The funny thing about this review is that you are saying how its about nothing because it does not pick a side, but had it picked a side you would have thought it was shit or great depending on what side it took. The point of the movie is that no side wins if there was a situation like this. And in war it is like that.
That's a pretty hefty assumption. I guess we will wait and see if there's a directors cut where they pick a side and then I can pick a side, too. The suspense is killing me.
@uglyreview I don’t see why you think that he’s making a hefty assumption here when you start off this review talking about DEI and wokeness. It’s pretty clear that you have a favorite in this war that you want to see win. And you’re just angry that the movie doesn’t tell you if those are the ones that win or not.
the key is, I think, keep talking, have an open mind and see what is going on. It's great vision of Garland, because he picks no side. Comment all the way from Belgium. We need a steady America in the world, not a divided, we need a democracy that works! Greetings and all the good! ❤
So talking about DEI and wokeness translates to what side I want to see win in a fictional story? I don't give a hoot who Garland may have chosen to win with a more complete action movie, I just would have preferred a complete action movie to what we received. I completely understand the message that it doesn't matter who starts or wins the war because we would all suffer, but there are ways of getting that message across that are far more entertaining, and that includes giving us a complete story. Thank you for watching and I appreciate the feedback.
It does kind of give the game away. In the same way that when people on the left, watch the movie complain that they don’t get to see that the communist win. And if you did understand the point of this movie and your review doesn’t actually sure that you understand the point of this movie because watching your review shoes that you did not understand the point of this movie, so maybe what you need to do is take them this video and redo that review to show that you actually understood the movie was
Honestly, the fact they didn’t pick a side, added four warring sides instead of the actual two they kept it as general and non-specific as possible to ensure no one could complain about it, or every side could see themselves as the “good guys”. if they hadn’t and they did pick a side, this movie would’ve never been made.
You may be right and I feel I need to clarify something. When I say "pick a side" I don't care who it is, I just wish Garland would've had more conviction with what he was trying to say. To your point it seems he didn't want to out of fear they'd piss off half the audience, which it seems they did anyway.
TLDR: bad review, feels like guy didnt understand the movie Long version: This review feels incredibly tone-deaf, like instead of analyzing the movie you just say what happens in it and then go "but they never told me who i shouldve be cheering for". Especially the point about glorifying media is outlandish, the movie clearly establishes just how morally dubious the practice of photojournalism is. Lines like when Jessie asks Lee "will you take a picture of me when i get shot?" and the monotone "what do you think" response from Lee says everything - they care about getting the "money shot" and justify it with "i thought i was sending a clear message home not to do this", when in the end all they want is to get the last interview with a dictator - personal fame. At no point is the group of journalists established as "heroes", they never do anything heroic, they go around a war-torn united states taking pictures of men and women dying and ultimately profit off of getting the bloodiest and most horifying picture (another good scene is in the beginning of the movie, after Lee takes pictures of the suicide bombing, the first thing on her mind is that the wi-fi is slow and she cant upload her pictures). What I loved about the movie the most is, what i perceived, as a lack of bias - they never say "this is wrong/evil/bad", its up to the viewer to decide. Like the gas station scene, the people defending it are doing it for their own safety but at the same time the looters they were torturing were also people just trying to survive and resorting to thievery as they had no other choice. Every event, interaction that the journalist stumble upon shows two sides, in which each has their own motives, reasons to behave the way they did and its up to the viewer to decide what they think about what they were shown. If anything, the most biased thing in the movie was the refugee camp, being shown as a place of community, no violence or politics. If there was a reason to believe that the movie has a bias then it'd be that scene in particular.
So it seems like we actually agree that the only thing this movie is talking about is the impact of journalism, because there's nothing else here. I did mention there is something to be said for the open interpretation of war and that it's a worthy conversation but it's a conversation we could all have without seeing this movie. It's just kind of here.
@@UglyReview But if thats the case then why should people make any art or media in the first place? A conversation can be had about any topic without there being a piece of media to start it, so why even bother making it? Just like your review, we couldve had a conversation about whether civil war is a good movie or not without your review existing and yet you made it nonetheless
You make a very good point regarding the creation of media and art. Maybe the ultimate point of the movie was to start any conversation whatsoever. Maybe he was trying to show that our differences have pushed us so far apart that we don't remember why we started fighting and that it may lead to inevitable bloodshed. So maybe in a roundabout way it was all a good thing? Not sure, but my ten minute opinion is my ten minute opinion, and I do appreciate your feedback.
@@UglyReview I think the point of the movie is to start any conversation whatsoever, but i also think that there is a point its trying to get across, using the black and white pictures. Whenever Jessie takes a picture that is shown to us, its always a dead body, somebody actively dying or something destroyed - thats the black and white, no gray in-between topic of the movie - life and death. Life is always good (hence the refugee camp being portrayed in such a positive way) and death is always bad (basically the entire movie). Regardless, I also appreciate you engaging in the comments in a respectful manner (even though i was being pretty harsh in the first comment, i admit). And i don't think your opinion is invalid, theres definitely several reasons to dislike the movie, like the fact that you dont have to watch it to know whats it about, the trailer has basically everything. Or the use of AI generated images for their promotional material on Instagram. Its just i thought the points you brought up weren't good reasons to dislike the movie.
