Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: con.onelink.me/kZW6/10678jrh
Would you be interested in discussing story titles and how they are neglected part of storytelling in general. As a writer I can honestly say there was a time where I just came a story after the main character and nowadays I make sure my story titles are unique and avoid using the names of characters.
Sad, I expect that someone who reviews movies would have courtesy to not advertise shit games (as it is a similar medium) for any money, I dont mind ads but this is just sad
The thing that impressed me the most was the sound design. The fact that gunshots were loud and startling was fantastic. A film that depicts firearms sound signature realistically. When people were shooting, it WAS the loudest thing on screen. No normal ear friendly conversations, guns are loud. It made them loud.
@@Prophetofthe8thLegion What are you talking about?? You understand that is was still hearing safe right? It doesn't leave you with hearing loss or a ringing. Just the sound itself was an actual gunshot. Not some overlayed pop pop you get in every action film. And in contrast to everything else on screen, it was the loudest part. Like it should be, I highly doubt any production studio would release a film that literally hurts you. Any volume issue is going to be the theater itself. I myself saw it in IMAX and was amazing.
The character change makes more sense if you view it as 3 concurrent coming of age stories. You basically have 4 characters who are in different parts of their 'war journalism' careers. -Cailee Spaney (Jessie) has just started her career as a war journalist. -Wagner Moura (Joel) is in his prime. The job is exciting to him. He comes off as an adrenaline junkie, he is going the extra mile to get that shot that will make a name for himself. -Kirsten Dundst's character (Lee) essentially is at the end of her prime. She's made a name for herself, photographing conflict and has basically seen it all, but the this has taken a heavy toll on her. -Stephen McKinley (Sammy) is past his prime. He really has no place being in a war zone. He's too old to keep up but his passion for the career has kept him going past the stopping point. He isn't invincible like he was when he was younger. He can no longer hide the fact that he values his own life and those around him. This impairs his abilities as a war journalist as they need to be very stoic and cold in order to operate in this environment. *****Spoilers***** *********** *********** *********** *********** The toll of the career has basically worn Lee down to her limit. She is trying to hold face and maintain her presence, but the cracks are starting to show. Her and Joel both experience some extreme trauma within the film. Joel being in his prime is able to overcome it. Lee on the otherhand is at the end of her rope and finally just breaks down. At the start of the film, she implies, heartlessly, that if Jessie were to die, she'd photograph it. When Sammie is killed, she photographs him, but then deletes the photo. She can't keep up the stoicism required to be a war journalist any longer and she has developed into a parallel of Sammie. This happens right as they are thrust into the most intense combat. She is unable to function to her full potential as a journalist. She starts having a mental breakdown while in the middle of a battle. During this time, Jessie is starting to develope more into Joel. She has been through hell, but she feels alive. She's starting to hit her stride. She's excited to be in these situations and takes the risks needed to get the good shots. This nearly gets her killed, but Lee, now unshackled for the morbid stoicism of being a war-journalist saves her rather than taking a photo of her demise. This parallels to how Sammie saved the group earlier. Something he wouldn't have been able to do if he was still a cold blooded war journalist, as he'd have been in the same situation himself. Lee would likely have developed into a character very similar to Sammie if she hadn't gotten killed. Joel gets the big shot, he's going to make a name for himself, much like Lee had done when she documented the ANTIFA massacre (I think I recall this being her big scoop, but i could be misremembering). Jessie is now hooked on war-journalism. She will likely now develope into a character more similar to Joel. She captures a photo of Lee as she dies and is able to heartlessly move on even though she saved her life. It basically shows 4 different stages and evolutions of being a war journalist with the backdrop being an American civil war. Lee wasn't really acting out of character, it's more that her character 'came of age' at a really bad/(good?) time. I really feel like the short coming was not developing Sammie's character enough. I think if they had done more to establish how he got to where he is then drew parallels to how that same thing is happening to Lee, it would have made it more obvious what was happening to her, and it wouldn't be misinterpreted as being out of character.
Are you a writer by any chance? It's really impressive how you're able to dissect these characters while also being able to articulate it such that it's easy to understand for the laymen. Just finished the movie a few hours ago and reading your take has added an extra dimension to the film for me.
I probably shouldn't have read all of that as I haven't seen the movie yet (yes I saw the spoiler warning) but I was too curious. That being said this is an excellent analysis and honestly it might enhance my viewing of the film whenever I get around to seeing it. Thank you for taking the time to share!
I remember watching it hesitantly because my friend suggested it, while thinking it's going to be some kind of sob story. But I was literally clenching my fists and biting down my jaw hard when the last scenes of descending into trauma happened, like when the mother gets shocked, girl gets mentally dissociated while selling her body,Jared and his friend scenes. One of the movies that changed my perspective towards cinema as a art more than entertainment. Gta 4 is a similar game that changed my perspectives on video games bring more than just entertainment. @@alhusseinfarah4194
I know which character you are vaguely talking about and I feel the photo they deleted, the car window, was an indication that everything had become too much for them to bear; too close to home. Notice how everything went downhill for that character after that; they were having panic attacks, crying, disconnected, etc. I do not think it was a betrayal of their character development because early in the movie, that character had flashbacks that seemed to foreshadow the mental fragility. Also, there was mention of "What's eating at you?" or "What's on your mind?" by their colleagues leading up to that. There was so much that made complete sense the second time I watched it. For instance, the President's speech in the beginning is completely different knowing what happens in the movie.
I thought he was talking about the young girl car hopping out of the window and triggering that most disturbing sequence that followed. He even used “goes out of the window literally.”
Ooh this character? I didn’t think it was a betrayal of anything and it felt natural. Ultimately reviews are always subjective I guess In a perfect world, reviewers would watch films twice Once for the ride, 2nd time to review and accept the film for what it is, then you can contrast if it works
It's a brilliant move. It made me happy there wasn't any politics or current day's nutty topics mentioned at all. This is what immersion and escapism is.
That’s what I’m saying, I feel like people’s positive or negative opinions of this movie aren’t being determined by the quality of the movie, it’s like they’re determining it based on what political side they’re on
Honestly it was overkill with the helicopter and I found myself rooting for the underdog soldier at the gate fighting back against overwhelming odds. It was like 10 soldiers vs every one 😂 Sadly I didn’t see it on IMAX but on Cinemark XD with THX Certification. I do wanna see it on IMAX just for the action scenes
I find it ridiculous that the controversy surrounding this movie is because people wanted the movie to side with their specific political party and instead they didn’t side with any at all, like isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t it good that this movie wasn’t pro this or pro that? I mean this is a movie guys, not the news network that you watch
Its centrist nonsense. Just read some of the director's quotes about how he views the disputes over governance. He claims that its just two different views of how to govern, as if Republican policy doesn't directly affect the lives of LGBTQ+ people, as if Republican policy doesn't make life harder for the impoverished. Its mealy mouthed " war and divisiveness are bad" with very little real criticism going on.
@@raoulduke2924if you blame the republicans than your already falling for the trap and your being manipulated. The republican and democrats are really no different. Both controlled by an elite.
RE: the character "betrayal" It was a psychological response to successfully passing the torch. They felt comfortable enough to feel something, because they fully trusted another person to document. At least that's how I read it.
If it what I'm thinking, I took it as, it was a point of utter cracking...super powerful, I was horrified and upset seeing them like that. But I like that take too
Yeah you can clearly tell for the back half her heart wasn't in it anymore and they literally already set up that she was willing to put herself in danger to help Jessie and that other guy in the scene with Jesse Plemons earlier in the movie
Having nothing political to say doesn’t mean having nothing to say at all. I dont understand the people saying this movie “says nothing.” It has plenty to say from an anti-war lens, particularly the gross desensitisation and callousness that comes from choosing to constantly take in real-life horrific violence.
