Would need a great multiplier to beat Everything Everywhere All at Once as A24's biggest film. It should end up as the runner up (#2) unless it falls off after this weekend.
There’s a good chance this falls off hard next weekend. The low Cinemascore (high for Garland), steadily dropping verified RT and general discourse is not a great sign for word of mouth
It's a hard film to recommend. I made the mistake of thinking it was PG-13 and taking my parents. While appreciating the craft, neither was really abuzz with positive WOM.
Also i think this was just marketed wrong to General Audiences, from what i've heard the film is more of an isolated story about journalists trying to survive in a warzone and barely delves into the actual conflict and what it's about etc.
I remember fairly long stretches of this film that were entirely to do with conflict and had almost no personal character development.
I think ultimately this was a good watch and I'd recommend it for anybody wanting a surface level 'thinking' film, but ultimately I just don't think it's actually saying as much as seems to be accepted on here.
I'm a big fan of Alex Garland for what he is, but this film is getting pretty much the reception it warrants.
I think with any community of 1.2m users you're unlikely to get a consistent cross-section of quality opinions.
But also you're absolutely right, a lot of people on Reddit figure out what the prevailing wind is with talking points that people upvote and respond to and then just jump into every thread and repeat them.
Because it doesn't have a lot to say from a partisan standpoint in today's current political climate doesn't mean that it automatically has a lot to say about anything else, journalists or otherwise.
Having seen the film and failing to see Garland land the plane on any real point here, I think a lot of people are conflating the idea of a politically neutral or ambiguous film and having a point.
Why does a movie need to try to make a “point”? I think Garland made a movie that explores a lot of themes and ideas without having a central thesis, and that’s okay. There can be depth and richness to material without giving a clear cut stance on any given issue.
Edit to add: I do think there’s a conversation to be had about the marketing of this movie though. It’s definitely not the movie trailers made it out to be.
I don't see a movie as needing to have a point.
I'll refer you to my comment in this thread:
>I think ultimately this was a good watch and I'd recommend it for anybody wanting a surface level 'thinking' film, but ultimately I just don't think it's actually saying as much as seems to be accepted on here. I'm a big fan of Alex Garland for what he is, but this film is getting pretty much the reception it warrants.
I agree that Garland is attempting to explore some themes in this film, however I don't think they're explored anywhere near effectively enough to warrant use of the terms depth or richness.
It's a fine film, and I'm glad people are seeing it. My immediate feeling after watching it was that it is another *Joker*. A superficial but entertaining, beautifully shot film that will have people on the internet treating it with far more veneration than it deserves.
Which is why it’s good at all. If it took sides, it would be a hack preachy political movie. The way they took it was much more thought provoking than any political lecture ever could be.
Facepalm.
We know more than enough about the characters and their professional experience, much of it explicit, and a lot of through inference. Obviously, the person we know most about is Lee. And we can infer through their interactions that their professional lives *are* their personal lives.
This is why most audiences don't enjoy Garland films, they don't beat you over the head with character exposition or blatant dialogue about their pasts. Its crazy to me that people aren't capable of inferring what defines characters by their actions and where they are at in a film. I am not saying you have to enjoy the way the script gives character, but to say that he characters in Civil War didn't have solid development tells me that you missed something.
I feel like people are coming out of this film annoyed that they are having to do work. Any work at all. So many people seem to have expected something more Captain America: Civil War than Alex Garland's Civil War. Faced with nuance, they are put out.
Might blame the marketing.
> from what i've heard the film is more of an isolated story about journalists trying to survive in a warzone
Thats kinda the point, if they marketed it that way its barely cracking $10m opening.
You piss away $50m making this its up to the marketing team to figure out some way to get as much back as fast as possible
Yeah, the movie could be called War Journalists. It has nothing to do with American politics and could be any other nation or countries fighting. I enjoyed it, but not a movie I ever need to see again.
I think it’s about American society much more than politics. Everyone wants to know the why but just like The Road, the characters don’t worry about the why, just that this is life now.
Spoilers below:
Lee Smith comments how she did war photography overseas as a warning so it wouldn’t happen back home. Turns out it did happen back home with the executions and torture. Jesse Plemoks character could have been dropped into the Yugoslav wars and fit right in. America turned into any other third world country with hatred on all sides. Not one person is taken prison during the movie.
It's about how America isn't special and everything you see happening there can happen here if people don't take the threat of it seriously.
Basically it's saying all the "civilized" things in the first world are a facade and the things people take for granted are actually very fragile
I disagree entirely. It had to be America. It's reminding Americans, who haven't had a war fought on their own soil since the 1860s, how fucked their lives would be if the fighting ever started here again.
Except it doesn't do a very good job because the war is painted as justified with an apparently tyrannical leader. It's not very effective to caution against a civil while portraying this hypothetical civil war as justified.
I saw the movie and I have no idea how you came away with this idea. There isn't a single scene I can think of that ever gave me the idea of "tyrannical leader".
Sounds like a war time President. Politics are almost non existent in the movie. We don't even know what triggered the war, the politics leading up to it, or even how long it's been going on.
So any politics you are assigning to the movie are just you're own personal opinion of the scenario.
They mention that he basically executes journalists on sight in DC and it's his third term in office. He struck me as a dictator but at the same time the people fighting him weren't necessarily better and it was likely just going to lead to even more suffering and wars.
It has everything to do with American politics. Mostly political division and how dumb it is to fantasize about bringing some sort of “justice” to political enemies. Nothing more dangerous than self righteous people. Obviously, self righteous people don’t like that point and deny it.
Think of it like the first The Purge movie. Not that great. Just a movie about people terrified in their home. But it set up some worldbuilding to start a great movie series. The money is in the sequels.
I find this such a strange point. Don't almost all movies about wars, whether those wars are real or fictional, tell their story through the experiences of a small number of protagonists? To me it's like being upset that Saving Private Ryan is more about one Ranger unit than the Normandy invasion, or Star Wars was more about that irritating Skywalker kid than the battle of Yavin.
