I know how the war started. One day, In-n-Out and Whataburger joined forces. They form the biggest fastfood franchise in the States. They eventually gain powers in military and politics.
We saw civil war last night. What a scary cautionary tale. Also personalizes other conflicts around the world: Those conflicts could be us. Reminds me to not let our political and social differences outweigh civility. Important movie
Civility is only something spoiled rich people care about. Anyone who has real problems could give a crap about it, because it's useless. Equality, justice, freedom, quality of life... these are the building blocks of a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated".
In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems care about. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.
In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems obsess over. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it really is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.
I've seen this film. Having experienced the riots of 'the 60s' and the US govt's use of its military against its citizens, I find this film believable. This film felt like a marriage between 1987's "Wings Of Desire" where the press in this film are the detached angels in that film, and, 1968's "Wild In The Streets" in which the youth (anyone under 30 - the 'good guys') take over the United States and lock up everyone who is older - the 'bad guys'. I did like this film, Civil War. I believe you presented a very fair and in depth professional review of an extremely tense and triggering subject.
I am from Poland, so I'm completely detached from any possible political implication with this movie (I mean not really with a war between Russia and Ukraine just outside our borders); but I watched it yesterday and I don't remember seeing a movie like this in a looooong time. It was extremely tense, and I got so caught up in this that I broke down crying several times in this few slower moments when my adrenaline dropped. It was both incredibly satisfying and weird. I love this film.
Just got home from watching the film at an afternoon quiet theater in rural America. All I can say is Holy Shit. Without spoiling it, the first major scene had my blood pressure up and i felt as though I was about to puke. It reminded me of a day in Iraq in 2008. I was not prepared for this film. I think it's for sure one many need to see but the trailers and reviews so far do not prepare you for this.
I think I’ll go to the theatre based on what you said about the sound mixing. I expect that I’ll feel the way I did when I left the theatre after Winter’s Bone. Not good, but I knew I saw a movie that I’d think about for a long time.
Winters Bone is an amazing film. Good allusion. I found the sound at times overwhelming. I'm half deaf and still had to cover my ears twice. Regarding the music, the contemporary soundtrack felt jarring and inappropriate. It was the one major choice that felt totally out of place to me. I suppose that is because the creative team made this movie for the younger generations that they're presumably hoping will avoid the civil war, or learn from it... rather than the older generations seem to be recklessly tempting or actively trying to cause. Dunno.
The very first thing I said when standing up after the movie was "wow.. that sound design was fantastic!" Highly recommend a theater experience, even just to be so fully engrossed in the choice to use silence.
The fact that this movie huge ambitious movie cost less than $100 million is absolutely impressive. A24 and their filmmaking team really knew how to use their budget really well, good job for them 👍
@@MichaelWutsch They produce and distribute films. Sometimes they only distribute, Like Priscilla. but lots of films in the library including Civil War were produced by A24.
It is very impressive. Now, if only people would lay aside their preconceived notions and just watch the damn thing, that would be great. So many “elite critics” all over twitter are basically complaining that the movie didn’t depict their side (the left) as “the good guys”.
@@jw7019 I haven't seen that, and they never say who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. And you don't know which side most people are on at all. I think you're just pulling things out of your backside.
Totally agree with Dan’s review. I’m a Brit, so a countryman of Alex Garland. so I think it’s completely appropriate that he didn’t take sides or even present sides. He’s saying America, we love you. Don’t let this happen.
I don't think you have to worry the left doesn't like to fight they are more worried about pronouns.they don't like macho straight men but like them to defend their asses.
As an American, I was horrified by the movie, and thought it awful. But your comment about it is the best I have seen to date- and drives home the reason I hated it! God prevent such an event. Thank you.
Sammy does suggest at one point that the Texas/California alliance is a pragmatic, strategic one that will collapse the second Washington DC falls. He says it's 'the Race to Berlin', alluding to the U.S.-Soviet Alliance of 1941-45, ie: the short-term alliance of ideologically opposed forces against a common enemy, which promptly dissolved into the Cold War once Germany was defeated.
The “relationship” between the USA and the Soviets only dissolved superficially after the war. Both openly and actively collaborated in dissolving the last remnants of the European colonial empires in Africa and Asia. The Cold War never happened.
