Twitter: / thefilmdrunk Letterboxd: letterboxd.com... Instagram: / the.film.drunk Email: thefilmdrunk@gmail.com a24 civil war movie review oh man alex garland idk i guess
"I'm not a pretentious person, my fucking channel name is film drunk" hahaha. Funny thing is, sometimes I'll mention, "The film drunk really liked this movie" to a friend, and then they would respond with a bad attempt at a Scottish accent and say, "That's all I've got to say. Go away now" and I'm like, "No, that's the critical drinker. This is the film drunk. Very different."
The depth is definitely coming from how journalism (specifically war journalism) is a double edge sword. The actual civil war is just the backdrop to serve a different message
I dont need another politically charged movie beating me over the head with which real-world side is the bad side. I was glad to see this film take an alternate-universe approach where the Civil War is completely contextless and is more of an auxiliary elemet to the real story it's trying to tell: the desensitizing and dehumanizing nature of being a photojournalist. With what the movie set out to do, i believe it very much succeeded in doing that.
Well said. Gives enough context to mentally overlay the background (if you really want to). This movie shined most when focusing on the characters as war photographers. A twisted artistry / chase for ‘the photo’.
@@playoffpaul6938 The characters weren't that great either. There was old fat dude, rbf photo mommy, rapey horny dude, crazy asian photographers and ambitious zoomer girl?? Now that I think about it... it's not as terrible as I thought when I left the theater. The movie is called CIVIL WAR so I did expect more action and less yappin, maybe that's my fault but is it really when the whole marketing and trailers for this film was pure action sequences? idk maybe its still my fault for expecting more. I knew it would follow journalists but I thought they'd see more action. If I wasn't expecting action... and expecting more of deeper story about photojournalism and war photography then I wouldn't be disappointed, but that's not what I was sold lmao. Am I the only one? They just didn't tell me I would be watching these out of touch journalists yappin all the time. If I knew that going in... then okay the film delivers on that and does a good job actually.
I agree with you, but the promotion for this movie, was beyond misleading. They made it sound like an amazing war flick, when that isn't what it is at all. It's definitely a film about war jounalism, but with the world building non-existent, the backstory so vague and the character development lacking over 2 days, it just wasn't good at all. Garland just wants to highlight what monsters Americans would become in this situation, I mean really. What was one good story from this? Where Americans helped Americans? There wasn't any.
@@joeymedina7115 Misleading promotion, just to fill the seats. People keep telling me, I'm reviewing the movie I wanted to see, not the one I watched. Uh no, I'm reviewing the movie, the trailers acted like they were gonna give us.
I agree that it kind of seems like Garland wants it both ways, he wants to be apolitical but at the same time the movie’s setting and premise is inherently political and him choosing not to confront those themes puts the movie at odds with itself because you can’t flesh out anyone without delving into their beliefs
I think you nailed it, man. There were parts I liked for sure and some fantastic sequences, but overall it just felt empty to me. The apolitical aspect was totally fine by me, in fact I liked it. Just never connected with the lack of context or characters.
This is basically how I felt. Saw it this morning with a friend and both of us were extremely underwhelmed by it. I like that fact that it was apolitical but so many of the scenarios and actions of the characters didn't make sense. For instance, in New York City, people were boozing it up at a nightclub no problem but thirty minutes out of the city (where there's no actual war going on and people are supposedly on the same side), people are torturing each other over gas station food? Why? It makes no sense.
I'm sorry, but if you don't get this movie is saying something very deep, this movie might be about you. Sure it's a-political in the sense of that it doesn't get lost in the content of the different sides of American politics, but it is very political in the sense of that it DEFINITELY talks about what is happening in American politics. The movie was clearly about human beings being able to block out the humanity of those that they put in a different catagory from themselves because they believe it is the right thing to so. Which is clearly the psychological process happening on both sides of American politics right now. It's brilliant how the movie uses war photographers to make that point: The journalists laughed and spoke of their "rush" when they saw (fellow American) non-journalists being murdered. But when they finally saw other journalists being shot, all of a sudden we saw them wrecked by empathy, as if actual human beings had died. The fact that journalists can shut off empathy for non-journalists, because they think it is the right thing to do, says a lot about human beings. Yes, we all know human beings can dehumanize other races, and the movie fully showed how disgusting that can be, but the movie is about how that process is way deeper than that, and about how it applies to each and every one of us in the audience. No matter what side you are on.
People use the idea that this movie was trying to be apolitical to cover for the fact that the movie lacked any drive. They didn’t give the audience any reason to care. I was rooting against the journalist all the way through
@@klnrklnr4433 unique thought is strange to many…but why did you find what I said strange? And to clarify in case you didn’t pick up the tongue in cheek, me rooting against the journalist because they were not likable to me…driven solely by selfish purposes, and only intervening in their pure journalistic pursuit when it suited them. They were treating humans like wildlife documenters. And I didn’t care about the back drop of the war because as far as I was concerned we were watching terrorist invade the White House committing wanton violence on the unarmed…then feeling self righteous about getting a sound bite because their friend died. But if the movie resonated with you so be it
i honestly think calling it "the film drunk" might have been a bad move because the first time i saw your channel name i thought you were "the critical drinker" type of guy. eg "wokeness" killing the cinema and sjws are ruining the gaming agenda type of person, which tbh isn't exactly most people's speed when it comes to serious film criticism.
Saw the movie yesterday (in Amsterdam). Following the news, I do get why Americans make such a fuss about the movie being apolitical. And one could wonder why this movie uses a fictional civil war in the US as it's background. Nevertheless, the movie is about war and how a select group of war professionals (in this case war journalists) get through it. The fact of the matter is that the civil war in Sudan would just not hit the right tone for the audiences the movie and it's message is intended for. War is nothing to be glorified. War is horror. And we just get a glimpse of it here in this excellent movie.