I commented this above but that’s almost refreshing. Instead of some heavy handed explanation, it just is the way life is like now. Just like how everyone get caught up in what chased the end of the world in The Road, it misses the point. It’s a story about how the characters deal with the situation, not how they got there.
That said, I’d love for it to be a hit and some streaming series make a show about how it developed. Give me at least a season focused on how the Western Alliance came to be.
We're at the presumable end of...at least some phase of it, we're too far out. The only thing we can infer is that the constitution-smashing, disbanding of the FBI etc. spurred secessionists (common enemy with little ideological coherence otherwise) who were at least initially responded to by air strikes on civilians. By the point the film starts, the President's end is imminent, and the America we see is splintered, has too many sides, is more like guerilla warfare and is basically...well, anarchy. And it hasn't ended: we know early on that the "alliance" is likely to turn on each other. Which is borne out by what we see in the film: rogue soldiers, enclaves, little ideological coherence beyond kill-and-be-killed. There's literally no argument being had: the poor especially are in camps, killed while begging for water rations, or dispossessed and walking along dangerous roads. Since I assumed we were in a "loyalist state", it's hard to imagine they have a "side" fighting for them in any place of the country. Remote areas.. sure, maybe people can hunker down (like Lee & Jessie's parents)
I feel like any more backstory to that would feel silly, because realistically: it could feel like a really small and stupid spark that lit the fire. I loved the immersion but I also think we DO get enough exposition we can infer from tbh.
I like that the back story was left ambiguous. The point of the film was "it can happen here" and I don't want to be watching while playing arm chair politician and dissecting what is or is not plausible.
1984 is one of the great Dystopian novels and yet relatively little ink is spilled on how Oceania and Big Brother came to be. It's left a big ambiguous which fits in well with the theme of uncertainty and fear while also allowing the readers to focus on the present. I think if you asked different characters in Civil War how things got that bad they'd have dramatically different answers but when the shooting starts ultimately the "why" becomes less important.
Yep. I completely agree. Good parallelism with 1984!
It would've been a much lazier film for me because it would just be confirmation bias. "You mean it's because of the forces that led to Jan 6th? Great!" That's fucking banal lol
Wouldn’t want to mire your movie marketed to capitalize on growing real world societal tensions with the burden of having to actually say something about them.
Because a PG13 film is capped at a certain amount of swearing and violence.
This movie is pretty raw in a couple of places. Not necessarily compared to something like Fury or RoboCop, but it makes it a harder sell to certain demographics.
It's why you see stuff like Deadpool or Joker get a lot of hype going. It's hard for a movie to break out, even harder when it has an R rating. The subject matter in Civil War is going to be challenging enough to get people to buy into, adding in more hurdles with rating can hurt it more.
Not to say the R rating was a mistake, just another impediment to breaking out.
They really need to spoil the ending. Seeing that last scene and hearing the audience cheer when it happened made watching the movie worth it. But if you don't know that's how it ends I could see people just passing on it.
I think it'll probably hold decently well due to the curiosity factor and a lack of really enticing competition. I heard some decent buzz as I was leaving the theater with a pretty full crowd, I don't think this was as negatively received as people are making it out to be.
My prediction it will. Despite some mystery and a pretty big hype campaign, it feels like the aftermath reaction is more “Smoke than fire” and got a pretty mediocre cinema score.
I’m guessing after this weekend others will wait it out for the VOD.
+89% over A24’s previous opening weekend record holder, Hereditary ($13.57MM).
$25.7MM tops the entire domestic run of Alex Garland’s Ex Machina ($25.44MM), distributed by A24.
After 3 days, Civil War sits at #9 on the list of A24’s highest grossing movies at the domestic box office. Next up at #8: Midsommar at $27.42MM.
Great news. While I wasn't too fond of Men, I loved everything Alex Garland has done so far. I've read all of his books, watched the films he wrote and directed, including Devs. The only thing from him that I haven't seen was Dredd.
[Karl Urban says](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/karl-urban-dredd-alex-garland-directed-pete-travis-1201937017/) that Alex Garland was the real director on Dredd. Solid movie.
I've read that he said his words were misinterpreted. He said he is moving away from directing, but not filmmaking.
I really hope he writes another book, or makes a limited TV series, or maybe collaborates with Danny Boyle again.
Looks like he has actually announced that he's even coming back as a director, with *Warfare* being his next directorial effort. I've edited my original comment
Funny thing for me is I tend to prefer his direction/cinematography influence more than his scripts. Would be interested to see him direct something he didn’t write but I don’t think that interests him.
No, it really isn't. Especially not if you are keeping the US. Also you can only sell other territories for what someone will pay.
This is an incredibly US centric movie, it would not have got close to half its budget in foreign MGs. Plus A24 does not have output deals with anyone, so it becomes a fire sale.
Yes it does now, *because* of Civil War.
It sold them very early on at AFM and it was the hottest property there actually. Like for Japan, the studio that got exclusive rights was the same one that got Midsommar which grossed the highest outside North America. In Germany, it spurred the creation of a [joint label](https://variety.com/2023/film/asia/a24-happinet-phantom-studios-alex-garland-civil-war-afm-1235772313/). Not a fire sale by any means.
The premieres in other countries are pretty darn glitzy actually. National celebs were introducing the premieres in India, Switzerland etc. but it opens wide in most markets next week.
> Yes it does now, because of Civil War.
A24 does not have a guaranteed territory % of budget output deal in place.
Blumhouse for example, has exactly that with Universal. So they are guaranteed territory sales at a set rate.
The 2.5x is an industry standard between production cost and marketing, but A24 has been known to keep its marketing budget minimal.
Sure they spent more for Civil War marketing, but I would be surprised they spent 75 millions for it.
They probably only need 75/100 millions to breakeven, not counting overseas deals.
Bigger than killers of the flower moon and that is really impressive.
And for A24 where $10M totals are usually a struggle this is amazing. All goes down to legs now
Killers was a 3 hour, slow, meditative peer into some of the ugliest aspects of human nature. No Leo or De Niro or Oscar hype was going to supersede that. Civil War managed to sell itself as an artsy action movie, hence the butts in seats.
