the line were Lee says "everytime I went to a warzone i thought i was sending a message home: dont do this." thats pretty much the point of the whole movie
Great review! I loved Jake's take when he said that USA constantly makes war movies in other counties ignoring the politics and inner workings of those countries. While this film is being criticized because of it. I haven't really thought about this from that angle. It really makes me wonder how much of the divisive stuff was put on purpose. Really enjoyed the film myself, while it might seem simple on the outside I was amazed how layered and complex the story is. Amazing filmmaking.
Thank goodness for this review. I've been losing my mind seeing all the headlines about how the film is "a love letter to journalism" and the critical takes saying "it has nothing to say." It has a lot to say, and boy howdy, it's a lot more of a cautionary tale than people are getting! The Whiplash comparison was the first thing that sprung to mind for me too.
Nadia's observation about it being like Nightcrawler (2014) was my exact thoughts. I loved the movie, and the movie is not about the civil war going on in the movie. It's about the power of the camera and the weakness of those who wield it.
Really? How were they similar to Nightcrawler? Nightcrawler intentionally manipulated crime scenes and staged violent crimes to make money. The Civil War photographers are simply witnessing and capturing what's happening so the world can see.
I got a dantes inferno parallel from it. As each character further descends past each threshhold, they lose a part of themselves, or are adapted to their new environments for worse mostly. Really thats just one reading I got from it.
I loved this movie and largely agree with Jake. I also liked the ambiguity because it leaves room for the imagination. I enjoyed trying to piece the puzzle together as you get little snippets of dialogue
You got exactly what I was feeling. They probably should have changed the title or something because Civil War implies it's about the division, when it's not at all. The brutality of war and photographing that doesn't care about the sides when the inhumanity is everywhere
I think one of the main messages of the movie is that black hawk down quote "Once that first bullet goes past your head. Politics and all that shit just goes right out the window". In one of the scenes the soldiers even mock the journalists when they ask what side they're on.
Try telling the allied soldiers liberating the Nazi death camps in 1945 that. They would say that’s nuts. Sides sometimes count in war. I’m sure the Allied soldiers stumbling into Auschwitz knew what side they were on, and the journalist taking pictures of the mass graves knew as well. This journalistic so-called neutrality is a modern conceit.
I just left a showing and I feel numb. I think this film broke something in me. The politics of the film (to me) don't matter, because as they say, they are just there to document and someone will decide what's right and wrong.. And they lose their humanity doing it. It is indeed needed, we need to know what happened (oh god, I think I almost just quoted Cloverfield), but the cost to the people is hideous. They witnessed warcrimes and there was no reactions in most cases. I know this movie was brilliant, I have no doubt about that, and it's going to stay with me for a bit.
*SPOILERS* Whether deliberate or not, I feel the lack of "politics" in the film is a one of its most important features. If you read the film as being critical of journalism, it makes sense. The film's presentation of the political landscape of the country is just how the media would cover it: these discrete events and elements without a greater comprehension of how we got there or where we're going. The various hints of just what happened and who's fighting who leaves us grasping for a greater understanding, but like our news cycles, they are devoid of context or meaning. The characters present themselves as neutral arbiters of truth and reality; something that is not only impossible, but by the film's end we question if it is morally justifiable. Vietnam ended in some small part due to the likes of Walter Cronkite rebuking such notions and speaking out. The film ends at a historical hinge point: what are the repercussions of the execution instead of exile, how will the western forces fair? And in the moment the two remaining journalists accomplish simply their own personal goals and sensational quotes or pictures that will grab eyes, but are bereft of any understanding of what's happened or where the country will go. We can even imagine if the one could have talked the soldiers into sparing the president's life or even affirmed it by asking some revelatory question that would justify it. In the end, the film is empty of these details because the news is.
I could almost agree with Jake if the film went deeper in exploring its focal point, that being journalistic photography in war. Unfortunately I just felt like it had barely anything to say about that aspect or its relation to war aside from some surface level observations.
This is Nadia's best review imo, brought up a bunch of stuff I never even considered like the journalists inserting themselves into the imagery..even if it was unintentionally.
When it comes to the film not taking a political stand, it seems possible that Alex Garland's fear was that the movie would be inflammatory, in a way that threatens to turn a cautionary tale into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That we're on enough of a powder keg that that would actually be a concern.
Why make a movie about an American civil war if he's too scared to take even the smallest stance on anything in case he annoys anyone. This film had basically nothing to say other that war = bad and we all already know this. It was good I liked it, but it was annoyingly centrist.
about to go see it, really hyped. hopefully it does well. garland and his colleagues have worked so hard to maintain their vision and respect their audiences, we need more popular filmmakers like them.
I really enjoyed it, like his other works it has some unforgettable scenes that just stick with you. It's a very powerful film, I was not disappointed at all.
Such a great conversation! I went into this movie not knowing much and was surprised how much i loved it. And I agree with Jake, i liked that the details of the civil war itself are vague. I loved Lee's and Jessie's character arc and how they go in opposite directions.
Spoiler in here, and I really enjoyed this conversation. My only comment would be that when he's asking the President for a quote I don't think his response is "That'll do." I heard him say "They always do" which called back to the earlier conversation about how the final interviews with folks like Gaddafi and Hussein weren't insightful and the older journalist said "They'll always let you down." I really loved that.
I finally got to see this movie, and I really enjoyed it. I love how many threads in it there are to pick apart. It was very affecting, especially as someone who has lived near DC for most of my life
I saw the title and my intial thought was "Eh, Captain America Civil War was alright. Could have been better." And thenI was a combination of relieved and disappointed that this was not, in fact, a discussion of that movie
I’m one of the folks that thought the movie was pulling its punches and was pretty shallow. I do think it’s a good thing they took a more middle road politically, but that’s not my complaint. They story is frankly boring. It’s predictable. They did a poor job building the characters, I frankly didn’t care what happened to them. They had little to no arc. They spent 1/3 of the movie just showing B roll footage of them driving. They spend another 1/3 talking amongst themselves without progressing any kind of plot. The movie nailed the fighting, the acting, the cinematography, and so many other aspects of a great film, but completely neglected its most interesting aspect: the setting. Remember the first Purge movie? How it was a cool unique idea that turned into a slasher flick? I think that’s how this movie will go down. They did no universe building, minimal character building, and stuffed the run time with b roll.
I totally agree, most people I know that complain about the film are complaining because it doesn't say what THEY want it to say. It doesn't say orange man bad or woke is bad. It's not about getting a larger audience, it's saying there are more important things than our petty disagreements. It's also about the grey area good journalists have to live in. They aren't there to solve the problem for us, they're there to put a spot light on things.
I liked the editing in some of the combat sequences that substituted big, loud moments for camera flashes but other than that, I don't think I've ever watched a film that better encapsulated the feeling of "babby's first film major student film in college", especially with regards to the screenplay.
