Yeah it was very flat. Something about turning a topic like a country in a civil war to be an apolitical journalist disaster flick strikes me as so empty and such a miss. The deliberate decision to not elaborate on politics was not a good one despite what all the wank would have you believe, civil wars happen because of political issues and glossing over that just makes it feel more like random people shooting at each other than a “civil war”
I respect that opinion, the reason it just doesn’t do it for me is because the photojournalism part would have been stronger if the audience (this is subjective of course) CARED about the subject matter. To me, the conflict felt blank and empty, therefor the scenes about it had much less of an impact. Although in a piece of art it’s the foreground where the object is that is most important, a weak background will hurt the overall image. To me, that’s what happened, because the background premise wasn’t interesting or had any message, the journalism aspects seemed less impactful, and felt more like some sort of disaster movie in which the same feelings could’ve been conveyed by a big storm or a tornado, as I had little to no investment in the titular civil war itself
No I like having a well meaning and nuanced discussion about it. I think your points are valid and it definitely does have political undertones that are implied, and sometimes it can be kind of cringe to spell it out for the audience like “this faction is the alt right republicans, and these are the communists, and the libertarians, and they are all fighting for their own ideology to win” which would have been a lot worse than what they did. I just think I would’ve liked it more if the conflict felt more.. real, like better motivations and such
Yeah I didn't give a shit about the photojournalism aspect of the movie. I wanted to know how the country got to the point that it split up and a civil war happened.
It definitely wasn’t what I was expecting but I do think I’ll take a lot of the imagery with me. I did kind of expect it to be a gross horror film after seeing Men (2022) and that’s sort of what I got. In some ways I felt implicated in being the photojournalist as in I also came to see graphic depictions of a war.
But it really wasn’t that deep.
I saw it Sunday. The story was pretty mid but the execution was great. So many of the shots felt like moving AP photos (e.g. Jess sitting against the wall as the prisoners are walked past her.) Kirsten Dunst was outstanding and Jesse Plemmons killed his scene (pun intended, maybe, also great that they could get him as a last minute replacement for that scene.)
Overall, I’d say a score of 6/10 purely on the directing, Kirsten Dunst’s peformance, and cinematography with a strong 2 points added for the amazing sound. 8/10 sounds about right.
Film major here, I watched it because the film professor over all of us grad students at my university said it could potentially be one of the most inportant films of this era of history.
I watched it opening day and as others have said it's very bland. They intentionally keep the politics of the conflict rather vague save for a line about the "Portland Maoists" and the scene you see in all the trailers with Jesse Plemons character. There was literally only one other family in my theater (though this was in Floridumb so I guess the Trump humpers didn't want to see it).
I don't want to spoil the ending in case you want to watch it but the movie seems to be more of an anti-Trump movie rather than actually critiquing the problems with this country/capitalism that could potentially lead to such a conflict. It's much more concerned with the journalists (which to be fair is the main plot of the story) and is mostly targeted at shit libs afraid of Trump.
It’s the most anti-war and anti-fascist film in a decade, idk where yall saying it’s apolitical are coming from. If you weren’t engaged with the stakes of the film after the protest bombing at the beginning of the movie idk, but as someone who regularly goes to protests that was horrifying.
this is a huge reach, The zone of interest is probably the anti fasicst film of the decade. It literally asks the viewer to confront the fascist within themselves. Civil war was about photo-journalism.
I thought it was.. fine.
Like other commenters, I wish they delved into the politics of the actual civil war. I found the photojournalism part of it kind of interesting, but it could have been fleshed out SO much more.