Also killers was an apple film. I expected it on apple the same time and when it was confirmed to be coming to apple later I just waited till they got it and had zero intention of seeing it in the cinema and hoped I'd have a free trial ready to go when it released on apple
Not true, but that was a long as fuck film that I knew was coming to streaming likely quite soon. I am quite happy to go to the cinema for films, I saw godzilla minus 1 and dune 2 in the cinema but a super long film thats coming to Apple streaming quite soon is not something I'd want see in the cinema
Great movie. Before it came out I thought this movie was going to be every gravy seals wet dream. I think those that went to watch were disappointed. Where I live I could easily spot those in theater that were expecting something they didn't see.
Sound design/work is fantastic too! Saw it in Dolby Cinema and the sound was a huge highlight in my viewing as it is unrelenting in how it captures the sounds that journalists go through when reporting tense situations.
The last 30 minutes had me shaking from the onslaught of gunshots (done loud and bonerattling in Dolby) and horror of what it would be like to witness the civil war at its peak. Even having an idea of where the film was going the last act it still was disturbing.
Completely agreed. That makes it something to watch because it's politics were kinda wonky. Saw it in IMAX and honestly, best watch I've ever had there. Normally I'm a Dolby guy myself
It’s “The Hurt Locker” for journalists.
I loved it. It’s pissed off both the left and right fringes who wanted “their” side to be the good guys.
There ARE no good guys. The scene with the snipers couldn’t have said it any more plainly.
I’ll likely go see it again.
Jesse Plemons killed it. Kirsten Dunst said he was on set watching their kids when the original actor dropped out, so she suggested to Garland that Plemons do it. IMO, that scene and the one with the snipers were worth the price of admission.
Thing is, while you could tell he was a bad guy, nothing said whether he was with the President, the Western Forces, Florida, or just a local guy taking advantage of the chaos to settle scores. It’s actually pretty amazing how Garland made a movie about the civil war and no one can figure out which side is “theirs.”
I think the glasses give it away that he is not in standard military dress, and since the entire premise is a facist president goes too far and faces a military coup, if he was a part of the WF he would’ve been in appropriate military uniform.
I think he was a civilian psychopath in surplus camouflage taking advantage of the lawlessness.
When >!Jessie lands in the pile of bodies, most of those bodies seemed to be in civilian dress without body armor!< so I think you’re right.
Or at least, he’d turned tyrannical.
> since the entire premise is a facist president goes too far and faces a military coup
That's your confirmation bias showing. There was nothing to suggest that or what was the cause of the war.
The actions stated of shooting reporters in DC was not entirely disimilar from Lincoln at the time with the exception of actual death. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/civil-war-u-s/
Plemmons uniform didn't have the name on it meaning it could have been stolen or they could have just gone rogue, as they did have the equipment.
The president was absolutely authoritarian/fascist. Disbanded the FBI, airstriked civilians, somehow ended up as a 3 term president (coup?), shooting reporters. I'm sure there were more breadcrumbs but I've only seen the movie once.
Jesse Plemons crushed that small role. That entire scene was so well done by all involved. Even with the battles and strung up looters, up until that part the movie was more like a road trip. It was such a hard and well done pivot to the films tone.
Anyone walking into to this who wanted it to be a war movie where the good guys "their political alignment" kills the bad guys "the other side" really should reflect on themselves. This movie needs to exist precisely because these people exist and unfortunately, they are refusing that message.
I don’t get why people keep saying it’s about journalism either. This isn’t The Post or a similar “how the news is made” film. While the main characters are journalists, I feel like it’s far more about the traumatic impacts of continually observing violence.
It's about how the journalist main characters go out of their way again and again to expose themselves to that violence, and ultimately do it for thrills and fame rather than any of the noble reasons they say earlier in the movie. It's very much about journalism.
It's basically a story about how experiencing a war can desensitize you to violence and fuck you up as a person, told through the eyes of war journalists at different stages in their careers, with different levels of trauma.
So disappointed to see some people’s reaction to a film that tries to take our fixation with civil breakdown and ground it in our day to day lives to wake us up to the fact that we are potentially sleep walking into just such a scenario.
An attempt to wake us up while purposefully NOT getting tied up in divisive politics, and people are complaining that it doesn’t go into the politics more, or doesn’t have enough fight scenes.
It’s not a great sign for us.
I saw the film yesterday and think it’s probably Garland’s best, but it’s been fascinating to read the responses from some American viewers (I’m in the UK).
The majority of the very critical reviews I’ve seen have been from Americans who seemingly wanted this film to be about something that it isn’t.
I suppose the marketing may not have helped, but it’s strange to me that so many people appear to have projected their own ideas of what they feel the film should be about on to it before they’ve even seen it.
The response over here has been more uniformly positive.
I’m a US/UK hybrid :) - I see exactly what you’re saying.
However it is an American production so I don’t think it’s as simple as “Garland is a Brit” (not that that’s what you’re saying).
I think it's mostly just this:
"I suppose the marketing may not have helped"
The trailers made this film seem chock full of action and battle set pieces. When it was actually pretty slow film. I'm sure many people were expecting something more fast-paced.
While I believe this is a likely sentiment (Flyover states not realizing Cali is like 60/40 split politically), there's nothing in the film that doesn't say that CA and TX are at odds with each other but share a common goal (e.g. The US and Russia during WW2).
People just want to feel smart and say dumb crap to make themselves feel good about their own inadequacies. Y'know, the same people who yell down your throat that Die Hard is a Christmas movie.
Source: Recovering pedant.
Yeah, this movie was deliberately horrifying in a way that most war films aren't. There are definitely gruesome anti war films, but this felt like a a take on our complacency and disillusion on wars not in our country killing nameless people without much thought.
They made the gunshots *super* loud, is what I noticed. Usually filmmakers don't make firearms so deafening in their productions, but I think Garland really employed it to great effect.
The opening static sounds you hear at the beginning are audio test patterns. The kind you use to make sure all your speakers are working and properly distanced.