The problem with it being apolitical is that using American Civil War 2.0 as its branding without the branding servicing the narrative is exploitative.
@@jasonibanez9855 maybe you can say the apolitical nature of the movie is the political statement. It seems like that’s the only criticisms the movie is getting. It seems like the left wing progressive types are getting mad at the political nature and the maga types are getting mad at the fact that Jesse Clemons character was more or less one of them. That seems to be like that’s the temperature.
Movie trivia game: The Jesse Plemons character in the movie, The guy wearing the red glasses, identify his character affiliation, A. KKK B. proud boys C. oath keepers D. christian nationalists E. american nazi party F. american communist party G. local freelance militia H. white supremacist I. cornbread mafia J. the posse K. project 2025 L. christofascist agenda M. seven mountain mandate
When you say at 4:25 "if there were more substance..." you are admitting that this movie fails to do anything that it could have, i.e. it's Empty. That's where you come down and everyone else too, because an empty film becomes a blank screen for everyone to project their own ideology onto. This is where "both sides" and 3-star ratings lead. Nothing remarkable or moving that you didn't already believe. Alex Garland made a bunch of money on this but no one will remember it even happened next year.
Not having seen the film, I imagine the artistic intention is to say that war is so horrific, it needs to be avoided despite the depth of enmity and division in America. It is a call for continued democratic process. Again, just a guess.
Based on the director and casts comments, that is largely what the movie is going for. The movie was also meant to be a "cautionary tale of what happens when people don't communicate with each other" - Kirsten Dunst. It's clearly trying to stress the need for dialogue and communication and the dangers of divisive political ideology. I think these are important themes and great ideas on paper, but I don't think either message comes through all that well though. It does do a good job of depicting the horrors of war, but it doesn't do a good enough job of developing the other themes in my opinion. I still liked the movie quite a bit. It's definitely worth watching as a well-directed, thrilling and suspenseful film with interesting character arcs and some solid action scenes. I like that it stays largely apolitical, I just wish the themes were explored better.
I couldn’t care less about the politics of the film. I just think the dialogue was really badly written. The set pieces and action parts and world building is really cool in parts but the plot and dialogue just lets it down. The ending is so cliched too. Disappointing, I wanted to like this film so much more than I did..
@@mattcollins3591 it is “not political “ to you because it probably aligns with your worldview. All film is political. Even not taking about a subject is saying something.
For everybody saying the movie is "apolitical" or that it "doesn't pick a side", I am genuinely wondering if we saw the same film. The movie takes place under the regime of a right-wing fascist government, and one of its most terrifying villains is an alt-right, racist soldier who commits horrifying crimes. While the movie doesn't revolve around the war between left and right, that doesn't mean it is apolitical. The movie is centered around extremism vs centrists and the horrors of war, that faced with America's current climate, is the definition of a political film.
What was surprising to me was how incredibly bored I was the first hour or so. The Plemons scene was indeed great and visually and soundwise it was also very good. But I didn't get any connection with anyone in the movie except for the old man. Also there were a lot of typical hollywood moments especially at the end. I had the feeling that with a couple of bold choices for the main characters this movie could have been so much more. Still it was interesting and a real cinema experience movie.
Thank you for this video. You perfectly found the words to my thoughts on the movie. It’s a good movie, but falls short of being great due to trying to be say nothing and everything.
I think I'll just wait for it to come to streaming, because I do not want to be distracted by an auditorium full of good ol' boys a-whoopin' an' a-hollarin'.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Why would you assume what the movie is about before watching it? The nature of the movie is apolitical.
@@regalreegus Yes, the movie is non-political. I should not assume anything about it. But I did assume what an audience is about, a hypothetical crowd of people I don't know, who could be anyone. I guess that's not wise either.
I love that they made the black chick running the special forces task unit the one to kill the president. This movie was one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen. Definitely science fiction, and that's even done in bad taste.
I thought this film was great. Very visceral and poignant. I would’ve liked more understanding of what the war was about and the positions of the 2 sides, but I still really enjoyed it regardless. The point of view of the journalist photographers was so well delivered, especially with every still photograph insert. 4 stars out of 5.
Think of it as a modern day Easy Rider parable; a contemporaneous road trip type movie with alternatiing moments of beauty, grace and introspection, punctuated by scenarios of sheer terror and ultra-violence. Like Easy Rider, you either got it or you didn't. Personally, it goes into my Top 250 films ever made. The sound design is incredible. This movie will haunt you for days and weeks to come, as you mull over each montage and vignette, wondering about it's irony and the what-if scenarios...saw it in IMAX, which I recommend if you are going to see it once. I'm going back for a second viewing in Dolby this week, to catch any of the nuances I may have missed...
in my opinion the final act of this movie (and by final act i only mean that final war sequence in DC) is really just there as a following sentiment and to solidify the character arcs of Jessie and Lee, towards the end of it and i feel like if you look at it like that it becomes a lot more satisfying than looking at it to the conclusion of the movie
Whats crazy is that this comes after Garland’s MEN. That movie had no problem being polemic/going for it. And now he kinda did a cop out with Civil War. Did A24 compromise his true vision? Did Garland all the sudden became more of a coorporate artist?
I think the movie is fully his vision. Considering the crazy movies A24 makes I can't see them being the type of studio to mess with a directors vision. I don't think he is being a coward what so ever with this movie. He purposely chose not to pick a side and be overly preachy because he wanted to show the horror's that division and war can cause. Picking a side alienates half the audience and defeats the purpose of the movie.
Why are you guys so horny about wanting the Director to make a political statement? Can we just all agree that the fictional fascistic president in the movie was a bad person who tried to overtake his country? Can we just not agree that he probably wanted to make a movie devoid of politics?
