Avis des utilisateurs

There are some tricky reviews here and they all have a few things in common. They're all stuck on the economical and social, if not geographical logistics of a union between Florida, Texas and California, and they're all written by Americans. As someone not connected to the States I can say I think their perspective is smeared. This movie isn't about how certain political alliances came together or why certain people engaged in conflict, testified to by the fact that you don't ever even learn the president's name let alone the political party. You might want more out of the movie asking how all this came to be and you may be asking in hope of gaining allegiance to one side of the conflict or the other. The fact is this movie is not About the Why, the How or any of that. This movie is a war documentary that happens to be placed in an environment that you are familiar with. And in that respect it is superb. The acting is excellent and as required, the cinematography is very very strong. It's well paced and well written and gives you everything it promises. I think Kirsten Dunst is not as good an actor as she thinks she is but that hardly tracks from the powerful collective performance of the four main cast. This film is about the visceral and unsettling reality of conflict, life and death, and it's brought to you in a familiar place not 10,000 miles away in a foreign land. A choice that makes the impact all the more real. Sure, doing this runs the risk of the film seeming gimmicky or like any other disaster film but I think it's side steps that with grace and deft. What you are left with his real drama, real moments, real lives and the brutality and human and inhumanity of war. Please just forget the question as to whether this could happen in this exact way and just appreciate the world in which it did.

There tend to be two groups of people who dislike this movie:

• Those who were expecting a movie about war.

• Those who were expecting a movie about politics.

This movie isn't about war or politics at all, it's an adventure story about a group of war photographers. Very little is ever discussed or explained about the war itself, how it started, nor the political affiliations of those involved. The story is mostly about the photographers and how the journey affects them as people.

Through various misadventures the viewer begins to piece together a rough picture of how the conflict is going, but it's never really the focus of the story. If you go in expecting every question to be answered, you've missed the point of the movie. If you were bored by (or entirely ignored) the characters' conversations, and only paid attention when there was killing going on, you REALLY missed the point of the movie.

Overall, I found this to be a very moving film, with compelling performances by all the leads and a superb script. This movie succeeds at what it sets out to accomplish, though what it accomplishes might not be to every viewer's taste.

Civil War isn't science fiction-it's speculative reality drawn from the headlines we scroll past every day. Alex Garland has crafted something rare: a war film without glorification, a dystopia without excess. What unfolds is a portrait of America not as it might be, but as it nearly is-fractured by polarization, eroded by propaganda, and abandoned by leadership more concerned with loyalty than legitimacy.

Through the lens of war journalists (played with haunting restraint by Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny), we traverse a country in pieces-some cities crumbling, others clinging to an eerie normalcy. The genius lies in the nuance: this isn't red vs. Blue, good vs. Evil. It's chaos as governance, ideology as identity, and cruelty as currency.

For those watching recent history with a furrowed brow, Civil War lands like a flare in the darkness. It doesn't tell us what to think-it forces us to ask how close we already are. And in doing so, it becomes not just a film, but a quiet, urgent warning.

Watch it while it's still fiction.

B. Mitchell / J. Vail.

I've watched this Film four times and every time I seem to like it more. Most everyone I know felt let down with It and I almost skipped it. But I am so glad I didn't because I find more of the message each time I do. The soundtrack for me sets the mood with not being mainstream and actually creates an unfamiliar terrifying world. The dark shadows in the photography also set the tone of what the Country is experiencing. Is there action? Sure there is and I feel too much would have ruined the message and the mission of the characters. The action and violence is unsettling, but appropriately placed. I don't think the filmmaker intended to make an action film. Forget what others have said and give it a watch.

There is a good movie to be made about the polarisation and aggression of US politics leading to civil war. This was not it. Uses a grossly undeveloped political scenario as an excuse to show us routine, gratuitous violence and contrived relationships. Casting an actress who looks 14 as a 23 year old was a big mistake and pushing her from wide eyed innocence through a ridiculous, unbelievable journey to awakening ambition via horror was crudely handled. Taking photos of people while they suffer and die is obscene and the pain and gore of violence was trivialised, not dignified by this sad movie.