I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style mission. The music took me to the post Vietnam Era. Many wanted to know the cause of the war but the context of the war is not important. Most 21st century Americans (except the naive) know how this could happen. Overall, this movie was an essay warning us (Americans) to not let our politicians lead us in this direction because…, in a war everyone loses.
really interesting to hear you guys' thoughts on the movie. i found it so limp & unengaging, but your points really gave me more to look at in it. the film didnt feel critical of journalism at all to me (i felt it was sort of vapidly pro the idea of journalism), but tbh i might have just been having trouble parsing the critique of the protagonists through the fact that i feel like i disliked them in a way that wasnt intentional. lee's flashbacks & particularly joel extracting the quote from the presifent before appearing in the snuff photo were both very potent and make me like the film a little more in retrospect. i definitely think the film shouldve excised some of the vague allusions to american partisan politics for the kind of bait and switch( just examining war in the abstract, but doing it in america) to work. a weird smug fence-sittingness still sits in some of the movie for me
I think you said it best when you said "Civil War isn't about Civil War". This is why people are mad. They feel clickbaited. I wasn't mad because I was told that it wasn't going to be about the Civil War 2 months ago. I can see why the ad campaign is backfiring with many on both sides of our polarized nation.
I knew the movie wasn't gonna be an action movie and get in the lore of the civil war or whatever but I still felt clickbaited because in the end the movie didn't really have anything to say about anything.
Loved this review. The negative takes on the film have really confused me; on a technical level it's just a *crazy* engaging thriller/horror ride, but what it has to say about the apathy of photojournalism really hit me hard. I can't understand the people who are saying "the movie has nothing to say" just because it's not about the two sides.
Jessie is so annoying as a character but the actress did great. She’s incredibly d-d-dumb and is definitely the reason parents have leashes for their children. I didn’t mind the plot it was a road trip movie but Jessie felt so much more like a character being written by a screenwriter than a character living life. I just saw her as the vessel for the message and if she wasn’t there they probably would’ve been just fine just without a few less photos. I think the scene in the beginning with the hard cut from suicide bombing to journalists laughing and having a good time set the tone that this isn’t about praising journalists it’s about seeing if by the end of it you’re laughing and desensitized to it (like how the soundtrack always seems to counter the tragedy) or if you can prevent from injecting yourself into this kinda violence.
Also agree with Jake, I think Alex Garland chose to be apolitical just to be really political about not only the polarisation in society but also the cruelty and dehumanisation of war. After reading someone complained about Alex Garland not really knowing American politics on Letterboxd, I couldn't help but wonder maybe not being American actually would help people evaluate the film in its intended way.
How can you reject the filmmakers intent? If a director sets out to make a serious movie and it ends up being a comedy, that doesn't suddenly make the film a comedy (like Tommy Wiseau tries to retroactively make out like The Room is intentionally bad). If Garland thinks this film makes journalists look good I'm seriously concerned for what he thinks bad journalists look like.
This film is disturbingly shallow. Its central themes of war is hell and respecting journalists are so obvious and done shoddily, respectively. I believe 2/4 of the central journalists are really malignant sociopaths. But these 2 issues are small fry compared to the cardinal sin of the film: the allsidesism of Garland and therefore his refusal to commit to a single concrete fact that can anchor the film to any reality. For example, the seemingly villainous President being on his 3rd term is never addressed to be concurrent or not, as that decides the constitutionality and thus partially informs the legitimacies of the rebellions. I don't care if the filmmaker injects their politics into their film of this immediate real(ish) nature, but I definitely care about them being weasel in establishing facts, as all this uncertainty actually encourages RL unhinged would be- and committed domestic terrorists.
I think the movie just needed to explain how the factions split across the country the way they did. It doesn’t have to follow what’s going on in the country today. It just has to set up that something happened. This is the way the country went, and therefore these five factions split up across the country, and this is why. It doesn’t have to be true to life. It just has to be something that makes sense in the story to explain why. There is one scene in the movie that made sense to be completely non-partisan and completely non-political without taking sides, and that was the sniper battle. You see a sniper and his scout with the telescope in a battle and the question that is brought up is why are you shooting at those other people you don’t even know who they are and the quick and simple answer was they’re trying to kill us. They’re shooting us 100% the time that I felt it was justified to not have a political answer beyond they’re shooting at us so we are shooting back at them. I didn’t enjoy the film a lot, but I do wish we had some background as to how the Civil War started.
THIS OH MY GOD FINALLY SOMEONE WHO USES THEIR BRAIN. Like yeah war bad but war is political, they are journalists but are they independent? Seems so, if so what is their platform. How did it start? And from everything in the film itself it is putting itself to the united states left but doing it with Dark souls level of cryptic lore.
I dunno.. the only I thing I was able to get out of this movie is "war journalism is fun and gives an adrenaline rush", which I feel is probably not a very good message when journalists are more and more under attack for merely reporting the truth?
I really wish people would stop talking about it being apolitical and actually talk about whether it portrays war and how it affects people. It doesn't. That's my issue with it. It's an odyssey through some one-off militants. We don't get much about how average people are affected other than that one town and it's really just a few seconds that says anything on the topic. The film is being elevated by people who think all criticism of it is about it not being directly based on the current political situation. It's kind of a shallow and obvious script with very good directing and acting.
My favourite movie of the year. Easy 10/10 for me, it really effected me and such a step up from “Men” which I didn’t like all that much. I think this is Alex Garlands best film yet! Edit: And yes, Nightcrawler was the first movie that came to mind while I was watching this as well, definitely similar themes
I feel like the movie didn't have to expand on the politics, but it very much felt like there was *something* missing to give the movie more of a throughline & impact. It just felt lacking - and that hole could be filled with a more in depth political outlook, or more regarding the characters in that conflict, or something else entirely. Instead it just vaguely hints at those things but lets each "segment" of the movie end kind of prematurely. Which might be what they were going for, but definitely makes for a less engaging (regarding emotion, interest/spectacle AND provoking thought) movie imho, which I didn't enjoy. Like, coming out of the cinema, the discussion was about "what this movie is not doing" much more than anything substantive about what the movie was saying, even though the movie felt like it did want to say something but just didn't.
Liked the review but trying to stay away from spoilers. I hate the theater experience these days. I saw Star Wars in the theater. That's how old I am. Never had to deal with cell phones and loud obnoxious people until now. I'm waiting to see this on VOD. Loved the commentary.
I was interested if this film was going to be about civil war itself - perhaps more about how exactly people get so divided that it escalates to that point or just the cruelty of it - or war photographers, or maybe just more about the characters themselves. It ended up being about none of these. It did portrary some characters, it seemed to be saying something about war photography, and perhaps even about the cruelty of civil war, but it was either just shallow & bland about these or just aggressively bad (mostly horrible about the photography part). A huge disappointment, didn't seem like a film that is divisive in the sense that people like different things, but in the sense that some people just can't recognize an awful movie.
