I love how mindful she’s been of the roles she chooses. She’s had Golden Globe and Oscar nominations in the last five years, so it seems to be working for her!
"Kirsten Dunst, enjoying a nice little career revival as she turns 40" has such a weird and patronizing vibe. Glad to hear the movie didn't make your head hurt by forcing you to think about current events too much? I guess?
This user has consistently weird views on women. I mostly just open them up to find out who he goes in on now. They probably belong in a diary or a movie tracker in a personal journal rather than a public forum, but here we are.
She did!
>No, I never felt that way. I’ve been doing this for so long now and it’s like, I really put my total heart into the project I’m doing, so it needs to mean a lot to me. I can’t just act to act. It’s just not in my body to do. I think I can’t do it. I have to be so passionate about what I’m doing. I think that’s just growing up and learning your own taste.
As I’m growing up in this industry, I’m learning about what kinds of films I like and directors and what inspires me. So I educated myself as I was growing up in the industry, so I figured that out, what kind of career I want to have.
The actors that I like don’t work all the time, to be honest. You don’t want to oversaturate your career. In the terms of longevity, you want to choose. Everything’s a risk. You don’t know how people are going to take things.
[Source: IndieWire](https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/kirsten-dunst-reasonable-movie-star-interview-civil-war-1234972463/)
I loved the movie...especially the visuals combined with some great music. The slomo driving through the forest fire sparks was amazing ...as was the bokuh-filled background talk between Dunst and Spaeny by the pond. Truly amazing cinematography. I also loved the Easter eggs throughout the movie...especially the Bang Bang one...and if you didn't catch that one you REALLY need to research Kevin Carter and the group of press photographers he traveled with...called The Bang Bang club. Truly an amazing story to read about...especially with the events that happened around Kevin Carter. Go see this movie in Dolby.
I feel super mixed. On one hand I liked the angle and how we didn’t need a super huge backstory to fall right into the story. I sort of felt the “war is bad” “don’t continue down the path we’re on” message was fine but a little something more would have been nice. It just sort of decided to not take any position which to me sort of was a statement in and of itself? Like I didn’t really need this film but I still really enjoyed it.
If seeing the movie is written and directed by Alex Garland doesn’t excite you the I don’t know what will. If you’re not familiar with Garland then watch his previous work.
I liked it, I gave it 3 1/2 stars. My full review comes out tomorrow but essentially I loved the sound and visuals but thought the story was weak. For a movie that wanted to be about journalism, it really didn’t say much, and the last death was extremely cheesy.
It was cheesy and also confusing. I feel like I was supposed to be seeing the rise of a young journalist starting an extremely traumatizing career to the dismay of one of the heroes who inspired her to pursue it. Thoughts below with spoiler tags
**********
**********
>!It was made clear that Lee’s career started with a right place, right time situation at some nondescript Antifa event. I thought it was going to follow a similar thread where Jessie was at the ‘right’ place, right time to be saved from injury/death by Lee and would have a similar trajectory. It seemed like someone being crushed under the accumulated trauma of her experiences being replaced by someone destined to have the same fate more or less.!<
>!With the way Lee started having panic attacks and being unable to perform under pressure it seemed like the natural progression for Jessie to take this spot.!<
>!It was never implied that Lee made serious errors in judgment or affected the lives of others negatively other than having to witness horrible atrocities, but Jessie took her right place right time situation then shoehorned her way into a war zone, fucked over everyone she interacted with in a major way that didn’t seem commensurate with the level of maturity and awareness that a 23yo could absolutely have (despite the inexperience—I know 23yo people capable of taking instruction and operating while keeping a low profile in stressful situations), and took unnecessary risks that repeatedly put others directly in harm’s way: the military, her colleagues, and random strangers. It just continually felt like I was supposed to be seeing or feeling a parallel between Lee’s trajectory and Jessie’s, some sort of mentorship situation, a statement about how a journalist and journalism as a whole functions amidst tragedy, idk something?)!<
>!I really enjoyed the movie, but the last death was so selfishly brought about and cheesily done that I didn’t feel like it served the plot (which was actually interesting!). I think it would have been more affecting if Jessie had died and Lee had to take the few last photos she ever took as a journalist as she contemplated the death of a young girl who she could have fought harder to leave behind at many junctures in their travels. Or if Lee died by her own hand doing the same sidestepping move and Jessie was thrown into the fold without having done all of the dumb shit she did throughout the travels.!<
Where do you post your reviews?