@@wembychan What? I got around the accusation that anyone who doesn't like it doesn't understand it. So I'm an idiot because I think it's poorly executed? It looks like it was shot with a handycam. You have people having a conversation with a sniper team in the middle of a standoff. The military lets them tag along while they are involved in firefights. I can go on. It's a terrible movie.
The California Texas alliance is just crazy enough to be brilliant in its concept. Yes I know Blue and Red but (as a Californian) we have much in common. We are independent self governing states that do what we think is best for our interest, common or otherwise. Whether environmental, gun control or border politics we do as we see fit for our own best interests. Once a third term president or other power attempts to stifle that I feel common ground would be found. The combined economic, populous and military resources of the two states would be a force to be reckoned with on any stage.
It's possible that after they put Trump in jail to rig another election, that the maga movement in California and Texas would form the Western Forces Patriot Milita to close the borders.
I thought about this too. For the record, I live in Texas, and due to the politics of it all, I had one of those choke and spray out my beverage moments when I heard Texas and California "working together" in this war. Yeah right 🤨
In my reading, this film talks about the LACK OF EMPATHY regarding war. It is evident with journalists: Lee, experienced and successful, appears cruel when she photographs horrific scenes of violence. Meanwhile, Jessie, young and inexperienced, is affected by the war scenes. The idea of the narrative is to reverse the roles. To show how, as the film progresses, Lee becomes more empathetic and Jessie becomes colder. In the end, Jessie takes the iconic photos while Lee freaks out and is shot - a moment, in fact, photographed by Jessie. Going off script, the message for me as a viewer is: we are Jessie and Lee at the same time. Wars happen all the time, all over the world. At first, like Jessie, we were shocked, but eventually we got used to the horrific scenes of violence. We got used to war. We got colder. But we are also Lee. Our lack of empathy has a certain limit. How long can we endure it? And would we be able to handle it when it was with someone close to us? Lee has photographed countless people in deplorable situations, however, her breakdown came after seeing her colleagues in the same type of situation. Then, we come to the true meta of the film: you, Americans, bring war to the whole world. There are countries, right now, in situations IDENTICAL to those shown in the film. Do you care? Of course youu don't. It's not NY or Washington. For you, and for me, "war" is that thing that appears in the news.
Im hearing alot of folks talk about how a civil war might be a "fun" or "good" thing. I did mission trips all over West Africa in the 90's. Ive been to and spent time in places where the system has completely broken down. I still have nightmares about what I saw almost 30 years ago.
People romanticize dystopian and post-apocalyptic settings because they think it gives them the best chance to reinvent themselves as heroes in a world where hierarchical structures have collapsed and everyone is equally destitute. The truth (and the irony) is that such a world allows sociopaths and psychopaths to quickly seize positions of power and dominate those around them (usually through the use of extreme violence).
You're obviously with the Libertarian party. If your candidate would win the election and become president...it would be worse the a civil war. We would have a national PURGE just like in the movies 🎥
making movies is hard, just like flying an airplane. thats why when my pilot crashes and burns i wont say anything bad (ill scream in panic while plummeting to the ground) edit:damn guys, sarcasm
Well, there is a theory that in the future the States of South of USA and the States of North Mexico will unite to form a new country, if they do not accept it, the way would be weapons, with civil war existing in both countries.
I definetly see what you're saying, but I don't think world building was what this film was about. You weren't really supposed to side with either "side", as in the end theyre both two halves of a bad whole. World building the sides more would have led to inherent biases within them, and I think keeping them vague helps more with the message the movie was trying to get across.
Stuckmann thinks he knows more about writing and consistent character choices than Alex Garland lol. Notes from Melanie is so incredibly inconsistent. Someone needs to remind him about zods snapped neck.
Good review as usual, although I believe that the arcs of both main characters Lee and Jessie perfectly fit the themes of the movie. Giving no spoilers, both arcs are foreshadowed by earlier scenes, like Jessie’s increasing recklessness and feeling “more alive” but less detached in getting the photos; and Lee’s full realization that all the times she thought her foreign war shots were a “warning” back home were ultimately futile as they did not stop the second American civil war… Lee and Jessie are so haunting to me when all is said and done…
I will say that the I felt that the shift in the character you mention was actually really interesting. One thing I noticed was Garland started shooting some POV shots from their perspective where the focus was off with the light splitting into red, green, and blue around edges. I took that as a sign that they were cracking under the pressure especially after that moment where they pointed out how they were still failing to process that this war was happening in the US rather than all the various counties they had visited. That shift to cracking under the pressure at the 11th hour felt very real to me especially as a photojournalist who has built a career as someone who lives as this silent observer. This crack I believed was foreshadowed by the memories flashes seen in the early part of the movie. War is Hell, and I thought it really humanized the idea that as much as we can try to be impartial observers we still have to live with the impact of what we see/choose to do. Even when you believe the best/safest thing to do is to not intervene or "take a side" that doesn't stop us from the effects of the horrors of war
I saw it. I enjoyed it. I was surprised at how much order was still present, and how little crime was depicted. I would imagine that there would be a whole lot more fragmentation and disorder. There were examples of communities setting up aid stations, and policing their streets. That seems more likely to be the exception rather than the norm. I guess I was left feeling as though this movie was toothless, it didn't go far enough to depict what a true breakdown of services would be like. Empty shelves, empty gas tanks, the starvation of multitudes. When communication stops, we have no credit, no commerce, no transportation. Except for the government, and that would be busy fighting. I think it would look a lot worse.
Watched the film this week and I would like to say that the scene Chris is talking about is quite interesting. I don't agree that it goes against the character's development. Specially when you consider all those scenes of prior to the final moments, where you can see the recklessness and the thirst to get the best shot at any cost. That final moment just kinda solidifies the scene and also criticizes journalists as well. The scoop and glory were more important. It's a "corruption" arc that you don't think will happen because we all assume the horrors witnessed throughout the movie would teach the lesson, when it didn't.
Yeah such a disrespectful scene. Hey thanks for saving my life…only a day before I was puking my guts when you,,,saved my life the 3rd time - like Kirsten kept saving her life and this brat took no notes. Ps…she’s fired
@findyoufilms not really. She listened to her hero's lessons; harden yourself and don't think about it. She got involved in saving the girls life and it got her killed. They switched places mentally
@@seff6533 I was asking Stuck but ok, yes, i agree with you i understood the key shift, and don’t have a problem with it. The end certainly made me on the fence for a day or two.
I really hated it. I didn't like not knowing what caused the war. It was nothing but shootings & photo journalists taking pictures. U can tell they wanted to make this movie as apolitical as possible but it just ended up making it bad in my opinion.
I have always appreciated the fact that your reviews are spoiler-free. Even on the rare occasions when you do a review with spoilers, you have a spoiler-free counterpart and both are clearly labeled. Thank you.
I don't know if it's the safest route to tell a story. Nightcrawler tells the story that photo journalists can manipulate a scene before taking photos or video to make the story more intriguing and therefore more valuable to whoever gets the exclusive.
@@ametora1231Absolutely. Far better movie. It understood that it had to come off as surreal and a dark comedy or you wouldn't buy into it. This movie has too much implausibility to be taken seriously.
The question “what kind of American?” from the trailer is literally so memorable, the film does not attempt to address that question from different perspectives, which I felt was a huge let down and missed opportunity
Ugh this seems like such a dishonestly kind review, the little girl was terrible and her character was so disgusting that I was hoping she eventually caught a stray lol Kirsten was one note and I blame direction because she is always amazing. None of the characters were likable or well developed, was so annoyed by the end of this movie!
This movie was extremely disappointing. The premise behind the movie (upcoming American Civil War) is a very interesting topic with great potential for a controversial film. However, Garland is a coward and chooses to uses journalists as an unbiased spectator of the conflict instead of making the film about the conflict itself - which would have been so much more interesting (and he could still remain unbiased in such a film and just present both sides of the conflict). Not to mention, there is little information as to how/why there is a Civil War and why California & Texas (two states at opposite ends of the political spectrum) would ever form an alliance, be able to field a military and take over the entire country. I get the film is about journalists but that's why the film is not that interesting. Also, in reality, we all know journalists would be taking a side in such a conflict.