It's funny how people were getting so riled up over this movie because they thought it would take a real world political stance while at the same time getting mad it was presenting a political scenario that made zero sense in the current political climate (Cali and TX linking up), not realizing that was deliberate to present a modern American civil war scenario in an ALTERNATE timeline to explore how a conflict like that might play out, rather than try to make it about Republicans vs Democrats or Liberals vs Conservatives or Right vs Left or what have you.
Yup! Folks went in with the wrong mind set. It’s best to not go in to the movie with any mind set imo but, to see what kind of story the filmmaker is trying to make and form one’s own opinion from there. Of course this wouldn’t happen in real life and the only time something like this happened was during the American Civil War to protect the institution of slavery.
Well said. The movie is not the least interested in telling you how we got there or who is right or wrong, you have no clue throughout the whole movie Is all about the horrible consequences that such a conflict would bring regardless of "fault"
@@yasielromero8236 It is a high degree of difficulty choice to write that story that way, as opposed to using a historical basis like the Spanish Civil War.
Saw it last night. I really, really enjoyed this film. My favorite scene was the Winter Wonderland scene with the snipers, because, to me, it most overtly expressed exactly the idea that there are no good guys or bad guys. The spotter said is best and most eloquently- there’s a guy in that house who’s trying to kill us and we’re trying to kill him. I left the theater haunted and impressed. There’d be no super heroes or big triumphant parade. There’d be death, destruction, sadness, and an immeasurable degree of violence. I hope with all that I have in me this goes down as an interesting thought piece and not a twisted harbinger of times to come.
Regarding your last thought, I believe wholeheartedly that's all it will be. A harrowing cautionary tale. It's possible, but in spite of all our political differences, extremely unlikely. I also think it's meant to be seen as a warning, and a reminder, to all those opining for it that it's not all good guys and bad guys. It would be brutal unnecessary slaughter. Community vs Community. Neighbour vs Neighbour.
Texas and California 2 largest economies and largest food producers in the US. 5 of the top 10 largest ports in the US. If the US was squeezing the states and its citizens for money then maybe they decided to bring that influence to bear and fight D.C. my $.02.
@@johnrivers9393I’ve been trying to say this. Two massive economic powers that can join up and rival the rest of the country and cripple the United States dollar value
Tbh, it made a lot of sense to me when I thought about it, but maybe I'm dumb, LOL. I saw it as 2 sides on opposite ends that were EQUALLY displeased with the state of affairs. Probably started separately, then they linked up so that they would have a real shot at winning.
And despite what so many @$$H0L3$ have been saying to the contrary on these threads it is NOT unrealistic. I know our 2 states have their differences but enemies have to join forces to take on an even bigger and scarier enemy and if the federal government becomes oppressive it makes sense for the 2 biggest states to join forces. During the 2nd world war USA and USSR joined forces despite hating each other because not even Russia wanted the N@Z1$ to win.
I think the fact the main ppl you follow are journalists should indicate that it’s meant to be view on a neutral stance. While I know journalist can play into biases, that’s not what they’re supposed to do. I agree that making this apolitical is better than choosing a side and outwardly blaming one or the other. I think the omitting the cause of the war and focusing on the horrors of it is better as it speaks to the ones who are calling for a civil war, who are actively supporting one. A ‘this is what you’re asking for’ type of attitude. I’m much more interested in seeing it than before as I thought it would try and be a cautionary tale of the future based on current events.
When in the past 20 years when have most journalists been neutral? That's their duties in a democratic society, unfortunately many haven't gotten the memo!
Two things that are unrealistic to me. Ca and Texas being allies, and journalists being an unbiased impartial point of view. I am sure the media would like us to think they are impartial, but that is not the case.
Im so glad i didnt watch any of the trailers and only knew the logline going in. Ever since I walked out of the theater Ive heard so many reviewers and found whatever criticisms interesting to hear, but Dans view on the film was pretty much how i felt. Considering how easy it would be to pick a side narratively in order to flesh out the conflict more, I feel its specifically designed to be in the periphery, distant enough to keep you focusing on the effects of a civil war rather than why it came to be. It allows the viewer to attach whatever political narrative they want, personal or otherwise, to what's happening around the characters. By doing that, It reinforces the ultimate cautionary tale and message on a different level that it doesnt matter whose side your on, that we should all aim to work together peacefully, cuz even if you think you want this, you dont.
