Civil War | Reel-Time Review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2024
- Atlanta film critics Jesse Nussman and Jason Evans discuss Alex Garland's provocative war film "Civil War." ----
11Alive is Where Atlanta Speaks. We believe that news shouldn’t be a one-way conversation, but a dialogue with you. Join in, share your thoughts and connect with new perspectives.
Subscribe to 11Alive for exclusive content: bit.ly/11AliveSubscribe
Download our 11Alive News app: interactive.11alive.com/appre...
Text "plus" to 404-885-7600 to download 11Alive+ and stream 24/7 on Roku and Amazon Fire TV.
Follow 11Alive on Social:
Facebook: / 11alive
Twitter (X): / 11alivenews
Instagram: / 11alive
You guys both entirely missed the two biggest points in the film:
1) There is no room for humanity when you’re capturing something inhumane.
Ex: The young photographer is visibly shaken after he brush with gas station hostages she cannot function and while reeling she admits she didn’t even take a photo, to which Dunst character says, “It’s not our job to ask questions, it’s our job to capture, the people who is the photo will ask the questions.”
2) When situations get past words, and get deadly; nobody cares about the debate or politics that started it, all that matters is survival.
Ex: The crew comes across the two snipers trapped in a winter wonderland, the reporter asks the soldier, which side he’s for and who’s he’s against, to which the soldier replies, “Someone is trying to kill us, we are trying to kill them.”
Kirsten Dunst's character stated the thesis of the movie: she was a war photographer that was trying to warn Americans about how bad civil war is but failed to.
Yeah it was obvious to me that was what the movie was about. I guess movie/reading comprehension is dead.
Bingo, you totally nailed it! This masterpiece of a film is a brutal cautionary tale.
This is what I got from it.
The 2 photojournalists are the message of the movie. The veteran that has experienced war, and the naive that has only seen pictures and is craving for action. Many americans are the naive photojournalist, the film is the veteran warning you against it, trying to protect you.
Was it not clear of what led to war? It doesn't matter, it would still be horrible.
I loved the "You have meddled with the forces of nature" speech the president gives at the end.
JK.😊
Films are works of art. It's funny this guy wants to be spoon-fed. Without being open to interpretation, there is little, if any, art to consume.
If a film isn't art, it is propaganda. I guess we know where his preference lies for consumption. And he works for CNN no less...
Well said.
Exactly.
I thought the same. I also and maybe this is just me, felt there was a wake up call for journalism, about being aware they have a responsibility not only to portray reality but to inform correctly and warn about the fatal outcomes some paths might lead, but again this could have been my interpretation.
I loved it. I love how the movie wasn't "about" the modern-day Civil War, but it was the setting. The action scenes were awesome, and the acting was good. Definitely one of the more scary on-horror movies I've seen
A person in a war torn city taking photos of people trying to get water from people who won't share with guns. Then a suicide bomber blows up the even the young photographer captures a famous journalist taking a picture. Reviewer - this movie is about nothing.... dude who paid you to have such a null response. Weird.
She worked for Reuters, uploaded on laptop.
The communities representing off and on violence switches need to be commented on by objective journalists.
How does someone who claims to be a film critic and journalist manage to walk away from this film without identifying a single message?
He worked for CNN for 35 years. The message is likely Democrat Oligarchy propaganda. He must hide the truth.
It is my hope that this movie will serve as a warning. There is nothing good about the prospect of a war. Let’s talk about our problems and work them out as adults before it ever gets this bad.
In every civil war, there are pockets of towns that have no strategic importance that get ignored by both sides or simply far away from the lines of battle. The peaceful town is an example of this.
I agree with Jason Evans. There definitely was a shock factor that intended to highlight desensitization to 'War Violence;' however, the grand majority of people who were drawn to this movie and were curious about watching this movie was to see this movie due to underlying political factors. Having stated that, the movie did not have to give a contemporary real world application to the political elements that are always under the surface in any given war or internal conflict. This movie just kicked off with the dual state republic vs. the Official U.S military without giving any sort of back story or causation, therefore the context was missing. Of course, the absence of actual political context made this movie more or less a directionless 'nothing burger' that presented a rapid paced conflict transpiring in purported real time; and all that is known is that it's an intense conflict where the separatist union ended up victor. End of story. The acting that centered on the main characters was pretty good as well as the horrors that are lived with when it comes to PTSD. This movie got people going to the theater to watch it, because the title of the movie amounted to 'click bait,' which implied that the movie was going to touch on some intriguing subject matter relatable to real tensions experienced in society, while still presenting a fictional/hypothetical proposal. This movie was marketed to reel in the curious or inquisitive mind; so this was certainly not the movie for those who were curious as to why this conflict happened to begin with and sought some sort of explanation or understanding. It was obvious then that in order to deliberately skirt subject matter that would be interpreted as being truly controversial, by highlighting societal factors or even principal factors that led to said division left an important amount of movie goers asking why with a big (?).