@@regalreegusof course we can agree, a fascist president *is* bad( and that was one of the most interesting parts of the movie, it actually had something to say)
@@bat1579 I wouldn't say biden is a competent politican, man can barely walk a few steps without falling, has to run to show people he is "still alive" has to show he isn't a member of the walking dead, and if you say biden and his administration is "competent" then explain the hundereds of thousands of illegals coming into america, please help me understand how creepy joe biden is a competent president.
The only piece that I would have add to this movie to become a "Masterpiece" would be a "Children of Men" style of sequence shot at some point, anywhere, intro, middle part, ending. Just grab the steady cam, couple of wide-angle lenses, rehearse a lot and boom... Masterpiece! hahahaha It is a great movie tho, the couple next to me and eventually the couple in the row in front of me in the movie theater left the hall at some point. The movie is that good. You love it or you hate it.
War bad ughhh we know that. A lot of us have served in multiple wars. This film is like watching uninteresting reporters take pictures of psychos. Because you don't know why a psycho goes around unaliving people and you dont know why the people in this movies are doing it also.
Without having seen Civil War, I am tempted to compare it to the two films titled Red Dawn, which were not so special even though they brought the battlefield onto American soil. The first Red Dawn, I watched it without wearing politics-colored glasses. It was just another war movie, and a throwback to the old Hollywood World War II movie, with a political stance that was decades out of date. Just please the crowds and make the money. I hope Civil War will be nothing like Red Dawn. Show the actions and their results, but leave all judgement and appraisal to the viewers. I don't see anything political about posing a hypothetical situation and showing it raw, honest, unvarnished, unopinionated.
It seems that this movie was supposed to be all about journalists and not the action. I think the movie would've been fine if it was a full on journalist movie and not semi war related. The problem is it focuses enough on the action war aspect to turn attention from the journalists, but the war action isnt explained so it brings down the movie. They either should've made a plot explaining why everything is happening or they should've had like barely any action in the movie to focus on the journalist side.
I am interested. Yea. I suppose I would have wanted some explanation as to why 2 polar opposites like California and Texas 🟥 would suddenly team up. But I'm willing to give this film a chance. At least it doesn't sound WOKE.
Hearing a few reviews about this just makes it seem it falls into the modern film making style which sucks to me, i likes films for the story, not for the action… action is cool only whether it helps the story… the story of Red Dawn makes it one of the greatest films ever and modern films just miss this, Gosh especially a movie following Journalist that doesn’t have explain the movie, lol I think I’m good now
What if I told you one of the characters is a journalist that plans to interview the president but we never see him ask a single question to anyone in this movie...
The best way I can describe why I love this movie is… something I can’t describe. Guess all you want. It can’t be done. Maybe if I was someone else, I could. But I can’t. I just can’t.
as a person who watched this movie a hour ago i would like to make a LONG detailed review/comment while its fresh in my mind. personally i was expecting a Movie about modern warfare and personally thats what i wanted not, a lot of good war movies come out and this one is not AT ALL what i expected. now before i get into what i did and didnt like about this film i just wanna say it was a Good film and i think that the message it sent was far more real then anyone in the theater expected it was a window of possibility on what could happen and it could vary much happen and i feel like this movie was a warning to us all asking us, Do you really want this?.and that itself really thunderstruck me. now the cons. i personally thought jesse was a total piece of dogshit and she was a absolute dumbass but that isnt really a con its more of just a fact that we all already knew now i disliked the whole PRESS thing that was going on i thought it really was annoying and its not like we DONT HAVE FUDGING BODYCAMS but YOU KNOW those are not a damn thing just walk around cross fire and all that and dont expect to get shot. and a ABSOLUTE FACTOR why i disliked the film is why they did not explain why texas and californa were teaming up and that bugs me i totally understand what they were trying to go for but i would rather know and have a COMPLETE story and understand why because then u can feel some emotion for why they are fighting and not just feeling like its a pointless conflict and i feel like the conflict felt stupid and pointless because we didnt have a explanation thats a HUGE con for me and it just feels like a book with a whole in it. it feels like a PART 2 to a movie series but we didnt get the first part. Thats just my opinion not fact overall do i think u should see this film YES 100% it is a really good film i just wish the director did it a LIL diffrently thanks for reading. also one last thing i did not like how much they disrespected the US Military. 6/10
I thought the film was toothless and shallow and while the filmaking is very great at times it reminded me or a the masterpiece "Children of Men" which is basically even better filmaking but also the message and themes connect perfectly and elevated the film to an inmense poignancy which this one feels like Garland did not want to piss off nobody.
I don’t think he wanted to make the focus of the movie politics. I think he wanted to make the focus of the movie war journalism, and the ethics of it all.
@@regalreegusbut if the focus is war journalism then why did he set the movie during an American civil war? It kind of seems like Garland wants it both ways, he wants to be apolitical but at the same time the movie’s setting and premise is inherently political and him choosing not to confront those themes puts the movie at odds with itself
@@wlot28 you ever watch the show veep? The show makes points poking at both sides without really ever taking a stand politically. It’s doesn’t need to be preachy it just needs to be funny. I view this film and that show very similarly in the way they deliver their thesis.
This is one of the more level-headed takes I’ve seen about this movie. I’m in the “it’s about the journalists, the politics and the opining on war aren’t the point” camp, but I think you make a very very good point about the movie trying to have it both ways.
I just don't see how a movie called Civil War, that came out in a divisive election year claims to NOT be political. I can understand that the main points of the movie are about journalism, but just seems something is missing to drive home the point that your movie about a civil war is not about a civil war. A civil war is inherently political.
I just realize something. I might be slow, but I haven’t seen anybody addressing this. When Jesse Plemons asks “what kind of American are you” We don’t even know what side he is supposed to be on because the politics of the movie, are not spelled out for you.
If you couldn’t tell, you’re doomed in a real civil war. 1: he wasn’t wearing his rank or any patches at all, 2: he was disposing of bodies, soldiers don’t do that, 3:he’s wearing red sunglasses (ifykyk) 4: he had his finger on the trigger while talking to them (soldiers would know gun safety).