I agree that the film is much more about journalism than it is about any partisan politics; though I wonder if its absolute refusal to convey any stances on the politics harms the film’s ability to tackle and critique journalism as a whole. One of the major aspects of journalism is finding a narrative, an angle, a way to frame the story. Capturing shocking imagery is undoubtedly a big scoop, but it’s how the press can then spin stories from that image that brings in the most buzz and also the worst consequences of unethical journalism. If the film is condemning opportunistic journalists who utilize conflict as a means for their own gains, I think it’s a blindspot to not cover how those journalists will sometimes contribute to the toxicity themselves, making it more inflammatory and thus profitable. I think about all the big name grifters in modern journalism who, yes, are ultimately self-interested, but still choose to play to one side because that is more beneficial for them in the long run. Setting the film in a divisive setting such as a civil war means that the most opportunistic thing the press can do is playing into that divisiveness. Even in Nightcrawler, there is tampering of the crime scene to make the imagery more salacious. I feel that if all the film wanted to tackle was voyeuristic journalists profiting off of conflict they are not a part of, a civil war was not the best background and something smaller scale could’ve conveyed the same idea (like a Nightcrawler). Funnily enough, I feel the civil war setting was chosen partly to capitalize on the fact times are so derisive right now, so the movie’s critiques towards film makers actually works better for me than the ones towards journalism. But yea, I don’t need the film as a whole to take any particular stance, but I would’ve liked to see some of the characters at least flirt with it. Though that’s only if I interpret the film as purely a condemnation of journalism. I can also view the film through the lens of just trying to capture the hellish dissonance of being a war photographer or any kind of press that covers horrible subjects (i.e. interviewers who have to be cordial to warlords); of simultaneously being in the thick of it while also always just on the outside looking in. Undeniably a fascinating film even if I’m not a 100% sure where I stand on it (ironically).
I think we already know the politics that went into it. We brought all that stuff with us. It is a story, how the United States ends because we lost the warrant the end. Almost like the beginning of an apocalypse type movie. There was no way the movie makers could explain anything to anybody about the politics because we all have our own reality that we’re walking around with and no one is going to tell us different. Even if we get confused for a minute, our favorite pendant or politician will set us straight and remind us, we’re supposed to be upset with. I also think the map was a little bit of patrol. it sets us up for the red sunglasses guy. Where are you from? Who are you with? I think it’s a little bit more clever than people give a credit for.
It was as great. It was fresh and new. Had a different way of telling a story. I think a lot of people had the agenda that they WISH it would have depicted. But I LOVED the fact that it steered away from that. It basically just said. No matter what side you’re on, you DO NOT want this kind of bullshit to go on in your backyard. And because the story was about journalists watching the story unfold without taking a side, it makes sense that the characters do just that. They watch the record and they let that serve as the story. There shouldn’t be a “slant” to the story in the movie. Because that’s why journalists and journalism are so important because they should not be “slanted” either. That was the idea. Thought the movie was an amazing piece of cinema. Garner knocked it out of the park.
The Texas and California comment fees like a meme. If people looked beyond pop politics, then they will see how Texas and California are very similar. What I found a bit puzzling was Alaska being a neutral territory. Makes me wonder about Hawaii. Any thoughts on this?
No movie that promises Downfall but in the White House and then doesn't pay that off can be forgiven by me ... I understand if budget meant they couldn't get Nick Offerman for more than a few minutes of screentime but then surely get a cheaper actor ...
There was a lot that this movie could have delved into as the reasons for a civil war. None of that was mentioned except that the current POTUS was on his 3rd term. This just became a very violent road trip by 4 journalists from NYC to DC with lots of random, violent situations thrown in. Even at the end, the WF and other rebel forces had all the tanks, attack helicopters and missiles while the defending Federal Forces had none? How is that possible that the US Army had no tanks or Apache copters left to defend the White House or didn't evacuate the President to a safer location?
Showing and choosing sides leads to identifying, which leads to picking a POV. And just like that you are rooting for someone and the antiwar message is lost. It was wise to not dwell into politics.
Not gonna lie. I've seen a lot of new film reviewers pop up after this film came out and I was prepared to not like yours. You guys did a great job. I look forward to your next one.
This antiwar has a lot of cool thrilling action war scenes that we see all the time in less critical movies. Why? This should have been shot like a horror film... Or Come and See.
Yeah pretty much agree. I'll have to check other opinions to see why they didn't like the movie. But It's not so much about civil war as it is about journalism and its ethics, If the director is making statements in interviews, It doesn't matter, what matters is what's on the movie.
I felt the movie was rather boring. There were some good visuals, but the story had absolutely no weight to it. The senseless killing and Mayham doesn’t make for a compelling story.
I found this film to be endlessly frustrating. It's not that the film is apolitical, it's that I feel it has very little to say and has some incredibly poor writing. I found the characters to be incredibly shallow and the dialog clunky. The "Portland Maoists" and "Antifa Massacre" were big ol' "woof" moments. They just constantly tease that you could be watching a movie with actual world building. I'm glad you brought up Apocalypse Now (as others have as well) because I think that's another example of a war movie that is apolitical but has a lot of depth and says a lot about the human condition and the ugliest corners of it that war can bring out. I think another point of comparison could be made to Coppola's The Conversation (and in turn, Antonioni's Blow-Up). I though that Civil War wanted to make a similar kind of statement about those who orient their lives around being a voyeur, but the failure is in Civil War's flat as a board characters. Dunst especially, does her darndest to make the most of what little is given to her, but it really can't fix the fact that Garland writes stoic, Star Wars prequel-esque characters. Garland also has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot manipulate tone. All of his films have this flat, ambient electro vibe that he can never totally break away from. In contrast, the best war movies are able to manipulate tone in a way that is surprising, funny, and disturbing. To bring up Apocalypse Now again, the "Charlie don't surf" scene I think is a good example of effectively manipulating tone. You go into a war movie expecting general suffering, but you get Robert Duvall surfing in the middle of a war zone. It's hilarious, frightening, disgusting, and stressful. Civil War makes gestures at this sort of thing like the hip-hop montage early on (which I thought was actually one of the best scenes in the film), but it falls apart around the major character death that happens at the end of act 2. Sorry to go on a rant in your youtube comment section, but I just saw this last night and tbh, I almost always agree with Jake and almost never agree with Nadia so it was interesting to do the opposite this time, although I think I liked it a lot less than either of you did.