I gasped, and I never do that when watching a movie. One guy at the end of the movie started screaming about trump and Biden and left before the ending. This was the most intense movie experience I've ever had.
I don't think it doesn't matter how the civil war started because, when you're embroiled in a war, you don't care. You just want to survive the civil war no matter what.
It's a movie titled "Civil War" but somehow there's no superheroes fighting at an international airport?? That's it, i'm giving this a "Stay Away" score 🙃
My wife and I had a really good time with this movie last night. We were sort of confused at the end but after talking it out we realized that it's supposed to be ambiguous and it made us love the film even more!
This is a bot or you and your wife are bonkers, because I have heard zero people describe this movie as “a good time.” Intense, scary, harrowing, surreal, important. In this very review he says this is not a fun time at the theater. So this is fake or you have terrible phrasing.
Given the subject matter, the intention to stay as 'apolitical' as possible & well utilised $50m production budget & $20m marketing budget, I thought all its audience score metrics esp CinemaScore would be interesting to track especially as Alex Garland's movies typically don't have high audience scores with Ex Machina being the only one of the 4 movies he's both written & directed that both critics & audiences have loved! Currently has a B- CinemaScore, 77% RT (3.9/5), 76% PostTrak, 6.3/10 Metacritic & 7.6/10 IMDB audience ratings, so looks ok but not great overall in terms of its box office legs.
I saw it last night and it definitely felt like a hollow experience. Sure, there are some well-shot sequences that have deeply disturbing imagery, and has some good acting (with some clunky dialog), but it has very little perspective. It feels like a cautionary tale without any meaningful analysis.
Funny enough, wouldn't mind that normally either, but the idea and even how it's all set up feels like it can't really afford to be that distant from the concept.
It is well done but there are obvious biases in the movie that are trying to hide the fact that it is portraying Trump as a power crazed president, when it's complete opposite in real life, most movie companies have to be liberal to get support and not unlike The Hunt these plots underestimate the American citizen that will at some point defend itself from these type of power crazed politicians and deep state running the government. However I think don't think this type of conflict would happen but instead be more like the "Leaving the World behind" type of scenario where the deep state is cornered and pull the plug so it become a kill or be killed scenario where they can hid in bunkers and wait for everyone to kill each other before coming up and saving the day...
It's about the man behind the camera that risks their live and about getting traumatized and desensitized by violence in the process. It's about hearing stuff like "It's happening over there, I don't care" and trying to take a photo that would make people care. Lee and Jessie are the core of the story, the actual conflict is the perophery. The movie shpuld've had a defferent title probably. Civil War is kind of misleading, and I can see why some people are upset.
The problem is that in his effort to stay apolitical, Garland didn’t flesh out any of the characters beliefs or motivations and thus they only become a vehicle for the film to be experienced from
I see 2 movies coming in the future. The timeframe is before this movie and after this movie. First movie is related to how the characters' lives and interactions with each other/how the war began. The 2nd movie is how the war continues and how the characters interact with each other, how the photographer develops into her hero, and such......
Dan, I really didn't like the ending. I agree with everything you said except for the ending. It was really rushed and the characters stopped reacting like they did in the beginning/middle of the movie. It was shot great and it is super intense. I don't think I can watch it again. A24 really knows how to pick their movies.
> and the characters stopped reacting like they did in the beginning/middle of the movie So you mean, they... developed? Admittedly yes they were pretty sudden developments, but that's what those were. Events change people.
Thank you. I felt exactly the same when I came out of the theater. Neither side is presented as "The Good Guys,” and the entire movie was made to be as unsettling as possible. The entire point is summed up by Dunst's character when she comments that she thought sending pictures of war home was a warning not to do this.
There literally isn't an "either side" in the film. It's the end of a war between four or more different militaries. You're perhaps projecting a domestic political POV from the present onto a fictional universe. Try watching Starship Troopers instead. That film does that on purpose to make you think. This one doesn't. To make you think.
