Totally agree that they presented so many controversial dynamics without exploring any of them. The writing felt underwhelming and by the end when you see the younger photographer get swept away by the adrenaline and get those last couple pictures- it was almost comical because of how underdeveloped everything was
Just had another thought after discussing with my friend. What If the whole point of the movie was to provoke these exact conversations as it played the middle ground throughout the whole movie? Not necessarily about where the country is heading or morality, but just movie interpretations in general. You have people who like a deeper meaning vs appreciating it at surface level. This movie never dives too deep into either side thus sparking so many polarizing view points.
Geoff undermines Garland and didn't understand the movie at all whereas Matt saw and appreciated the movie Garland set out to make. Great convo...the way it ends with an actual metaphor of surpressor and surpressed is EXACTLY the warning Garland is shouting about.
@@moviehusbands From all the reviews I’ve watched since watching the movie (I walked in blind after only seeing the trailer) I’ve noticed what the critic’s faults with the film are in direct correlation with what they wanted from the film; thus, exposing the biases of the audience member. The movie is a-political, speaks of objectivity, and has a character arc where the old veteran’s humanity gets restored while their apprentice inherits the dead inside needed to get into place to take the shot at all costs. It’s whiplash with a road trip.
I loved the film. Everyone wants to know who the "good guys" are, but the reality would almost certainly be so much more complex, chaotic, and disturbing.
Love watching husbands different POV. For me this movie did not work, It felt like Alex Garland struggled with tones of movie, that mix of war sequences & some meditative aspects for eg. Dunst's character lying down and looking at flowers. Even if the movie was deliberately ambiguous, which I don't mind, but we don't see the underlying tension of civil war through these characters much.
Maybe it's just projection on my part, but I felt like the lack of "world building" and details on the factions, etc. was meant to provoke reflection on how one tends to view conflicts abroad. There always seems to be a conflict or a tragedy going on, somewhere, and at some point I think we just define some regions as "troubled", some people as "fanatical", and that's "just how it is", empathetic as we may be towards the plight of those involved. By substituting the US for those Other regions and peoples, one might suddenly be more interested in the finer details of how we got to this mess. _This_ conflict _here_ needs to make sense. As if any of them do.
I think watching this film you really have to leave your own personal politics at the door. Like the spectacled fella said it’s really about the message of this is what can happen if we continue down this divisive path. Regardless of your politics- the film leaves that ambiguous intentionally throughout the film- whether it be that the two main factions of western forces are California and Texas ( two states that are supposedly opposite in ideologies in our world) or discussing the scene where the press actors follow the men into the first building. Those men are wearing Hawaiian shirts indicative of the the boogaloo movement a nihilistic libertarian cultural movement- but in that scene they are almost treated like the good guys because the press is imbedded with them. There is never a side other than the guy at the top of the pyramid is bad and they compare him to Mussolini and kadaffi. And all the participants in between are also almost ambiguous those we think are the good guys are smiling at the end over the dead like they killed a buck. We in the west take for granted the realities in the ground for a lot of these conflicts. Good and bad is ambiguous when you accidentally kill someone’s grandmother and have to just keep on trucking. The man in the tire being lit. All the things that happen in this movie i would argue have either happened or are not outside the realm of possibility. It’s just that garland brings the rest of the world home to so far geographically isolated North America who hasn’t had to taste this kind of real world human brutality on their soil since the first civil war. There is a lot going on in this film.
The scene with the guys in the Hawaiian shirts was amazing. The dichotomy of them almost acting like the good guys during the fight, then celebrating as they execute prisoners was probably a more honest depiction of war than we'd want to believe. It makes you ask a lot a questions like could there really be "good guys" in a conflict like this.