Also isnt the rotten tomatoes score close to 90 percent? So its not that divisive with critics. Edit: just checked and its 80 percent. Still pretty high
It's supposed to be vague but bullying his way into a third term and disbanding the FBI would be very on brand for trump. He probably wouldn't send an airstrike against American citizens (probably)
The problem with this movie is truly makes no point at the end. War is bad? A civil war on your own soil is worse? Do we need a movie to get that through to people on the right and the left? What drives people to a civil war, and whether that purpose is worth should be the story. Our American Civil War was slavery despite some people attempting to divert from that. Slavery, having millions viewed as property, is something that makes sense for war. And guess what, that's not a 50/50 blame issue. Right now, what would drive us to civil war? Every time I ask that it goes nowhere. Abortion? Gay Marriage? Social Security? What would be worth killing your neighbors, fellow citizens? How about this. Imagine if one of our candidates has a 99%+ chance of rejecting the results if they lose, and would be okay with violence because of that. Which candidate we talking about? We want to act like that isn't the ONE scenario that could cause violence right now? Does that not strike you as exactly the problem, that this isn't a 50/50 problem? That's exactly the problem with this film. BOTH sides will see this film and say "Look how horrible this situation is, I can't believe the other side will cause this". I'll finish with an example to hit this home. I'd like to think most Americans think Jan 6, the photos and films of it, as bad. But here is the difference. A large group of our population, though a minority, see the people of Jan 6 as heroes. They see those same images (invoking the movie), and instead of seeing a group of people that rejected fair elections with ZERO proof of any fraud, they see freedom fighters. As I stated, is that 50/50, both sides? Acting like both sides have equal blame is like saying every war, divorce, fight, ended friendship has 50/50 blame. That's just not true.
"Journalists would NEVER get that close!" except the many journalists in ukraine that literally got shot at with machine guns and hit by shrapnel from artillery.
I’m relieved to learn that this movie isn’t about politics that was the main reason why I was going to avoid it but now i might actually give it a watch.
A movie about journalists in damn a civil war in America and yet no lore whatsoever? You can remain neutral and tell a good tale. Wanna see a great piece about photojournalism in a warzone? Play Umurangi Generation. I can give a "mid", and this is my best price. I'm even giving the A24 face value 20% discount.
I was just uninterested in the film because nothing about it seems relevant. Still photo journalism hasn't mattered since the 90's, most of the tactics and technology in this film are cartoonish interpretations of 90's tactics. There is not IMHO a realistic depiction of modern battlefields between near peer nations. Information war, EMP, retail drones, starvation (see ukrain) etc. all seem to be off the table, supply chains seem for the most part uninterupted. Just US currency is meaningless. It feels like a very 90's satruday morning cartoon tom clancy version of civil war is bad... also could be characterized as generally out of touch with how a contemporary civil war would effect the typical american family... oh wait these are all childless career folks with no vested interest in tomorrow... Just seems like a ill conceived nothing burger of a film. Makes civil war for the most part frankly look honestly unremarkable.
Yeah, it's sad to imagine that something like this is actually happening somewhere... that's why Berserk is amazing. Reading manga like Berserk will make your day 100x better and will take your mind away from things like these. Maybe you should read it??!? I dont knot hihi but yeah
I think that it's just kind of cowardly for Garland to not engage with the real world politics when so much attention is given to the other details of the world.
But that's part of the message of the film, to add politics in would contradict it. Cynical usage of war as a device for journalism removed from the greater context of the situation. It's use of an American setting only shows how vapid so much of our coverage on foreign civil conflicts really are.
@@paper9362 Comes off as lazy writing....... Makes the entire plot pretty pointless as there are no motivations for the characters to be doing literally anything. Not to mention the choice of dividing the theme and tone of scenes intercut with pop music is extremely bizzare. And then you have this idea that the journalists are there to just observe and photograph reality as it occurs, but the journalists are in scenarios that are completely devoid of reality. The sniper scene for example is complete nonsense. Even removing the horrendous depiction of a sniper fire scene from a stratgeic battle standpoint there is no scenario ever in history of a sniper scout team being super chill about random vehicles approaching them, allowing random civilians running over the top of them and asking them questions while in combat. Anyone tries doing that in the real world your gonna get a bullet, because the sniper team has no idea who you are. This scene literally violates basic protocols of embedded journalism. And im not even getting into the fantasy land which was the final scenes of this movie. The idea that your gonna have a photo op team run tandem with your primary strike team invading a compound. Like wtf were the writers smoking here..... This is supposed to be realistic? Ill take "things that have never happened in the history of the world" for 500 Alex!
@@MattBuild4 The only characters that matter are the journalists who have pretty clear motivation's shown by the end of the film. Also I was only addressing the fact that adding current Right/Left politics into the movie fucks with it's themes. Realism is another topic entirely and one I honestly don't care to discuss. If you took that same lens of scrutiny to a masterpiece like Apocalypse Now you would find plenty of similar "issues".
@@paper9362 If you only show the motivations of characters at the end of a story it makes it incredibly hard for the audience to care about your characters through 90% of the story.
That's a bummer. Don't make a movie called "Civil War" in the modern 20's unless you're actually going to say something. It comes off as cynical nothingness otherwise.
The movie is about that very idea tho. Cynical usage of war as a device for journalism removed from the greater context of the situation. It's use of an American setting only shows how vapid so much of our coverage on foreign civil conflicts really are.
now this might be a controversial statement, but I do believe most of the time civil war is not good
you're so brave to say this
How dare you bring politics into this discussion
Too political a take, get outta here /s
GIVE THIS PERSON A MEDAL RIGHT NOW
What are we? some kind of Civil War?
0/10 you didn't ask buddy, sidoni, and babu for their opinions
the line were Lee says "everytime I went to a warzone i thought i was sending a message home: dont do this." thats pretty much the point of the whole movie
Great review!
I loved Jake's take when he said that USA constantly makes war movies in other counties ignoring the politics and inner workings of those countries. While this film is being criticized because of it. I haven't really thought about this from that angle. It really makes me wonder how much of the divisive stuff was put on purpose.
Really enjoyed the film myself, while it might seem simple on the outside I was amazed how layered and complex the story is. Amazing filmmaking.
Arguably that makes it a movie about movies though.
Yeah, had Garland made a movie about a fictional civil way in any other country, Americans would not have batted an eye.
@@futurestoryteller I think Civil War is definitely a movie about filmmaking more than it is about a civil war.
I liked the part where Iron Man...no...I'm better than that...
clearly not
Thank goodness for this review. I've been losing my mind seeing all the headlines about how the film is "a love letter to journalism" and the critical takes saying "it has nothing to say." It has a lot to say, and boy howdy, it's a lot more of a cautionary tale than people are getting! The Whiplash comparison was the first thing that sprung to mind for me too.
Nadia's observation about it being like Nightcrawler (2014) was my exact thoughts. I loved the movie, and the movie is not about the civil war going on in the movie. It's about the power of the camera and the weakness of those who wield it.
Really? How were they similar to Nightcrawler? Nightcrawler intentionally manipulated crime scenes and staged violent crimes to make money. The Civil War photographers are simply witnessing and capturing what's happening so the world can see.
"the power of the camera and the weakness of those who wield it" such a great line
for my taste it could have been more like nightcrawler (it would have been a better movie, I think)
I got a dantes inferno parallel from it. As each character further descends past each threshhold, they lose a part of themselves, or are adapted to their new environments for worse mostly. Really thats just one reading I got from it.
That's a great shout...definitely emphasized by how reckless Spaeny's character was by the end.