A truly immersive experience into what a civil war in an America could "feel" like. I was fortunate enough to enjoy an IMAX screening and a particular stand out of the film was the sound design. Civil War uses its surround sound space as I viral part of its story telling. The gunshots truly rock you and surround you, even the sound track has explosive moments that jar you and remind you that you are in a place of chaos and instability. The story is simple but profound, using the 3rd eye or journalism, doing its best to tell an unbiased perspective of the what the world looks like at its most biased... a civil war. See it on the biggest screen and the best sound system you can. Its not a call of duty campaign, its not saving private Ryan, its its own thing so clear your head of expectation and just take the ride.

I think many people have missed the real message of the movie. Could it have been better, of course. However, my rating isn't about the movies political implications, but rather about how it shows the possibility of our country heading in that direction. The film effectively illustrates potential realities we could face. It highlights how extremists on both sides, driven solely by their own beliefs, can overlook the impact on others. One of the early scenes brought me to tears, reflecting on the possibility of such actions happening among us. By the end, I was overwhelmed with a sense of dread. I encourage you to watch this film with an open mind, rather than expecting polarizing content, so you can grasp how quickly our relatively young nation could shift towards such a daunting new normal.

I avoided watching this movie for months after it was released to HBO because, based solely on the title, I assumed it was going to be yet another, lame, pro-America action-thriller, similar to White House Down, and the hundreds of other similar films made over the years.

Civil War is anything but another clone of the pervasive pro-America, presidential, hero, action-thriller. It's a deep examination of the multitude of political attitudes present in modern America, and how those attitudes can create some strange political bedfellows- in this movie, Texas and California have joined forces to overthrow the president of the United States.

Sidenote- I hate it when people look for opportunities to talk about their military service to strangers online, but I did serve three combat tours in Iraq, and the final battle scene was so realistic I actually began to tear-up.

This movie makes a clear statement about the dangerous divisions currently within American partisan politics, and is a warning about a very real potential future. And . . the movie features genuine interpersonal drama, amazing acting performances, and incredible action sequences.

I'm so glad I finally decided to watch this.

Civil War masquerades as a action packed movie that aims to comment on the current state of political division in America, but is afraid to alienate any of its audience so it becomes a strange coming of age story. The movie also tries to comment on war journalism by presenting us with the dangers faced by journalists, but makes the main protagonist incredibly stupid just asking to get shot. She seems to actively want to die, and aims to take every down with her. However when the movie presented me with an action scene I was stunned. The Visuals and Audio were phenomenal. The Action scenes were done incredibly but my only wish was that the main characters weren't in them. In the end I was entertained, but disappointed.

America is getting sick. Alex Garland has offered us a vaccintion for what ails us. Like a serum for snake bite made of venom itself, this film grabs us by the shoulders and screams "You got a civil war fantasy? Fine, I'll put it on a 40 foot screen and dare you to cheer."

Civil War finds it's foundational vision in the eyes of those who for decades have brought us the soul shattering reality of war, free from the romance of Hollywood patriotism- war journalists whose frenzied, conflicted oddysey plunges them into a mad gauntlet of fire and film, killing and kodachrome. Like soldiers in a war of attrition, they must constantly reassess the purpose of thier risks and sacrifices as they watch their colleagues fall for the sake of the priceless pictoral story of war. Three generations of war correspondants traveling together into the insanity becomes the testiment to three phases in the life of such a calling.

We are introduced to the strangeness of how soldiers, out for blood, tolerate and facilitate the prescence of these unarmored observers every step of the way through the hell of combat. Garland seems to tap into some unspoken ethos of universal creedance among combatants that the history of it all must be seen and those who record it must survive to tell of it. It is never explained, merely displayed.

We are reminded that in a modern Americn civil war, rogue atrocity can roll through your city just as easy as it did for My Lai. If you think that in the fog of war we would maintain our civility and morality like gentlemen, think again. For every five patriots there might be one psychopath ready to fill ditches with the innocent dead executed under the jurisprudence of a few unhinged men with guns.

We have no idea why this war is being fought. Perhaps it is a just war. Perhaps it is a crazed cessationist rebellion. We aren't afforded such information. It would only get in the way of the vital message-war is hell and be careful when you tell your fellow American to go to hell for thier political differences. What you end up with might be far darker and damning than you ever dreamed.

The genius of this film rests partially in an absurd alliance between California and Texas, two of the most opposite states in the Union. By joining this ideological odd couple, the story immunizes itself against accusations of partisanship or cultural favortism. Yet it also beckons us to imagine what kind of national crisis could bring such opposites together.