This. Reading some comments (which get harder and harder for me to tell if they're even from real people) claiming they won't even watch because they thinks it's propaganda for one side or the other... I had the pleasure of seeing last in IMAX last night and I would say it's one of the strongest films so far this year. No perfect, struggles with plausibility in the Sniper Scene and the final battle, but still very strong.
Keen to see this. As a British person it’s mad to see what’s going on in the US. When I was growing up the US was always a place to aspire to. Now it seems like a different place. I hope you guys sort it out. Great review
Hoping to see the film. Here’s my concern before watching it: it seems that it portrays all those engaged in violence as bad. For those who’ve seen it, is that true. I personally think we’re headed for a civil war in the US, so I don’t think a film that displays possible horrors of such a conflict is a bad thing. It may make anyone overly trigger happy slow down and think twice. But I’m certain that if we end up in a civil war there will be some who act virtuously.
We are not going to have a stupid civil war.Only the simpletons acting out their fantasies in a woods somewhere. USA!🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲.I want to see this movie now!
Saw it yesterday and while the comparison is kind of obvious, it reminded me of Full Metal Jacket in some really good ways. No top-down view, just people dealing with the situation by numbing themselves or enjoying it too much. The fact that civilians are as dangerous as the military reminded me of encounters in Mad Max or The Road. It's apocalyptic stuff. Also, Garland always hits with those musical choices. I don't know if they were exclusively American artists but if so, I think they were juxtaposing the creative things the country has made against the destructive.
Civil war was well directed. , but it felt toothless. The president was clearly a trump stand-in, but Florida and Texas are the main states trying to force him out? It felt so centrist. A civil war in USA would be rife with racism and bigotry, but there’s literally like 2 throwaway lines in the whole movie of one character being bigoted. It’s both-sidesism. Whats crazy is that it seem like a studio note to play it safe and not offend conservatives, but Garland in interviews said “if there was a fascist in the White House, I think these states would drop their petty differences and fight against fascism”, which is wildly naive to say in this climate. Trump literally said he’d be a dictator “on day one”, is a known rapist, known con-man, undermines election results, extreme xenophobe and calling the press “the enemy of the people”; not to mention he literally said he wants to stay in for more than 2 terms, and 30% of voters STILL stick with him and praise him. Sorry, if you think a president massacring antifa members and staying in for a third term would make US conservatives turn against a republican president, then you’re just bafflingly ignorant to what’s happening in the US right now
It’s funny how so many people seem to want to know how the Western Forces came together and who, in the real world, they are. As of the writers could actually see the future. They pared up the two largest and most diverse states, which represent the entire spectrum of politics, specifically in order to avoid pointing at any one current faction.
Actually real conflicts are about interests, so two resource rich States aligning together for a tangible cause is not far fetched at all. What is far fetched is people expecting a civil war to break out over trans rights or movie girl bosses.
You literally don't know what the politics are so you cannot be a centrist... this movie is almost literally absent of politics. Not taking a side is not centrism when neither side is defined.
@@aldoalto4087 Right, and I don't think that's an argument in the film's favor. If they wanted to make a film with just the message that war is bad, which is a very old message, then they should have set it in a conflict that existed, like the war in Iraq, or the height of the civil conflict in Colombia, etc. This would have made the film sound more substantive.
I have watched dozens of reviews of civil war and I almost gave up because the majority of people talking about this movie missed a huge point about this movie and you have been the best in understanding it’s messaging and tone and purpose so far. Good job dude.
I've noticed the biggest criticism of this film is the California / Texas alignment. Really? Obviously, those who criticize this are deeply invested in surface politics, and have no historical reference to reality. Actually, I would argue that Texas & Cali are natural allies. Both states have the largest populations & economies west of the Mississippi River. Moreover, both states are heavily invested in technology and agriculture. So, "left" v. "right" ideology is incidental at best. One of the great measuring-sticks for what makes allies & enemies is the 30-Years War. If most of my fellow Americans had any idea of this period in history, they might just see the very likely alliance of these two very powerful states
Whilst it was a little clunky and expositon heavy with it's early dialogue and some of the vignettes like sniper battle were a little on the nose, it was a truly callous feeling experience in a good way. Like national geographic but for human self destruction. The harsh and juxtaposed needle drops help to drive home the detachment from the atrocities going on just out of frame, and the burgeoning detachment of Jessie contrasted with the accumulated toll of detachment, catching up with Lee was great to watch.