I loved this movie and largely agree with Jake. I also liked the ambiguity because it leaves room for the imagination. I enjoyed trying to piece the puzzle together as you get little snippets of dialogue
Everyone's political ideology is wrong
*EXCEPT MINE*
MAH MAN
We should decide which political ideology is the right one in Mortal Kombat
Wouldn't it be weird if people were wrong about things? I can't think of any situation where a political party was wrong.
@@futurestoryteller
*world war 2 steps into frame*
This but unironically.
You got exactly what I was feeling. They probably should have changed the title or something because Civil War implies it's about the division, when it's not at all. The brutality of war and photographing that doesn't care about the sides when the inhumanity is everywhere
I think one of the main messages of the movie is that black hawk down quote "Once that first bullet goes past your head. Politics and all that shit just goes right out the window". In one of the scenes the soldiers even mock the journalists when they ask what side they're on.
Try telling the allied soldiers liberating the Nazi death camps in 1945 that. They would say that’s nuts. Sides sometimes count in war. I’m sure the Allied soldiers stumbling into Auschwitz knew what side they were on, and the journalist taking pictures of the mass graves knew as well. This journalistic so-called neutrality is a modern conceit.
I just left a showing and I feel numb. I think this film broke something in me.
The politics of the film (to me) don't matter, because as they say, they are just there to document and someone will decide what's right and wrong..
And they lose their humanity doing it.
It is indeed needed, we need to know what happened (oh god, I think I almost just quoted Cloverfield), but the cost to the people is hideous.
They witnessed warcrimes and there was no reactions in most cases.
I know this movie was brilliant, I have no doubt about that, and it's going to stay with me for a bit.
The movie was terrible. It broke me knowing I’ll never get those 2 hours back of my life
*SPOILERS*
Whether deliberate or not, I feel the lack of "politics" in the film is a one of its most important features. If you read the film as being critical of journalism, it makes sense. The film's presentation of the political landscape of the country is just how the media would cover it: these discrete events and elements without a greater comprehension of how we got there or where we're going. The various hints of just what happened and who's fighting who leaves us grasping for a greater understanding, but like our news cycles, they are devoid of context or meaning. The characters present themselves as neutral arbiters of truth and reality; something that is not only impossible, but by the film's end we question if it is morally justifiable. Vietnam ended in some small part due to the likes of Walter Cronkite rebuking such notions and speaking out. The film ends at a historical hinge point: what are the repercussions of the execution instead of exile, how will the western forces fair? And in the moment the two remaining journalists accomplish simply their own personal goals and sensational quotes or pictures that will grab eyes, but are bereft of any understanding of what's happened or where the country will go. We can even imagine if the one could have talked the soldiers into sparing the president's life or even affirmed it by asking some revelatory question that would justify it. In the end, the film is empty of these details because the news is.
I could almost agree with Jake if the film went deeper in exploring its focal point, that being journalistic photography in war. Unfortunately I just felt like it had barely anything to say about that aspect or its relation to war aside from some surface level observations.
This is Nadia's best review imo, brought up a bunch of stuff I never even considered like the journalists inserting themselves into the imagery..even if it was unintentionally.
When it comes to the film not taking a political stand, it seems possible that Alex Garland's fear was that the movie would be inflammatory, in a way that threatens to turn a cautionary tale into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That we're on enough of a powder keg that that would actually be a concern.
Why make a movie about an American civil war if he's too scared to take even the smallest stance on anything in case he annoys anyone. This film had basically nothing to say other that war = bad and we all already know this. It was good I liked it, but it was annoyingly centrist.
@@ZachBobBob Do we know this?
@@futurestoryteller I think there's interviews where he said he didn't want to take a stance but this is also just what I got from watching the film.
about to go see it, really hyped. hopefully it does well. garland and his colleagues have worked so hard to maintain their vision and respect their audiences, we need more popular filmmakers like them.
What did you think?
I really enjoyed it, like his other works it has some unforgettable scenes that just stick with you. It's a very powerful film, I was not disappointed at all.
Such a great conversation! I went into this movie not knowing much and was surprised how much i loved it. And I agree with Jake, i liked that the details of the civil war itself are vague. I loved Lee's and Jessie's character arc and how they go in opposite directions.
Spoiler in here, and I really enjoyed this conversation. My only comment would be that when he's asking the President for a quote I don't think his response is "That'll do." I heard him say "They always do" which called back to the earlier conversation about how the final interviews with folks like Gaddafi and Hussein weren't insightful and the older journalist said "They'll always let you down." I really loved that.
I finally got to see this movie, and I really enjoyed it. I love how many threads in it there are to pick apart. It was very affecting, especially as someone who has lived near DC for most of my life
The only reason I want to watch this film is my countryman Wagner Moura being in it.
I like the Downton Abbey version of this film: Sybil War
I saw the title and my intial thought was "Eh, Captain America Civil War was alright. Could have been better." And thenI was a combination of relieved and disappointed that this was not, in fact, a discussion of that movie
I’m one of the folks that thought the movie was pulling its punches and was pretty shallow.
I do think it’s a good thing they took a more middle road politically, but that’s not my complaint. They story is frankly boring. It’s predictable. They did a poor job building the characters, I frankly didn’t care what happened to them. They had little to no arc. They spent 1/3 of the movie just showing B roll footage of them driving. They spend another 1/3 talking amongst themselves without progressing any kind of plot.
The movie nailed the fighting, the acting, the cinematography, and so many other aspects of a great film, but completely neglected its most interesting aspect: the setting.
Remember the first Purge movie? How it was a cool unique idea that turned into a slasher flick? I think that’s how this movie will go down. They did no universe building, minimal character building, and stuffed the run time with b roll.
That book shelf line splitting you like a screen in a 70s movie is *chefs kiss
I totally agree, most people I know that complain about the film are complaining because it doesn't say what THEY want it to say. It doesn't say orange man bad or woke is bad. It's not about getting a larger audience, it's saying there are more important things than our petty disagreements. It's also about the grey area good journalists have to live in. They aren't there to solve the problem for us, they're there to put a spot light on things.
I liked the editing in some of the combat sequences that substituted big, loud moments for camera flashes but other than that, I don't think I've ever watched a film that better encapsulated the feeling of "babby's first film major student film in college", especially with regards to the screenplay.
Never stop including the pets in your videos, I love it so much 😂
I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style mission. The music took me to the post Vietnam Era.
Many wanted to know the cause of the war but the context of the war is not important. Most 21st century Americans (except the naive) know how this could happen.
Overall, this movie was an essay warning us (Americans) to not let our politicians lead us in this direction because…, in a war everyone loses.