This film will be awarded there is no doubt. Alex Garland has broken new ground and his script and actors and cinemetography deserve all the awards they get.

The title is "Civil War" but that's the closest you're gonna get to an actual Civil War during this movie.

This is sort of a low rent version of Apocalypse Now. The characters are going on a mission to reach the White House. And along the way they wind up in several violent misadventures.

But Apocalypse Now fleshed out the target - Colonel Kurtz. In this story, we have no idea who the President is psychologically and why others want to kill him. So the underlying motivation driving the protagonist is completely lacking.

Moreover, during the course of what is supposedly a war, some of the characters engage in teenage antics that undermine the seriousness of their plight.

As many other commentators have stated - this movie is disjointed. If you're expecting to see a Civil War, DON'T watch this movie. There ain't one in there.

From "The First Omen" to "Monkey Man," "Sting" and "Civil War," it seems that there is something in the air during April of 2024 that is causing Hollywood marketing professionals to falsely advertise their movies. "The First Omen" is more slow-burn drama than horror; "Monkey Man" is barely an action film; "Sting" is basically a coming-of-age children's thriller; and "Civil War" is by no means the explosive, politically charged, and action packed war extravaganza that A24 would have you believe it is. And typically, I wouldn't mind this expectation subverting style, as long as the movie had a tight, taut script, interesting and nuanced characters, refined performances, and a riveting plot. "Civil War" has none of these things.

A24 has a reputation for publishing thought-provoking, artistic pictures that - yes - subvert audience expectations. More than that, A24 films typically have razor sharp scripts and humanistic dialogue that draws viewers into the world, engrossing them in the (often brutal) struggle of the characters that are inhabiting the screen. And oh, how I wish that "Civil War" followed this trend that A24 has been so consistent in practicing.

Directed by Alex Garland, "Civil War" both looks and sounds great. With sound design that sends shockwaves down theatre seats, each and every gunshot borders on deafening to the point where I saw my fellow movie goers covering their ears at points; needless to say, it's effective, adding a certain intensity to the action scenes that is simply missing from other, even more expensive, action films. And from a visual perspective, "Civil War" is a pretty film (a forest fire sequence is especially striking) that also isn't afraid to immerse viewers in the type of grotesque imagery that one would expect from a movie that is depicting a modern-day war torn America. From street bombings to point blank executions, this isn't an easy movie to watch from a thematic standpoint, but man, it sure is easy to look at with the type of lush visuals you'd expect from an Alex Garland film. And if you're coming for action, you'll get it... kind of. The last act is, frankly, mind blowing, following a prolonged action sequence that is certainly exciting, albeit disturbing given the context of, well, a civil war in America. That said, the build up to this sequence is full of, honestly, not much.

Starring Kirsten Dunst as a wartime photojournalist, "Civil War" follows Kirsten and her merry band of psychopa- sorry, of photographers, as they road trip from one atrocity to the next, taking snapshots with the tenacity and glee of a TMZ reporter. Kind of echoing the Jake Gyllenhaal film "Nightcralwer," in "Civil War," Kirsten dons the same blank, lifeless expression as she photographs dead people, dying people, and people who are about to die. Her colleagues do the same thing with varying levels of enthusiasm - some are at first disgusted at the sight of violence, while others literally proclaim "What a rush!" after a fire fight. Many seem to think this film is a glorification of journalism, but I disagree; mostly every character is un-empathetic to the extreme, bordering on inhuman, as they photograph atrocities and never once think to themselves, "Huh, maybe I should step in and help." So on one hand I understand what Garland was trying to say; on the other hand, the characters were so unlikeable that I absolutely hated watching them.

However, and as I mentioned, the film "Nightcrawler" deals with similar themes - the difference is that movie is well acted, and extremely well written. On the contrary, "Civil War" is just bland. The performances are mostly all one note, and the dialogue is so, so silly, with every character acting so unrealistic that I couldn't help but roll my eyes with every word that exited their mouth and with every action they took that no one in their right mind would take. Characters act so silly, and their dialogue is so ridiculous, that it's a wonder they've survived so long in the world they're inhabiting. And it's a shame, because where this movie truly had to shine to succeed was in its characters and script, and both of those things are just not up to par.