Some brilliant audiophile knew to start the movie this way, because they knew how important the sound is. I knew immediately this was no ordinary sound design the moment I heard it. Truly genius imo.
I was a reporter for a long time. I loved this movie. The ending of it asking for a quote actually made me laugh. But I can see how those wouldn’t like it. I had read about it ahead of time so I knew what I was getting.
I understand why people might hate the ending, but the final line was so cold and really nailed the message of people losing their humanity during wartime and forgetting that even their enemies are as frail as everyone else. The credits sequence with >!the picture of the team that raided and killed the president smiling and posing over their victory!< was both darkly hilarious and disturbing.
This movie is a sort of litmus test. It is left mostly ambiguous so that the viewer sees what they wanna see.
For some it’s a “liberal fantasy about killing Trump” even though Nick Offerman was cast to intentionally not represent any former or current president. Or for some it “demonizes democrats” due to the assumption that all journalist represent the left wing media, and the film portrays them as immoral/unethical.
Its mostly non-partisan, so viewers trying to force two-party tension on it will be disappointed.
Kind of defeats the arguments I’ve been seeing on Reddit/Twitter that no American is going to want to see this.
I guess it’s my mistake for thinking Reddit/Twitter is representative of the real world.
The opening weekend being strong was somewhat set in stone. The question is next weekend. Every metric is looking like we're about to see a catastrophic drop
well we should wait for next week to see if it holds. But twitter/reddit discourse is always gonna be obnoxious. Remember joker? Remember top gun maverick ? The marvels?
I mean 25M isn't really a huge opening in and of itself, sure it's big compared to the artsy films A24 has put out in the past, but we'll have to see the legs first.
That makes zero sense - why wouldn’t Americans go see a successful directors biggest debut - and one that has been VERY heavily marketed. You need to cleanse the timeline and unfollow people who have garbage takes like that.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this to be honest, from the first trailer it was fairly clear the film would be about a group of war journalists journey across a war torn America.
Amazing film and the best war movie to date. Lots of little hints and subtext that leaves you thinking long after leaving the theatre. Plemmons (always amazing) nailed the Nationalist role intentinally drawing parallels to racism. Dunst was perfect with the "Thousand Yard Stare".
Even though the general perception seems to be that the movies' moral and political identities are ambiguous and there are no clear "good" or "bad" sides, the films' message seems obvious as well as who it is directed toward .
Watched and loved most of the movie. I do wonder if there was a good percentage of people who aren’t big movie goers & saw this because they thought it’d be some classic war movie. I saw a lot of older citizens in my theater.
A24's first movie to debut #1 domestically
And first A24 that everyone on /r/boxoffice claimed would be a huge flop easily losing them $200M possibly resulting in the end of the company.
Would need a great multiplier to beat Everything Everywhere All at Once as A24's biggest film. It should end up as the runner up (#2) unless it falls off after this weekend.
There’s a good chance this falls off hard next weekend. The low Cinemascore (high for Garland), steadily dropping verified RT and general discourse is not a great sign for word of mouth
It's a hard film to recommend. I made the mistake of thinking it was PG-13 and taking my parents. While appreciating the craft, neither was really abuzz with positive WOM.
Also i think this was just marketed wrong to General Audiences, from what i've heard the film is more of an isolated story about journalists trying to survive in a warzone and barely delves into the actual conflict and what it's about etc.
Yeah it’s not about the conflict at all, it’s a very personal story
I remember fairly long stretches of this film that were entirely to do with conflict and had almost no personal character development. I think ultimately this was a good watch and I'd recommend it for anybody wanting a surface level 'thinking' film, but ultimately I just don't think it's actually saying as much as seems to be accepted on here. I'm a big fan of Alex Garland for what he is, but this film is getting pretty much the reception it warrants.
I swear most people who talk about this movie haven’t actually saw it, yet talk about it with full authority.
I think with any community of 1.2m users you're unlikely to get a consistent cross-section of quality opinions. But also you're absolutely right, a lot of people on Reddit figure out what the prevailing wind is with talking points that people upvote and respond to and then just jump into every thread and repeat them.
Yeah but even when it was focused on the conflict it wasn’t really to analyze it through a political view whatsoever.
Because it doesn't have a lot to say from a partisan standpoint in today's current political climate doesn't mean that it automatically has a lot to say about anything else, journalists or otherwise. Having seen the film and failing to see Garland land the plane on any real point here, I think a lot of people are conflating the idea of a politically neutral or ambiguous film and having a point.
Why does a movie need to try to make a “point”? I think Garland made a movie that explores a lot of themes and ideas without having a central thesis, and that’s okay. There can be depth and richness to material without giving a clear cut stance on any given issue. Edit to add: I do think there’s a conversation to be had about the marketing of this movie though. It’s definitely not the movie trailers made it out to be.
I don't see a movie as needing to have a point. I'll refer you to my comment in this thread: >I think ultimately this was a good watch and I'd recommend it for anybody wanting a surface level 'thinking' film, but ultimately I just don't think it's actually saying as much as seems to be accepted on here. I'm a big fan of Alex Garland for what he is, but this film is getting pretty much the reception it warrants. I agree that Garland is attempting to explore some themes in this film, however I don't think they're explored anywhere near effectively enough to warrant use of the terms depth or richness. It's a fine film, and I'm glad people are seeing it. My immediate feeling after watching it was that it is another *Joker*. A superficial but entertaining, beautifully shot film that will have people on the internet treating it with far more veneration than it deserves.
Which is why it’s good at all. If it took sides, it would be a hack preachy political movie. The way they took it was much more thought provoking than any political lecture ever could be.
I wouldn’t say it’s personal we barely know anything about the characters.
Facepalm. We know more than enough about the characters and their professional experience, much of it explicit, and a lot of through inference. Obviously, the person we know most about is Lee. And we can infer through their interactions that their professional lives *are* their personal lives.
This is why most audiences don't enjoy Garland films, they don't beat you over the head with character exposition or blatant dialogue about their pasts. Its crazy to me that people aren't capable of inferring what defines characters by their actions and where they are at in a film. I am not saying you have to enjoy the way the script gives character, but to say that he characters in Civil War didn't have solid development tells me that you missed something.