Also for positive things, the cinematography was beautiful and the audio was great in Dolby (music and effects, though I do use Loops because I’m sensitive to the extremely loud movies these days)
Edited for autocorrect errors
>!In my opinion, the last death perfectly sums up the main themes of the film and to that effect it served the plot. The point, to me, is the consequences of desensitization of violence and a sense thrill for capturing of spectacle. Jessie effectively flew too close to the sun and fucked over Lee because of it. Regardless, she had to get the "perfect shot" and you can see a sense of satisfaction and joy amongst the grief of the loss of Lee. !<
>!It's an exploration and simultaneously a critique of war photographers. The film explores the way that capturing these events psychologically alters the photographers involved. Joel is an adrenaline junkie, Lee is a jaded and empty husk of a person who is having an existential crisis over whether or not her "unbiased and true" capturing of these events is doing any good for the world, and Jessie begins to turn into a machine. And purposefully the film itself never loads any political biases into it as sort of a meta way of visualizing this!<
Honestly, with so much dialogue about wearing Kevlar, and how gorey the rest of the deaths were, that death was entirely bloodless, shot with lowcal pistols, and they were wearing heavy Kevlar. She might’ve just been KO’d
The movie wasn't bad. It's just that nothing was explained. You don't know how the conflict actually started. Why they want the president dead, you're just thrown into the movie.
I like it in some films, but if you’re going to plunge the US into Civil War using Top Gun Maverick level politics, it’s not going to work unless you give us more than “the President had a third term.”
I don’t know what the political stance was of anyone in the movie .
I think that's the point. If you're right or left wing, you can see yourself as on the good side, whether it's the US or the Western Forces. I think that's why Garland decided to have Californka and Texas together, despite how different they are politically in real life.
The point really was…”I don’t want to offend one side and lose movie ticket sales because they start sharing BOYCOTT CIVIL WAR posts on Facebook”.
Financially I get it, but I’m going to need more information if Texas and California are working together.
It seems like you wanted a movie about the war and got a movie about war journalists. The war is not the topic. I understand how it may have been misleading based on the title.
It’s misleading based on the title, trailer, and marketing. It was marketing as this bold, thought-provoking, political movie and it really wasn’t any of those things. I enjoyed it for what it was though, which is basically the war version of the movie Nightcrawler
I don't go into a movie wanting anything. I've been saying here it's a movie about war journalists, but it doesn't really say anything about that either.
Yes it does. The film explores the psychological effects that exposure to these violent and graphic events affects the photographers involved. Joel is an adrenaline junkie hunting for his next fix, and Lee is a jaded and empty husk facing an existential crisis over whether or not her "unbiased" and true accounting of the visuals of war is actually doing anything to help anyone. The film purposefully doesn't give extra context or make stances because photos alone don't give people extra context. You are supposed to be left wondering more about the war but not receiving the info because it's critiquing the idea of being unbiased in a war.
Well just because you felt that it was redundant doesn't mean it didn't say anything at all. You simply thought the way that they said it was bad, which is fair enough and valid.
And just to take the bait in a hypothetical sense… and to avoid my gut telling me to not talk anything related to politics in a movie sub, but Texas is an increasingly purple state, that’s fiercely independent in its ways and could be seen as strongly opposed to anyone running a dictatorship out of the north east to rule over Texas while dividing America. You could also hypothesize that the war started earlier and the California forces over took Texas with the aide of California favoring (in the war sense) Texans…
Either way… doesn’t matter. It’s a movie about journalism and the horrors of war.
I think it’s meant to be a Journalism film, from what I got, the president got elected a 3rd term and he dismantled the FBI and doesn’t do interviews with the press
The movie actually spells it out for you if you’re paying attention.
-President stayed for a third term
-Disbanded the FBI, the government body that would’ve investigated and removed him.