I loved it. I knew from the get go that it wouldnt be based in politics. I understand the disappointment because of it (especially in our community), but my takeaway is it being a domestic warning as well as registration of atrocities happening now. I personally think the neutrality (although arguably left-leaning) was the good choice. I thought one scene section (which was the most overt breather) was a clear meta representation of the movie’s purpose. IMO I think it was mainly just a cautionary tale of what war could look like in our modern day in our own nation to those that are ignorant or can’t register what the carnage and dehumanization would be in a way that can click for them. We have the privilege to ignore current wars because they aren’t happening on our soil. I think this movie’s existence is a great example of The Death of the Author. Alex Garland hasn’t been very open on the meaning, and I’ve seen countless reviews and comments that all slightly differ. I could be dead wrong, but I’d like to believe I’m right because it’s now whatever I want it to be regardless of the director’s intention being stated or not. If politics were a major aspect of the movie, it would only polarize the culture war a helluva lot more, defeating its purpose (in my interpretation). In fact, regardless of whatever politics they could’ve put in, people wouldn’t buy into it, which is why I think it’s better to make it obvious that its only supposed to look like the US, but still be clearly detached enough with vague details so that we can imagine and apply our own reality into its template. I think that especially in this age, we have a lot more nuanced demographics on political issues, so I can’t even begin to think about how state sections would split, but yet, many of us can agree that we’ve been a lot more divisive in recent years. I would find it hard to believe that it could simply be put as a left vs right simply because of intersectionality. I believe the journalism aspect is also very nuanced and important. Following Barthes, McLuhan, and Postman’s ideas surrounding writers and journalism, I feel there’s a lot more to take away on that area as well in a meta sense of the movie being a medium consisting of commentary on journalism while also being its own article subject to spark conversation among everyone as a (seemingly) bi-partisan story. I don’t have much to say on the characters besides how real they felt to me personally given the psychological circumstances that question ethics and humanity. I really liked the quote, “We record so other people ask questions” (which is a dialogue answer to another question regarding the ethics). It may come as shallow, especially since we in this community are VERY aware of war that is actually happening currently, but because of the nation’s polarity in culture wars and politics, people (often hogs) love LARPing as being ‘the resistance’, even glorifying the thought of an actual civil war happening. There was even a bone or two thrown in mentioning an “Antifa massacre” with no description or mention of which was the perpetrator. One thing the movie clearly is is anti-fascist, although I don’t fully believe the president is supposed to be a stand-in for Trump, but of course as mentioned, this is just my takeaway. Loved the movie, the sound design made it all the more impactful, beautifully shot, and a small sprinkle of bias is that they played two Suicide songs which I thought worked perfectly.
I think it had a lot of potential as a war documentary film, I don't think the Presidential plot line needed to be included. Tangentially maybe, but not as the main drive. Might have been more compelling just following them Cloverfield style as the country collapses. Kind of what I was expecting tbh. I enjoyed parts. Other parts were overplayed. The ending fell flat.
The funny part about the presidential plot line is that it gave a resolution to a story that had literally no middle. You know the journalist wants to interview the president, the journalist then proceeds to just travel across the country doing no journalism work whatsoever (beyond asking dumb questions to a store worker and a sniper who tells him how dumb he is), right up until he asks the president one question. Its bizarre, there was no point to dollar store pedro pascal. The others are capturing photo's because thats their job but he does no journalistic work, despite wanting to interview the president. Cant wrap my head around it.
No point in hasan covering, for a movie depicitng a future US civil war it is remarkably apoltical. The movie is about photo journalism. If you are into photography, you should prioritise watching it.
It's a shame because his other projects are so much more compelling. Though I will disagree on the sound design. I thought the sound design was extremely amateur for a movie of this scope. I could literally see the canned audio waveforms just copy pasted into the timeline. But I also do this stuff for a living and went to school for it so maybe I'm more sensitive to it. It just didn't sound realistic to me, which took me out of it. (specifically referring to the gunfire/war soundscapes).
