I attended the premiere of author/director Alex Garland's latest film, CIVIL WAR. I have always had a strained relationship with his writing skills; I generally don't think he is very good (to put it mildly). So far, I have not given anything he has written or directed a higher rating than 6 stars out of 10 - some things significantly less. However, CIVIL WAR ends up at 8/10 - even though it still ends up being somewhat disappointing in a couple of ways.
Calling the film CIVIL WAR (in a US context) is a bit of a misnomer. The film is about a small team of war photographers who go on a risky road trip to Washington to "interview" the president, while a civil war is going on in the background. The film's focus is primarily on the ethics of war photography and the personal costs for the photographers. There is almost no political content in the film, so it is a quite different film than most people would probably expect.
The ongoing civil war in the film is completely unclear and undescribed. California and Texas are allied with each other - probably exclusively so that the film - kind of cowardly! - wouldn't favor either the predominantly Democratic Californians or the predominantly Republican Texans. The New People's Army (which appears on a promotional map graphic for the movie) is not mentioned in the film, and we don't hear who Florida is supposed to be siding with either. The photographers seem to be following soldier teams from several of the warring parties, which further adds to the confusion.
However, if you see the film as a film about war photographers and their traumatic experiences, then it is actually a good film. Plenty of action and shocking (and loud!) excitement - photographers can now rejoice that there is an action movie specifically aimed at them!
As I sat in the cinema at the end of the movie, I felt like it wouldn't have great re-watch value; that it was a movie I'd probably only see once. But I must admit that upon reflection and further analysis, I do want to watch it again. Some of those black and white photo shots are like forbidden porn - very cinematically sexy. I stress, "cinematically"!
I sat on row 7 in a large showroom; quite close to the screen. If I go again, I'll hang back to the furthest back-row (row 24) and get a bit of distance to the screen (and the loudness); a bit less in-my-face.
8/10.
Calling the film CIVIL WAR (in a US context) is a bit of a misnomer. The film is about a small team of war photographers who go on a risky road trip to Washington to "interview" the president, while a civil war is going on in the background. The film's focus is primarily on the ethics of war photography and the personal costs for the photographers. There is almost no political content in the film, so it is a quite different film than most people would probably expect.
The ongoing civil war in the film is completely unclear and undescribed. California and Texas are allied with each other - probably exclusively so that the film - kind of cowardly! - wouldn't favor either the predominantly Democratic Californians or the predominantly Republican Texans. The New People's Army (which appears on a promotional map graphic for the movie) is not mentioned in the film, and we don't hear who Florida is supposed to be siding with either. The photographers seem to be following soldier teams from several of the warring parties, which further adds to the confusion.
However, if you see the film as a film about war photographers and their traumatic experiences, then it is actually a good film. Plenty of action and shocking (and loud!) excitement - photographers can now rejoice that there is an action movie specifically aimed at them!
As I sat in the cinema at the end of the movie, I felt like it wouldn't have great re-watch value; that it was a movie I'd probably only see once. But I must admit that upon reflection and further analysis, I do want to watch it again. Some of those black and white photo shots are like forbidden porn - very cinematically sexy. I stress, "cinematically"!
I sat on row 7 in a large showroom; quite close to the screen. If I go again, I'll hang back to the furthest back-row (row 24) and get a bit of distance to the screen (and the loudness); a bit less in-my-face.
8/10.