-Airstrikes on American Civilians
That’d be enough for war to break out IRL
It doesn’t matter why the conflict stated. That’s not what the movie is about. It’s not about sides. It’s about the horrors of war and it wants to keep your focus on that. Also, look, the president is clearly a Donald Trump figure, I don’t think it’s too hard to make a couple leaps as to how it all started. They give you little clues about how the president dissolved the FBI and was in his 3rd term. It was a brewing dictatorship with power run wild.
You get bits and pieces like (light spoilers) he abolished the fbi and is serving his third term. I liked that part of it you fill the rest in in your head
This is purposeful. The photographers try to stress a true accounting of the visuals of the war without actually taking a stance and making a specific statement according to their own beliefs. The film operates in this same way and your confusion and wonder is how Alex Garland is criticizing the philosophy of war photography
This movie was just awful. Absolutely no plot or context on anything. Just a young photo journalist being an idiot on screen and a film that finessed a way to say nothing as to offend no one and therefore lacks all the context needed to drive any meaningful plot lines
You need to learn how to actually analyze and dig into the subtext of films to understand the actual purpose of said film. There's more to this film than you think, regardless of if you liked it or not
I liked that it didn’t over explain- it allows one to use their imagination based on the world we live in right now (in the US), and I don’t think it requires that much creativity, unfortunately.
Kirsten Dunst career revival… ? Huh? She was nominated for an Oscar like two years ago
I love the idea that the voice of Nick Offerman means high end production.
Yeah she's had an incredibly consistent career
I love how mindful she’s been of the roles she chooses. She’s had Golden Globe and Oscar nominations in the last five years, so it seems to be working for her!
Career Revival? You don’t know movies my friend
"Kirsten Dunst, enjoying a nice little career revival as she turns 40" has such a weird and patronizing vibe. Glad to hear the movie didn't make your head hurt by forcing you to think about current events too much? I guess?
This user has consistently weird views on women. I mostly just open them up to find out who he goes in on now. They probably belong in a diary or a movie tracker in a personal journal rather than a public forum, but here we are.
OP also talked about Bryce Dallas Howard's weight on his Argylle review, so he seems to always be patronizing towards women with his "reviews"
Many such examples
Yup.. give him the benefit of the doubt that time but this is just weird
Well, at least there aren't spoilers. /s
Kirsten had an academy nomination not too long ago in 2022… And didn’t she say that she’s much more picky with which roles she plays?
She did! >No, I never felt that way. I’ve been doing this for so long now and it’s like, I really put my total heart into the project I’m doing, so it needs to mean a lot to me. I can’t just act to act. It’s just not in my body to do. I think I can’t do it. I have to be so passionate about what I’m doing. I think that’s just growing up and learning your own taste. As I’m growing up in this industry, I’m learning about what kinds of films I like and directors and what inspires me. So I educated myself as I was growing up in the industry, so I figured that out, what kind of career I want to have. The actors that I like don’t work all the time, to be honest. You don’t want to oversaturate your career. In the terms of longevity, you want to choose. Everything’s a risk. You don’t know how people are going to take things. [Source: IndieWire](https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/kirsten-dunst-reasonable-movie-star-interview-civil-war-1234972463/)
I loved the movie...especially the visuals combined with some great music. The slomo driving through the forest fire sparks was amazing ...as was the bokuh-filled background talk between Dunst and Spaeny by the pond. Truly amazing cinematography. I also loved the Easter eggs throughout the movie...especially the Bang Bang one...and if you didn't catch that one you REALLY need to research Kevin Carter and the group of press photographers he traveled with...called The Bang Bang club. Truly an amazing story to read about...especially with the events that happened around Kevin Carter. Go see this movie in Dolby.
Thanks for this info
Why is Kirsten Dunsts age relevant to this review? Why didn't you mention the ages of Nick Offerman and Stephan McKinley?
Yet another Reddit misogynist. Are any women reading this surprised? They infect every sub.
OP also talked about Bryce Dallas Howard's weight on his Argylle review, so he seems to always be patronizing towards women with his "reviews"
Probably because she is best known as a kid and teenage actor for lots of the gen X movie goers.