Thanks for your point of view. I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style vibe. 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. I believe some of the negative criticism comes from many who have not experienced real wars/conflicts in their homeland or those who never served in the military or likely have no experience in war planning or combat because their reviews are all based on modern action movies and dramas that they grew up watching instead of being actually deployed to a poor, ravaged foreign country and being looked at with great vitriol, threatened and/or shot at just because they’re an American. Simply put, people are scared. We’re living in a modern society where the powers that be have created a fear based existence and I don’t see this changing for a long, long time. My perspective comes from someone who’s been used around the world to satisfy the goals of the empire and who believes that as a result of our global expeditions and campaigns, we’ll eventually experience those pains in our homeland someday and I’m not happy about that, but I am a realist who knows enough to prepare for difficult times ahead. So, I see the movie as a sort of documentary whose goal is to open our eyes to a reality that many Americans still deny. The small town depicted in the movie hints at parts of this reality. Many people may not think the events depicted in the film could ever happen but think of this, the U.S. is structured like a large version of Europe with states that mimic individual countries held together by the state’s promise to uphold the Constitution in which the mentalities of 21st century political leaders and citizens have clearly concluded, is just an old piece of paper. This format once proved that a massive civil war could and did occur and often history repeats itself, whether people want to believe it or not. Sure it’s just a movie, but it’s a serious one and there is a major message in it for us which is, war is truly hell and it’s not something that we should glorify nor something that we should ever hope occurs in our communities. Critics should stop trying to analyze this film like they’re watching some make believe superhero movie, an Oscar contender’s review or some political circus commentary akin to the events of the 2020 election. I suggest we watch it like we’re analyzing potential future “real world” events because the premise of this movie might be much closer than some of the many naive Americans think. From a military (not militia or political) perspective, often wartime strategic alliances form strategic partnerships which are not necessarily based ideological similarities. States like Texas and California both are very large populations (30-40 million residents), massive police and national guard forces and GNP’s that are comparable or larger than some of the current top ten percent of wealthiest countries on the globe. Texas was once its own republic and has governed that way since. An alliance of these to states and perhaps a third one of similar status and structure would be a major problem for DC politicians. Given today’s times, we need to hope for the best but only those who can’t see or hear won’t prepare for the worst. Most Empires haven’t lasted more the 500 years throughout history so, I think it’s very important for people to accept their possible future or that of their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren because we are definitely heading for a major change down the path of U.S. history. This fate is even foretold in the book of Revelation and in greater, specific detail in the “extra-biblical” text of 2nd Edras. Time and experience has proven the old Mark Twain quote that, “truth is stranger than fiction” A future cult classic movie for sure!
I thinl that jesse and lee are opposites they start off innocent (jess) and hardened (lee) but by the end i think it symbolizes a transformation in then. Jesse has become hardened and wants to get thr best photos and after breaking down lee has regained some humamity from caring for Jesse and its sort of a viscious cycle of war.
I enjoyed the love; I liked it but didn’t love it so I’ll split the difference with you two and give it a B+ I think actually think the movie wasn’t about the civil war; I think the war was a MacGuffin and the film was really about war correspondents and the costs to the individual in doing their jobs, to bear witness to the evil. This in an era of the Press being described as an enemies of the people. I think the ambiguity of the war in the film was a necessity in our time of fractured politics to get its message out to more than 50% of the population.
Just some thoughts on Lee … I think the scene of her trying in the dress is important as it shows her connecting with a sense of normalcy. I imagine her journalist attire is all she has worn for years and seeing herself looking “normal” makes her start to question what she doing in regards to her emotional detachment. This plays into end of the movie. Lee has been a cold, impartial observer of events but decides to become an active participant. The Lee we meet at the beginning of the movie would have let Jesse die instead of saving her.
What scares me about this movie is all of my Republican relatives keep saying it’s time for a civil war in the USA, they foresee a MAGA Nation in their future.
But maybe it's good to see how citizens from the outside would think it would happen... an unbiased (?) or even a slight quid pro quo glance we wouldn't usually be privy to 🤫😁
Lol well legally speaking that sounds very problematic. I assume you meant the legal system of the US which shouldn't apply to a non citizen. Instead if it were illegal it would be illegal for an American citizen to make a movie about a new civil war. I don't see why international laws would care, I don't see INTERPOL caring enough to arrest a Brit for making an American Civil War movie. Just pointing out the jurisdiction of making something like free thought and free art illegal.
Perhaps you didn’t watch the whole review because we certainly talk about the main role photo journalism plays in the film and its focus on the reporters.
I’ll give Garland this, it’s been a week since I’ve seen Civil War, and it’s been on the forefront of my mind
It’s been two days since I’ve seen it. Between the great trailer and a lot of hype saying it’s great, I feel like I was supposed to like it, I didn’t.
@@TrevyTrev-andTheFunkyPetsdid you feel anything? Did it at least make you think??
to me this is what makes this film great.
Totally agree that they presented so many controversial dynamics without exploring any of them. The writing felt underwhelming and by the end when you see the younger photographer get swept away by the adrenaline and get those last couple pictures- it was almost comical because of how underdeveloped everything was
These reviews where you guys are in opposition to one another are super fun to watch!