Wagner Moura was giving me strong Pedro Pascal vibes in this movie, so much so that I had to look up if they were related in some way. His name being "Joel" in this movie only made the connection stronger to me lol
I think that odd character moment can be explained by the effect that another character was having on them. They were being reminded of themselves at a younger age and that explains why they do what they do in the last moment. They were being "woken up" ' from their stoic trance, in a way.
The great Brazilian actor Wagner Moura was great in this, kinda weird you mention Jesse Plemons who was 5 minutes on the movie, but didn't mention Wagner Moura, at all.
I will say the end had the biggest impact. To see people laying down their lives and knowing it is over then seeing a shell of a powerful man as he is will stay with me. To see, as an Australian, an office we see daily as a sign of power and peace was impactful.
Just saw this and I think most reviewers are missing things to an extent. First, for people who are REALLY that concerned with the political messaging, it gives you enough context to gather that the president is a tyrant (regardless of party) and two large states with divergent politics join up despite their differences (CA / TX). Also the things we see make the idea of this conflict unfathomably terrifying. No glorification and no pandering either. Garland handles the politics subtly CAUSE ITS NOT THE POINT. The film is most compelling and emotionally impactful by studying its characters as war photographers. A thrilling, twisted artistry that bites when showcasing the trauma involved. Finally, the action was nuts and the sound design was brilliantly horrifying.
So why have a white guy killing all the foreigners and dumping them in a pit? Why not blacks doing it to whites? That part really had nothing to do with the civil war itself so why put it in there? It's obvious the politics of the film maker.
This movie sucks balls. It is about a teenage girl and her feelings while becoming a photo journalist with a strong assumption that it is a real job and a noble one. Who wrote that sh.t?
I also immediately noticed the irony of the ad read. A lot of people are commenting about his detachment in the ad read or “Wooden “delivery” or that he avoided acknowledging the irony etc. What I think everyone is forgetting is that the ad reads for videos are often modular meaning they are pre-recorded and then inserted into videos so if he did this recording for the ad a week or two before then, of course he would not be showing any emotional connect with the video. It’s inserted in. I’m surprised I couldn’t find a single person who mentioned this, he seems like a fairly intelligent guy so I’m sure when he inserted the ad he had a good laugh and had thoughts about it
I enjoyed that particular part you're talking about. It demonstrated that although they were journalists they had something in common with the soldiers, they were there to do a mission, they would deal with their emotions afterwards.
The hardest part for me was watching these supposed professional armies giving no quarter to surrendering troops. Neither side deserves to win in a war like that.
Loved the movie, especially and most importantly for keeping it under 2 hours: 1h 49m in fact, for that alone it deserves an Oscar. Then secondly, beautifully shot, for a film about photojournalism, it’s a mesmerisingly beautiful display of photography. I think the strange editing choices and sudden cuts, which is not too dissimilar from other A24 movies keeps it sweet n short and interesting. I really appreciate it. Soundtrack was fantastic and I like that it’s ambiguous. It’s just about the group trying to get the ultimate interview and shot. It’s not for everyone, but I was so happy to get an A24 on IMAX.
I was just really confused about the tone and message with this movie, at one point it felt like it was making light of the events taking place and next scene it was a very heavy dark feeling and that’s what this movie missed for me a clear tone and message that it was trying to convey. Is it not so serious or very serious? It wasn’t really clear
Ben Sailsbury and Geoff Barrow who did the score were actually going to record the score for Dredd, but Alex Garland went with Paul Leonard Morgan at the last minute.They released the soundtrack later as DROKK ( Garland and Barrow are huge Judge Dredd/2000AD fans). I'm 99% sure this is Garlands loose prequel about the end of democracy of America, before the fascistic Judge system took over. If you know 2000AD/Judge Dredd lore, you can see it!
The president being in the White House during a civil war... There's many stupid things in this movie but if you're a fellow military vet, this is one hell of a comedy.
Loved this movie so much. Really captured the horrors of war and the audio production was QUALITY! Audio was mixed so firefights and military vehicles were loud as hell. It was really immersive in IMAX.
was in it today at 3:30pm - the IMAX was EMPTY, not even 10 people in and that in the middle of Vienna movie is a masterPEACE imo in all my years i watched thousands of movies - never saw any like this i was thinking about the char-shift you mentioned and had to think, just 2 chars come into mind - but cant share that opionen at all one of that shifts surprised totally, yes - but can somehow relate and get the point of why it put like that to other "shift" developed and made completely sense to me also for me there is a clear message, not as the real "Team A" or "Team B" are the badies or "goodies", but the message is frightening and the movie made an absolute astonishing job in get you this feeling deep down for me the movie managed to put you right into "the action" which was satisfying and scary at the same time
This movie was absolute dogwater. 1 star. Politics aside....The characters have no backstory, so you don't care about any of them. Unrealistic. No back story. Drawn out scenes for no reason. It's just stupid. Someone needa to make a real Civil War movie.
Jesse Plemons is so so good, there’s just a truth and vulnerability and subtlety to his acting that puts him on a higher calibre than most, cool that his wife is Kirsten, who i actually once randomly bumped into one night on the streets of Amsterdam!
Years of Zombie Apocalypse and Super-heroes shenanigans have finally prepared us for this: What if _we_ are the bad guys, and no one's coming to save us?
As someone who lives in small town and has visited DC numerous amounts of times- it was terrifying. The battle at the capital was very very jarring and it scared me a lot. It’s a massive wake up call.
As a writer yourself, I was wondering your thoughts on "Sunshine." It was also written by Alex Garland and I think it's his crowning achievement. Trying super hard to be my favorite movie ever. The other being "Brick". Both are just so singular. I find Garlands writing to be the standout over Boyles direction, as magnificent as it is. Sunshine is way headier. But the themes man. So good.
I think that I know what you’re talking about at 6:01 , but I didn’t think there was a major switch. That character showed us who she was from the beginning and it came out more and more through this experience. (I’m trying to talk about it without spoilers😂 I hope that you understand what I’m saying.)
Following journalists just made no sense for me. When the characters die I was like "Ok so you died because you chose to be there." It's not like following a soldier who did not have a choice to be there and isn't putting their life on the line for no reason like these journalists. Wow you got a couple pictures that's going to be in a news article that gets read my maybe 10,000 people or more. I wanted to experience a worn torn America and all I got was journalists acting like their work is more important than it actually is.
I think all four characters changed. Lee was a grizzled photographer who suddenly lost her shit. Joel was sleezy but acted like a real journalist at the end. Wide eyed Jessie found her footing. Sammy was old and invalid but drove that truck like a boss.
Just saw it pirated in HD and subtittles. It really sucks. I really wanted to like it, was kinda hyped. But it's really bad. Forced events I don't care about, they don't explain shit, characters that do things that don't make sense, kinda like in the series Dark (you it's also really bad).
Cuando la guerra es su pais y no en todos los paises que destruyeron , la pelicula es mala o aburrida. Si fuera la misma pelicula con el conflicto de los balcanes estarian de acuerdo que es una buena pelicula. La doble vara.
What the civil war film taught me is that independent journalism is needed. If you have a smartphone or a google phone, you can Chromecast the war and take pics and livestream the event. This will show the entire world on Chromecast and on youtube. Camera's are essential and needed as well. And be grateful for having a smartphone.
I’m not going to lie the girl was very annoying as a character. Just stupid and naive costing others around real consequences just because she wants to be something.