One needle drop in particular was magnificently inappropriate. An amazingly bold choice that really doesn't jive with the visuals of that moment at all, and _in not working at all_ makes you feel exactly how Garland wants you to feel. It's sublime. I've seen other reviewers completely miss the point of this.
@@johnnypopstar Exactly. With someone less deliberate that Garland maybe I'd be tempted to ask "why is that playing here", but after even just the opening scene of the film it seems obvious. To do the job they do, the mundane and normal has to live alongside the absolutely depraved for you to get by. And then later in the film, driving through the burning forest, the music matched perfectly, showing that everyone was actually feeling affected at that point.
*Plot:* after events of Captain America Civil War; California and Texas declare war on President Ron Swanson after raiding Bunker Hill, the Alamo, and Harpers Ferry causing Finno Korean Hyperwar veterans Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty to serve in Second, Third, and Fourth American Civil Wars with awarded valor and perspectives ever since serving in WW3 and WW4
I’m a leftist, but I believe we must find a way to work with the right to unite the American people against our common struggles and do everything we can to avoid violence. And prepare all we can to reduce damage if violence becomes inevitable. The only way to do all we can to not kill our people, our community, the people we love dearly, is to unite together for the common goal of protecting our loved ones and to leave a country for our posterity rather than a wasteland of tragedy and evil. We must work relentlessly towards a PEACEFUL revolution against those who seek to separate us. And only then can we find common ground and create a nation or nations in a peaceful manner that coexist with each other and protect each other for the common goal of protecting the people we love so dearly.
I owe this movie a huge apology. I was nervous that it wasn’t going to have the guts to really make a statement or just be some sort of weird bait in a time where there’s so much over the top political discourse, and it wasn’t that at all. You’re right in that it’s an extremely apolitical movie. A movie that focuses on the disturbing nature of war and the consequences violence has. I knew it would be a violent affair, but did not expect to be thrown into it as much as we were. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film and hope more people come out of it seeing how ugly and illegal these kinds of war crimes are. The world would be a much better place without the excruciating level of violence that happens each and every day that most people are completely oblivious to.
This is a brilliant, astute review. Civil War is one of my favourite films of the year so far. I’m amazed some people didn’t comprehend what the film was trying to do.
It’s not about comprehension the movie was straight up boring. The whole plot is just following 4 photographers driving to Washington DC to interview the president, which they didn’t even do. Felt like a long filler episode of the walking dead with no zombies and bad characters
Some of the civilian soldiers did wear Hawaiian shirts which is a right wing militia group called the Boogaloo. I'm not saying it was intentionally done by anyone, but a bright colored button down shirt isn't tactical or a common shirt for multiple guys to be wearing at once in that location.
On the other hand, if you don't want to accidentally shoot your own soldier's, it's not an awful idea to wear a uniform that is dramatically different from khaki colors or cammo.
Worth seeing for the sound editing alone. The transition into that first firefight was *asotinishingly* jarring, I've never experienced anything like it. Such an intense film, absolutely go see this right away if you can!
Maybe domestic war might be a better word? Either way, it's not a conflict fought between opposing foreign powers, it's fought amongst the elements of "civil" society in a governmental sense. And, actually, Shakespeare made a similar comment about the nature of wars/conflict fought at home. In the opening monologue to Romeo & Juliet, the narrator talks about how "from ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean...." It's a completely ironic use of the word civil.
i think people were expecting a movie like leave the world behind. thats why so many dont like it. it doesnt glamorize the violence or make it seem "cool" like white house down. this has more a style like oliver stones "salvador" the civil war is kind of a back drop with the main characters at the forefront. i would say its more like a apocalypse now journey down the river kinda flick and see how fucked up things eventually get.i like it.
Going to see it for the second time tonight! I loved this film and I want to support A24 as much as I can to keep projects like this possible in the theater.
