Civil War

[Anonymous]

This is the new Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Devs) movie starring Kirsten Dunst. I saw the world premiere at SXSW. It's really intense and I don't think I will watch it again. Dunst is great in it. All of the performances are really good.

I've already seen it mentioned on this site as left-leaning, but I was really surprised that they don't inject politics in it aside from the fact that the President claiming a third term is mentioned as the impetus for the conflict.

AMA if you're interested. We sat right across the aisle from Cailee Spaeny (who is a teeny little person) and Wagner Moura (who is tall and handsome).

[Anonymous]

I saw the YouTube preview and am dying to see this: love the Dunst-Plemons Fargo season; DH and I loved Wagner Moira so much in Narcos, and Ex Machina is a great film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the YouTube preview and am dying to see this: love the Dunst-Plemons Fargo season; DH and I loved Wagner Moira so much in Narcos, and Ex Machina is a great film.

NP and I know this is not what this thread is about by Ex Machina is fantastic. And has one of the best dance scenes/dance scene lines ever.

[Anonymous]

Why is it Texas and California?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it Texas and California?

OP here - well, this is where it gets complicated - Texas and California have seceded because the President has remained in office for a third term. But there are other states also in opposition. It's deliberately unclear, IMO, because the focus is more on what's happening day to day to the people affected by the conflict.

I am certain that when the movie is widely released there will be endless online discussions about which state did what, but that's not the point of the movie. That actually surprised me a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it Texas and California?

OP here - well, this is where it gets complicated - Texas and California have seceded because the President has remained in office for a third term. But there are other states also in opposition. It's deliberately unclear, IMO, because the focus is more on what's happening day to day to the people affected by the conflict.

I am certain that when the movie is widely released there will be endless online discussions about which state did what, but that's not the point of the movie. That actually surprised me a little bit.

It's probably to avoid having the civil war at all reflect current political fault lines.

[Anonymous]

They already made this movie 100x.

All The Purge movies. Bushwick was already this movie with Dave Bautista.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it Texas and California?

It's to avoid the movie having a left/right bias. You have the most left and the most right state seceding.

[Anonymous]

They should have done a real civil war like what is coming on Trump's 3rd term

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They already made this movie 100x.

All The Purge movies. Bushwick was already this movie with Dave Bautista.

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the new Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Devs) movie starring Kirsten Dunst. I saw the world premiere at SXSW. It's really intense and I don't think I will watch it again. Dunst is great in it. All of the performances are really good.

I've already seen it mentioned on this site as left-leaning, but I was really surprised that they don't inject politics in it aside from the fact that the President claiming a third term is mentioned as the impetus for the conflict.

AMA if you're interested. We sat right across the aisle from Cailee Spaeny (who is a teeny little person) and Wagner Moura (who is tall and handsome).

I wonder if we sat next to one another…

I left the Q&A to get back in line for Cuckoo which screened right after.

Hope you had a good SXSW - I had a blast as usual.

[Anonymous]

This movie didn't really do it for me. Without giving any reasons for the civil war, it's fairly nonsensical. You couldn't even figure out any justification until their car ride to DC.

They gave a few reasons -- 3rd term president, turning weapons on Americans... one other I forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This movie didn't really do it for me. Without giving any reasons for the civil war, it's fairly nonsensical. You couldn't even figure out any justification until their car ride to DC.

They gave a few reasons -- 3rd term president, turning weapons on Americans... one other I forget.

I see this criticism a lot, but I guess from my POV it didn't really matter. The point wasn't who did what to whom to cause the conflict. The point was the conflict and regardless of the reasons the everyday people living it were going to experience horrors. There are a couple of times in the film where this is hinted at or even directly said.

-When they are caught up with the two soldiers trying to drive through where the sniper is in the large house. One of the soldiers says he's just trying to kill a guy that's trying to kill him;
-Their first stop when the shop owners are torturing the men that they say were looting. The guy they talk to makes a point of saying he went to high school with one of the guys but "he never talked to me much" (I'm paraphrasing).

So there's not a lot of rhyme or reason and some people are using this war as an excuse to act on personal grievances.

[Anonymous]

Heard it’s was just ok. Will prob wait until it is on sale for streaming or free on a flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard it’s was just ok. Will prob wait until it is on sale for streaming or free on a flight.

This is a film that needs to be seen and heard on the big screen, IMAX preferably IMO.