I agree on several points. I went into the movietheater yesterday thinking I probably was in for a zombie-ish postapocalypse type of thing but without zombies. I was thoroughly corrected, let's just say. Breathlessly so. Because in addition to all the other things being said, it's also a very stunning and beautiful movie, visually speaking and in the sheer scope of what is not shown or told but only suggested. Also, there _are_ tiny hints here and there bubbling forth a little opinion. There was the initial shootout between a group of unknowns, maybe national guardsmen under government banner, and what is clearly a squad of boogaloo boys - or heavily inspired by that group. And that guy in the end, the unshaven president. That sure do look like Steve Bannon. I mean. I wasn't fooled into thinking he had been offered the role. But I did feel some strong associations.
Those who give low rating to this movie or simply hating this movie are just trying to seek more attention. And yes, we can’t ignore the fact that this movie has certain flaws, but this movie already shows how terrifying war is. Garland himself deliberately gave no context to why the second civil war started, because of course we should’ve know from the first time, we just don’t realize it yet and it needs time. Overall, this movie is definitely 8/10.
the characters had 0 consistency in their personalities and they were also the worst journalists ever there was so many times they should’ve been taking photos and weren’t
It's funny that even though this movie is sh!t people think it's great. Bt the way, the director is from where again? Maybe he should worry about Ireland's anger
I don't think I've ever seen a movie reviewed by both you and Jahns, having the same sponsor! Especially when the sponsor is in such... *specific* taste. Although. Stuckmann. I _must_ say - Jahns at least managed to pronounce "nuclear" properly. Tut tut tut.
This movie has no characterization. We learn almost nothing about them and care even less. This movie was a visual spectacle but it was little more than a fence sitter never willing to actually inhabit the characters or tell a coherent story. Terrible film.
While the photojournalist viewpoint was something I expected as it was hinted in the trailer, I was hoping for exposition on what started this conflict, and while it does get a resolution, I was also hoping for an aftermath (even a brief one). Those are absent, so while the film isn't what I hoped, it is very interesting. I was still entertained, but this is less 'civil war' and more 'civil war excerpt'. Not a criticism, just not sure if "Civil War" was the best title. But yes, that scene with Jesse Plemens is terrifying. I knew exactly what his reaction Nelson Lee's response to his question would be (trying not to spoil it, but you know what I mean).
The entire movie is like a tribute to photography. Every shot is considered, calculated and tells a story. But Stuckmann is right, this is a good movie that I will not watch again; not until I've forgotten all about it and stumbled into it again sometime in the future.
I can't get over how young Cailee looks in the movie. She could pass for 14. As for the movie, it seemed more concerned with American symbolism and the Press, rather than Civil War.
Jesse Plemmond just knows how to play a sociopath so well. The fact that the only reason he’s in the film is because the original guy dropped out and Kirsten Dunst had to call her husband to help out is so funny to me. He might be the first guy to win an award for an uncredited role.
One gripe I’ve seen which is understandable to an extent has been the fact the gunfire is loud, but there’s no variation from weapon system to weapon system. What I’m guessing is, with the majority of the weapons being M4’s, M249’s and/or various rifles/smg’s, is that the movie maxed out the volume for these weapons so as to add that jarring effect when they are fired. Especially in close proximity, you don’t need a large caliber round to create that almost disorienting pop when you’re right next to it. So for movies, there’s literally regulations for the volume level, decibel wise they can reach. When you max that out for small arms, since that’s your most common weapons, you can’t then dial it up to another level when a ma deuce is firing or an Abrams shell is hitting a target just past your head. So while the idea of the noise change between weapons is understandable, it’s not feasible to have loud small arms as well as everything else being even LOUDER.
I'll comment a few times to help the algorithm. Lol This movie is one of the most realistic movies I ever remember. Just a "you decide" ending. Which left me a tad irritated.
Its pure fantasy, we are all too soft, ALL of us. if the grid goes down No electricity, running water, currency or state to state travel (no supplies) we are not as Hard as our ancestors. Cool thought exercise though
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days! Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: con.onelink.me/kZW6/10678jrh
Sick hoodie where’d ya get it
Would you be interested in discussing story titles and how they are neglected part of storytelling in general.
As a writer I can honestly say there was a time where I just came a story after the main character and nowadays I make sure my story titles are unique and avoid using the names of characters.
The shilling never ends 😂
Sad, I expect that someone who reviews movies would have courtesy to not advertise shit games (as it is a similar medium) for any money, I dont mind ads but this is just sad
@@dafque3465 Chris has entered full lolcow here. Been a long build up but it's certain now.
The thing that impressed me the most was the sound design. The fact that gunshots were loud and startling was fantastic. A film that depicts firearms sound signature realistically. When people were shooting, it WAS the loudest thing on screen. No normal ear friendly conversations, guns are loud. It made them loud.
Glad somebody else noticed that. I jumped a few times and the cinema sounded like a gun range a few times.
Agreed. This movie needs to be seen in a theater just for the sound design alone. Incredible work.
I’m pretty sure that shit is actually illegal.
@@Prophetofthe8thLegion What are you talking about??
You understand that is was still hearing safe right? It doesn't leave you with hearing loss or a ringing. Just the sound itself was an actual gunshot. Not some overlayed pop pop you get in every action film. And in contrast to everything else on screen, it was the loudest part. Like it should be, I highly doubt any production studio would release a film that literally hurts you. Any volume issue is going to be the theater itself. I myself saw it in IMAX and was amazing.
Except the gunshots still sound fake. Zero zip no peripheral contact, no differentiation between round types.
The character change makes more sense if you view it as 3 concurrent coming of age stories.
You basically have 4 characters who are in different parts of their 'war journalism' careers.
-Cailee Spaney (Jessie) has just started her career as a war journalist.
-Wagner Moura (Joel) is in his prime. The job is exciting to him. He comes off as an adrenaline junkie, he is going the extra mile to get that shot that will make a name for himself.
-Kirsten Dundst's character (Lee) essentially is at the end of her prime. She's made a name for herself, photographing conflict and has basically seen it all, but the this has taken a heavy toll on her.
-Stephen McKinley (Sammy) is past his prime. He really has no place being in a war zone. He's too old to keep up but his passion for the career has kept him going past the stopping point. He isn't invincible like he was when he was younger. He can no longer hide the fact that he values his own life and those around him. This impairs his abilities as a war journalist as they need to be very stoic and cold in order to operate in this environment.
*****Spoilers*****
***********
***********
***********
***********
The toll of the career has basically worn Lee down to her limit. She is trying to hold face and maintain her presence, but the cracks are starting to show.
Her and Joel both experience some extreme trauma within the film. Joel being in his prime is able to overcome it. Lee on the otherhand is at the end of her rope and finally just breaks down. At the start of the film, she implies, heartlessly, that if Jessie were to die, she'd photograph it. When Sammie is killed, she photographs him, but then deletes the photo. She can't keep up the stoicism required to be a war journalist any longer and she has developed into a parallel of Sammie. This happens right as they are thrust into the most intense combat. She is unable to function to her full potential as a journalist. She starts having a mental breakdown while in the middle of a battle.
During this time, Jessie is starting to develope more into Joel. She has been through hell, but she feels alive. She's starting to hit her stride. She's excited to be in these situations and takes the risks needed to get the good shots.
This nearly gets her killed, but Lee, now unshackled for the morbid stoicism of being a war-journalist saves her rather than taking a photo of her demise. This parallels to how Sammie saved the group earlier. Something he wouldn't have been able to do if he was still a cold blooded war journalist, as he'd have been in the same situation himself.
Lee would likely have developed into a character very similar to Sammie if she hadn't gotten killed. Joel gets the big shot, he's going to make a name for himself, much like Lee had done when she documented the ANTIFA massacre (I think I recall this being her big scoop, but i could be misremembering). Jessie is now hooked on war-journalism. She will likely now develope into a character more similar to Joel. She captures a photo of Lee as she dies and is able to heartlessly move on even though she saved her life.
It basically shows 4 different stages and evolutions of being a war journalist with the backdrop being an American civil war. Lee wasn't really acting out of character, it's more that her character 'came of age' at a really bad/(good?) time.