Aw, but they did give us two clues to point a finger at the candidate in our world.
The end of the corruption of the FBI. For the Candidate said this.
2 The thrid term president.
Brought to us with a stupid reason to
justify.
However if the movie was to jab at a certain candidate it would be the opposite candidate who is the guilty party. least be the third term guy. That current clown has now paved the way with his 4th proxy war into position. The implications of writing a story for cinema and giving perception of what people should hate is disturbing. It gives me the feeling of when a narcissist is gaslighting me and thinking I am to stupid to see their inner most self the whole time the narc is acting.
Ok, loved the movie first off. Second, how are neither of these guys mentioning how both these photojournalists are using film cameras and the black and white images garland would flash after they took a photo. Clearly photojournalists employ digital cameras (which Lee uses at one point in the film) but the stress on the film aspect is important. Why were they not taking any video? Why did they not film the president’s last words? There is something about the stillness of photography, and how the questions photography leave unanswered in the same way this film does that is powerful. These guys miss that completely.
To add on, at one point in the film they run into war videographers who are filming everything instead of taking photos. Garland treats them as if they do not have the heart of the photographers, and that they are more into the story rather than the art.
@@SamKuper Because Jessie is the "Artist"...
I'm telling you people. Strauss & Howe Generational Theory!
I thought the movie was just about how war is hell and no one wins in war their are just people who loss less
I saw the movie last night. It is disturbing on a multitude of levels. To say that the movie does not take sides, is inaccurate. It is the subtle ways in which ther writers and Director frame the movie. Consider: The President, is white, but not blondem but has a 'hair thing' going on. He's ignored the Constitutional term limits and is in his third term. The "Western Forces" Alliance, made up of Texas and California, are depicted with lots of people of color in their ranks, also woman in combat. Meanwhile, the 'other side', is for the most part all white people.
Three disturbing scenes stand out. A blonde haired guy in camo wearing a pair of red glasses that are from front to back, all red. He shoots two Chinese Americans in cold blood. In another scene, a bunch of fighters in street clothes, also diverse, are fighting a bunch of white guys in camo. In the end, the guys in street clothes summarily execute three captured white guys in camo that are forced to wear black hoods.
Another scene has a black gal who looks strinking like Candace Owens. She has her hands up in the air in the White House and wants to negotiate the safe passage of the President (a bad guy in the movie). The 'liberating soldiers', including a black female combat soldier, shoot the unarmed Candace Owens lookalike character dead. These soldiers than quickly find the President and shoot himn dead as well. The last scene shows the soldiers standing over the dead President. Off to the left of the screen, a dead guy that looks eerily like Jared Kushner.
I had exactly the same take. Thank you! Actually, I thought she was Candace too, so it was intentional then...
Exactly.
I watched this movie with my millennial veteran son and there were so many political views presented yet not one ideological position to bring people together. I loved the broad spectrum of not taking sides in the presentation. This film provokes conversation, self examination and a re-evaluation of what the USA really stands for. A must watch again . Stirring.
Ok, here's what I have to say, Why couldn't JJ ABRAMS have just finished "REVOLUTION"!! i would have been satisfied with that. And another thing about revolution, it was REALLY about to get into A I. 😂
Totally "got it". 1) The movie is about the horrors of domestic Civl War. 2) The movie does take sides. The guy shooting the guy from Hong Kong pretty much clarified that point. 3) The President used the military against U.S. citizens, as Trump tried to do. 4) California and Texas both have active secessionist movements. 5) The movie captures the chaos and lawlessness of war, as in the gas station scene, where these guys are just lawless, sideless thugs. Same with the "Christmas" scene.
Trump never did that lmfao you are absurd
@@HookEmNBookEm Kelly disobeyed orders, and then outed Trump in his memoirs. He said Trump ordered the military into major cities, but he and Miley wouldn't obey Trump's orders on that.