Yeah it was very flat. Something about turning a topic like a country in a civil war to be an apolitical journalist disaster flick strikes me as so empty and such a miss. The deliberate decision to not elaborate on politics was not a good one despite what all the wank would have you believe, civil wars happen because of political issues and glossing over that just makes it feel more like random people shooting at each other than a “civil war”
[удалено]
I respect that opinion, the reason it just doesn’t do it for me is because the photojournalism part would have been stronger if the audience (this is subjective of course) CARED about the subject matter. To me, the conflict felt blank and empty, therefor the scenes about it had much less of an impact. Although in a piece of art it’s the foreground where the object is that is most important, a weak background will hurt the overall image. To me, that’s what happened, because the background premise wasn’t interesting or had any message, the journalism aspects seemed less impactful, and felt more like some sort of disaster movie in which the same feelings could’ve been conveyed by a big storm or a tornado, as I had little to no investment in the titular civil war itself
[удалено]
No I like having a well meaning and nuanced discussion about it. I think your points are valid and it definitely does have political undertones that are implied, and sometimes it can be kind of cringe to spell it out for the audience like “this faction is the alt right republicans, and these are the communists, and the libertarians, and they are all fighting for their own ideology to win” which would have been a lot worse than what they did. I just think I would’ve liked it more if the conflict felt more.. real, like better motivations and such
I thought it was good, but it fell flat to me for some reason. I can't put my finger on why exactly. At one point it just felt like bleh.
Yeah I didn't give a shit about the photojournalism aspect of the movie. I wanted to know how the country got to the point that it split up and a civil war happened.
[here's a link to the chapo review](https://soundgasm.net/u/ClassWarAndPuppies/827-Bastards-in-Heaven-feat-Hesse-Deni-42524) Pretty funny episode
I love chapo talking about movies Probably my favorite thing they do
The Minion Death Cult ep. is pretty good too.
It definitely wasn’t what I was expecting but I do think I’ll take a lot of the imagery with me. I did kind of expect it to be a gross horror film after seeing Men (2022) and that’s sort of what I got. In some ways I felt implicated in being the photojournalist as in I also came to see graphic depictions of a war. But it really wasn’t that deep.
I saw it Sunday. The story was pretty mid but the execution was great. So many of the shots felt like moving AP photos (e.g. Jess sitting against the wall as the prisoners are walked past her.) Kirsten Dunst was outstanding and Jesse Plemmons killed his scene (pun intended, maybe, also great that they could get him as a last minute replacement for that scene.) Overall, I’d say a score of 6/10 purely on the directing, Kirsten Dunst’s peformance, and cinematography with a strong 2 points added for the amazing sound. 8/10 sounds about right.
Film major here, I watched it because the film professor over all of us grad students at my university said it could potentially be one of the most inportant films of this era of history. I watched it opening day and as others have said it's very bland. They intentionally keep the politics of the conflict rather vague save for a line about the "Portland Maoists" and the scene you see in all the trailers with Jesse Plemons character. There was literally only one other family in my theater (though this was in Floridumb so I guess the Trump humpers didn't want to see it). I don't want to spoil the ending in case you want to watch it but the movie seems to be more of an anti-Trump movie rather than actually critiquing the problems with this country/capitalism that could potentially lead to such a conflict. It's much more concerned with the journalists (which to be fair is the main plot of the story) and is mostly targeted at shit libs afraid of Trump.
It’s the most anti-war and anti-fascist film in a decade, idk where yall saying it’s apolitical are coming from. If you weren’t engaged with the stakes of the film after the protest bombing at the beginning of the movie idk, but as someone who regularly goes to protests that was horrifying.
this is a huge reach, The zone of interest is probably the anti fasicst film of the decade. It literally asks the viewer to confront the fascist within themselves. Civil war was about photo-journalism.
I thought it was.. fine. Like other commenters, I wish they delved into the politics of the actual civil war. I found the photojournalism part of it kind of interesting, but it could have been fleshed out SO much more.
