Have you seen Alex Garland's Civil War? Perhaps not, because you dread a deluge of leftist propaganda, fair call. But I think you'll be surprised to find the film doesn't go down that path. It's shot through the lens of a crew of journalists on a mission to interview the President even as secessionist forces are closing in on DC.
So what follows is an attempted objective account of the horrors of war, not least a civil one, and Garland does a good job. Kirsten Dunst plays her part admirably as a hard-bitten combat journalist, her young protege ain't bad, elder NYT(!) journo veteran does the job and adrenaline fueled Joel (Wagner Moura) is on target and there you have it, an SUV of journos travelling from NYC to DC via Pittsburgh in the midst of a civil war.
.jpg)
There's a few moments of dread in the journey, though the violence is underplayed for the most part, and you'll be surprised to note secessionist forces are apparently color blind. Black, white, whatever have banded together to overthrow a tyrannical President (Nick Offerman), and they do. One race, human, against a corrupt despot. Nice.
Right on, and the WF, led by something which looks suspiciously like 1st Cav, hit DC and take out an ignominious, lying tyrant. Keen-eyed viewers will note he's shot in the end by a FPOC (Female Person Of Color), who is also the Sergeant in charge of the requisite kill team, ahem.
OK, the movie's not perfect but it does manage to steer a course between current partisan friction as if to report on a civil war that's actually going down, with all the inane wickedness therein. Are the combat scenes good? You be the judge, gentle readers, and you'll note our beloved ruler gets shot inside his DC fastness. What a good ending.
Watch Civil War, it's streaming on Amazon.
Topical, what?
LSP
PS. For a real review, written by a real journalist from, errrr, AP, go here.
PPS. Does the objective journalist still exist? My only real cavil about this flick is that it's main protagonists, the journos, are really well played, I recognize them even, from the past, but are they feasible today, much less tomorrow. That in mind, Civil War might be slated as a retrospective cast in the future. Dystopian, yes, but the real dystopia, from this flick's POV, would be the journalists themselves. Here, they're cast as truth tellers. I won't bang on.
Thanks for the review and recommend…had forgotten about this one, even if only for some Saturday evening decompression time with popcorn entertainment…altho, come to think of it (on the heels of my micro-screed over at LL’s earlier), the movie premise comes close to where we are as a nation as the Lunatics In Charge push our buttons daily.
ReplyDeleteIf I was fighting a civil war and the CNN film crew showed up, guess who would get it first? Just saying.
ReplyDeletePaul, I say worth watching (Garland's not shabby, see Ex Machina) but wait for the cost to go down. Smart move shooting the thing through the last remaining objective press crew left in America.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's obviously fiction. Still, I give it a pass and I like the happy ending.
I know, LL, same.
ReplyDeleteAs above, the movie's fiction, especially in the press regard.
BTW, there's more than a few neat one liners in this flick -- I like "What kind of American are you?"'s comments about Reuters. Nice.
Have a night in and give it a watch. Per post, my only real cavil, apart from the fantasy journalists, is the fantasy FPOC who leads a team into the Oval Office and kills the tyrant.
Like, really, there's this FPOC leading SEALS (you'll note 'Chief' in the dialogue)? Huh. But and fair play to Garland for not going down the racial mysogyny route.
Have a gaze when you can.
Yep, take out the film crew FIRST... sigh
ReplyDeleteWell yes, there is that, NFO.
ReplyDelete