying. Even during an imaginary second American civil war, that doesn’t feel interesting to me. It feels like a trick to take advantage of a spicy political climate.

And are you trying to tell me JCPenney was able to hold on until right before the civil war started? In a movie filled with unrealistic situations that was maybe the worst. Or had that mall been abandoned for years? (turns out this movie takes place in an alternate reality)

Jesse Plemons steals the movie (shocker) and Cailee Spaeny, well, looks like I need to make Priscilla a movie watching priority.

C

Yeah the movie is more about photography than it is about politics. Very cold, very dry, very hard to connect with. Plays more like a road trip through the post-apocalypse than anything comtemporary. All of the aspects of the film are excellent made, from the camera work to the sound to the acting. Yet it just doesn't really add up to much. And I don't think the expensive action scenes really helped much with that. This is a Kirsten Dunst vehicle about a hardened wartime photographer who is replacing herself (though whether she knows or this or not is one of the few things up for debate.) I just think you have to do more when you set the damn story in the midst of an American Civil War that is never once realistic. Most Americans would just be the like the town that was ignoring the war. We are too comfortable to risk our lives. Thus why the real civil war will be between fanatical followers of Trump's children.

I'll give it a 5.9/10. Just a bit under a passing grade. If they had set this same movie in some not-America country it probably would be in the 6.5-7 range. A little bit less disappointment, but the movie would still have most of the same issues.

Wow this movie was dull. Didn’t care about the characters at all. The story was convoluted and it needed a bigger budget.

I quite liked it. Some very chilling scenes and thought Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaney were great.

This proves that all the "wow this film is amazing, best of the year etc" early tweets are just paid hyperbole.

I was expecting a better film. I wanted a pulse pounding war film with a side of political commentary. What I got was, in a word, tame. Beyond the idea of California and Texas joining forces - which is absurd but I can go with it - I just didn't buy the characters and their reactions or their back stories contrasted with their current forms. The storming of the White House was the climax but it didn't feel especially riveting. The Jesse Plemons scene is better, and even that was isolated. A tough war journalist crumbles at the sound of gunfire, and in general the characters have way too much time to ponder and chat, time which should have been dedicated to building suspense, but it instead levels it. Another way he kills momentum is by the constant b/w still shots. Doing this film from the perspective of photographers feels odd. I love photography but surely to document ultra dangerous events then video is more practical. Besides that I just couldn't get with this idea that war photography now needs to capture the death shot. They're no longer interested in aftermath shots, they need to be up in the action on the frontline...and not a single soldier tells them to go away because they're either in danger themselves or endangering others. The press documents conflicts now but they're not allowed anywhere near real danger.

The film was OK, I guess, but Garland seems to just want to showcase his favourite songs to images of war and melancholy. I did laugh out loud at Plemons' response to the sobbing Asian guy, rightly or wrongly.

Decent film, but one of Garland's lesser films. I really enjoyed the soundtrack and some of the visuals in this, but the narrative doesn't quite hit it out of the park for me. It's a pretty good what if film, but it's so heavily focused through, literally, the lens of the photographer that I find it a shame it we don't see more of the bigger picture of the Civil War story. I like it all together, but the cast is also just fine, only Spaeny stands out for me, and the film doesn't quite offer enough to be as great as the trailers suggested.

B