I really feel like the short coming was not developing Sammie's character enough. I think if they had done more to establish how he got to where he is then drew parallels to how that same thing is happening to Lee, it would have made it more obvious what was happening to her, and it wouldn't be misinterpreted as being out of character.
Are you a writer by any chance? It's really impressive how you're able to dissect these characters while also being able to articulate it such that it's easy to understand for the laymen. Just finished the movie a few hours ago and reading your take has added an extra dimension to the film for me.
I probably shouldn't have read all of that as I haven't seen the movie yet (yes I saw the spoiler warning) but I was too curious. That being said this is an excellent analysis and honestly it might enhance my viewing of the film whenever I get around to seeing it. Thank you for taking the time to share!
Very very well said
Nicely said.
I totally agree with this analysis and it's almost strange Chris didn't see this character development
'admire but never want to see again' - ah, the requiem for a dream category
I guess I am the minor cuz I want to see it again!! Lol
@@killer92173unless you have dementia, why would you want to watch Requiem again? Lol
@@killer92173 It really triggered my anxiety I'm not. balanced enough to see that again lol.
I remember watching it hesitantly because my friend suggested it, while thinking it's going to be some kind of sob story. But I was literally clenching my fists and biting down my jaw hard when the last scenes of descending into trauma happened, like when the mother gets shocked, girl gets mentally dissociated while selling her body,Jared and his friend scenes.
One of the movies that changed my perspective towards cinema as a art more than entertainment.
Gta 4 is a similar game that changed my perspectives on video games bring more than just entertainment.
@@alhusseinfarah4194
@johnkoepke4807 I was talking about Civil War...
I know which character you are vaguely talking about and I feel the photo they deleted, the car window, was an indication that everything had become too much for them to bear; too close to home. Notice how everything went downhill for that character after that; they were having panic attacks, crying, disconnected, etc. I do not think it was a betrayal of their character development because early in the movie, that character had flashbacks that seemed to foreshadow the mental fragility. Also, there was mention of "What's eating at you?" or "What's on your mind?" by their colleagues leading up to that.
There was so much that made complete sense the second time I watched it. For instance, the President's speech in the beginning is completely different knowing what happens in the movie.
Spot on
I felt the same way about that character
@@JS121 me too
I agree, there were little signs pointing to that character's moment. The deleted photo was huge.
I thought he was talking about the young girl car hopping out of the window and triggering that most disturbing sequence that followed. He even used “goes out of the window literally.”
Ooh this character? I didn’t think it was a betrayal of anything and it felt natural.
Ultimately reviews are always subjective I guess
In a perfect world, reviewers would watch films twice
Once for the ride, 2nd time to review and accept the film for what it is, then you can contrast if it works
The fact that people in the comments want a movie to take a side is exactly the point of the movie
All every negative review I've read, this is always the main reason. It's irritating. I can't wait !
It's a brilliant move. It made me happy there wasn't any politics or current day's nutty topics mentioned at all. This is what immersion and escapism is.
FENCE SITTER
That’s what I’m saying, I feel like people’s positive or negative opinions of this movie aren’t being determined by the quality of the movie, it’s like they’re determining it based on what political side they’re on
Its blatantly obvious who is destroying the country, "taking sides" isn't necessary.
The last 20 minutes really brought the whole movie together for me , the sound design in IMAX for that was absolutely insane
Honestly it was overkill with the helicopter and I found myself rooting for the underdog soldier at the gate fighting back against overwhelming odds. It was like 10 soldiers vs every one 😂
Sadly I didn’t see it on IMAX but on Cinemark XD with THX Certification.
I do wanna see it on IMAX just for the action scenes
It was actually crappy
@@ET2carbon sounds like you need an otolaryngologist
Still sucked.
@@DefenestrateYourself ok
I find it ridiculous that the controversy surrounding this movie is because people wanted the movie to side with their specific political party and instead they didn’t side with any at all, like isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t it good that this movie wasn’t pro this or pro that? I mean this is a movie guys, not the news network that you watch
It's funny how movies are less biased than the news nowadays
It seems silly to make a move about a future American Civil War then trying your best to make it apolitical.
It is leftist biased throughout. It is not a political the president is clearly trump.
Its centrist nonsense. Just read some of the director's quotes about how he views the disputes over governance. He claims that its just two different views of how to govern, as if Republican policy doesn't directly affect the lives of LGBTQ+ people, as if Republican policy doesn't make life harder for the impoverished. Its mealy mouthed " war and divisiveness are bad" with very little real criticism going on.
@@raoulduke2924if you blame the republicans than your already falling for the trap and your being manipulated. The republican and democrats are really no different. Both controlled by an elite.
RE: the character "betrayal"
It was a psychological response to successfully passing the torch. They felt comfortable enough to feel something, because they fully trusted another person to document. At least that's how I read it.
If it what I'm thinking, I took it as, it was a point of utter cracking...super powerful, I was horrified and upset seeing them like that. But I like that take too
Yeah you can clearly tell for the back half her heart wasn't in it anymore and they literally already set up that she was willing to put herself in danger to help Jessie and that other guy in the scene with Jesse Plemons earlier in the movie
It didn’t not make sense
Yeah, Chris missed this one. I was completely onboard with her losing her way. It happened slowly over many scenes. He just missed it
@@damunzy someone on Reddit mentioned how by that scene they had basically switched attitude/roles. On some annilhation shit.
Having nothing political to say doesn’t mean having nothing to say at all. I dont understand the people saying this movie “says nothing.” It has plenty to say from an anti-war lens, particularly the gross desensitisation and callousness that comes from choosing to constantly take in real-life horrific violence.
This feels so obvious it hurts that so many people are missing the point.
Maybe it says that but it's still a painfully boring and shitty movie with piss poor dialogue.
@@MS-ii1svidiot take
@@wembychan What? I got around the accusation that anyone who doesn't like it doesn't understand it. So I'm an idiot because I think it's poorly executed? It looks like it was shot with a handycam. You have people having a conversation with a sniper team in the middle of a standoff. The military lets them tag along while they are involved in firefights. I can go on. It's a terrible movie.
The California Texas alliance is just crazy enough to be brilliant in its concept. Yes I know Blue and Red but (as a Californian) we have much in common. We are independent self governing states that do what we think is best for our interest, common or otherwise. Whether environmental, gun control or border politics we do as we see fit for our own best interests. Once a third term president or other power attempts to stifle that I feel common ground would be found. The combined economic, populous and military resources of the two states would be a force to be reckoned with on any stage.
It's possible that after they put Trump in jail to rig another election, that the maga movement in California and Texas would form the Western Forces Patriot Milita to close the borders.
Texas doesn't want any Unification with the People's Republic of California.....Oil and Water. If anything, these 2 States will be against each other
I thought about this too. For the record, I live in Texas, and due to the politics of it all, I had one of those choke and spray out my beverage moments when I heard Texas and California "working together" in this war. Yeah right 🤨
well that and almost half of calis pop is red or third party there’s no red vs blue states it’s city vs country always has been
@@shap7296Yeup, just like Oregon.
In my reading, this film talks about the LACK OF EMPATHY regarding war.
It is evident with journalists:
Lee, experienced and successful, appears cruel when she photographs horrific scenes of violence.
Meanwhile, Jessie, young and inexperienced, is affected by the war scenes.
The idea of the narrative is to reverse the roles. To show how, as the film progresses, Lee becomes more empathetic and Jessie becomes colder.
In the end, Jessie takes the iconic photos while Lee freaks out and is shot - a moment, in fact, photographed by Jessie.
Going off script, the message for me as a viewer is: we are Jessie and Lee at the same time.
Wars happen all the time, all over the world. At first, like Jessie, we were shocked, but eventually we got used to the horrific scenes of violence. We got used to war. We got colder.
But we are also Lee. Our lack of empathy has a certain limit. How long can we endure it? And would we be able to handle it when it was with someone close to us?