Just had another thought after discussing with my friend. What If the whole point of the movie was to provoke these exact conversations as it played the middle ground throughout the whole movie? Not necessarily about where the country is heading or morality, but just movie interpretations in general. You have people who like a deeper meaning vs appreciating it at surface level. This movie never dives too deep into either side thus sparking so many polarizing view points.
This is slightly what I was getting at when I was talking about the movie being a blank slate but you put it much more eloquently
Geoff undermines Garland and didn't understand the movie at all whereas Matt saw and appreciated the movie Garland set out to make. Great convo...the way it ends with an actual metaphor of surpressor and surpressed is EXACTLY the warning Garland is shouting about.
I’ve been thinking about this movie since I saw it Friday night. I’ve concluded that it is a Rorschach test for the audience.
It certainly is having that effect it seems 😂
@@moviehusbands From all the reviews I’ve watched since watching the movie (I walked in blind after only seeing the trailer) I’ve noticed what the critic’s faults with the film are in direct correlation with what they wanted from the film; thus, exposing the biases of the audience member. The movie is a-political, speaks of objectivity, and has a character arc where the old veteran’s humanity gets restored while their apprentice inherits the dead inside needed to get into place to take the shot at all costs. It’s whiplash with a road trip.
I loved the film. Everyone wants to know who the "good guys" are, but the reality would almost certainly be so much more complex, chaotic, and disturbing.
Love watching husbands different POV. For me this movie did not work, It felt like Alex Garland struggled with tones of movie, that mix of war sequences & some meditative aspects for eg. Dunst's character lying down and looking at flowers. Even if the movie was deliberately ambiguous, which I don't mind, but we don't see the underlying tension of civil war through these characters much.
Maybe it's just projection on my part, but I felt like the lack of "world building" and details on the factions, etc. was meant to provoke reflection on how one tends to view conflicts abroad. There always seems to be a conflict or a tragedy going on, somewhere, and at some point I think we just define some regions as "troubled", some people as "fanatical", and that's "just how it is", empathetic as we may be towards the plight of those involved.
By substituting the US for those Other regions and peoples, one might suddenly be more interested in the finer details of how we got to this mess.
_This_ conflict _here_ needs to make sense. As if any of them do.
I think watching this film you really have to leave your own personal politics at the door. Like the spectacled fella said it’s really about the message of this is what can happen if we continue down this divisive path. Regardless of your politics- the film leaves that ambiguous intentionally throughout the film- whether it be that the two main factions of western forces are California and Texas ( two states that are supposedly opposite in ideologies in our world) or discussing the scene where the press actors follow the men into the first building. Those men are wearing Hawaiian shirts indicative of the the boogaloo movement a nihilistic libertarian cultural movement- but in that scene they are almost treated like the good guys because the press is imbedded with them. There is never a side other than the guy at the top of the pyramid is bad and they compare him to Mussolini and kadaffi. And all the participants in between are also almost ambiguous those we think are the good guys are smiling at the end over the dead like they killed a buck. We in the west take for granted the realities in the ground for a lot of these conflicts. Good and bad is ambiguous when you accidentally kill someone’s grandmother and have to just keep on trucking. The man in the tire being lit. All the things that happen in this movie i would argue have either happened or are not outside the realm of possibility. It’s just that garland brings the rest of the world home to so far geographically isolated North America who hasn’t had to taste this kind of real world human brutality on their soil since the first civil war. There is a lot going on in this film.
The scene with the guys in the Hawaiian shirts was amazing. The dichotomy of them almost acting like the good guys during the fight, then celebrating as they execute prisoners was probably a more honest depiction of war than we'd want to believe. It makes you ask a lot a questions like could there really be "good guys" in a conflict like this.
Thanks for your point of view.
I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style vibe. 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.
I believe some of the negative criticism comes from many who have not experienced real wars/conflicts in their homeland or those who never served in the military or likely have no experience in war planning or combat because their reviews are all based on modern action movies and dramas that they grew up watching instead of being actually deployed to a poor, ravaged foreign country and being looked at with great vitriol, threatened and/or shot at just because they’re an American.
Simply put, people are scared. We’re living in a modern society where the powers that be have created a fear based existence and I don’t see this changing for a long, long time.