This review is a little too long winded at this point, so I feel like it's time for me to quit writing and simply say that "Civil War" is not a mainstream movie, and that's okay. What's not okay is the fact that the movie is full of boring characters, boring dialogue, and a boring plot. The sound design and visuals are incredible, in typical Garland fashion; the rest of the movie is just kind of there. This is not a bad movie by any means, but it's also not that good, and by the time it ended both myself and my movie going partner felt the exact same way about it: Ehh.

I had high hopes for this movie as Alex Garland rarely disappoints,. But its a very shallow script like a six part mini series where the action scenes have been edited into a movie. There is no explanation of why there is a civil war, who is fighting who, what the outcome is or anything else that might cast some light on the situation. We just follow some unimportant characters through some hairy experiences. The movie should have been a mini series with a credible story line and a lot more characters elucidating the factions and their motivations. A week after watching it I had forgotten it! Don't waste your time.

Everybody should see this film. No spoilers, but it is a glimpse into what life could be like in a modern American civil war. Indeed, there is nothing civil about war. It is a terrifying film to me, primarily since it is a future that is possible. Not probable, but not a giant leap either. Collapse of government happens quickly. Just ask a former Soviet citizen.

The film is captivating and intense. The couple next to me in the theater walked out 20 minutes in due to the violence. Guess what: that is what war is. The film does not glorify war; indeed, it is quite anti-war. There are times where war unfortunately is necessary. Please let's not make it necessary within this great country of ours.

See the film. Please.

On the good side there's some very good cinematography. The acting is competent. As for the rest, it's not terrible. To say it's formulaic doesn't take things much further because what isn't these days. There's no actual plot but that's also allowed lately. It's a bit odd that there's no explanation at all about how the USA has found itself in a civil war or as to why the president is ultimately portrayed as such an unsympathetic character but that is ok too since it's really all about the journey of the central characters. As to those characters, they're somewhat stereotypical. You've got the photo hack who's seen all the horrors of war ( in case we didn't get this we are shown a sequence of her reminiscences) there's the ingenue and, as is normal, the hero's reluctance to take her on board and the usual mix of support. In the end you have the new girl getting on with business and proving that she's the real deal. If the characters are a bit cliche'd, the dialogue hardly helps with lines like (I'm paraphrasing because I can't recall exactly but something like) "I've never felt so scared in my life, but I've never felt more alive". It's a bit like a mixture between Watership Down and Apocalypse Now except it really doesn't match up to either of those.

Nope, sorry, this just didn't work for me. It appears that there is a civil war amongst these United States. California and Texas have seceded from the Union and Florida seems to be having a wobble too. The President (Nick Offerman) makes a speech assuring the rest of his country that they've nothing to worry about, but hardened photo-journalist "Lee" (Kirsten Dunst) and her cohort "Joel" (Wagner Moura) reckon that the conflict is quite likely to come to an altogether different conclusion. They bravely decide to travel the 800-odd miles to Washington DC to try and interview him. Their out-of-shape veteran associate "Sammy" (Stephen McKinley Henderson) thinks they are mad, but also wants in on the trip. Meantime, the enthusiastic young photographer "Jessie" (Cailee Spaeny) has managed to hook up with the team and so, rather implausibly, they agree to take her on this perilous journey. It's that implausibility that carries the whole thing as the completely preposterous scenario unfolds before us. No effort is made to fill us in on the cause of this warfare. Did the President seize power? Was he elected from a party these states didn't vote for? Are they just brutal and well armed revolutionaries? Then we have the ridiculous dialogue - usually from Henderson with his "always take fuel when you can" or "this way only leads to death" type profundities as the group travel through a remarkably stable, well fuelled and provisioned, nation where there's hardly the merest hint of mass migrations, fear or terror. Indeed, their blue "Press" helmets and a little bit of kevlar seem to render them immune to the deadly drama that they are supposed to be experiencing. Jesse Plemons makes a brief appearance - that actually leads to the only vaguely exciting part of this chronology, but otherwise it's all a bit on a non-event. Dunst starts off as a strong and characterful woman but that dwindles away and, well, I was just a bit bored as the denouement hoved into view with all the predicability of the sun coming up. It's bitty, episodic, unrealistic and populated with characters in whom I simply could not believe. Sure, maybe it's supposed to be outlandishly apocalyptic, but it reminded me for the most part of an episode of "Falling Skies" - only without the aliens. Perhaps it might resonate better with an American audience? I'm not one of them and this didn't.

