grantdoug

I am an admirer of Garland's earlier films Ex Machina and Annihilation, both are so fresh and innovative, as well as giving audiences the gift of a mystery to wonder about long after watching the films. But as much as a liked those films, in Civil War Garland reaches far higher. Several areas of excellence are handled with the skill of a master on a par with Kubrick: The plot is engaging and suspenseful throughout - pacing is excellent, characters are relatable and the acting is sharply rendered; the cinematography and production design are pitch perfect, special effects are seamlessly woven into the scenes in a very believable way; the soundtrack which at times drifts into pop genres provides an eerie juxtapostion to the constant threat of violence; the military sequences may be the best ever filmed; and finally all of it is woven together in a way that leaves the audience wondering what sequence of events may have led the nation down this dark path. Garland deftly doesn't take sides, and that may be the most significant achievement of all - he leaves that question to you.

"It's too long", someone wrote. Well, I disagree. First of all, French directors don't generally hew to the mad pacing American filmgoers are used to. This is quite obvious - you have to go into the theater with a different notion of what an action film should look like.

The film is extremely tight all the way through. Extraordinary attention to detail, and the cinematography is outstanding. Just beautiful. Yes, the plot is somewhat convoluted - but it's based on an incredible true story. It's also timely in that it informs the audience of the true terror people are living in, in the totalitarian state of Russia. G-d knows how many people are wrongfully imprisoned. This is the story of a man who, incredibly, was able to escape the clutches of the Russian state. It's worth watching for that reason alone.

Middle earth as conceived by commercial greed. It reminds of why Star Wars - Attack of the Clones was a terrible film. Lucas, despite his earlier dexterity with character development and crisp dialogue, led Natalie Portman to the worst performance of her career, because the production seemed to focus on stunning visual effects, not the foundations of why the story in a film and the experiences of the characters engages viewers. I also thought this Rings performance generally sought to save money by casting unknown actors - and too many of them. As Roger Ebert observed of "Clones": "But as someone who admired the freshness and energy of the earlier films, I was amazed, at the end of 'Episode II' to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue. They talk and talk and talk. And their talk is in a flat utilitarian style: They seem more like lawyers than the heroes of a romantic fantasy."