Lee has photographed countless people in deplorable situations, however, her breakdown came after seeing her colleagues in the same type of situation.
Then, we come to the true meta of the film: you, Americans, bring war to the whole world. There are countries, right now, in situations IDENTICAL to those shown in the film. Do you care? Of course youu don't. It's not NY or Washington.
For you, and for me, "war" is that thing that appears in the news.
Yeah that's what i got from it too, the cynicism. The way she didn't even seem to care that her hero was killed in the end
Im hearing alot of folks talk about how a civil war might be a "fun" or "good" thing. I did mission trips all over West Africa in the 90's. Ive been to and spent time in places where the system has completely broken down. I still have nightmares about what I saw almost 30 years ago.
People romanticize dystopian and post-apocalyptic settings because they think it gives them the best chance to reinvent themselves as heroes in a world where hierarchical structures have collapsed and everyone is equally destitute. The truth (and the irony) is that such a world allows sociopaths and psychopaths to quickly seize positions of power and dominate those around them (usually through the use of extreme violence).
“Civil War” is fun just like 9/11 and pandemic dystopia were fun.
cool story bro
those people must lead really dull and sad lives to literally want a CIVIL WAR to happen to "get the blood pumping", JFC......
Who told you this??
Civil War: Happened
Journalist: I missed the part where that's my problem.
Ha. You win comment of the day 👏👏
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🤣🤣🤣
I'm gonna put a dirt in your eye.
You're obviously with the Libertarian party. If your candidate would win the election and become president...it would be worse the a civil war. We would have a national PURGE just like in the movies 🎥
Chris Stuckman 2020 reviews: I give this move a B+
Chris Stuckman 2024 reviews: Its a Movie
Yeah I started watching other movie reviewers
he made a movie so now he does not want to critique them because of the work that goes into them even if they are not a good movie
@@brianschmeltzer7623 yeah that makes me not wanna watch. He’s gone soft
@@youfillmylifewithjello6661 damn straight and is too hypocritical on his takes on movies especially MCU movies
making movies is hard, just like flying an airplane. thats why when my pilot crashes and burns i wont say anything bad (ill scream in panic while plummeting to the ground)
edit:damn guys, sarcasm
I love that scene that Kirsten Dunst says 'Go get then tiger'
I prefer the part where she said " You'll be sorry for this, Jo March!!"
Also when President Nick Offerman was hanging upside down from his web and she kisses him.
The upside down kiss scene was awesome
“Go get, them..” not then 🙄
Just saw this, and idk about you guys but my theater has the volume turned up to like 300% the gun fights were hella loud
I think that was an deliberate choice for the movie, rather than just your theatre.
@@Angel-od1bt I thought maybe that was the case, but I thought I was the only one
@@Angel-od1bt no, cinema hall managers are just that incompetent for years already and one of the many reasons I don't go to cinema anymore 😁
@@dicekolev5360still the shots were suppose to be loud, the fighting scenes were supposed to be to make you uncomfortable
@@dicekolev5360 so if you don’t go to the cinema, you don’t know what you’re talking about then.
I enjoyed it. My only complaint is I wanted more world building. I want to know why the WF formed, what lead up to the war, how it began ect
tyrannical president broke constitution and bombed US citizens
Well, there is a theory that in the future the States of South of USA and the States of North Mexico will unite to form a new country, if they do not accept it, the way would be weapons, with civil war existing in both countries.
I definetly see what you're saying, but I don't think world building was what this film was about. You weren't really supposed to side with either "side", as in the end theyre both two halves of a bad whole. World building the sides more would have led to inherent biases within them, and I think keeping them vague helps more with the message the movie was trying to get across.
I think "that" character deleting "that" photo, was the signifier of the start of their change in the movie from that point onwards
Stuckmann thinks he knows more about writing and consistent character choices than Alex Garland lol. Notes from Melanie is so incredibly inconsistent. Someone needs to remind him about zods snapped neck.
Deleting photos as a journalist is a HUGE no no. Pretty significant
Good review as usual, although I believe that the arcs of both main characters Lee and Jessie perfectly fit the themes of the movie. Giving no spoilers, both arcs are foreshadowed by earlier scenes, like Jessie’s increasing recklessness and feeling “more alive” but less detached in getting the photos; and Lee’s full realization that all the times she thought her foreign war shots were a “warning” back home were ultimately futile as they did not stop the second American civil war…
Lee and Jessie are so haunting to me when all is said and done…
I will say that the I felt that the shift in the character you mention was actually really interesting. One thing I noticed was Garland started shooting some POV shots from their perspective where the focus was off with the light splitting into red, green, and blue around edges. I took that as a sign that they were cracking under the pressure especially after that moment where they pointed out how they were still failing to process that this war was happening in the US rather than all the various counties they had visited. That shift to cracking under the pressure at the 11th hour felt very real to me especially as a photojournalist who has built a career as someone who lives as this silent observer. This crack I believed was foreshadowed by the memories flashes seen in the early part of the movie. War is Hell, and I thought it really humanized the idea that as much as we can try to be impartial observers we still have to live with the impact of what we see/choose to do. Even when you believe the best/safest thing to do is to not intervene or "take a side" that doesn't stop us from the effects of the horrors of war
I saw it. I enjoyed it. I was surprised at how much order was still present, and how little crime was depicted. I would imagine that there would be a whole lot more fragmentation and disorder. There were examples of communities setting up aid stations, and policing their streets. That seems more likely to be the exception rather than the norm. I guess I was left feeling as though this movie was toothless, it didn't go far enough to depict what a true breakdown of services would be like. Empty shelves, empty gas tanks, the starvation of multitudes. When communication stops, we have no credit, no commerce, no transportation. Except for the government, and that would be busy fighting. I think it would look a lot worse.
If you enjoyed this piece of crap, I think you would enjoy a good movie it much more.
@@sudoPrivileges Did you just say that you watched a piece of crap for 2 hours? That's kind of strange. You must really be a dedicated poop watcher. 💩
@@sudoPrivileges I don't remember asking for your opinion on my opinion.
Watched the film this week and I would like to say that the scene Chris is talking about is quite interesting. I don't agree that it goes against the character's development. Specially when you consider all those scenes of prior to the final moments, where you can see the recklessness and the thirst to get the best shot at any cost.
That final moment just kinda solidifies the scene and also criticizes journalists as well. The scoop and glory were more important. It's a "corruption" arc that you don't think will happen because we all assume the horrors witnessed throughout the movie would teach the lesson, when it didn't.
Were you talking about when Spainee’s character just got up and walked away from her dead hero?
What a dumb scene lmao
Yeah such a disrespectful scene. Hey thanks for saving my life…only a day before I was puking my guts when you,,,saved my life the 3rd time - like Kirsten kept saving her life and this brat took no notes. Ps…she’s fired
@@findyoufilms I guess the message was supposed to be like Neal McCauly, you know, be prepared to walk away in 30 seconds!
@findyoufilms not really. She listened to her hero's lessons; harden yourself and don't think about it. She got involved in saving the girls life and it got her killed. They switched places mentally
@@seff6533 I was asking Stuck but ok, yes, i agree with you i understood the key shift, and don’t have a problem with it. The end certainly made me on the fence for a day or two.
I think they did develop that character’s turn somewhat with the use of flashbacks.
I really hated it. I didn't like not knowing what caused the war. It was nothing but shootings & photo journalists taking pictures. U can tell they wanted to make this movie as apolitical as possible but it just ended up making it bad in my opinion.
This movie didn’t even feel dystopian. It felt very modern, very now, very today 😟
I have always appreciated the fact that your reviews are spoiler-free. Even on the rare occasions when you do a review with spoilers, you have a spoiler-free counterpart and both are clearly labeled. Thank you.
I don't know if it's the safest route to tell a story. Nightcrawler tells the story that photo journalists can manipulate a scene before taking photos or video to make the story more intriguing and therefore more valuable to whoever gets the exclusive.