Let me start with: the discourse around this film is truly fascinating-and I think it's incredible to read this some time after watching the movie. The trailers were kind of awful marketing imo. This is a character-driven story, but in the most tense way possible. Anything can happen at any moment, and the left swerves are constant. I have to stress that OH MY GOD you have to see this on the big screen! It's one of the most immersive films I've ever seen-I wasn't pulled out of it for even a second and it is so bloody beautiful!

I should not have loved this movie, but I did, because it has some truly wild universal implications-it's not limited to the US at all. I had to take a long time to process this film, but I understand the breathless first reactions: this is not like anything I've seen before, for one particular reason. I also totally get the Apocalypse Now comparisons: now there's another film that contradicted each impulse it put out. One might say that by nullifying itself it too was "empty"-but of course it wasn't. This movie is pretty meta: what I think and say will say a lot about me and how I see the world. That's super cool! But it's not about war (outside of being an anti-war film). It's about war journalism, and spectacle.

A lack of context might annoy people. And why? Well, frankly, because this is a movie that is opposed to American exceptionalism. It aggressively shoves your face in its sameness actually. It renders it banal; a war zone like any other country in another war film where most American viewers likely have little idea of the opposing parties or actors involved. Every gun shot is loud as hell, every explosion is far too much: spectacle, yes, and people ask "to what end?" I find it radical. One can make up five different backstories of how Texas and California seceded separately and then allied against a fascist President: but the only reason you'd have a problem with the fact that Civil War doesn't tell you is because you're too attached to the American-ness of it all. America? Depicted like any other? The cheek! Jesse Plemons' character heavily evokes the Khmer Rouge. There's so many other examples-they remind you of somewhere else (Vietcong references, Afghanistan/Iraq imagery, less domestic parallels than international ones tbh). I admire the provocation to us Americans, I really do. This film is about the spectacle of war and how it would look today: literally any war, anywhere, and here! And it's using the most provocative, iconic setting to do that.

The performances are OFF THE WALL. Dunst is phenomenal, she's the whole-ass movie! We've literally never seen this from her before, and damn, that range. One doesn't doubt her as Lee, a veteran war photographer, for a moment, even though she barely says anything. It's saying a lot that this is up there amongst her best work. Hell, it's one of the best performances of this whole decade. The whole movie plays out through her reactions and tonally she's pitched it perfectly. And Wagner Moura is almost equally brilliant (it could reasonably be considered a co-lead performance imo): his Joel is chaotic, wild, and hedonistic. The depiction of war journalists is so precise: the bizarre, adrenaline-fueling addiction that it seems to require. It's devastating. The film explores the ethics of reporting: where it ends is not stated, but it is clear. In Moura's scream, in Dunst's eyes, in Stephen McKinley Henderson's beautifully wise tone, and then in Spaeny's reverse-mirroring her idol's journey. The score was appropriately surreal, the needle-drops brilliant (deep cuts!), all the techs are undeniably in sync. None of this would've worked without this ensemble, and Dunst in particular. They're not just the characters: they're the whole point of the film.

One might ask: How stupid does Alex Garland have to be to make a film so pointedly open to all the criticism? He knows people will call it "empty", lacking in a "political stance." He knows people will find it bombastic, or that because we're thrown into the deep end, no amount of character shading and performance work will prevent people from saying things like "thin characterization". But Lee, Joel & Sammy (McKinley Henderson) are razor-sharp. Jessie (Spaeny) is the real enigma. I think for Garland, this setting was the only vehicle through which there might be an actual jolt, and he wasn't wrong. The setting is familiar *globally*: what better setting to choose than the icons of a global superpower most people in the world are familiar with? This might seem like a step too far as comparison but people across the world were just as shocked as anyone when the towers went down on 9/11. Why? Because they wondered: it could happen there too? Really?! Garland's somehow made a film that feels real enough to evoke that shock.

I kept thinking with every second I would soon say it's exploitative. But this movie doesn't allow any feel-good triumphalism. It's dark & terrifying. This is the sheer dread and despair of war: there is no questioning that the film is staunchly anti-war: the cost of it all feels so palpable. The aesthetic of this film and the strong emotion it elicits-all clearly intended-is more than enough for me to run with. I would've definitely been annoyed if it had been too definitive. This is an anti-war, anti-exceptionalism film about the nature of telling the truth about war. It's a masterpiece, it just is.