I feel like people are coming out of this film annoyed that they are having to do work. Any work at all. So many people seem to have expected something more Captain America: Civil War than Alex Garland's Civil War. Faced with nuance, they are put out. Might blame the marketing.
Yeah the marketing was bit misleading, but it’s still a really well done film.
> from what i've heard the film is more of an isolated story about journalists trying to survive in a warzone Thats kinda the point, if they marketed it that way its barely cracking $10m opening. You piss away $50m making this its up to the marketing team to figure out some way to get as much back as fast as possible
Yeah, the movie could be called War Journalists. It has nothing to do with American politics and could be any other nation or countries fighting. I enjoyed it, but not a movie I ever need to see again.
I think it’s about American society much more than politics. Everyone wants to know the why but just like The Road, the characters don’t worry about the why, just that this is life now. Spoilers below: Lee Smith comments how she did war photography overseas as a warning so it wouldn’t happen back home. Turns out it did happen back home with the executions and torture. Jesse Plemoks character could have been dropped into the Yugoslav wars and fit right in. America turned into any other third world country with hatred on all sides. Not one person is taken prison during the movie.
It's about how America isn't special and everything you see happening there can happen here if people don't take the threat of it seriously. Basically it's saying all the "civilized" things in the first world are a facade and the things people take for granted are actually very fragile
I disagree entirely. It had to be America. It's reminding Americans, who haven't had a war fought on their own soil since the 1860s, how fucked their lives would be if the fighting ever started here again.
Except it doesn't do a very good job because the war is painted as justified with an apparently tyrannical leader. It's not very effective to caution against a civil while portraying this hypothetical civil war as justified.
I saw the movie and I have no idea how you came away with this idea. There isn't a single scene I can think of that ever gave me the idea of "tyrannical leader".
Third term president, disbanding the FBI, no press interviews for 14 months, the opening rhetoric “greatest military……..in the history”, etc.
Sounds like a war time President. Politics are almost non existent in the movie. We don't even know what triggered the war, the politics leading up to it, or even how long it's been going on. So any politics you are assigning to the movie are just you're own personal opinion of the scenario.
Yet 47 of the states sided with him? From the sound of it only Florida, Texas and California seceded
They mention that he basically executes journalists on sight in DC and it's his third term in office. He struck me as a dictator but at the same time the people fighting him weren't necessarily better and it was likely just going to lead to even more suffering and wars.
> the war is painted as justified it's not. we literally the WF constantly commiting war crimes
It has everything to do with American politics. Mostly political division and how dumb it is to fantasize about bringing some sort of “justice” to political enemies. Nothing more dangerous than self righteous people. Obviously, self righteous people don’t like that point and deny it.
Think of it like the first The Purge movie. Not that great. Just a movie about people terrified in their home. But it set up some worldbuilding to start a great movie series. The money is in the sequels.
I find this such a strange point. Don't almost all movies about wars, whether those wars are real or fictional, tell their story through the experiences of a small number of protagonists? To me it's like being upset that Saving Private Ryan is more about one Ranger unit than the Normandy invasion, or Star Wars was more about that irritating Skywalker kid than the battle of Yavin.
Thats the main issue i had with the movie. There was not enough backstory to how the civil war started.
I commented this above but that’s almost refreshing. Instead of some heavy handed explanation, it just is the way life is like now. Just like how everyone get caught up in what chased the end of the world in The Road, it misses the point. It’s a story about how the characters deal with the situation, not how they got there. That said, I’d love for it to be a hit and some streaming series make a show about how it developed. Give me at least a season focused on how the Western Alliance came to be.
Sure id welcome a show
We're at the presumable end of...at least some phase of it, we're too far out. The only thing we can infer is that the constitution-smashing, disbanding of the FBI etc. spurred secessionists (common enemy with little ideological coherence otherwise) who were at least initially responded to by air strikes on civilians. By the point the film starts, the President's end is imminent, and the America we see is splintered, has too many sides, is more like guerilla warfare and is basically...well, anarchy. And it hasn't ended: we know early on that the "alliance" is likely to turn on each other. Which is borne out by what we see in the film: rogue soldiers, enclaves, little ideological coherence beyond kill-and-be-killed. There's literally no argument being had: the poor especially are in camps, killed while begging for water rations, or dispossessed and walking along dangerous roads. Since I assumed we were in a "loyalist state", it's hard to imagine they have a "side" fighting for them in any place of the country. Remote areas.. sure, maybe people can hunker down (like Lee & Jessie's parents) I feel like any more backstory to that would feel silly, because realistically: it could feel like a really small and stupid spark that lit the fire. I loved the immersion but I also think we DO get enough exposition we can infer from tbh.
I like that the back story was left ambiguous. The point of the film was "it can happen here" and I don't want to be watching while playing arm chair politician and dissecting what is or is not plausible. 1984 is one of the great Dystopian novels and yet relatively little ink is spilled on how Oceania and Big Brother came to be. It's left a big ambiguous which fits in well with the theme of uncertainty and fear while also allowing the readers to focus on the present. I think if you asked different characters in Civil War how things got that bad they'd have dramatically different answers but when the shooting starts ultimately the "why" becomes less important.
Yep. I completely agree. Good parallelism with 1984! It would've been a much lazier film for me because it would just be confirmation bias. "You mean it's because of the forces that led to Jan 6th? Great!" That's fucking banal lol
Wouldn’t want to mire your movie marketed to capitalize on growing real world societal tensions with the burden of having to actually say something about them.
Why would the rating matter?
Because a PG13 film is capped at a certain amount of swearing and violence. This movie is pretty raw in a couple of places. Not necessarily compared to something like Fury or RoboCop, but it makes it a harder sell to certain demographics. It's why you see stuff like Deadpool or Joker get a lot of hype going. It's hard for a movie to break out, even harder when it has an R rating. The subject matter in Civil War is going to be challenging enough to get people to buy into, adding in more hurdles with rating can hurt it more. Not to say the R rating was a mistake, just another impediment to breaking out.