That film was a very clever exploration of incentive structures in media.
Nightcrawler was a much more interesting and better film than Civil War was.
@@ametora1231apples and oranges
@@ametora1231Absolutely. Far better movie. It understood that it had to come off as surreal and a dark comedy or you wouldn't buy into it. This movie has too much implausibility to be taken seriously.
The question “what kind of American?” from the trailer is literally so memorable, the film does not attempt to address that question from different perspectives, which I felt was a huge let down and missed opportunity
The movie did address that question through the people the protagonists meet on their road trip.
I watched this movie as a photographer… visually stunning , gritty , beautiful framing and color grading
Ugh this seems like such a dishonestly kind review, the little girl was terrible and her character was so disgusting that I was hoping she eventually caught a stray lol Kirsten was one note and I blame direction because she is always amazing. None of the characters were likable or well developed, was so annoyed by the end of this movie!
This movie was extremely disappointing. The premise behind the movie (upcoming American Civil War) is a very interesting topic with great potential for a controversial film. However, Garland is a coward and chooses to uses journalists as an unbiased spectator of the conflict instead of making the film about the conflict itself - which would have been so much more interesting (and he could still remain unbiased in such a film and just present both sides of the conflict). Not to mention, there is little information as to how/why there is a Civil War and why California & Texas (two states at opposite ends of the political spectrum) would ever form an alliance, be able to field a military and take over the entire country. I get the film is about journalists but that's why the film is not that interesting. Also, in reality, we all know journalists would be taking a side in such a conflict.
Wagner Moura was giving me strong Pedro Pascal vibes in this movie, so much so that I had to look up if they were related in some way. His name being "Joel" in this movie only made the connection stronger to me lol
I think that odd character moment can be explained by the effect that another character was having on them. They were being reminded of themselves at a younger age and that explains why they do what they do in the last moment. They were being "woken up" ' from their stoic trance, in a way.
Most unrealistic movie in life. They portrayed the government and white house security like they had a $2 budget…. Lol this was such a poor movie.
“The most horrific road trip movie I’ve ever seen” that is such a good way to describe this movie 😂
I'm happy to hear this movie doesnt pick a side. I wouldnt want an alt left/alt right preachy hollywood crap like Crash.
As a Canadian, I died at the Canadian exchange rate in this movie 😂😂
R.I.P. 😂
One of the few recent times a non-matinee movie audience was 95% quiet. I miss that.
The great Brazilian actor Wagner Moura was great in this, kinda weird you mention Jesse Plemons who was 5 minutes on the movie, but didn't mention Wagner Moura, at all.
He was the only entertaining part of the movie.
I will say the end had the biggest impact. To see people laying down their lives and knowing it is over then seeing a shell of a powerful man as he is will stay with me. To see, as an Australian, an office we see daily as a sign of power and peace was impactful.
Just saw this and I think most reviewers are missing things to an extent. First, for people who are REALLY that concerned with the political messaging, it gives you enough context to gather that the president is a tyrant (regardless of party) and two large states with divergent politics join up despite their differences (CA / TX). Also the things we see make the idea of this conflict unfathomably terrifying. No glorification and no pandering either. Garland handles the politics subtly CAUSE ITS NOT THE POINT. The film is most compelling and emotionally impactful by studying its characters as war photographers. A thrilling, twisted artistry that bites when showcasing the trauma involved. Finally, the action was nuts and the sound design was brilliantly horrifying.
So why have a white guy killing all the foreigners and dumping them in a pit? Why not blacks doing it to whites? That part really had nothing to do with the civil war itself so why put it in there? It's obvious the politics of the film maker.
This movie sucks balls. It is about a teenage girl and her feelings while becoming a photo journalist with a strong assumption that it is a real job and a noble one. Who wrote that sh.t?
I also immediately noticed the irony of the ad read. A lot of people are commenting about his detachment in the ad read or “Wooden “delivery” or that he avoided acknowledging the irony etc. What I think everyone is forgetting is that the ad reads for videos are often modular meaning they are pre-recorded and then inserted into videos so if he did this recording for the ad a week or two before then, of course he would not be showing any emotional connect with the video. It’s inserted in. I’m surprised I couldn’t find a single person who mentioned this, he seems like a fairly intelligent guy so I’m sure when he inserted the ad he had a good laugh and had thoughts about it
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time, sound design was also phenomenal.
I enjoyed that particular part you're talking about. It demonstrated that although they were journalists they had something in common with the soldiers, they were there to do a mission, they would deal with their emotions afterwards.
The hardest part for me was watching these supposed professional armies giving no quarter to surrendering troops. Neither side deserves to win in a war like that.
Loved the movie, especially and most importantly for keeping it under 2 hours: 1h 49m in fact, for that alone it deserves an Oscar. Then secondly, beautifully shot, for a film about photojournalism, it’s a mesmerisingly beautiful display of photography. I think the strange editing choices and sudden cuts, which is not too dissimilar from other A24 movies keeps it sweet n short and interesting. I really appreciate it. Soundtrack was fantastic and I like that it’s ambiguous. It’s just about the group trying to get the ultimate interview and shot. It’s not for everyone, but I was so happy to get an A24 on IMAX.
00:19 I feel like that’s the same abandoned highway they used in The Walking Dead season 2.
If it was filmed in Georgia then yeh most likely its the exact same set piece esp with the cars??
It is!!! They were both filmed in Atlanta
Which character is Chris referring to at the end?
I was just really confused about the tone and message with this movie, at one point it felt like it was making light of the events taking place and next scene it was a very heavy dark feeling and that’s what this movie missed for me a clear tone and message that it was trying to convey. Is it not so serious or very serious? It wasn’t really clear
Ben Sailsbury and Geoff Barrow who did the score were actually going to record the score for Dredd, but Alex Garland went with Paul Leonard Morgan at the last minute.They released the soundtrack later as DROKK ( Garland and Barrow are huge Judge Dredd/2000AD fans). I'm 99% sure this is Garlands loose prequel about the end of democracy of America, before the fascistic Judge system took over. If you know 2000AD/Judge Dredd lore, you can see it!
The president being in the White House during a civil war...
There's many stupid things in this movie but if you're a fellow military vet, this is one hell of a comedy.
Loved this movie so much. Really captured the horrors of war and the audio production was QUALITY! Audio was mixed so firefights and military vehicles were loud as hell. It was really immersive in IMAX.
was in it today at 3:30pm - the IMAX was EMPTY, not even 10 people in and that in the middle of Vienna
movie is a masterPEACE imo
in all my years i watched thousands of movies - never saw any like this
i was thinking about the char-shift you mentioned and had to think, just 2 chars come into mind - but cant share that opionen at all
one of that shifts surprised totally, yes - but can somehow relate and get the point of why it put like that
to other "shift" developed and made completely sense to me
also for me there is a clear message, not as the real "Team A" or "Team B" are the badies or "goodies", but the message is frightening and the movie made an absolute astonishing job in get you this feeling deep down for me
the movie managed to put you right into "the action" which was satisfying and scary at the same time
This movie was absolute dogwater. 1 star.
Politics aside....The characters have no backstory, so you don't care about any of them.
Unrealistic.
No back story.
Drawn out scenes for no reason.
It's just stupid. Someone needa to make a real Civil War movie.
Jesse Plemons is so so good, there’s just a truth and vulnerability and subtlety to his acting that puts him on a higher calibre than most, cool that his wife is Kirsten, who i actually once randomly bumped into one night on the streets of Amsterdam!
Years of Zombie Apocalypse and Super-heroes shenanigans have finally prepared us for this: What if _we_ are the bad guys, and no one's coming to save us?
As someone who lives in small town and has visited DC numerous amounts of times- it was terrifying. The battle at the capital was very very jarring and it scared me a lot. It’s a massive wake up call.
The film was okay but it could've been better. It needed more political context and firefights.