My only wish for this channel is that it had a podcast/audio version I could listen to while at work
really interesting to hear you guys' thoughts on the movie. i found it so limp & unengaging, but your points really gave me more to look at in it. the film didnt feel critical of journalism at all to me (i felt it was sort of vapidly pro the idea of journalism), but tbh i might have just been having trouble parsing the critique of the protagonists through the fact that i feel like i disliked them in a way that wasnt intentional. lee's flashbacks & particularly joel extracting the quote from the presifent before appearing in the snuff photo were both very potent and make me like the film a little more in retrospect.
i definitely think the film shouldve excised some of the vague allusions to american partisan politics for the kind of bait and switch( just examining war in the abstract, but doing it in america) to work. a weird smug fence-sittingness still sits in some of the movie for me
Great review! Buddy licking Babu was too cute 🐶
I think you said it best when you said "Civil War isn't about Civil War".
This is why people are mad.
They feel clickbaited.
I wasn't mad because I was told that it wasn't going to be about the Civil War 2 months ago.
I can see why the ad campaign is backfiring with many on both sides of our polarized nation.
I knew the movie wasn't gonna be an action movie and get in the lore of the civil war or whatever but I still felt clickbaited because in the end the movie didn't really have anything to say about anything.
Loved this review. The negative takes on the film have really confused me; on a technical level it's just a *crazy* engaging thriller/horror ride, but what it has to say about the apathy of photojournalism really hit me hard. I can't understand the people who are saying "the movie has nothing to say" just because it's not about the two sides.
i loved this film! it cut so deeply for me, great review
Snooze fest
Jessie is so annoying as a character but the actress did great. She’s incredibly d-d-dumb and is definitely the reason parents have leashes for their children. I didn’t mind the plot it was a road trip movie but Jessie felt so much more like a character being written by a screenwriter than a character living life. I just saw her as the vessel for the message and if she wasn’t there they probably would’ve been just fine just without a few less photos.
I think the scene in the beginning with the hard cut from suicide bombing to journalists laughing and having a good time set the tone that this isn’t about praising journalists it’s about seeing if by the end of it you’re laughing and desensitized to it (like how the soundtrack always seems to counter the tragedy) or if you can prevent from injecting yourself into this kinda violence.
The movie is a masterpiece. I can't imagine a better movie coming out this year. Give it the Best Picture Academy Award now.
I love to listen you guys talking about movies
Just seeing Jesse Plemons in the thumbnail gives me PTSD.
Also agree with Jake, I think Alex Garland chose to be apolitical just to be really political about not only the polarisation in society but also the cruelty and dehumanisation of war.
After reading someone complained about Alex Garland not really knowing American politics on Letterboxd, I couldn't help but wonder maybe not being American actually would help people evaluate the film in its intended way.
That scene was crazy. The end of it is gonna stick with me for a while
Nah wouldn’t want more politics was showing straight up the violence and why it’s bad but I like your take and why
How can you reject the filmmakers intent? If a director sets out to make a serious movie and it ends up being a comedy, that doesn't suddenly make the film a comedy (like Tommy Wiseau tries to retroactively make out like The Room is intentionally bad). If Garland thinks this film makes journalists look good I'm seriously concerned for what he thinks bad journalists look like.
This film is disturbingly shallow. Its central themes of war is hell and respecting journalists are so obvious and done shoddily, respectively.
I believe 2/4 of the central journalists are really malignant sociopaths.
But these 2 issues are small fry compared to the cardinal sin of the film: the allsidesism of Garland and therefore his refusal to commit to a single concrete fact that can anchor the film to any reality. For example, the seemingly villainous President being on his 3rd term is never addressed to be concurrent or not, as that decides the constitutionality and thus partially informs the legitimacies of the rebellions.
I don't care if the filmmaker injects their politics into their film of this immediate real(ish) nature, but I definitely care about them being weasel in establishing facts, as all this uncertainty actually encourages RL unhinged would be- and committed domestic terrorists.
I think the movie just needed to explain how the factions split across the country the way they did. It doesn’t have to follow what’s going on in the country today. It just has to set up that something happened. This is the way the country went, and therefore these five factions split up across the country, and this is why. It doesn’t have to be true to life. It just has to be something that makes sense in the story to explain why. There is one scene in the movie that made sense to be completely non-partisan and completely non-political without taking sides, and that was the sniper battle. You see a sniper and his scout with the telescope in a battle and the question that is brought up is why are you shooting at those other people you don’t even know who they are and the quick and simple answer was they’re trying to kill us. They’re shooting us 100% the time that I felt it was justified to not have a political answer beyond they’re shooting at us so we are shooting back at them. I didn’t enjoy the film a lot, but I do wish we had some background as to how the Civil War started.
THIS OH MY GOD FINALLY SOMEONE WHO USES THEIR BRAIN.
Like yeah war bad but war is political, they are journalists but are they independent? Seems so, if so what is their platform. How did it start? And from everything in the film itself it is putting itself to the united states left but doing it with Dark souls level of cryptic lore.
Nightcrawler was in another universe from this. A better universe
I dunno.. the only I thing I was able to get out of this movie is "war journalism is fun and gives an adrenaline rush", which I feel is probably not a very good message when journalists are more and more under attack for merely reporting the truth?
I really wish people would stop talking about it being apolitical and actually talk about whether it portrays war and how it affects people. It doesn't. That's my issue with it. It's an odyssey through some one-off militants. We don't get much about how average people are affected other than that one town and it's really just a few seconds that says anything on the topic. The film is being elevated by people who think all criticism of it is about it not being directly based on the current political situation. It's kind of a shallow and obvious script with very good directing and acting.
I sincerely believe that a good piece of art is not a statement as much as it is a question. Jake sold me the movie, I'll watch with necessity
A cautionary tale about things to come very soon. Not a matter of if, just of when.
My favourite movie of the year. Easy 10/10 for me, it really effected me and such a step up from “Men” which I didn’t like all that much. I think this is Alex Garlands best film yet!
Edit: And yes, Nightcrawler was the first movie that came to mind while I was watching this as well, definitely similar themes
I feel like the movie didn't have to expand on the politics, but it very much felt like there was *something* missing to give the movie more of a throughline & impact. It just felt lacking - and that hole could be filled with a more in depth political outlook, or more regarding the characters in that conflict, or something else entirely.
Instead it just vaguely hints at those things but lets each "segment" of the movie end kind of prematurely. Which might be what they were going for, but definitely makes for a less engaging (regarding emotion, interest/spectacle AND provoking thought) movie imho, which I didn't enjoy.
Like, coming out of the cinema, the discussion was about "what this movie is not doing" much more than anything substantive about what the movie was saying, even though the movie felt like it did want to say something but just didn't.
The one journalist compares it to the allies racing to Berlin. California being an analog for Russia, and Texas for the rest of the allies.
I will come back to watch the spoiler part, thank you for recommending this movie.
Liked the review but trying to stay away from spoilers. I hate the theater experience these days. I saw Star Wars in the theater. That's how old I am. Never had to deal with cell phones and loud obnoxious people until now. I'm waiting to see this on VOD. Loved the commentary.