Thanks for the insight. I'm seeing it on Saturday with a friend who doesn't go to a lot of movies but loves political movies LOL. We saw Jonathan Demme's Manchurian Candidate back in high school!
I had a small role on it and was treated just as the rest of the cast..even being a no named talent. I just hope I made the cut. We’ll see tomorrow night
@legowarfilms no, but normally you have context for why a war started which makes the violence and death understandable, not gratuitous like in this movie.
My favorite war movie is Grave of the Fireflies, so I like war movies that focus on innocent citizens and the cost of war. So far from what I've heard of this film, I'm just confused about if it's an anti-war film or a study on American culture or a study on journalism. From the reviews I've heard it sounds like a zombie apocalypse film like The Walking Dead or The Last of Us where characters meet other groups and civilizations of characters. I'm worried even though it doesn't pick a side that it might glorify war or only focus on violence and action rather than good people in a tough situation. It also seems that there is no reason for the characters' choices which concerns me. If anyone's seen the film what kind of war movie does this seem to be? because every review I watch confuses me more. P.s. I usually don't enjoy pro this side pro that side war movies. I don't like when there's an enemy and they're "evil" and we are great and glorious. To me, it just diminishes the horrors. Also, does it only focus on the murder of war or more nuanced things such as torture, robbery, people helping one another, people forced to abandon someone, etc.? Also since there are civilians does it only show adults? because in the trailers I haven't seen any scenes of children's perspective which makes a civilian war movie feel more fake to me. Like do children just disappear in this film and there are only adults? Silly question I know, but I want to know how well it portrays an actual society. Overall, I guess I'm just concerned because I hear great reviews (some mixed), but the trailers seem anti-climactic for my taste.
Just got back from watching. I would describe it as Huckfin narrative structure meets photojournalist critique. Characters were not well developed so as a result it felt scenes lacked impact. I went in with no knowledge of the film and actually found myself wondering if it was a satirical statement about photojournalists in war zones. I'm honestly shocked reviews are at all kind to this film. That said it did have one scene I loved which was people switching between vehicles while driving a highway just for the rush... That was fun. Oh, and I think it had a very clear Grave of the Fireflies homage just after the jessee plymmons scene. Oh, and to be clear I thought this movie was pretty awful. Maybe 2/10. I think setting it in fictional civil war america was a bad gimmick and it would have been far better to more firmly ground it in reality.
Just saw it. Save your money. Not only is it not apolitical as a lot of reviewers are saying but it’s so stupid. You have to suspend sense throughout and it’s just dumb. They literally drag the clinging president from behind the Oval Office desk. Oh, and up until the final DC scene it looks every bit the small 50 million budget.
You hit the nail on the head. Garland wants to have it both ways. If this was just a tense action movie set during a civil war, then fine. But it’s not. At least three times the characters discuss people who ignore the war, and these willful ignorers are chastised in an incredibly condescending manner. The movie’s protagonists are journalists attempting to show the truth about the war and this version of America, including its ugly, nasty, atrocious problems. But then the film sidesteps all its themes in an attempt to not offend its audience. If you want a movie about the importance of the press in covering a war, go watch “20 Days in Mariupol.” If you want a movie about the dangers of ignoring a war all around you, go watch “The Zone of Interest.” If you want a movie that’s like playing Call of Duty, I guess this will scratch that itch.
Doing volunteer relief work in a war zone made me forget stuff i should remember and remember things i should forget! Great review! BidenHarris2024 ❄️ 🌎 ❄️
"I'm not a pretentious person, my fucking channel name is film drunk"
hahaha. Funny thing is, sometimes I'll mention, "The film drunk really liked this movie" to a friend, and then they would respond with a bad attempt at a Scottish accent and say, "That's all I've got to say. Go away now" and I'm like, "No, that's the critical drinker. This is the film drunk. Very different."
God that guy is annoying!
Can't believe Alex Garland actually started a Civil War in America, so that he could make this film!
its all just a big ol social experiment.
The hidden depth of the movie
Lol
The depth is definitely coming from how journalism (specifically war journalism) is a double edge sword. The actual civil war is just the backdrop to serve a different message
There is a Mike Herr's Dispatches/My War Gone By I Miss It So vibe to the movie . . . .
I dont need another politically charged movie beating me over the head with which real-world side is the bad side. I was glad to see this film take an alternate-universe approach where the Civil War is completely contextless and is more of an auxiliary elemet to the real story it's trying to tell: the desensitizing and dehumanizing nature of being a photojournalist. With what the movie set out to do, i believe it very much succeeded in doing that.
Well said. Gives enough context to mentally overlay the background (if you really want to). This movie shined most when focusing on the characters as war photographers. A twisted artistry / chase for ‘the photo’.
@@playoffpaul6938 The characters weren't that great either. There was old fat dude, rbf photo mommy, rapey horny dude, crazy asian photographers and ambitious zoomer girl?? Now that I think about it... it's not as terrible as I thought when I left the theater. The movie is called CIVIL WAR so I did expect more action and less yappin, maybe that's my fault but is it really when the whole marketing and trailers for this film was pure action sequences? idk maybe its still my fault for expecting more. I knew it would follow journalists but I thought they'd see more action. If I wasn't expecting action... and expecting more of deeper story about photojournalism and war photography then I wouldn't be disappointed, but that's not what I was sold lmao. Am I the only one? They just didn't tell me I would be watching these out of touch journalists yappin all the time. If I knew that going in... then okay the film delivers on that and does a good job actually.
A politically-minded movie doesn’t have to be as simplistic as you’re describing
I agree with you, but the promotion for this movie, was beyond misleading. They made it sound like an amazing war flick, when that isn't what it is at all. It's definitely a film about war jounalism, but with the world building non-existent, the backstory so vague and the character development lacking over 2 days, it just wasn't good at all. Garland just wants to highlight what monsters Americans would become in this situation, I mean really. What was one good story from this? Where Americans helped Americans? There wasn't any.