As a writer yourself, I was wondering your thoughts on "Sunshine." It was also written by Alex Garland and I think it's his crowning achievement. Trying super hard to be my favorite movie ever. The other being "Brick". Both are just so singular. I find Garlands writing to be the standout over Boyles direction, as magnificent as it is. Sunshine is way headier. But the themes man. So good.
Ex Machina is in my top 5 movies of all time.
“A movie that I respect and admire, but never want to see again.”
You just nailed my feelings exactly.
This was a solid Movie. I would rate it a 7.5/10. Definitely consider it a horror movie, I can think of almost nothing more terrifying
Agreed!
ever heard of 40k?
I think that I know what you’re talking about at 6:01 , but I didn’t think there was a major switch. That character showed us who she was from the beginning and it came out more and more through this experience. (I’m trying to talk about it without spoilers😂 I hope that you understand what I’m saying.)
ya which character i still didnt understood
It’s the girl who was timid and scared the entire movie and then jumped out in front of the gunfire , and I disagree w his analysis
no he's talking about Lee, who throughout the movie seems stoic and objective and then drops it all to save Jessie's life
The video starts at 1:41
Following journalists just made no sense for me. When the characters die I was like "Ok so you died because you chose to be there." It's not like following a soldier who did not have a choice to be there and isn't putting their life on the line for no reason like these journalists. Wow you got a couple pictures that's going to be in a news article that gets read my maybe 10,000 people or more. I wanted to experience a worn torn America and all I got was journalists acting like their work is more important than it actually is.
Yes. Those photo journalists were grabbing soldiers shoulder going into the breach with them. That was ridiculous.
I just came back from the movies and watching your review for the first time. I had the same problem with the movie, I feel heard and understood
5:40 I’ve seen the movie now. I have no idea what character you’re talking about.
Just FYI, The Older Millennial on TikTok copied this review almost word for word on his page. Looks like he’s just copying your content
Love your videos Chris your my inspiration for getting myself into film review🎉
I think all four characters changed. Lee was a grizzled photographer who suddenly lost her shit. Joel was sleezy but acted like a real journalist at the end. Wide eyed Jessie found her footing. Sammy was old and invalid but drove that truck like a boss.
Just saw it pirated in HD and subtittles. It really sucks. I really wanted to like it, was kinda hyped. But it's really bad. Forced events I don't care about, they don't explain shit, characters that do things that don't make sense, kinda like in the series Dark (you it's also really bad).
Cuando la guerra es su pais y no en todos los paises que destruyeron , la pelicula es mala o aburrida. Si fuera la misma pelicula con el conflicto de los balcanes estarian de acuerdo que es una buena pelicula. La doble vara.
Glad this movie didn’t push a message other than “When order devolves into chaos, rarely does order ever come back.”
What the civil war film taught me is that independent journalism is needed. If you have a smartphone or a google phone, you can Chromecast the war and take pics and livestream the event. This will show the entire world on Chromecast and on youtube. Camera's are essential and needed as well. And be grateful for having a smartphone.
My favorite thing from Garland is Sunshine. But I know it's polarizing.
I’m not going to lie the girl was very annoying as a character. Just stupid and naive costing others around real consequences just because she wants to be something.
It did make a statement; ‘no matter how much you think you want this, you don’t’
For many years Stuckmann is the first person I see reviews by!
I agree on several points. I went into the movietheater yesterday thinking I probably was in for a zombie-ish postapocalypse type of thing but without zombies. I was thoroughly corrected, let's just say. Breathlessly so. Because in addition to all the other things being said, it's also a very stunning and beautiful movie, visually speaking and in the sheer scope of what is not shown or told but only suggested. Also, there _are_ tiny hints here and there bubbling forth a little opinion. There was the initial shootout between a group of unknowns, maybe national guardsmen under government banner, and what is clearly a squad of boogaloo boys - or heavily inspired by that group. And that guy in the end, the unshaven president. That sure do look like Steve Bannon. I mean. I wasn't fooled into thinking he had been offered the role. But I did feel some strong associations.
Those who give low rating to this movie or simply hating this movie are just trying to seek more attention.
And yes, we can’t ignore the fact that this movie has certain flaws, but this movie already shows how terrifying war is. Garland himself deliberately gave no context to why the second civil war started, because of course we should’ve know from the first time, we just don’t realize it yet and it needs time. Overall, this movie is definitely 8/10.
On a technical level, this is fantastic, when it comes to characters and “story”… yeah, it’s not there
the characters had 0 consistency in their personalities and they were also the worst journalists ever there was so many times they should’ve been taking photos and weren’t
During the movie I kept saying, “this is not my country. These are your countrymen”. I was shook. There is a bigger message that we cannot let happen.
“What kind of Conflict of Nations player are you?”
“You know. Just half an hour here or there.”
“CASUAL?!!”
You guys gotta review “The Long Game.” It came out last friday Stars J Hernandez and Dennis Quaid
It's funny that even though this movie is sh!t people think it's great. Bt the way, the director is from where again? Maybe he should worry about Ireland's anger
I don't think I've ever seen a movie reviewed by both you and Jahns, having the same sponsor! Especially when the sponsor is in such... *specific* taste.
Although. Stuckmann. I _must_ say - Jahns at least managed to pronounce "nuclear" properly. Tut tut tut.
This movie has no characterization. We learn almost nothing about them and care even less. This movie was a visual spectacle but it was little more than a fence sitter never willing to actually inhabit the characters or tell a coherent story. Terrible film.
"Hollywood Cack", summarizes this "film" nicely.
I have listened to more interesting paint drying; never mind watching it !
While the photojournalist viewpoint was something I expected as it was hinted in the trailer, I was hoping for exposition on what started this conflict, and while it does get a resolution, I was also hoping for an aftermath (even a brief one). Those are absent, so while the film isn't what I hoped, it is very interesting. I was still entertained, but this is less 'civil war' and more 'civil war excerpt'. Not a criticism, just not sure if "Civil War" was the best title. But yes, that scene with Jesse Plemens is terrifying. I knew exactly what his reaction Nelson Lee's response to his question would be (trying not to spoil it, but you know what I mean).
The entire movie is like a tribute to photography. Every shot is considered, calculated and tells a story. But Stuckmann is right, this is a good movie that I will not watch again; not until I've forgotten all about it and stumbled into it again sometime in the future.
The scene in which the president arrived and said "It's civilwaring time" was really great.
I can't get over how young Cailee looks in the movie. She could pass for 14. As for the movie, it seemed more concerned with American symbolism and the Press, rather than Civil War.
Editing choices could have played a role at the end. I think that change in character was shown after Lee died but we didn't see it
Jesse Plemmond just knows how to play a sociopath so well. The fact that the only reason he’s in the film is because the original guy dropped out and Kirsten Dunst had to call her husband to help out is so funny to me. He might be the first guy to win an award for an uncredited role.
One gripe I’ve seen which is understandable to an extent has been the fact the gunfire is loud, but there’s no variation from weapon system to weapon system. What I’m guessing is, with the majority of the weapons being M4’s, M249’s and/or various rifles/smg’s, is that the movie maxed out the volume for these weapons so as to add that jarring effect when they are fired. Especially in close proximity, you don’t need a large caliber round to create that almost disorienting pop when you’re right next to it. So for movies, there’s literally regulations for the volume level, decibel wise they can reach. When you max that out for small arms, since that’s your most common weapons, you can’t then dial it up to another level when a ma deuce is firing or an Abrams shell is hitting a target just past your head. So while the idea of the noise change between weapons is understandable, it’s not feasible to have loud small arms as well as everything else being even LOUDER.
I'll comment a few times to help the algorithm. Lol
This movie is one of the most realistic movies I ever remember. Just a "you decide" ending. Which left me a tad irritated.
Its pure fantasy, we are all too soft, ALL of us. if the grid goes down No electricity, running water, currency or state to state travel (no supplies) we are not as Hard as our ancestors. Cool thought exercise though