This movie is about an alternate reality?!! We're already so divided by our media coverage these days that this film hits a little too close to reality.
I like to see it .” Is it like reality setting compared to to these days now ?
Its exaggerated too much. You don't watch the Rocky movies and say that they are totally realistic because BOXING exists in real life.
I think it should have been orange man bad vs social justice commies. And he should have taken sides.
EnterTRAINment
What is it about?
1. The story of a development or a young untrained photo journalist in the shadow of a mentor she looks up to.
2. A warning to not let a modern civil war happen to us by showing the depravity of it through the eyes and experiences of the characters
Great Conversation! Just saw the movie last night. Had the same conversation you guys just had.Does art always have to answer every question or is it to stimulate an emotional or intellectual response?...
Does art always have to answer every question? Nah, that would be boring.
Should art stimulate an emotional or intellectual response? I think so. Otherwise, it's decoration.
@@SmallFry900Exactly.
I made it to sec 14 on this video, the comments told me everything I already knew without wasting 16 mins of my life. Thanks
All these potential themes dude and others are spewing are never set up in the movie. Like we don't see Lee’s work before the war breaks out and we don't see peoples reactions to her work during! So what is dude talking about?
If you go in thinking it’s about the political angle and the tactics of the conflict you’ll be disappointed. If you understand the story is more about the story or the main characters (the journalists) you love it
I can see that this movie has upset Jason, so much so that he actually doesn't know how to cope with his feelings because he is scared, of something. Maybe a possible future which may be just around the corner because of how this movie brings the faraway war nearby, very nearby, to your local town, to the bridges you cross over to get to your work every day. So, yeah, scary for sure.
Oh, and I really think Jason might be thinking of actually killing his neighbor, although the movie is actually about States within the USA attacking each other over what have you.
I agree with Jason's analysis. Keeping the movie apolitical was a wise decision. However, this movie is so risk-averse that it ultimately doesn't have much to say.
Sure, it has some provocative and haunting imagery. But, those scenes do not make a statement, so they feel like landscape paintings. Landscape paintings are nice, but I most admire art that is challenging and brave. I wanted Garland to give us Guernica.
It's not apolitical, but it is not propaganda. Its definitely anti-fascist, but not to the point of distraction.
I agree with Jason Evans I left the movie wondering why the director and script said nothing. It had the canvas to be one of the most epic and impactful movies in recent memory and it purposely avoided that. Like the director was afraid to take any stance in his story telling
Watch it again. Shooting people because they aren't "American" to your liking, is taking sides. Who tried to use the military against his own people? Trump did, but Kelly refused the orders. It does take sides, but people aren't paying enough attention to pick up on the clues.
I was dying to see.. but was very disapointed
SPOiLER WARNiNG: spoilers abound in this comment
I was captivated by this film. It's very visceral and dense... but it's not complicated.
The theme of the film is: Cycles.
The perpetual turnover of the old guard for the new.
There are so many pieces of imagery of cycles, from automatic weapons being focused on as they fire and cycle to Jessie's analog/digital film viewer that cycles through her developed film, the fact that the characters must start their journey in NYC and drive to Pittsburgh just to double back down and around to get to Washington D.C... that's a circular path and cycles and circles are related. And I'm sure there are so many other images and concepts of cycles that I'm sure I will catch upon subsequent viewings. I can't say for certain and will have to re-watch, but I think every character is an archetype. Clear archetypes. And I think the 4 main characters tie into that "cycle" theme with regards to the Strauss & Howe Generational Theory (a theory, by the way, which itself discusses very clear cycles of human history and preludes to wars). The 4 main characters work for NEWS organizations, and industry which operates via cycles. The shop scene conjures concepts of "cycles" as one cycles through clothes to figure out what they want to wear and in the film itself I believe Jessie (the young wannabe journalists) sifts through several racks... "cycling". There is also the thematic, allegorical "cycle" of:
Starry-eyed ambition turning to gobsmacked terror turning to seasoned experience is what Jessie undergoes through the film and we see the jaded veteran it is obvious she will become in the Lee character (Kirsten Dunst, the Veteran Photo Journalist and Jessie's hero).
Jessie even uses an analog film camera (sort of a cute nod to millennial hipster obsessions with analog records and technology) which it self must physically cycle. Lee's comment about "being in war after war, warning Americans not to do this" and Sammy commenting about how dictators turn into cowards with trite final quotes when they meet their ends... these are commentary on the notion of cycles.