@@joeymedina7115 Misleading promotion, just to fill the seats. People keep telling me, I'm reviewing the movie I wanted to see, not the one I watched. Uh no, I'm reviewing the movie, the trailers acted like they were gonna give us.
Jonathan from The Film Drunk the type of guy that says geeze louise
It really does become a glorified COD mission at the end lol
I agree that it kind of seems like Garland wants it both ways, he wants to be apolitical but at the same time the movie’s setting and premise is inherently political and him choosing not to confront those themes puts the movie at odds with itself because you can’t flesh out anyone without delving into their beliefs
💯
I think you nailed it, man. There were parts I liked for sure and some fantastic sequences, but overall it just felt empty to me. The apolitical aspect was totally fine by me, in fact I liked it. Just never connected with the lack of context or characters.
This is basically how I felt. Saw it this morning with a friend and both of us were extremely underwhelmed by it. I like that fact that it was apolitical but so many of the scenarios and actions of the characters didn't make sense. For instance, in New York City, people were boozing it up at a nightclub no problem but thirty minutes out of the city (where there's no actual war going on and people are supposedly on the same side), people are torturing each other over gas station food? Why? It makes no sense.
Teen gohan haircut 🔥 🔥🔥🔥
I'm going to the Latvian premiere of "Civil War" tonight and I can't wait.
I was ready to argue but nah I get completely where you're coming from.
Superfluous, meaningless, and soon to be forgotten film😂😂😂
“What are we? Some kind of civil war squad?”
I'm sorry, but if you don't get this movie is saying something very deep, this movie might be about you. Sure it's a-political in the sense of that it doesn't get lost in the content of the different sides of American politics, but it is very political in the sense of that it DEFINITELY talks about what is happening in American politics. The movie was clearly about human beings being able to block out the humanity of those that they put in a different catagory from themselves because they believe it is the right thing to so. Which is clearly the psychological process happening on both sides of American politics right now. It's brilliant how the movie uses war photographers to make that point: The journalists laughed and spoke of their "rush" when they saw (fellow American) non-journalists being murdered. But when they finally saw other journalists being shot, all of a sudden we saw them wrecked by empathy, as if actual human beings had died. The fact that journalists can shut off empathy for non-journalists, because they think it is the right thing to do, says a lot about human beings. Yes, we all know human beings can dehumanize other races, and the movie fully showed how disgusting that can be, but the movie is about how that process is way deeper than that, and about how it applies to each and every one of us in the audience. No matter what side you are on.
Good ass video
People use the idea that this movie was trying to be apolitical to cover for the fact that the movie lacked any drive. They didn’t give the audience any reason to care. I was rooting against the journalist all the way through
you're a strange dude.
@@klnrklnr4433 unique thought is strange to many…but why did you find what I said strange?
And to clarify in case you didn’t pick up the tongue in cheek, me rooting against the journalist because they were not likable to me…driven solely by selfish purposes, and only intervening in their pure journalistic pursuit when it suited them. They were treating humans like wildlife documenters.
And I didn’t care about the back drop of the war because as far as I was concerned we were watching terrorist invade the White House committing wanton violence on the unarmed…then feeling self righteous about getting a sound bite because their friend died.
But if the movie resonated with you so be it
i honestly think calling it "the film drunk" might have been a bad move because the first time i saw your channel name i thought you were "the critical drinker" type of guy. eg "wokeness" killing the cinema and sjws are ruining the gaming agenda type of person, which tbh isn't exactly most people's speed when it comes to serious film criticism.
Can’t believe Todd wore the cruelty squad glasses
It really did feel like Todd Alquist
Saw the movie yesterday (in Amsterdam). Following the news, I do get why Americans make such a fuss about the movie being apolitical. And one could wonder why this movie uses a fictional civil war in the US as it's background. Nevertheless, the movie is about war and how a select group of war professionals (in this case war journalists) get through it. The fact of the matter is that the civil war in Sudan would just not hit the right tone for the audiences the movie and it's message is intended for. War is nothing to be glorified. War is horror. And we just get a glimpse of it here in this excellent movie.
The problem with it being apolitical is that using American Civil War 2.0 as its branding without the branding servicing the narrative is exploitative.
@@jasonibanez9855 maybe you can say the apolitical nature of the movie is the political statement. It seems like that’s the only criticisms the movie is getting. It seems like the left wing progressive types are getting mad at the political nature and the maga types are getting mad at the fact that Jesse Clemons character was more or less one of them. That seems to be like that’s the temperature.
So, it's an exploitative movie. Can you make anything fictitious without answering expectations?
@@GJWielinga I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase your question?
The conflict just doesnt make sense, which completely took me out of it.
Movie trivia game: The Jesse Plemons character in the movie,
The guy wearing the red glasses, identify his character affiliation,
A. KKK
B. proud boys
C. oath keepers
D. christian nationalists
E. american nazi party
F. american communist party
G. local freelance militia
H. white supremacist
I. cornbread mafia
J. the posse
K. project 2025
L. christofascist agenda
M. seven mountain mandate
Probably more Arkan and his Tigers in the Former Yugoslavia . . . .
When you say at 4:25 "if there were more substance..." you are admitting that this movie fails to do anything that it could have, i.e. it's Empty. That's where you come down and everyone else too, because an empty film becomes a blank screen for everyone to project their own ideology onto. This is where "both sides" and 3-star ratings lead. Nothing remarkable or moving that you didn't already believe. Alex Garland made a bunch of money on this but no one will remember it even happened next year.
In the same boat opinion wise, was cool to catch you at the screening
Not having seen the film, I imagine the artistic intention is to say that war is so horrific, it needs to be avoided despite the depth of enmity and division in America. It is a call for continued democratic process. Again, just a guess.