I was interested if this film was going to be about civil war itself - perhaps more about how exactly people get so divided that it escalates to that point or just the cruelty of it - or war photographers, or maybe just more about the characters themselves. It ended up being about none of these. It did portrary some characters, it seemed to be saying something about war photography, and perhaps even about the cruelty of civil war, but it was either just shallow & bland about these or just aggressively bad (mostly horrible about the photography part).
A huge disappointment, didn't seem like a film that is divisive in the sense that people like different things, but in the sense that some people just can't recognize an awful movie.
For me it took a little bit to find its footing, but I liked it overall.
Alex Garland is such a brilliant director and writer
You guys need to see Elite Squad 1 and 2. Wagner Moura killed it in these two.
I really enjoyed the part where the credits started rolling because the movie was over.
I agree that the film is much more about journalism than it is about any partisan politics; though I wonder if its absolute refusal to convey any stances on the politics harms the film’s ability to tackle and critique journalism as a whole. One of the major aspects of journalism is finding a narrative, an angle, a way to frame the story. Capturing shocking imagery is undoubtedly a big scoop, but it’s how the press can then spin stories from that image that brings in the most buzz and also the worst consequences of unethical journalism. If the film is condemning opportunistic journalists who utilize conflict as a means for their own gains, I think it’s a blindspot to not cover how those journalists will sometimes contribute to the toxicity themselves, making it more inflammatory and thus profitable. I think about all the big name grifters in modern journalism who, yes, are ultimately self-interested, but still choose to play to one side because that is more beneficial for them in the long run. Setting the film in a divisive setting such as a civil war means that the most opportunistic thing the press can do is playing into that divisiveness. Even in Nightcrawler, there is tampering of the crime scene to make the imagery more salacious. I feel that if all the film wanted to tackle was voyeuristic journalists profiting off of conflict they are not a part of, a civil war was not the best background and something smaller scale could’ve conveyed the same idea (like a Nightcrawler). Funnily enough, I feel the civil war setting was chosen partly to capitalize on the fact times are so derisive right now, so the movie’s critiques towards film makers actually works better for me than the ones towards journalism. But yea, I don’t need the film as a whole to take any particular stance, but I would’ve liked to see some of the characters at least flirt with it.
Though that’s only if I interpret the film as purely a condemnation of journalism. I can also view the film through the lens of just trying to capture the hellish dissonance of being a war photographer or any kind of press that covers horrible subjects (i.e. interviewers who have to be cordial to warlords); of simultaneously being in the thick of it while also always just on the outside looking in.
Undeniably a fascinating film even if I’m not a 100% sure where I stand on it (ironically).
I think we already know the politics that went into it. We brought all that stuff with us. It is a story, how the United States ends because we lost the warrant the end. Almost like the beginning of an apocalypse type movie. There was no way the movie makers could explain anything to anybody about the politics because we all have our own reality that we’re walking around with and no one is going to tell us different. Even if we get confused for a minute, our favorite pendant or politician will set us straight and remind us, we’re supposed to be upset with. I also think the map was a little bit of patrol. it sets us up for the red sunglasses guy. Where are you from? Who are you with? I think it’s a little bit more clever than people give a credit for.
It was as great. It was fresh and new.
Had a different way of telling a story. I think a lot of people had the agenda that they WISH it would have depicted.
But I LOVED the fact that it steered away from that.
It basically just said. No matter what side you’re on, you DO NOT want this kind of bullshit to go on in your backyard.
And because the story was about journalists watching the story unfold without taking a side, it makes sense that the characters do just that. They watch the record and they let that serve as the story.
There shouldn’t be a “slant” to the story in the movie.
Because that’s why journalists and journalism are so important because they should not be “slanted” either.
That was the idea.
Thought the movie was an amazing piece of cinema. Garner knocked it out of the park.
It’s a movie about neighbours. Not like Friday or some other corny Hollywood depiction of neighbours with a feel good ending.
The Texas and California comment fees like a meme. If people looked beyond pop politics, then they will see how Texas and California are very similar. What I found a bit puzzling was Alaska being a neutral territory. Makes me wonder about Hawaii. Any thoughts on this?
No movie that promises Downfall but in the White House and then doesn't pay that off can be forgiven by me ... I understand if budget meant they couldn't get Nick Offerman for more than a few minutes of screentime but then surely get a cheaper actor ...
There was a lot that this movie could have delved into as the reasons for a civil war. None of that was mentioned except that the current POTUS was on his 3rd term. This just became a very violent road trip by 4 journalists from NYC to DC with lots of random, violent situations thrown in. Even at the end, the WF and other rebel forces had all the tanks, attack helicopters and missiles while the defending Federal Forces had none? How is that possible that the US Army had no tanks or Apache copters left to defend the White House or didn't evacuate the President to a safer location?
I saw it yesterday. I have to say I enjoyed it very much.
Yes very nightcrawler difference once Jake gyllenhall started out a psychopath they ended up losing some empathy by the end
I finally found out what man is carrying the thing
Finally! People who actually understand the film!
Showing and choosing sides leads to identifying, which leads to picking a POV. And just like that you are rooting for someone and the antiwar message is lost. It was wise to not dwell into politics.
Not gonna lie. I've seen a lot of new film reviewers pop up after this film came out and I was prepared to not like yours. You guys did a great job. I look forward to your next one.
This antiwar has a lot of cool thrilling action war scenes that we see all the time in less critical movies. Why? This should have been shot like a horror film... Or Come and See.
0:18 someone's clearly scared of that
Yeah pretty much agree. I'll have to check other opinions to see why they didn't like the movie. But It's not so much about civil war as it is about journalism and its ethics, If the director is making statements in interviews, It doesn't matter, what matters is what's on the movie.
I felt the movie was rather boring. There were some good visuals, but the story had absolutely no weight to it. The senseless killing and Mayham doesn’t make for a compelling story.
Jake nailed it. "Fucking well made movie".
I found this film to be endlessly frustrating. It's not that the film is apolitical, it's that I feel it has very little to say and has some incredibly poor writing. I found the characters to be incredibly shallow and the dialog clunky. The "Portland Maoists" and "Antifa Massacre" were big ol' "woof" moments. They just constantly tease that you could be watching a movie with actual world building.
I'm glad you brought up Apocalypse Now (as others have as well) because I think that's another example of a war movie that is apolitical but has a lot of depth and says a lot about the human condition and the ugliest corners of it that war can bring out.
I think another point of comparison could be made to Coppola's The Conversation (and in turn, Antonioni's Blow-Up). I though that Civil War wanted to make a similar kind of statement about those who orient their lives around being a voyeur, but the failure is in Civil War's flat as a board characters. Dunst especially, does her darndest to make the most of what little is given to her, but it really can't fix the fact that Garland writes stoic, Star Wars prequel-esque characters.