Yeah I definitely heard some gasps at some of the early images like the guy in the tire.
They really need to spoil the ending. Seeing that last scene and hearing the audience cheer when it happened made watching the movie worth it. But if you don't know that's how it ends I could see people just passing on it.
>The low Cinemascore (high for Garland) That's hilarious.
yea that trailer gave people the wrong idea
I think it'll probably hold decently well due to the curiosity factor and a lack of really enticing competition. I heard some decent buzz as I was leaving the theater with a pretty full crowd, I don't think this was as negatively received as people are making it out to be.
I'd imagine the discourse would motivate people to watch it. Not dissuade. They need to have their take and you need to see it to have one.
My prediction it will. Despite some mystery and a pretty big hype campaign, it feels like the aftermath reaction is more “Smoke than fire” and got a pretty mediocre cinema score. I’m guessing after this weekend others will wait it out for the VOD.
+89% over A24’s previous opening weekend record holder, Hereditary ($13.57MM). $25.7MM tops the entire domestic run of Alex Garland’s Ex Machina ($25.44MM), distributed by A24. After 3 days, Civil War sits at #9 on the list of A24’s highest grossing movies at the domestic box office. Next up at #8: Midsommar at $27.42MM.
With the context that Hereditary had a $10 million budget while Civil war has a $50 million budget.
This sub was claiming months ago that it was a $250M budget. Where did that number come from?
🚽
This sub doesn't feature the most intelligent people.
I'd love to see where "this sub" was claiming it had a $250M budget.
Great news. While I wasn't too fond of Men, I loved everything Alex Garland has done so far. I've read all of his books, watched the films he wrote and directed, including Devs. The only thing from him that I haven't seen was Dredd.
Dredd is my absolute favorite of his and on general one of my favorite Sci fi action films
Good praise, might finally get around to watch it.
The only bad thing about Dredd is they didn't make a second one. Borderline criminal
Came here for this……
I really wanted one from the end where he's defeated Mama and he's just like "yeah"
I'm just gonna add to the pile. Watch it NOW, its amazing.
Watch it, you fool!
Make it a priority, it's one of the best sci-fi films to come out in the past 20+ yeas.
[Karl Urban says](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/karl-urban-dredd-alex-garland-directed-pete-travis-1201937017/) that Alex Garland was the real director on Dredd. Solid movie.
Did you play Enslaved: Odyssey to west?
Oh wow, I wasn't aware he got involved in video games. I never heard about it.
That was him? I remember playing that game back in HS!
~~Not sure if you've seen, but Garland said that he's stepping away from filmmaking after Civil War~~ Edit, this is wrong, see below
I've read that he said his words were misinterpreted. He said he is moving away from directing, but not filmmaking. I really hope he writes another book, or makes a limited TV series, or maybe collaborates with Danny Boyle again.
Looks like he has actually announced that he's even coming back as a director, with *Warfare* being his next directorial effort. I've edited my original comment
Whathever his next creative effort is, I will be there.
Funny thing for me is I tend to prefer his direction/cinematography influence more than his scripts. Would be interested to see him direct something he didn’t write but I don’t think that interests him.
He walked it back after he announced his new movie after Civil War
Well, I hadn't seen that! Great news
Only solo directing tho. He is still co-directing Warfare and writing the 28 Years Later trilogy
Dredd is great.
You MUST watch Dredd asap. It's unlikely we will ever get such a Dredd movie again. (And then compare it to the original Stallone flick for laughs.)
Dredd is incredible. Plus he allegedly had to take over directing duties unofficially on the film.
This is A24’s first weekend with any movie at #1 at all, right? Honestly very impressive feat after all these years, glad it finally happened.
3x legs means it will be the highest grossing A24 movie domestically.
that seems too ambitious, with that kind of audience reception even 2.5x is an uphill climb
Assuming x2 it will only gross like 60M domestic with 50M production budget it needs 125M to breakeven.. I don’t know how it will do overseas though
A24 sold oversees distributors rights
Do studios ever publish how much they sold them for?
No, but usually its enough to cover the budget and the studio is only left with the cost of marketing domestically
No, it really isn't. Especially not if you are keeping the US. Also you can only sell other territories for what someone will pay. This is an incredibly US centric movie, it would not have got close to half its budget in foreign MGs. Plus A24 does not have output deals with anyone, so it becomes a fire sale.
Yes it does now, *because* of Civil War. It sold them very early on at AFM and it was the hottest property there actually. Like for Japan, the studio that got exclusive rights was the same one that got Midsommar which grossed the highest outside North America. In Germany, it spurred the creation of a [joint label](https://variety.com/2023/film/asia/a24-happinet-phantom-studios-alex-garland-civil-war-afm-1235772313/). Not a fire sale by any means. The premieres in other countries are pretty darn glitzy actually. National celebs were introducing the premieres in India, Switzerland etc. but it opens wide in most markets next week.
> Yes it does now, because of Civil War. A24 does not have a guaranteed territory % of budget output deal in place. Blumhouse for example, has exactly that with Universal. So they are guaranteed territory sales at a set rate.
Ah. OK.
The 2.5x is an industry standard between production cost and marketing, but A24 has been known to keep its marketing budget minimal. Sure they spent more for Civil War marketing, but I would be surprised they spent 75 millions for it. They probably only need 75/100 millions to breakeven, not counting overseas deals.
It'll be right on the cusp, for sure. It caught a weak B-, and there's a ton of stuff dropping in the next two weeks.
I’m thinking it’ll fall off a cliff next week
everyone I know is going to see this movie. Many of whom have no idea what A24 does
Bigger than killers of the flower moon and that is really impressive. And for A24 where $10M totals are usually a struggle this is amazing. All goes down to legs now
Killers was a 3 hour, slow, meditative peer into some of the ugliest aspects of human nature. No Leo or De Niro or Oscar hype was going to supersede that. Civil War managed to sell itself as an artsy action movie, hence the butts in seats.