Your guess is wrong.
Exactly this and I saw it.
Based on the director and casts comments, that is largely what the movie is going for. The movie was also meant to be a "cautionary tale of what happens when people don't communicate with each other" - Kirsten Dunst. It's clearly trying to stress the need for dialogue and communication and the dangers of divisive political ideology. I think these are important themes and great ideas on paper, but I don't think either message comes through all that well though. It does do a good job of depicting the horrors of war, but it doesn't do a good enough job of developing the other themes in my opinion. I still liked the movie quite a bit. It's definitely worth watching as a well-directed, thrilling and suspenseful film with interesting character arcs and some solid action scenes. I like that it stays largely apolitical, I just wish the themes were explored better.
it is a classic antiwar film. shows the absurdity of conflict from start to finish
@@jasonibanez9855 nah, its mostly spot on.
I'm really lost with your thoughts 😅
This review was empty. Lots of words, but didn't actually say anything.
No your empty ,Karen
I couldn’t care less about the politics of the film. I just think the dialogue was really badly written. The set pieces and action parts and world building is really cool in parts but the plot and dialogue just lets it down. The ending is so cliched too. Disappointing, I wanted to like this film so much more than I did..
Cali, Texas. ! and 2 largest state economies. Money talks.
The felt like how movies used to feel like. Not taking sides, just showing. What a hard watch too. Man
@@suicune7712 have you even seen this movie? Lol 😂
It’s the least “woke” movie I’ve seen since American sniper lol
@@mattcollins3591 it is “not political “ to you because it probably aligns with your worldview. All film is political. Even not taking about a subject is saying something.
But why choose America as the country? If it was just about war reporters why not choose a fictitious country? This is not apolitical.
This was a genuinely great review!! I’ve been torn on this film too and I reckon you detailed the controversy perfectly
There are no politics in this movie.....nice try
(made a captain America civil war joke in the first 5 seconds of my review..🤦♂️)
For everybody saying the movie is "apolitical" or that it "doesn't pick a side", I am genuinely wondering if we saw the same film. The movie takes place under the regime of a right-wing fascist government, and one of its most terrifying villains is an alt-right, racist soldier who commits horrifying crimes. While the movie doesn't revolve around the war between left and right, that doesn't mean it is apolitical. The movie is centered around extremism vs centrists and the horrors of war, that faced with America's current climate, is the definition of a political film.
Omg YESSSSS! I don't care for it to "pick a side," but the story telling was still meh.
What was surprising to me was how incredibly bored I was the first hour or so. The Plemons scene was indeed great and visually and soundwise it was also very good. But I didn't get any connection with anyone in the movie except for the old man. Also there were a lot of typical hollywood moments especially at the end. I had the feeling that with a couple of bold choices for the main characters this movie could have been so much more. Still it was interesting and a real cinema experience movie.
Thank you for this video. You perfectly found the words to my thoughts on the movie.
It’s a good movie, but falls short of being great due to trying to be say nothing and everything.
I think I'll just wait for it to come to streaming, because I do not want to be distracted by an auditorium full of good ol' boys a-whoopin' an' a-hollarin'.
Or neon-haired pseudos shrieking and booing?
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Why would you assume what the movie is about before watching it? The nature of the movie is apolitical.
@@regalreegus Yes, the movie is non-political. I should not assume anything about it. But I did assume what an audience is about, a hypothetical crowd of people I don't know, who could be anyone. I guess that's not wise either.
I love that they made the black chick running the special forces task unit the one to kill the president. This movie was one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen. Definitely science fiction, and that's even done in bad taste.
I thought this film was great. Very visceral and poignant. I would’ve liked more understanding of what the war was about and the positions of the 2 sides, but I still really enjoyed it regardless. The point of view of the journalist photographers was so well delivered, especially with every still photograph insert. 4 stars out of 5.
As soon as the little girl journalist appeared I knew how it would end. It was predictable and boring.
I can’t believe garland directed this and men. Not great films at all. Pretentious.
The final act completes Jesse and Lee's arc
Film couldn't be more empty if you flipped it over a struck the bottom. Terrible movie.
Dude you’re so confused. That’s the trouble with Gen Z’ers.
Red Dawn from 1984 was more believable.
Think of it as a modern day Easy Rider parable; a contemporaneous road trip type movie with alternatiing moments of beauty, grace and introspection, punctuated by scenarios of sheer terror and ultra-violence. Like Easy Rider, you either got it or you didn't. Personally, it goes into my Top 250 films ever made. The sound design is incredible. This movie will haunt you for days and weeks to come, as you mull over each montage and vignette, wondering about it's irony and the what-if scenarios...saw it in IMAX, which I recommend if you are going to see it once. I'm going back for a second viewing in Dolby this week, to catch any of the nuances I may have missed...
That Jeff Zhang guy is so annoying on twitter.. hes more concerned with rage-baiting tweets so he can be that "movie guy".
He has little Asian hands
Thought it was ok, 3 stars out of 5, no masterpiece
in my opinion the final act of this movie (and by final act i only mean that final war sequence in DC) is really just there as a following sentiment and to solidify the character arcs of Jessie and Lee, towards the end of it and i feel like if you look at it like that it becomes a lot more satisfying than looking at it to the conclusion of the movie
if you're actually watching the film this is made quite clear at the outset
another masterpiece from garland
It’s a fucking GREAT film!!!!!!!
Short answer: "Yes."
It's brutal.
Good review, will watch more of your stuff. Keep being awesome.
Whats crazy is that this comes after Garland’s MEN. That movie had no problem being polemic/going for it. And now he kinda did a cop out with Civil War. Did A24 compromise his true vision? Did Garland all the sudden became more of a coorporate artist?