Garland also has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot manipulate tone. All of his films have this flat, ambient electro vibe that he can never totally break away from. In contrast, the best war movies are able to manipulate tone in a way that is surprising, funny, and disturbing. To bring up Apocalypse Now again, the "Charlie don't surf" scene I think is a good example of effectively manipulating tone. You go into a war movie expecting general suffering, but you get Robert Duvall surfing in the middle of a war zone. It's hilarious, frightening, disgusting, and stressful. Civil War makes gestures at this sort of thing like the hip-hop montage early on (which I thought was actually one of the best scenes in the film), but it falls apart around the major character death that happens at the end of act 2.
Sorry to go on a rant in your youtube comment section, but I just saw this last night and tbh, I almost always agree with Jake and almost never agree with Nadia so it was interesting to do the opposite this time, although I think I liked it a lot less than either of you did.
Come and See (1985)
I mean it's a movie, not sure how it's linked
Oh you must be such a big boy to know of such a film. Shall we all now clap for you?
Disgusting
Man carried my opinion! Also 9/10, great movie with couple technical flaws in it.
Also isnt the rotten tomatoes score close to 90 percent? So its not that divisive with critics. Edit: just checked and its 80 percent. Still pretty high
I am upset that this movie is not political in alignment with political views im vocal about!
It's supposed to be vague but bullying his way into a third term and disbanding the FBI would be very on brand for trump. He probably wouldn't send an airstrike against American citizens (probably)
The problem with this movie is truly makes no point at the end. War is bad? A civil war on your own soil is worse? Do we need a movie to get that through to people on the right and the left? What drives people to a civil war, and whether that purpose is worth should be the story. Our American Civil War was slavery despite some people attempting to divert from that. Slavery, having millions viewed as property, is something that makes sense for war. And guess what, that's not a 50/50 blame issue. Right now, what would drive us to civil war? Every time I ask that it goes nowhere. Abortion? Gay Marriage? Social Security? What would be worth killing your neighbors, fellow citizens? How about this. Imagine if one of our candidates has a 99%+ chance of rejecting the results if they lose, and would be okay with violence because of that. Which candidate we talking about? We want to act like that isn't the ONE scenario that could cause violence right now? Does that not strike you as exactly the problem, that this isn't a 50/50 problem?
That's exactly the problem with this film. BOTH sides will see this film and say "Look how horrible this situation is, I can't believe the other side will cause this". I'll finish with an example to hit this home. I'd like to think most Americans think Jan 6, the photos and films of it, as bad. But here is the difference. A large group of our population, though a minority, see the people of Jan 6 as heroes. They see those same images (invoking the movie), and instead of seeing a group of people that rejected fair elections with ZERO proof of any fraud, they see freedom fighters. As I stated, is that 50/50, both sides?
Acting like both sides have equal blame is like saying every war, divorce, fight, ended friendship has 50/50 blame. That's just not true.
"Journalists would NEVER get that close!" except the many journalists in ukraine that literally got shot at with machine guns and hit by shrapnel from artillery.
I don't think we're going to remember this movie in the future 🤷🏾♂️
Yes the movie was crazy awesome
I’m relieved to learn that this movie isn’t about politics that was the main reason why I was going to avoid it but now i might actually give it a watch.
I mean, it is about politics, just not about the democrat vs republican politics
Shouldn’t it be called civil war 2?
Hopefully this channel isn't about to be demonitized by the ai algorithm for promoting civil war
Woman and Man Carrying Dogs
Audience driven narative?
A movie about journalists in damn a civil war in America and yet no lore whatsoever? You can remain neutral and tell a good tale. Wanna see a great piece about photojournalism in a warzone? Play Umurangi Generation.
I can give a "mid", and this is my best price. I'm even giving the A24 face value 20% discount.
I was just uninterested in the film because nothing about it seems relevant.
Still photo journalism hasn't mattered since the 90's, most of the tactics and technology in this film are cartoonish interpretations of 90's tactics. There is not IMHO a realistic depiction of modern battlefields between near peer nations. Information war, EMP, retail drones, starvation (see ukrain) etc. all seem to be off the table, supply chains seem for the most part uninterupted. Just US currency is meaningless. It feels like a very 90's satruday morning cartoon tom clancy version of civil war is bad... also could be characterized as generally out of touch with how a contemporary civil war would effect the typical american family... oh wait these are all childless career folks with no vested interest in tomorrow...
Just seems like a ill conceived nothing burger of a film. Makes civil war for the most part frankly look honestly unremarkable.
🤲🏾
Yeah, it's sad to imagine that something like this is actually happening somewhere... that's why Berserk is amazing. Reading manga like Berserk will make your day 100x better and will take your mind away from things like these. Maybe you should read it??!? I dont knot hihi but yeah
what
Ah yes, berserk, the manga that only has things that never happen in real life, like:
-rape
-war
-corruption
I think that it's just kind of cowardly for Garland to not engage with the real world politics when so much attention is given to the other details of the world.
agree completely
But that's part of the message of the film, to add politics in would contradict it. Cynical usage of war as a device for journalism removed from the greater context of the situation. It's use of an American setting only shows how vapid so much of our coverage on foreign civil conflicts really are.
@@paper9362 Comes off as lazy writing....... Makes the entire plot pretty pointless as there are no motivations for the characters to be doing literally anything. Not to mention the choice of dividing the theme and tone of scenes intercut with pop music is extremely bizzare.
And then you have this idea that the journalists are there to just observe and photograph reality as it occurs, but the journalists are in scenarios that are completely devoid of reality. The sniper scene for example is complete nonsense. Even removing the horrendous depiction of a sniper fire scene from a stratgeic battle standpoint there is no scenario ever in history of a sniper scout team being super chill about random vehicles approaching them, allowing random civilians running over the top of them and asking them questions while in combat. Anyone tries doing that in the real world your gonna get a bullet, because the sniper team has no idea who you are. This scene literally violates basic protocols of embedded journalism.
And im not even getting into the fantasy land which was the final scenes of this movie. The idea that your gonna have a photo op team run tandem with your primary strike team invading a compound. Like wtf were the writers smoking here..... This is supposed to be realistic? Ill take "things that have never happened in the history of the world" for 500 Alex!
@@MattBuild4
The only characters that matter are the journalists who have pretty clear motivation's shown by the end of the film.
Also I was only addressing the fact that adding current Right/Left politics into the movie fucks with it's themes. Realism is another topic entirely and one I honestly don't care to discuss. If you took that same lens of scrutiny to a masterpiece like Apocalypse Now you would find plenty of similar "issues".
@@paper9362 If you only show the motivations of characters at the end of a story it makes it incredibly hard for the audience to care about your characters through 90% of the story.
The actual worse movie of the year
That's a bummer. Don't make a movie called "Civil War" in the modern 20's unless you're actually going to say something. It comes off as cynical nothingness otherwise.
The movie is about that very idea tho. Cynical usage of war as a device for journalism removed from the greater context of the situation. It's use of an American setting only shows how vapid so much of our coverage on foreign civil conflicts really are.
Everybody crying because it wasn't political would be rioting in the theaters if it had been pro-trump. 😂