Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I didn’t realise until I was looking on IMDb afterwards!

I just got back from Abigail. It was a fun movie. I recommend seeing it with a crowd.

Just watched : Civil War.

Summary : the film follows a group of american veteran journalists working for Reuters (war reporters + 1 young civilian that wants to become a war reporter) while they travel to Washington D.C., in the hope of getting, what appears to be, the last interview of the US President before the US governement falls (it's not a spoiler, you learn that in the first 10 minutes of the film) after Texas, California and Florida (at least) chose to secede from the union (California and Texas formed an alliance while Florida chose to remain independent while being aligned with California and Texas) and have fought an unforgiving civil war for an undisclosed amount of time. And the rebels are clearly winning.

I liked it a lot. However, it's not an enjoyable watch. Alex Garland chose an ultra-realistic approach in describing what could a civil war (and a war, period) in the modern US look like. From the empty streets, the destroyed buildings, widespread suspicion and fear, petty revenge among the civilians, confusion (are those soldiers really soldiers ? are they deserters ? are they looters that found uniforms ? if they are soldiers, which faction ? do they follow orders ? are they part of a faction within a faction ?) and the lack of justice, the scenes are not unlike what can be seen in Ukraine, Syria, former Yougoslavia or what always happened during war and especially civil war (spent too much time for my own good and mental health on r/combatfootage when the Ukraine war started ...).

Politics is almost never mentioned (you can vaguely guess who's who but the film will never give you more details and you won't get a crystal clear answer, mind you I am not from the US) because it isn't what the film is aiming for. To me, this film is almost a statement ; this is what modern warfare on your soil looks like, this is what a modern civil war on your soil looks like. Don't be like that.

It is well paced, well shot, well played, sometimes hard to watch (but the older I get, the less I am confortable with very realistic approach to violence so that might be just on me) and very engaging.

It sounds like an intense film. I was planning to see it by myself since my family isn’t interested, but had a change of heart when

1. I saw an interview with Alex Garland that rubbed me the wrong way and reminded me why I didn’t like Ex Machina.

2. I decided I would prefer to see something a little less grin on a day whenI would have to have dinner with my extended family.

3. In a theater I can’t turn it off and take a break if it gets too stressful.

Hopefully it will hit streaming soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How should we handle reviews in this thread? I would like to put some kind of a small review in here to let people know the movie is out and good/bad/whatever, but I feel like the Mini Movie Review thread is the best place for fuller reviews, since then everything would be consolidated in the more timeless thread. However, that would mean a bit of a double post here and there. What do you think? Is that a problem? Should we only cross post when we have something additional to add, such as a reply to another post or a second movie review?

28 Years Later

Jodie Comer has been cast in this sequel to Days and Weeks. Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ralph Fiennes too.

I’m excited.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
28 Years Later

Jodie Comer has been cast in this sequel to Days and Weeks. Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ralph Fiennes too.

I’m excited.

I’m very curious as to what it’s actually going to be about; the Rage virus burns itself out so quickly it shouldn’t be like a normal zombie film, as you won’t have undead hordes wandering around.

Well, last we saw, Paris and presumably by extension everywhere but The Americas, Australia and such non-land-bridged areas were infected.

And if one can be a carrier, any forays into those areas would have to be super careful, as any inhabitants you find have to be assumed to be carrying the infection.

Hmm. Seems Paramount are rebooting The Naked Gun. With Liam Neeson as Lt Frank Drebin.

Now I’m not going to pretend the original three are sacrosanct and perfect examples and that, but they are classics, and very very funny. And most of that came from a dream team of writers and actors, all of whom seemed to be on the same wavelength, able to make comedic performances appear deadpan.

The good news for my brain thinks is I can see Liam Neeson in the role. And I accept it may be a different style of comedy. But I’m seriously concerned that it’s doomed to suck.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
28 Years Later

Jodie Comer has been cast in this sequel to Days and Weeks. Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ralph Fiennes too.

I’m excited.

Sort of wary to the sequel, especially with it being such a long time since the last two movies were released. 28 Days Later was lightning in a bottle in terms of it being a surprise hit that helped change the zombie genre and it was good in the sense that it wasn't too large scale and more character focused. 28 Weeks Later was a signficantly weaker sequel where it relied on a lot of plot contrived idiot balls being passed along the characters to justify bringing the Rage Virus back into the UK. If they do explore 28 years later, (which frankly it should have been 28 months later if they're following the time frame for naming conventions), I feel like it should go back to its roots of it being a more localized outbreak (maybe the Rage Virus mutates and it becomes a recurring issue somehow rather than burning out like it did in previous movies) but we'll see where it goes.

He did fine as Hannibal, but Lt Sgt Drebbin is just a different class of character.

It’s definitely a tricky character. Whilst often seen as deadpan, there’s more to it than that. To play a ridiculous man completely straight, without nod and wink to camera, mugging etc isn’t easy.

It’s the very slight exaggeration. To have the chaos and nonsense going on around you, and be able to treat it as normal. To be earnestly silly

Now I’m not saying Liam Neeson can’t do that. Just that it’s not an easy thing to portray. And frankly, for them to abandon that character trait is unconscionable.