I think the movie is fully his vision. Considering the crazy movies A24 makes I can't see them being the type of studio to mess with a directors vision. I don't think he is being a coward what so ever with this movie. He purposely chose not to pick a side and be overly preachy because he wanted to show the horror's that division and war can cause. Picking a side alienates half the audience and defeats the purpose of the movie.
Why are you guys so horny about wanting the Director to make a political statement? Can we just all agree that the fictional fascistic president in the movie was a bad person who tried to overtake his country? Can we just not agree that he probably wanted to make a movie devoid of politics?
@@regalreegusof course we can agree, a fascist president *is* bad( and that was one of the most interesting parts of the movie, it actually had something to say)
@@joshdukie998fair
boring as hell
But what kind of American are you?
BidenHarris2024 ❄️ 🌎 ❄️
@@johnstallings4049🤡🤡🤡
@@johnstallings4049 this dude likes poverty
@@Illusion_reality_nah he just prefer somewhat competent politicians, instead of Trump who just tweets and eats mcdonalds
@@bat1579 I wouldn't say biden is a competent politican, man can barely walk a few steps without falling, has to run to show people he is "still alive" has to show he isn't a member of the walking dead, and if you say biden and his administration is "competent" then explain the hundereds of thousands of illegals coming into america, please help me understand how creepy joe biden is a competent president.
It was a flop
The only piece that I would have add to this movie to become a "Masterpiece" would be a "Children of Men" style of sequence shot at some point, anywhere, intro, middle part, ending. Just grab the steady cam, couple of wide-angle lenses, rehearse a lot and boom... Masterpiece! hahahaha It is a great movie tho, the couple next to me and eventually the couple in the row in front of me in the movie theater left the hall at some point. The movie is that good. You love it or you hate it.
War bad ughhh we know that. A lot of us have served in multiple wars. This film is like watching uninteresting reporters take pictures of psychos. Because you don't know why a psycho goes around unaliving people and you dont know why the people in this movies are doing it also.
Without having seen Civil War, I am tempted to compare it to the two films titled Red Dawn, which were not so special even though they brought the battlefield onto American soil. The first Red Dawn, I watched it without wearing politics-colored glasses. It was just another war movie, and a throwback to the old Hollywood World War II movie, with a political stance that was decades out of date. Just please the crowds and make the money. I hope Civil War will be nothing like Red Dawn. Show the actions and their results, but leave all judgement and appraisal to the viewers. I don't see anything political about posing a hypothetical situation and showing it raw, honest, unvarnished, unopinionated.
It seems that this movie was supposed to be all about journalists and not the action. I think the movie would've been fine if it was a full on journalist movie and not semi war related. The problem is it focuses enough on the action war aspect to turn attention from the journalists, but the war action isnt explained so it brings down the movie. They either should've made a plot explaining why everything is happening or they should've had like barely any action in the movie to focus on the journalist side.
I am interested. Yea. I suppose I would have wanted some explanation as to why 2 polar opposites like California and Texas 🟥 would suddenly team up. But I'm willing to give this film a chance. At least it doesn't sound WOKE.
Hearing a few reviews about this just makes it seem it falls into the modern film making style which sucks to me, i likes films for the story, not for the action… action is cool only whether it helps the story… the story of Red Dawn makes it one of the greatest films ever and modern films just miss this,
Gosh especially a movie following Journalist that doesn’t have explain the movie, lol I think I’m good now
What if I told you one of the characters is a journalist that plans to interview the president but we never see him ask a single question to anyone in this movie...
@@dirkgently31 I would believe it, modern film making seems to want to leave you confounded after watching it stead of fulfilled
The best way I can describe why I love this movie is… something I can’t describe.
Guess all you want. It can’t be done. Maybe if I was someone else, I could. But I can’t. I just can’t.
as a person who watched this movie a hour ago i would like to make a LONG detailed review/comment while its fresh in my mind. personally i was expecting a Movie about modern warfare and personally thats what i wanted not, a lot of good war movies come out and this one is not AT ALL what i expected. now before i get into what i did and didnt like about this film i just wanna say it was a Good film and i think that the message it sent was far more real then anyone in the theater expected it was a window of possibility on what could happen and it could vary much happen and i feel like this movie was a warning to us all asking us, Do you really want this?.and that itself really thunderstruck me. now the cons. i personally thought jesse was a total piece of dogshit and she was a absolute dumbass but that isnt really a con its more of just a fact that we all already knew now i disliked the whole PRESS thing that was going on i thought it really was annoying and its not like we DONT HAVE FUDGING BODYCAMS but YOU KNOW those are not a damn thing just walk around cross fire and all that and dont expect to get shot. and a ABSOLUTE FACTOR why i disliked the film is why they did not explain why texas and californa were teaming up and that bugs me i totally understand what they were trying to go for but i would rather know and have a COMPLETE story and understand why because then u can feel some emotion for why they are fighting and not just feeling like its a pointless conflict and i feel like the conflict felt stupid and pointless because we didnt have a explanation thats a HUGE con for me and it just feels like a book with a whole in it. it feels like a PART 2 to a movie series but we didnt get the first part. Thats just my opinion not fact overall do i think u should see this film YES 100% it is a really good film i just wish the director did it a LIL diffrently thanks for reading. also one last thing i did not like how much they disrespected the US Military. 6/10
I thought the film was toothless and shallow and while the filmaking is very great at times it reminded me or a the masterpiece "Children of Men" which is basically even better filmaking but also the message and themes connect perfectly and elevated the film to an inmense poignancy which this one feels like Garland did not want to piss off nobody.
I don’t think he wanted to make the focus of the movie politics. I think he wanted to make the focus of the movie war journalism, and the ethics of it all.
@@regalreegusbut if the focus is war journalism then why did he set the movie during an American civil war? It kind of seems like Garland wants it both ways, he wants to be apolitical but at the same time the movie’s setting and premise is inherently political and him choosing not to confront those themes puts the movie at odds with itself
@@wlot28 you ever watch the show veep? The show makes points poking at both sides without really ever taking a stand politically. It’s doesn’t need to be preachy it just needs to be funny. I view this film and that show very similarly in the way they deliver their thesis.