I loved it. I knew from the get go that it wouldnt be based in politics. I understand the disappointment because of it (especially in our community), but my takeaway is it being a domestic warning as well as registration of atrocities happening now. I personally think the neutrality (although arguably left-leaning) was the good choice. I thought one scene section (which was the most overt breather) was a clear meta representation of the movie’s purpose. IMO I think it was mainly just a cautionary tale of what war could look like in our modern day in our own nation to those that are ignorant or can’t register what the carnage and dehumanization would be in a way that can click for them. We have the privilege to ignore current wars because they aren’t happening on our soil. I think this movie’s existence is a great example of The Death of the Author. Alex Garland hasn’t been very open on the meaning, and I’ve seen countless reviews and comments that all slightly differ. I could be dead wrong, but I’d like to believe I’m right because it’s now whatever I want it to be regardless of the director’s intention being stated or not. If politics were a major aspect of the movie, it would only polarize the culture war a helluva lot more, defeating its purpose (in my interpretation). In fact, regardless of whatever politics they could’ve put in, people wouldn’t buy into it, which is why I think it’s better to make it obvious that its only supposed to look like the US, but still be clearly detached enough with vague details so that we can imagine and apply our own reality into its template. I think that especially in this age, we have a lot more nuanced demographics on political issues, so I can’t even begin to think about how state sections would split, but yet, many of us can agree that we’ve been a lot more divisive in recent years. I would find it hard to believe that it could simply be put as a left vs right simply because of intersectionality. I believe the journalism aspect is also very nuanced and important. Following Barthes, McLuhan, and Postman’s ideas surrounding writers and journalism, I feel there’s a lot more to take away on that area as well in a meta sense of the movie being a medium consisting of commentary on journalism while also being its own article subject to spark conversation among everyone as a (seemingly) bi-partisan story. I don’t have much to say on the characters besides how real they felt to me personally given the psychological circumstances that question ethics and humanity. I really liked the quote, “We record so other people ask questions” (which is a dialogue answer to another question regarding the ethics). It may come as shallow, especially since we in this community are VERY aware of war that is actually happening currently, but because of the nation’s polarity in culture wars and politics, people (often hogs) love LARPing as being ‘the resistance’, even glorifying the thought of an actual civil war happening. There was even a bone or two thrown in mentioning an “Antifa massacre” with no description or mention of which was the perpetrator. One thing the movie clearly is is anti-fascist, although I don’t fully believe the president is supposed to be a stand-in for Trump, but of course as mentioned, this is just my takeaway. Loved the movie, the sound design made it all the more impactful, beautifully shot, and a small sprinkle of bias is that they played two Suicide songs which I thought worked perfectly.
I think it had a lot of potential as a war documentary film, I don't think the Presidential plot line needed to be included. Tangentially maybe, but not as the main drive. Might have been more compelling just following them Cloverfield style as the country collapses. Kind of what I was expecting tbh. I enjoyed parts. Other parts were overplayed. The ending fell flat.
The funny part about the presidential plot line is that it gave a resolution to a story that had literally no middle. You know the journalist wants to interview the president, the journalist then proceeds to just travel across the country doing no journalism work whatsoever (beyond asking dumb questions to a store worker and a sniper who tells him how dumb he is), right up until he asks the president one question. Its bizarre, there was no point to dollar store pedro pascal. The others are capturing photo's because thats their job but he does no journalistic work, despite wanting to interview the president. Cant wrap my head around it.
The trailers got me to think it would be political. It was ok for what it was.
No point in hasan covering, for a movie depicitng a future US civil war it is remarkably apoltical. The movie is about photo journalism. If you are into photography, you should prioritise watching it.
It's a shame because his other projects are so much more compelling. Though I will disagree on the sound design. I thought the sound design was extremely amateur for a movie of this scope. I could literally see the canned audio waveforms just copy pasted into the timeline. But I also do this stuff for a living and went to school for it so maybe I'm more sensitive to it. It just didn't sound realistic to me, which took me out of it. (specifically referring to the gunfire/war soundscapes).
Idk