A big reason I started this channel is so I could have conversations with people about entertainment and culture. If you're a bit harsh thats fine, I didn't think you were trolling. If anything you've swayed me a little to your side.
I haven't seen the movie and will wait for streaming, but the lack of backstory for the conflict or character stories is a strength. In America, one side believes their guy is a gift from God to stop the forces of global corruption. The other side sees a pervert who sexually assaults women, walked in women's change rooms to stare at minors in various stages of undress and a business fraud. It doesn't matter in the real world, why should it matter in the movies? People will pick sides and not care what their side does. Looking for something deeper in the plot is like being upset with how Dexter ended. You spent 6 or whatever years cheering on the antics of a serial killer and somehow expected satisfaction when it ends? Same with a second Civil War in America. If it happens it will be a the wealthiest people in the history of humanity fighting over the idea that their guy can improve your life 1% and no one will care that they will lose it all.
I understand your point but from a strictly dramatic entertainment point of view this movie is empty. In terms of reality I tend to agree with your statement, that it won't matter once the fireworks start, as we will he pitted against each other for stuff that really doesn't matter. The very, very subtle digs at reality in this film only work if you're going to go whole hog and tell us what you think, but Garland doesn't do that. I suppose one could argue it supports conversations like this one since it's so open to interpretation.
This review can be summed up as “right wing film review were is angry that film does not support right wing Civil War cause and completely misses the point of the film.”
@@UglyReview I didn’t say that the review was right wing. I said you are right wing reviewer. As for the point of the film is it basically sure as Civil War sucks. And using journals as the vessels for us to do that, from gives us as the audience, the most unbiased way of watching the film. You can make arguments about the journalist and their biases which is 100% fair. And you can critique modern journalism. But you don’t critique, modern journalism and you don’t acknowledge that all four journalist are using their own bases in the film. As for needing to know the cause of the war we as the viewers don’t because it doesn’t matter what the constant Civil War sucks for the people who are experience it. Like I said, this review could be some down as right wing reviewer is angry because a movie about a second Civil War doesn’t Support is view.
The funny thing about this review is that you are saying how its about nothing because it does not pick a side, but had it picked a side you would have thought it was shit or great depending on what side it took. The point of the movie is that no side wins if there was a situation like this. And in war it is like that.
That's a pretty hefty assumption. I guess we will wait and see if there's a directors cut where they pick a side and then I can pick a side, too. The suspense is killing me.
@uglyreview I don’t see why you think that he’s making a hefty assumption here when you start off this review talking about DEI and wokeness. It’s pretty clear that you have a favorite in this war that you want to see win. And you’re just angry that the movie doesn’t tell you if those are the ones that win or not.
the key is, I think, keep talking, have an open mind and see what is going on. It's great vision of Garland, because he picks no side. Comment all the way from Belgium. We need a steady America in the world, not a divided, we need a democracy that works!
Greetings and all the good!
❤
So talking about DEI and wokeness translates to what side I want to see win in a fictional story? I don't give a hoot who Garland may have chosen to win with a more complete action movie, I just would have preferred a complete action movie to what we received.
I completely understand the message that it doesn't matter who starts or wins the war because we would all suffer, but there are ways of getting that message across that are far more entertaining, and that includes giving us a complete story.
Thank you for watching and I appreciate the feedback.
It does kind of give the game away. In the same way that when people on the left, watch the movie complain that they don’t get to see that the communist win.
And if you did understand the point of this movie and your review doesn’t actually sure that you understand the point of this movie because watching your review shoes that you did not understand the point of this movie, so maybe what you need to do is take them this video and redo that review to show that you actually understood the movie was
Honestly, the fact they didn’t pick a side, added four warring sides instead of the actual two they kept it as general and non-specific as possible to ensure no one could complain about it, or every side could see themselves as the “good guys”. if they hadn’t and they did pick a side, this movie would’ve never been made.
You may be right and I feel I need to clarify something. When I say "pick a side" I don't care who it is, I just wish Garland would've had more conviction with what he was trying to say. To your point it seems he didn't want to out of fear they'd piss off half the audience, which it seems they did anyway.
TLDR: bad review, feels like guy didnt understand the movie
Long version:
This review feels incredibly tone-deaf, like instead of analyzing the movie you just say what happens in it and then go "but they never told me who i shouldve be cheering for". Especially the point about glorifying media is outlandish, the movie clearly establishes just how morally dubious the practice of photojournalism is. Lines like when Jessie asks Lee "will you take a picture of me when i get shot?" and the monotone "what do you think" response from Lee says everything - they care about getting the "money shot" and justify it with "i thought i was sending a clear message home not to do this", when in the end all they want is to get the last interview with a dictator - personal fame. At no point is the group of journalists established as "heroes", they never do anything heroic, they go around a war-torn united states taking pictures of men and women dying and ultimately profit off of getting the bloodiest and most horifying picture (another good scene is in the beginning of the movie, after Lee takes pictures of the suicide bombing, the first thing on her mind is that the wi-fi is slow and she cant upload her pictures).