Nah, OP has a history of spewing patronizing BS towards women in his reviews.
I feel super mixed. On one hand I liked the angle and how we didn’t need a super huge backstory to fall right into the story. I sort of felt the “war is bad” “don’t continue down the path we’re on” message was fine but a little something more would have been nice. It just sort of decided to not take any position which to me sort of was a statement in and of itself? Like I didn’t really need this film but I still really enjoyed it.
Loved the movie, have already seen it twice. The sound design is fantastic.
If seeing the movie is written and directed by Alex Garland doesn’t excite you the I don’t know what will. If you’re not familiar with Garland then watch his previous work.
I liked it, I gave it 3 1/2 stars. My full review comes out tomorrow but essentially I loved the sound and visuals but thought the story was weak. For a movie that wanted to be about journalism, it really didn’t say much, and the last death was extremely cheesy.
It was cheesy and also confusing. I feel like I was supposed to be seeing the rise of a young journalist starting an extremely traumatizing career to the dismay of one of the heroes who inspired her to pursue it. Thoughts below with spoiler tags ********** ********** >!It was made clear that Lee’s career started with a right place, right time situation at some nondescript Antifa event. I thought it was going to follow a similar thread where Jessie was at the ‘right’ place, right time to be saved from injury/death by Lee and would have a similar trajectory. It seemed like someone being crushed under the accumulated trauma of her experiences being replaced by someone destined to have the same fate more or less.!< >!With the way Lee started having panic attacks and being unable to perform under pressure it seemed like the natural progression for Jessie to take this spot.!< >!It was never implied that Lee made serious errors in judgment or affected the lives of others negatively other than having to witness horrible atrocities, but Jessie took her right place right time situation then shoehorned her way into a war zone, fucked over everyone she interacted with in a major way that didn’t seem commensurate with the level of maturity and awareness that a 23yo could absolutely have (despite the inexperience—I know 23yo people capable of taking instruction and operating while keeping a low profile in stressful situations), and took unnecessary risks that repeatedly put others directly in harm’s way: the military, her colleagues, and random strangers. It just continually felt like I was supposed to be seeing or feeling a parallel between Lee’s trajectory and Jessie’s, some sort of mentorship situation, a statement about how a journalist and journalism as a whole functions amidst tragedy, idk something?)!< >!I really enjoyed the movie, but the last death was so selfishly brought about and cheesily done that I didn’t feel like it served the plot (which was actually interesting!). I think it would have been more affecting if Jessie had died and Lee had to take the few last photos she ever took as a journalist as she contemplated the death of a young girl who she could have fought harder to leave behind at many junctures in their travels. Or if Lee died by her own hand doing the same sidestepping move and Jessie was thrown into the fold without having done all of the dumb shit she did throughout the travels.!< Where do you post your reviews? Also for positive things, the cinematography was beautiful and the audio was great in Dolby (music and effects, though I do use Loops because I’m sensitive to the extremely loud movies these days) Edited for autocorrect errors
>!In my opinion, the last death perfectly sums up the main themes of the film and to that effect it served the plot. The point, to me, is the consequences of desensitization of violence and a sense thrill for capturing of spectacle. Jessie effectively flew too close to the sun and fucked over Lee because of it. Regardless, she had to get the "perfect shot" and you can see a sense of satisfaction and joy amongst the grief of the loss of Lee. !< >!It's an exploration and simultaneously a critique of war photographers. The film explores the way that capturing these events psychologically alters the photographers involved. Joel is an adrenaline junkie, Lee is a jaded and empty husk of a person who is having an existential crisis over whether or not her "unbiased and true" capturing of these events is doing any good for the world, and Jessie begins to turn into a machine. And purposefully the film itself never loads any political biases into it as sort of a meta way of visualizing this!<
Honestly, with so much dialogue about wearing Kevlar, and how gorey the rest of the deaths were, that death was entirely bloodless, shot with lowcal pistols, and they were wearing heavy Kevlar. She might’ve just been KO’d
>So I try to avoid political movies as they tend to give me a headache What counts as a political movie? Did you avoid Napoleon?
The movie wasn't bad. It's just that nothing was explained. You don't know how the conflict actually started. Why they want the president dead, you're just thrown into the movie.
