Alex Garland really fell off, didn't he? First Men, and now this? At least Men tried to say something while being bad, Civil War says nothing while being mid.
The movie is just a nice montage of post-civil-war America and basically a driving simulator, and that's it. It's just shallow without a substance. And if you're trying to tell me that I'm the shallow one here and I didn't get the point of the movie, good for you for finding a point even in these kinds of empty movies. That must be nice to even find substance in a film like this.
Alex Garland has never made a typical and formulaic film before and I don't want him to, but his first two movies were so interesting and well-done, and Civil War is just... there. The whole movie is basically a montage showing what the USA would look like if a Civil War happened without explaining how it started. I believe that's the point of the film to not explain the hows and whys, and to focus on the aftermath of people living in these conditions. And I certainly don't think it is necessary to explain about how it started, or that it would've even made the movie better.
My question is, do we even need that? Do we need a movie just showing us what would happen if there was a civil war in the modern age without any other depth to its story, themes, and characters? We've already had a ton of post-apocalyptic movies and shows depicting these scenarios. Hell, we even had 11 seasons of The Walking Dead and that show is basically people having a civil war of their own, and it basically did every scenario and situation in this war-torn US you can think of. Do we need more of that if you don't really have anything to say?
The movie looks visually stunning, and I really liked the direction and editing here and how they integrated war photography footage into the film. And I think it's a really interesting decision to make a war movie from the perspective of war journalists. But unfortunately, everything else is just meh.
The characters don't really have much depth to them, and the movie is too short to have adequate time to give depth to them anyway. But on the other hand, the pacing is not great and that makes the short runtime feel really long. The movie gets kinda boring at times and you keep checking to see how much of it is left. Garland's Ex Machina and Annihilation were really fun to watch in addition to having depth to their characters and themes. But Civil War only has the good looks. It feels like it was made by someone who knows how to film a movie, but doesn't really have anything to say. And the dialogue isn't that great either.
Overall I think it's probably worth watching it one time for the visuals at least, but I didn't really find the story or the characters that compelling. The movie is kinda boring too. I think the only good thing that came out of this movie is Meth Damon's "What kind of American are you?" meme.
The movie is just a nice montage of post-civil-war America and basically a driving simulator, and that's it. It's just shallow without a substance. And if you're trying to tell me that I'm the shallow one here and I didn't get the point of the movie, good for you for finding a point even in these kinds of empty movies. That must be nice to even find substance in a film like this.
Alex Garland has never made a typical and formulaic film before and I don't want him to, but his first two movies were so interesting and well-done, and Civil War is just... there. The whole movie is basically a montage showing what the USA would look like if a Civil War happened without explaining how it started. I believe that's the point of the film to not explain the hows and whys, and to focus on the aftermath of people living in these conditions. And I certainly don't think it is necessary to explain about how it started, or that it would've even made the movie better.
My question is, do we even need that? Do we need a movie just showing us what would happen if there was a civil war in the modern age without any other depth to its story, themes, and characters? We've already had a ton of post-apocalyptic movies and shows depicting these scenarios. Hell, we even had 11 seasons of The Walking Dead and that show is basically people having a civil war of their own, and it basically did every scenario and situation in this war-torn US you can think of. Do we need more of that if you don't really have anything to say?
The movie looks visually stunning, and I really liked the direction and editing here and how they integrated war photography footage into the film. And I think it's a really interesting decision to make a war movie from the perspective of war journalists. But unfortunately, everything else is just meh.
The characters don't really have much depth to them, and the movie is too short to have adequate time to give depth to them anyway. But on the other hand, the pacing is not great and that makes the short runtime feel really long. The movie gets kinda boring at times and you keep checking to see how much of it is left. Garland's Ex Machina and Annihilation were really fun to watch in addition to having depth to their characters and themes. But Civil War only has the good looks. It feels like it was made by someone who knows how to film a movie, but doesn't really have anything to say. And the dialogue isn't that great either.
Overall I think it's probably worth watching it one time for the visuals at least, but I didn't really find the story or the characters that compelling. The movie is kinda boring too. I think the only good thing that came out of this movie is Meth Damon's "What kind of American are you?" meme.
Tell Your Friends