My perspective comes from someone who’s been used around the world to satisfy the goals of the empire and who believes that as a result of our global expeditions and campaigns, we’ll eventually experience those pains in our homeland someday and I’m not happy about that, but I am a realist who knows enough to prepare for difficult times ahead. So, I see the movie as a sort of documentary whose goal is to open our eyes to a reality that many Americans still deny. The small town depicted in the movie hints at parts of this reality.
Many people may not think the events depicted in the film could ever happen but think of this, the U.S. is structured like a large version of Europe with states that mimic individual countries held together by the state’s promise to uphold the Constitution in which the mentalities of 21st century political leaders and citizens have clearly concluded, is just an old piece of paper. This format once proved that a massive civil war could and did occur and often history repeats itself, whether people want to believe it or not.
Sure it’s just a movie, but it’s a serious one and there is a major message in it for us which is, war is truly hell and it’s not something that we should glorify nor something that we should ever hope occurs in our communities.
Critics should stop trying to analyze this film like they’re watching some make believe superhero movie, an Oscar contender’s review or some political circus commentary akin to the events of the 2020 election.
I suggest we watch it like we’re analyzing potential future “real world” events because the premise of this movie might be much closer than some of the many naive Americans think.
From a military (not militia or political) perspective, often wartime strategic alliances form strategic partnerships which are not necessarily based ideological similarities. States like Texas and California both are very large populations (30-40 million residents), massive police and national guard forces and GNP’s that are comparable or larger than some of the current top ten percent of wealthiest countries on the globe. Texas was once its own republic and has governed that way since. An alliance of these to states and perhaps a third one of similar status and structure would be a major problem for DC politicians.
Given today’s times, we need to hope for the best but only those who can’t see or hear won’t prepare for the worst. Most Empires haven’t lasted more the 500 years throughout history so, I think it’s very important for people to accept their possible future or that of their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren because we are definitely heading for a major change down the path of U.S. history. This fate is even foretold in the book of Revelation and in greater, specific detail in the “extra-biblical” text of 2nd Edras.
Time and experience has proven the old Mark Twain quote that, “truth is stranger than fiction”
A future cult classic movie for sure!
I thinl that jesse and lee are opposites they start off innocent (jess) and hardened (lee) but by the end i think it symbolizes a transformation in then. Jesse has become hardened and wants to get thr best photos and after breaking down lee has regained some humamity from caring for Jesse and its sort of a viscious cycle of war.
I enjoyed the love; I liked it but didn’t love it so I’ll split the difference with you two and give it a B+
I think actually think the movie wasn’t about the civil war; I think the war was a MacGuffin and the film was really about war correspondents and the costs to the individual in doing their jobs, to bear witness to the evil. This in an era of the Press being described as an enemies of the people. I think the ambiguity of the war in the film was a necessity in our time of fractured politics to get its message out to more than 50% of the population.
Just some thoughts on Lee … I think the scene of her trying in the dress is important as it shows her connecting with a sense of normalcy. I imagine her journalist attire is all she has worn for years and seeing herself looking “normal” makes her start to question what she doing in regards to her emotional detachment. This plays into end of the movie. Lee has been a cold, impartial observer of events but decides to become an active participant. The Lee we meet at the beginning of the movie would have let Jesse die instead of saving her.
She would have taken a photo of the dead body as well
First time I agree with Matt. I liked the ambiguous of it. Don't watch trailers!
What scares me about this movie is all of my Republican relatives keep saying it’s time for a civil war in the USA, they foresee a MAGA Nation in their future.
It should be illegal for a British person to make a movie about an American Civil War
But maybe it's good to see how citizens from the outside would think it would happen... an unbiased (?) or even a slight quid pro quo glance we wouldn't usually be privy to 🤫😁
Lol well legally speaking that sounds very problematic. I assume you meant the legal system of the US which shouldn't apply to a non citizen. Instead if it were illegal it would be illegal for an American citizen to make a movie about a new civil war. I don't see why international laws would care, I don't see INTERPOL caring enough to arrest a Brit for making an American Civil War movie. Just pointing out the jurisdiction of making something like free thought and free art illegal.
Haha . You mean attempt to make a movie about civil war?
😂😂😂😂 this movie was fantastic, the maga lovers just missed the plot though
?🌎🌍🌏?
this movie is trash bro
Mmmmm… missed the point of all the movie is about the REPORTERS!!, it is frustrating to ear this in a “reviewer”….first time I saw you but is the last
Perhaps you didn’t watch the whole review because we certainly talk about the main role photo journalism plays in the film and its focus on the reporters.