This is one of the more level-headed takes I’ve seen about this movie. I’m in the “it’s about the journalists, the politics and the opining on war aren’t the point” camp, but I think you make a very very good point about the movie trying to have it both ways.
Yeah but the point is that the specifics of why those terrible things are happening is less important than how terrible it is once we get there
It’s a road film. Wished the film followed Jessie
That could have been better for sure
Yawn. I'm seeing Arcadian or The First Omen this weekend.
I just don't see how a movie called Civil War, that came out in a divisive election year claims to NOT be political. I can understand that the main points of the movie are about journalism, but just seems something is missing to drive home the point that your movie about a civil war is not about a civil war. A civil war is inherently political.
Great film, gripping and scary. From a Brit.
Kristen dunst and cailee spaney have me interested in this film.
I just realize something. I might be slow, but I haven’t seen anybody addressing this. When Jesse Plemons asks “what kind of American are you” We don’t even know what side he is supposed to be on because the politics of the movie, are not spelled out for you.
If you couldn’t tell, you’re doomed in a real civil war. 1: he wasn’t wearing his rank or any patches at all, 2: he was disposing of bodies, soldiers don’t do that, 3:he’s wearing red sunglasses (ifykyk) 4: he had his finger on the trigger while talking to them (soldiers would know gun safety).
Thanks for the insight.
I'm seeing it on Saturday with a friend who doesn't go to a lot of movies but loves political movies LOL.
We saw Jonathan Demme's Manchurian Candidate back in high school!
Tell your homie to gear up because it is not a political movie. It’s a movie about war.
Watching tomorrow🍿🥳
Master piece
ImporAnt?
imma go see it friday
Damm new subscriber you seem insightful
Just saw it.. way too self indulgent. 2 most inept/boring photographers. What the hell was the point.
I had a small role on it and was treated just as the rest of the cast..even being a no named talent. I just hope I made the cut. We’ll see tomorrow night
Too much violence and spoiler alert: too much needless death.
Welcome to war are you new here.
@legowarfilms no, but normally you have context for why a war started which makes the violence and death understandable, not gratuitous like in this movie.
@@tonyg76the entire point was how gratuitous it all was, that’s what a civil war is
@lachlangray1888 Still a terrible movie then because I do not need a movie to tell me that war is gratuitous.
My favorite war movie is Grave of the Fireflies, so I like war movies that focus on innocent citizens and the cost of war. So far from what I've heard of this film, I'm just confused about if it's an anti-war film or a study on American culture or a study on journalism. From the reviews I've heard it sounds like a zombie apocalypse film like The Walking Dead or The Last of Us where characters meet other groups and civilizations of characters.
I'm worried even though it doesn't pick a side that it might glorify war or only focus on violence and action rather than good people in a tough situation. It also seems that there is no reason for the characters' choices which concerns me. If anyone's seen the film what kind of war movie does this seem to be? because every review I watch confuses me more.
P.s. I usually don't enjoy pro this side pro that side war movies. I don't like when there's an enemy and they're "evil" and we are great and glorious. To me, it just diminishes the horrors. Also, does it only focus on the murder of war or more nuanced things such as torture, robbery, people helping one another, people forced to abandon someone, etc.? Also since there are civilians does it only show adults? because in the trailers I haven't seen any scenes of children's perspective which makes a civilian war movie feel more fake to me. Like do children just disappear in this film and there are only adults? Silly question I know, but I want to know how well it portrays an actual society.
Overall, I guess I'm just concerned because I hear great reviews (some mixed), but the trailers seem anti-climactic for my taste.
Just got back from watching. I would describe it as Huckfin narrative structure meets photojournalist critique. Characters were not well developed so as a result it felt scenes lacked impact. I went in with no knowledge of the film and actually found myself wondering if it was a satirical statement about photojournalists in war zones. I'm honestly shocked reviews are at all kind to this film. That said it did have one scene I loved which was people switching between vehicles while driving a highway just for the rush... That was fun.
Oh, and I think it had a very clear Grave of the Fireflies homage just after the jessee plymmons scene.
Oh, and to be clear I thought this movie was pretty awful. Maybe 2/10. I think setting it in fictional civil war america was a bad gimmick and it would have been far better to more firmly ground it in reality.
@@dirkgently31 nice review
Just saw it. Save your money. Not only is it not apolitical as a lot of reviewers are saying but it’s so stupid. You have to suspend sense throughout and it’s just dumb. They literally drag the clinging president from behind the Oval Office desk. Oh, and up until the final DC scene it looks every bit the small 50 million budget.
Masterpiece, no question. Reminded me of "Children of Men".
Its boring.
Not a good re😊vue...all about you
You hit the nail on the head. Garland wants to have it both ways. If this was just a tense action movie set during a civil war, then fine. But it’s not.
At least three times the characters discuss people who ignore the war, and these willful ignorers are chastised in an incredibly condescending manner. The movie’s protagonists are journalists attempting to show the truth about the war and this version of America, including its ugly, nasty, atrocious problems. But then the film sidesteps all its themes in an attempt to not offend its audience.
If you want a movie about the importance of the press in covering a war, go watch “20 Days in Mariupol.” If you want a movie about the dangers of ignoring a war all around you, go watch “The Zone of Interest.” If you want a movie that’s like playing Call of Duty, I guess this will scratch that itch.
Wow, this kid is reaching here...
Masterpiece, hands down
bad movie!!! it sucked!!!!!!!!!!!
Doing volunteer relief work in a war zone made me forget stuff i should remember and remember things i should forget! Great review! BidenHarris2024 ❄️ 🌎 ❄️
🤡🤡🤡
I fell asleep twice