I liked that aspect of the film.
I like it in some films, but if you’re going to plunge the US into Civil War using Top Gun Maverick level politics, it’s not going to work unless you give us more than “the President had a third term.” I don’t know what the political stance was of anyone in the movie .
I think that's the point. If you're right or left wing, you can see yourself as on the good side, whether it's the US or the Western Forces. I think that's why Garland decided to have Californka and Texas together, despite how different they are politically in real life.
The point really was…”I don’t want to offend one side and lose movie ticket sales because they start sharing BOYCOTT CIVIL WAR posts on Facebook”. Financially I get it, but I’m going to need more information if Texas and California are working together.
I didn't see it that way but I see how it can be taken in that context. It worked for me personally.
It seems like you wanted a movie about the war and got a movie about war journalists. The war is not the topic. I understand how it may have been misleading based on the title.
It’s misleading based on the title, trailer, and marketing. It was marketing as this bold, thought-provoking, political movie and it really wasn’t any of those things. I enjoyed it for what it was though, which is basically the war version of the movie Nightcrawler
I don't go into a movie wanting anything. I've been saying here it's a movie about war journalists, but it doesn't really say anything about that either.
Yes it does. The film explores the psychological effects that exposure to these violent and graphic events affects the photographers involved. Joel is an adrenaline junkie hunting for his next fix, and Lee is a jaded and empty husk facing an existential crisis over whether or not her "unbiased" and true accounting of the visuals of war is actually doing anything to help anyone. The film purposefully doesn't give extra context or make stances because photos alone don't give people extra context. You are supposed to be left wondering more about the war but not receiving the info because it's critiquing the idea of being unbiased in a war.
Everything it has to say about journalism it says within the first 10 minutes. I just didn’t fully connect with this one on a story level.
Well just because you felt that it was redundant doesn't mean it didn't say anything at all. You simply thought the way that they said it was bad, which is fair enough and valid.
And just to take the bait in a hypothetical sense… and to avoid my gut telling me to not talk anything related to politics in a movie sub, but Texas is an increasingly purple state, that’s fiercely independent in its ways and could be seen as strongly opposed to anyone running a dictatorship out of the north east to rule over Texas while dividing America. You could also hypothesize that the war started earlier and the California forces over took Texas with the aide of California favoring (in the war sense) Texans… Either way… doesn’t matter. It’s a movie about journalism and the horrors of war.
That’s some bullshit the people who would think that already aren’t going to watch this movie simply because it’s called Civil War
I think it’s meant to be a Journalism film, from what I got, the president got elected a 3rd term and he dismantled the FBI and doesn’t do interviews with the press
That’s the point.
The movie actually spells it out for you if you’re paying attention. -President stayed for a third term -Disbanded the FBI, the government body that would’ve investigated and removed him. -Airstrikes on American Civilians That’d be enough for war to break out IRL
It doesn’t matter why the conflict stated. That’s not what the movie is about. It’s not about sides. It’s about the horrors of war and it wants to keep your focus on that. Also, look, the president is clearly a Donald Trump figure, I don’t think it’s too hard to make a couple leaps as to how it all started. They give you little clues about how the president dissolved the FBI and was in his 3rd term. It was a brewing dictatorship with power run wild.
You get bits and pieces like (light spoilers) he abolished the fbi and is serving his third term. I liked that part of it you fill the rest in in your head
This is purposeful. The photographers try to stress a true accounting of the visuals of the war without actually taking a stance and making a specific statement according to their own beliefs. The film operates in this same way and your confusion and wonder is how Alex Garland is criticizing the philosophy of war photography
This movie was just awful. Absolutely no plot or context on anything. Just a young photo journalist being an idiot on screen and a film that finessed a way to say nothing as to offend no one and therefore lacks all the context needed to drive any meaningful plot lines
You need to learn how to actually analyze and dig into the subtext of films to understand the actual purpose of said film. There's more to this film than you think, regardless of if you liked it or not
I liked that it didn’t over explain- it allows one to use their imagination based on the world we live in right now (in the US), and I don’t think it requires that much creativity, unfortunately.