*this has been happening for so long and it has come around again*...
With regards to Strauss & Howe Generational Theory I suspect the 4 main characters were at least subconsciously (or even consciously) modeled after The Prophets, Artists, Nomads and Heroes archetypes of said theory. Stephen McKinley Henderson (Sammy, the Old Reporter) is the Prophet, always warning of dangers to come by his vast and long experience and often being correct. Wagner Moura (Joel, Dunst's Reporter partner) is the Nomad, always on the lookout for the adrenaline rush and obviously drawn to this line of work because he can't plant roots but he still is quite useful helping learn new knowledge when things are unclear. Cailee Spaeny (Jessie, the wannabe Photo Journalist) is the Artist who embraces new ways of viewing things as the old world order falls apart and uses here talents to capture/comment on it. And Kirsten Dunst (Lee, the jaded Veteran Photo Journalist) who Jessie looks up to as a hero and who...
***** SPOiLER ***** literally is the hero, sacrificing her life to save Jessie. *****SPOiLER*****
*****SPOiLER***** And that is where the revelation of the film occurs... THE CYCLE... that instead of Jessie mourning for her fallen hero, she instead trudges immediately on... taking up the torch from her fallen idol and carrying it on without second thought. *****SPOiLER*****
*****SPOiLER***** iN THiS YOU LiTERALLY SEE THE CYCLE. The cyclical truth that: war will never end. The human comedy will perpetuate itself on and on and on as it always has... in the same way. But the beauty, the meaning is that it continues because we are all a part of that cycle. We take up our roles and play our parts... and hand it all down to the next, worthy successor. *****SPOiLER*****
*****SPOiLER***** Lee even saves Jessie TWiCE. Once in the beginning and once at the end. This maps onto generational theory that the archetypal generations that are closest in interaction and bonding are the Hero and Artists generations because the Hero generations must face an prevail over a crisis that will then provide immediate safety for the next generation, the Artist generation. Lee saves Jessie in the beginning, creating stability for her to start her journey and then Less saves her again in the end, creating stability that allows Jessie to take her rightful place and replace Lee. Their bond is the closest and it's shown in the film as such... much like Generational Theory illustrates. *****SPOiLER*****
We even follow the story of the film, learning more details about the characters in chunks that mirror the order of generational theory:
Artist. Prophet. Nomad. Hero.
Even the final lines
*****SPOiLER***** between the President and Joel harkens back to a comment Sammy made about fallen Dictators always giving lackluster quotes before they are overthrown... THiS President pleads "please don't let them kill me..." and Joel remarks "that'll do..." *****SPOiLER*****
THE CYCLE iN TURN YET AGAiN!
I am very certain that "Cycles" is the main image system and theme of this brilliant film.
And I can't wait to see it again.
Havnt seen it yet .. but .... We are still young as a species and people suffer everyday everywhere.. personally i woukd like to soend my time helping others
Please allow the other person to finish their point and not interrupt. Thanks
It should have been about politics ..we as a country reeaally need it ..but people a cowards
That’s what I was hoping for as well
💯 %
I don't think you understand what the film was about.
What you wanted it to be about... I agree, we need a film like that. But this film was never going to be about that. It's making a broader, universal, human statement.
I think it was genius to not tell us too much about any of the characters because how much do you really know about people from town to town? Antifa (antifascism) is an ideology and not a group so presented as another ambiguous faction in this assault on our country. We are left with our limited perceptions and hopefully a drive/curiosity to find common ground that can prevent this possible inevitability.
Jason is 100% correct. Jesse is wrong.
CNN guy can't stand not being told what to think.
This is much ado about nothing
2:55 most liberal take ever uddered.