What I loved about the movie the most is, what i perceived, as a lack of bias - they never say "this is wrong/evil/bad", its up to the viewer to decide. Like the gas station scene, the people defending it are doing it for their own safety but at the same time the looters they were torturing were also people just trying to survive and resorting to thievery as they had no other choice. Every event, interaction that the journalist stumble upon shows two sides, in which each has their own motives, reasons to behave the way they did and its up to the viewer to decide what they think about what they were shown.
If anything, the most biased thing in the movie was the refugee camp, being shown as a place of community, no violence or politics. If there was a reason to believe that the movie has a bias then it'd be that scene in particular.
So it seems like we actually agree that the only thing this movie is talking about is the impact of journalism, because there's nothing else here. I did mention there is something to be said for the open interpretation of war and that it's a worthy conversation but it's a conversation we could all have without seeing this movie. It's just kind of here.
@@UglyReview But if thats the case then why should people make any art or media in the first place? A conversation can be had about any topic without there being a piece of media to start it, so why even bother making it? Just like your review, we couldve had a conversation about whether civil war is a good movie or not without your review existing and yet you made it nonetheless
You make a very good point regarding the creation of media and art. Maybe the ultimate point of the movie was to start any conversation whatsoever. Maybe he was trying to show that our differences have pushed us so far apart that we don't remember why we started fighting and that it may lead to inevitable bloodshed. So maybe in a roundabout way it was all a good thing? Not sure, but my ten minute opinion is my ten minute opinion, and I do appreciate your feedback.
@@UglyReview I think the point of the movie is to start any conversation whatsoever, but i also think that there is a point its trying to get across, using the black and white pictures. Whenever Jessie takes a picture that is shown to us, its always a dead body, somebody actively dying or something destroyed - thats the black and white, no gray in-between topic of the movie - life and death. Life is always good (hence the refugee camp being portrayed in such a positive way) and death is always bad (basically the entire movie).
Regardless, I also appreciate you engaging in the comments in a respectful manner (even though i was being pretty harsh in the first comment, i admit). And i don't think your opinion is invalid, theres definitely several reasons to dislike the movie, like the fact that you dont have to watch it to know whats it about, the trailer has basically everything. Or the use of AI generated images for their promotional material on Instagram. Its just i thought the points you brought up weren't good reasons to dislike the movie.
A big reason I started this channel is so I could have conversations with people about entertainment and culture. If you're a bit harsh thats fine, I didn't think you were trolling. If anything you've swayed me a little to your side.
8:16 you take that back that is Pablo Escobar himself you’re talking about plata o plomo
Lol. It's actually quite surprising how much they look alike.
I haven't seen the movie and will wait for streaming, but the lack of backstory for the conflict or character stories is a strength.
In America, one side believes their guy is a gift from God to stop the forces of global corruption. The other side sees a pervert who sexually assaults women, walked in women's change rooms to stare at minors in various stages of undress and a business fraud. It doesn't matter in the real world, why should it matter in the movies?
People will pick sides and not care what their side does. Looking for something deeper in the plot is like being upset with how Dexter ended. You spent 6 or whatever years cheering on the antics of a serial killer and somehow expected satisfaction when it ends? Same with a second Civil War in America. If it happens it will be a the wealthiest people in the history of humanity fighting over the idea that their guy can improve your life 1% and no one will care that they will lose it all.
I understand your point but from a strictly dramatic entertainment point of view this movie is empty. In terms of reality I tend to agree with your statement, that it won't matter once the fireworks start, as we will he pitted against each other for stuff that really doesn't matter.
The very, very subtle digs at reality in this film only work if you're going to go whole hog and tell us what you think, but Garland doesn't do that. I suppose one could argue it supports conversations like this one since it's so open to interpretation.
@@UglyReview Ya. What I wrote works if it is intentional. I should not use that empty feeling to mask bad story telling.
This review can be summed up as “right wing film review were is angry that film does not support right wing Civil War cause and completely misses the point of the film.”
Whats the point of the film? What's right wing about the review?
@@UglyReview I didn’t say that the review was right wing. I said you are right wing reviewer.
As for the point of the film is it basically sure as Civil War sucks. And using journals as the vessels for us to do that, from gives us as the audience, the most unbiased way of watching the film. You can make arguments about the journalist and their biases which is 100% fair. And you can critique modern journalism. But you don’t critique, modern journalism and you don’t acknowledge that all four journalist are using their own bases in the film. As for needing to know the cause of the war we as the viewers don’t because it doesn’t matter what the constant Civil War sucks for the people who are experience it.
Like I said, this review could be some down as right wing reviewer is angry because a movie about a second Civil War doesn’t Support is view.
Thanks for watching and I appreciate the feedback.