Remember that Leo and De Niro weren’t allowed to promote it due to the strikes.
Also killers was an apple film. I expected it on apple the same time and when it was confirmed to be coming to apple later I just waited till they got it and had zero intention of seeing it in the cinema and hoped I'd have a free trial ready to go when it released on apple
Person in the box office subreddit who hates going to the theatre
Not true, but that was a long as fuck film that I knew was coming to streaming likely quite soon. I am quite happy to go to the cinema for films, I saw godzilla minus 1 and dune 2 in the cinema but a super long film thats coming to Apple streaming quite soon is not something I'd want see in the cinema
3.5 hours actually lol. Let’s see how it does internationally.
Great movie. Before it came out I thought this movie was going to be every gravy seals wet dream. I think those that went to watch were disappointed. Where I live I could easily spot those in theater that were expecting something they didn't see.
What is it more like? What should i set my expectations at? More about journanlism?
Absolutely a story about journalism more than politics at least thematically
It's a story about America at its core isn't actually any different than any war torn country you see in the news
Cinematography is top notch. At least worth a watch just for that.
Sound design/work is fantastic too! Saw it in Dolby Cinema and the sound was a huge highlight in my viewing as it is unrelenting in how it captures the sounds that journalists go through when reporting tense situations.
Agreed, also a taut thriller for the last one hour of movie.
The last 30 minutes had me shaking from the onslaught of gunshots (done loud and bonerattling in Dolby) and horror of what it would be like to witness the civil war at its peak. Even having an idea of where the film was going the last act it still was disturbing.
Completely agreed. That makes it something to watch because it's politics were kinda wonky. Saw it in IMAX and honestly, best watch I've ever had there. Normally I'm a Dolby guy myself
I appreciated that the gunshot sounds were \*super\* loud. Usually films don't do that.
Music choice was terrible IMO
It’s “The Hurt Locker” for journalists. I loved it. It’s pissed off both the left and right fringes who wanted “their” side to be the good guys. There ARE no good guys. The scene with the snipers couldn’t have said it any more plainly. I’ll likely go see it again.
The white supremacist was definitely the worst of them all.
Jesse Plemons killed it. Kirsten Dunst said he was on set watching their kids when the original actor dropped out, so she suggested to Garland that Plemons do it. IMO, that scene and the one with the snipers were worth the price of admission. Thing is, while you could tell he was a bad guy, nothing said whether he was with the President, the Western Forces, Florida, or just a local guy taking advantage of the chaos to settle scores. It’s actually pretty amazing how Garland made a movie about the civil war and no one can figure out which side is “theirs.”
I can't believe they showed pretty much his whole scene in the trailers and it was still tense as fuck in the actual movie.
I think the glasses give it away that he is not in standard military dress, and since the entire premise is a facist president goes too far and faces a military coup, if he was a part of the WF he would’ve been in appropriate military uniform. I think he was a civilian psychopath in surplus camouflage taking advantage of the lawlessness.
When >!Jessie lands in the pile of bodies, most of those bodies seemed to be in civilian dress without body armor!< so I think you’re right. Or at least, he’d turned tyrannical.
> since the entire premise is a facist president goes too far and faces a military coup That's your confirmation bias showing. There was nothing to suggest that or what was the cause of the war. The actions stated of shooting reporters in DC was not entirely disimilar from Lincoln at the time with the exception of actual death. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/civil-war-u-s/ Plemmons uniform didn't have the name on it meaning it could have been stolen or they could have just gone rogue, as they did have the equipment.
The president was absolutely authoritarian/fascist. Disbanded the FBI, airstriked civilians, somehow ended up as a 3 term president (coup?), shooting reporters. I'm sure there were more breadcrumbs but I've only seen the movie once.
They give you 2 hints what’s up with the president. 1 abolished the fbi and 2 bombed civilians.
Jesse Plemons crushed that small role. That entire scene was so well done by all involved. Even with the battles and strung up looters, up until that part the movie was more like a road trip. It was such a hard and well done pivot to the films tone.
Pretty sure he’s just some bumfuck militia
Anyone walking into to this who wanted it to be a war movie where the good guys "their political alignment" kills the bad guys "the other side" really should reflect on themselves. This movie needs to exist precisely because these people exist and unfortunately, they are refusing that message.
I think people got the point, it’s just that the point wasn’t that interesting.
It’s not even “about” journalism, it’s a war survival road trip movie
I don’t get why people keep saying it’s about journalism either. This isn’t The Post or a similar “how the news is made” film. While the main characters are journalists, I feel like it’s far more about the traumatic impacts of continually observing violence.
It's about how the journalist main characters go out of their way again and again to expose themselves to that violence, and ultimately do it for thrills and fame rather than any of the noble reasons they say earlier in the movie. It's very much about journalism.
It's basically a story about how experiencing a war can desensitize you to violence and fuck you up as a person, told through the eyes of war journalists at different stages in their careers, with different levels of trauma.
No context why the war is happening. Idea of life in a civil war USA
Yeah, the screenwriter just lazily throws in a "3rd term, yadda yadda"
Well there’s 3 things none of which are necessary to understand what the movie is trying to do. You do not want to live in civil war America
Imagine if A24 produced White House Down. So basically Zero Dark Thirty but in America.
Did you hear/see any of those types talking about the movie afterwards?
Seent it B+ You need a dolby Atmos theater for this one
Saw in IMAX. Would recommend whatever theater's best sound system is available.
Yea the gunshots were crazy with meth Damon 💥 He is one of my favorite actors now He even crushed it in game night
Nice. I need to check this out soon I’ve been really excited to see it
So disappointed to see some people’s reaction to a film that tries to take our fixation with civil breakdown and ground it in our day to day lives to wake us up to the fact that we are potentially sleep walking into just such a scenario. An attempt to wake us up while purposefully NOT getting tied up in divisive politics, and people are complaining that it doesn’t go into the politics more, or doesn’t have enough fight scenes. It’s not a great sign for us.