***SPOILER ALERT*** BLUF: This film is a complete waste of time and money! The film starts with the president rehearsing lines of propaganda. The viewers are then taken to a scene at a city road where there are protesters and police fighting...I thought it was supposed to be a civil war that engages citizens against the federal government. After the suicide bomb explodes, we venture to a hotel in NY city where people are partying and getting drunk. Then, the four journalists start their trek to D.C. to interview the President - wait, the President?! Shouldn't he be locked away in some unknown bunker? Perhaps in Air Force 1, flying in the sky or retreating to a safe haven in another country? Nope. Instead, he sits at the White House with his small, I mean small, army of Secret Service agents, police, and perhaps some military. Anyway, the four journalists venture on a 857 mile trip from NY city to D.C. and somehow take the road to West Virginia, then to Virginia, and finally D.C. I suppose I-95 was out of commission. We get to witness people in military uniforms killing civilians, civilians in Hawaiian shirts killing military, and then military killing military, and military killing Secret Service and D.C. police. In the end, the President, who remained in the White House for an unknown amount of time found himself looking into the barrels of the Western Front forces and ultimately perishes from an eagerly and long-anticipated bullet. The film does a poor job at setting a timeline. It does not provide any information about what led America to succumb to its second civil war. The film could have easily inserted a caption "2 Years Earlier" and then fill the screen with various news snippets capturing American citizens' dissatisfaction on a multitude of facets of poor governance...but nooooo, the director did not want to lean on any given side of politics and risk being banned from Hollywood; what a shame. Instead, he remains apolitical and provides a perspective from four journalist, only, and gives viewers an opportunity to guess and each use their respective imagination as to what happens. As a customer, I pay to watch the "brilliant" imagination of others to be put on the screen, not to go to an environment that attempts to invoke such creativity from my grey matter. There are plenty of other dumb scenes that just seem to jump from a delusional drunken thought to the box office screen that leaves me shaking my head. I'm sure if someone like Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood directed it, things would have unfolded in a more accurate and logical manner. This film will keep you guessing about a whole lot of nothing. Once you've seen the entire film, you'll realize that you only witnessed the last few days of the civil war, leaving you with so many questions and frustration. I think it's best to wait until this film hits Netflix or Amazon Prime. However, I'm only one person, and my views are certainly different from those of others. Some see this as an excellent "work of art", but I beg to differ.
I watched this movie today and was disappointed. I was hoping to see a film that has a plausible way in which a civil war would occur and perhaps how it would play out. Guess I should have paid more attention to the reviews. This movie should have been named The War Photographer. My kid liked it though, so I suppose you may too. Just know it's thin on the civil war story and all about a news crew even though, in my opinion, it was not a very realistic portrayal as they were in the stack to clear close quarter combat situations getting in the way. Anyways, I think this movie concept had way more potential.
Forgot to say... California and Texas being allies? Yeah, right. Polar opposites.
Jason annoyed me greatly in this review. Claiming he doesn't know what the filmmaker was trying to say is a cop out. If that's true- if he really doesn't know what Civil War is about, then I honestly don't believe Jason Evans can call himself a film critic. Period. He just didn't want to or can't get into it. Alex Garland absolutely has a POV in this film, and it's razor sharp. So sharp this guy denies it exists.
If you want actual analysis of the film's themes and issues, this guy does a decent job:
ruclips.net/video/whB199Wgm_4/видео.html
I believe Jason's own politics are blinding him or preventing him from being able to talk about the topics as presented. To mask this, he skips past it to demand the director answer these questions for him in the film, and that's not why Alex Garland made it.
For AG to tell the audience to take a side would be as self-serving as he depicted the journalists in the film... he wants the audience to ask those questions and find their own answers. That's one of the reasons art exists.
This film was fantastic. Go see it, but it is a really tough watch.
dialog was stupid
How many times is this guy gonna say " LIKE " Good Grief.
It’s call bad English 😂
This review seems to imply the movie is essentially a movie of pointless violence. The attempt to describe and not describe a divided America without taking sides that sink into animal wanton violence. Not attractive at all to me.
Democracy is not working in the USA because there is no central elections system. It is basically a mess. IF Democracy is to be preserved in the USA election reform needs to take place where a 51% majority or a coalition wins. The USA needs to copy the Australian electoral system that is based on compulsory preferential voting, which is recognized as the fairest system of voting compared to first pass the post systems.
Gerrymandering and malapportionment do not exist in Australia because electoral boundaries are drawn up by either public servants or independent boundary commissioners.
The movie is to program the sheep on how to act when they pull the plug!
The Movie was TRASH. DO NOT WASTE your money!!
Waited for months to watch this movie, and it was trash.
It's the worst movie of all time
I have to agree.
Your comment is the worst comment of all time.
absolutely agreed. the movie was boring and the ending was trash
@@BillDevine-ir3fu Str8 trash. So out of all the secret rooms and exit strategy the President has access to, he ends up hiding under his desk! SMH
An awful movie.