You’ve commented loads of times on movies you haven’t seen. I commented on a non-plot point as I was curious how the film dealt with photography. And I see movies regularly in theaters. And streaming. As if there’s some flaw with streaming.
I can understand that frustration. I have concluded AG is big on negative capability. One of the reasons I love his work.
Yes, she’s a rookie and I assumed not working for anyone. Plus the whole infrastructure is collapsing. We see Lee trying to upload some pics over dodgy Wi-Fi. Someone refers to “what’s left of the New York Times”. I think it’s important. These people are doing what they do out of vocation, compulsion, whatever. When the world is falling apart, that’s what some people do.
A Civil War 2 would be interesting as how does the country (and will they call it the USA anymore) pick up the pieces after a large scale civil war and the end of the Presidency (and with crazy militiamen out there apparently just killing entire towns). But then the focus wouldn’t be on the journalists and it would be just another “Last Of Us” or “Walking Dead” dystopia. In a sense the finale of Civil War is a success for one side, a complete victory, now what do they do?
Spoiler: Thoughts on the ending I thought it was hopeful when Captain America and Iron Man made up at the end!
To be clear, I appreciate movies that don't spoon-feed everything and make the viewer "work". Still think "CW" needed more exposition. Like I said, its lack of backstory means a lotta viewers - - will spend much of the movie in pursuit of that information, and that distracts from the rest. A simple text card with some basics at the start woulda gone a long way toward the satisfaction of this. Or toss in a 2-minute Basil Exposition scene when we first meet the journalists.
Spoiler I liked that the male press character wanted that last quote from a doomed President and got “please don’t kill me” that’s good enough he says.
Now there’s some big stink in the press about them using AI to create fake scenes from the movie for the posters. I worked for the biggest movie poster company in Hollywood that made posters for the studios. Every damn movie poster is a collage put together by a graphic designer. So they’re using AI, big deal it’s just doing the same thing you used to do in Photoshop they’re treating it like it’s some aberration of the truth. Movie posters are always just a fabrication- a work of art.
There'll probably be more info on how it's doing once the weekend receipts are tabulated. I'm guessing there'll be more info on it in the predicting the hits of 2024 thread.
Wow! What a great movie. A lot better than I was expecting based on some of the reviews. To me, it all came together at the end. During a large part of the movie, I was thinking it was enjoyable but perhaps a bit like The Walking Dead with soldiers instead of zombies. But the ending made it all pay off. But what do you think it was about? Sure, on the surface it was about photojournalists, but it certainly didn’t really portray them in an overly flattering light. In the beginning of the movie, I was thinking that they reminded me of paparazzi in their ruthless quest to get the money shot, with no consideration whatsoever given to those around them. But after it ended, I decided it’s really about our current cellphone photo, soundbite, etc., obsessed culture, a culture where people are utterly indifferent to the suffering of others, including their own loved ones, in their obsessive pursuit of obtaining that perfect soundbite. And as anyone who actually saw the movie observed, the actual significance of it is pretty irrelevant, as long as they obtain that good, clickbaity soundbite or image. The photojournalists didn’t care about the war, they didn’t care about the outcome, about which side won. It was their own country, and they were utterly indifferent to the outcome of the war. The only thing they cared about was getting a great shot. Everything else in life was meaningless to them, it had no substance to them. That’s what I think the movie was about. And that’s why I think it was set in the US. Because it is about our current culture (not that what I just described is unique to the US, certainly, although we might take it to the next level). It’s just not about our political culture, as many people expected, it’s about our cultural obsession with the gratification of getting that great picture we can share, while everything else around us becomes more and more meaningless and unreal to us. We never feel as alive as we do while going after that great shot; we care about having the experience rather than what the experience actually is. I loved the use of the Suicide song, too.
@alexpop This sheds some light on how its doing, this week anyway: Box Office: 'Civil War' & 'Abigail' in Dead Heat for No. 1
You (the audience) don’t need to know the reason for the war. The movie isn’t about the war. It’s simply a setting. You don’t need to know the reason for the war in this movie any more than you need to know the reason for the Vietnam War in “Full Metal Jacket,” or the reason for WWII in “Saving Private Ryan.” It’s not a movie that’s about the war, it’s a movie about the actions and motivations of the characters. If the director thought you needed to know why there was a war, he would have told you.
Enjoyed it. As long as you go in knowing it’s kind of a tribute to war reporters you’ll be fine. Not to say there isn’t lots of action.
Pretty comical reading some of the early posts here by people who hadn’t seen the movie yet, claiming it to be one thing or another. Turned out to actually be a fantastic film. And refreshing to see it had no political agenda.