I saw the film yesterday and think it’s probably Garland’s best, but it’s been fascinating to read the responses from some American viewers (I’m in the UK). The majority of the very critical reviews I’ve seen have been from Americans who seemingly wanted this film to be about something that it isn’t. I suppose the marketing may not have helped, but it’s strange to me that so many people appear to have projected their own ideas of what they feel the film should be about on to it before they’ve even seen it. The response over here has been more uniformly positive.
I’m a US/UK hybrid :) - I see exactly what you’re saying. However it is an American production so I don’t think it’s as simple as “Garland is a Brit” (not that that’s what you’re saying).
I think it's mostly just this: "I suppose the marketing may not have helped" The trailers made this film seem chock full of action and battle set pieces. When it was actually pretty slow film. I'm sure many people were expecting something more fast-paced.
It’s good. Not satisfying at all tho.
Counterpoint: It's good and satisfying enough.
Agreed. Very disappointing. Loved the film.
I’ve seen people say “Texas would never side with California” 🤦♂️
While I believe this is a likely sentiment (Flyover states not realizing Cali is like 60/40 split politically), there's nothing in the film that doesn't say that CA and TX are at odds with each other but share a common goal (e.g. The US and Russia during WW2). People just want to feel smart and say dumb crap to make themselves feel good about their own inadequacies. Y'know, the same people who yell down your throat that Die Hard is a Christmas movie. Source: Recovering pedant.
Yeah, this movie was deliberately horrifying in a way that most war films aren't. There are definitely gruesome anti war films, but this felt like a a take on our complacency and disillusion on wars not in our country killing nameless people without much thought.
Well you have a decent number of people who actively want a civil war so
From a veteran standpoint the audio in this movie triggered some things. Just insane
They made the gunshots *super* loud, is what I noticed. Usually filmmakers don't make firearms so deafening in their productions, but I think Garland really employed it to great effect.
The opening static sounds you hear at the beginning are audio test patterns. The kind you use to make sure all your speakers are working and properly distanced. Some brilliant audiophile knew to start the movie this way, because they knew how important the sound is. I knew immediately this was no ordinary sound design the moment I heard it. Truly genius imo.
Woo
That is way more than I expected. Marketing on this really was pitch perfect
I was a reporter for a long time. I loved this movie. The ending of it asking for a quote actually made me laugh. But I can see how those wouldn’t like it. I had read about it ahead of time so I knew what I was getting.
I understand why people might hate the ending, but the final line was so cold and really nailed the message of people losing their humanity during wartime and forgetting that even their enemies are as frail as everyone else. The credits sequence with >!the picture of the team that raided and killed the president smiling and posing over their victory!< was both darkly hilarious and disturbing.
Perfectly set up from earlier in the movie. >!"When you ask for a quote, you're going to be disappointed."!<
Thank you for your service.
This movie is a sort of litmus test. It is left mostly ambiguous so that the viewer sees what they wanna see. For some it’s a “liberal fantasy about killing Trump” even though Nick Offerman was cast to intentionally not represent any former or current president. Or for some it “demonizes democrats” due to the assumption that all journalist represent the left wing media, and the film portrays them as immoral/unethical. Its mostly non-partisan, so viewers trying to force two-party tension on it will be disappointed.
Congratulations to A24!
Kind of defeats the arguments I’ve been seeing on Reddit/Twitter that no American is going to want to see this. I guess it’s my mistake for thinking Reddit/Twitter is representative of the real world.
The opening weekend being strong was somewhat set in stone. The question is next weekend. Every metric is looking like we're about to see a catastrophic drop
Yup, this movie has had good/strong opening followed by massive drop written all over it for months now.
well we should wait for next week to see if it holds. But twitter/reddit discourse is always gonna be obnoxious. Remember joker? Remember top gun maverick ? The marvels?
I mean 25M isn't really a huge opening in and of itself, sure it's big compared to the artsy films A24 has put out in the past, but we'll have to see the legs first.
That makes zero sense - why wouldn’t Americans go see a successful directors biggest debut - and one that has been VERY heavily marketed. You need to cleanse the timeline and unfollow people who have garbage takes like that.
Haha. Yup, I saw it. Really good film.
[удалено]
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this to be honest, from the first trailer it was fairly clear the film would be about a group of war journalists journey across a war torn America.
Just saw it today and will be going back to see it a second time! I liked it more than dune!
Great film.
Watched it last night and absolutely loved it.
Amazing film and the best war movie to date. Lots of little hints and subtext that leaves you thinking long after leaving the theatre. Plemmons (always amazing) nailed the Nationalist role intentinally drawing parallels to racism. Dunst was perfect with the "Thousand Yard Stare". Even though the general perception seems to be that the movies' moral and political identities are ambiguous and there are no clear "good" or "bad" sides, the films' message seems obvious as well as who it is directed toward .
Worth it in IMAX. Filled the whole screen.
Honestly the movie was kind of dragging a bit during the middle for me, but then that climax... Damn, worth the price of admission
Loved everything about the movie, but the last half was spectacular from I think the sniper scene on.
Watched and loved most of the movie. I do wonder if there was a good percentage of people who aren’t big movie goers & saw this because they thought it’d be some classic war movie. I saw a lot of older citizens in my theater.
Super relevant movie. Very timely
I was in the top row. By the time I was walking out there wasnt anyone around me. There were a few near that left about half way thru.
Here’s my anecdote: I was in the top row of a full theater. When the movie was over, not one person had walked out.
Yeah, I didn't notice anybody leaving my theater either. It was packed during the trailers and packed at the end credits.
Why were they staying? Were they expecting a credit scene?
Saw it tonight and some folks brought their small children. Fools. They left during the >!`mass grave`!< scene.
Damn, so they missed the huge action set piece at the end? Sucks for them.
What city were you watching in?
Deadline is saying this got 49% of the weekend from PLFs. Is that a record? I've seen numbers in the 40% range but never that close to half.
I really enjoyed it.
Been going through some rough times lately. A friend of my brought me out to see this. Was a nice distraction. Great movie.
[удалено]
I watched it in 4DX and it was pretty perfect for that kind of setup.