If the movie is supposed to be told from the view of a war photo journalist then wouldn’t it make sense that the movie doesn’t have to be”choose a side “ or have a message for the viewer. It shouldn’t hold your hand it should leave the viewer to decide what they think. Just because the movie doesn’t tell you what side is bad or what side to pick doesn’t mean it’s poorly made
@devoff7014 no they dont!!! The milita that wears Hawaiin shirts that was fighting the government soldiers is a Right wing group. There is only ONE Miltia in America that sports Hawaiin shirts and they are the main enemy of Antifa Communist!
As someone who's been increasingly feeling politically homeless in our country's current political landscape this movie definitely stuck a powerful chord with me. I can understand why others would be upset though, especially those so blindly committed to "their side" and to othering "the other side" that they openly refuse to acknowledge their own participation in the rise of division and political extremism.🤷
@@greggibson33 I lived through the summer of 2020 in Minneapolis -St. Paul. I know full and well that there are plenty on both ends of the spectrum who gladly wish violence upon the other. Trying to paint it as a one sided issue is simply incorrect.
@@Vaajraath Right, but, get off that fence and take a look at _which "side" started wanting to do violence first apropos of nothing_ and which "side" is only talking about "violence" _in a preventative and/or retaliatory_ sense. There is still a material difference here. Only one "side" in this has ever chanted "blood and soil" with their tiki torches out. Do come along. Join us at the adults' table.
@@johnnypopstar Between that side and the other side that proudly chants for the unalivement of this country(I commented previously with what the actual chants were, but I guess that's too controversial for RUclips), both such lovely options.🙄 I was very firmly embedded on one side, especially post 2016, but living in St. Paul-Minneaoplis during the summer of 2020 was an awakening and complete disillusionment of the party I was supporting. I will not be a party to any group that supports the violent hypocrisy on full display that summer, nor will I support the opposition.
Disclaimer, movie will get bonus points if you are or have been a photographer lol. "This might be dangerous but it will be a great shot" is relatable to most photographers.
Great review Dan, thanks as ever. I saw it yesterday and can concur with your review. Jessie Plemons was chilling. My only downsides of the movie were the over use of needle drops which I felt didn't always suit the on screen action (Would have much preferred a haunting score). With regards the gun fire noises etc, In a recent interview in Empire film magazine, Garland said that one of his biggest bug bears of cinema is how violence (in particular when someone gets shot) is unrealistically depicted. He was determined with Civil War to show violence in a more realistic way, even if it meant it was less sensational than in the traditional movie sense. In order to capture this action he used a new type of camera that melded handheld and Steadicam to capture the urgency of what was unfolding on screen. He also used real military hardware on the sets to get the most authentic performances out of his actors as possible.
I have watched other reviews that danced close to the point that Dan is making about this movie and I am glad to see Dan making the point. The closest I think was Christy of Christy and Alonzo over at Breakfast All Day. It makes sense to me what the director is going for, As I think many peoples idea of war on our soil falls back to action spectacle like Red Dawn. As to whether I would go and see the movie itself I put this movie into the same group as movies like Brokeback Mountain and Twelve Years a Slave-- Movies with an important message that hasn't been told enough but that I am hesitant to see because I can tell what the message is going to be and I don't know if I want to put myself through it if I already understand it. I saw the former and it was heartbreaking and beautiful and I never wanna see it again. The latter I didn't watch because I knew it would be heartbreaking and I would have a tough time watching it. I know this makes me a cinematic coward but we have to be honest with ourselves. I do believe that unfortunately I will put Civil War into that latter category. My main hope is that those people in our current political environment that heat up their rhetoric enough to sometimes talk about secession, or taking matters into their own hands with our second amendment see the fact that Texas is fighting against the federal government and think that they're going to see the tyrant toppling movie they hope for. I hope they end up learning something deeper about what the horrors of war would be on our soil and why we need to avoid such a dark future at all costs. For me, I'm good. I get it.
I saw Alonso and Christy's review and I get what each was going for, but I felt Alonso's point more. There is always context in war. You may not like the context of the why's or the who's or what started it, why each side is fighting, etc, but no war happens in a vacuum even if the stated (or unstated reasons) seem petty, trivial, unfathomable, whatever. Many people could probably tell me why WW2 started, who the participants were, what were each of the participants goals, who won, who lost, what the aftermath was. That exists for all wars. Rwandan Civil Wars? Yup. Internal strife in Colombia in the first half of the 20th century? Most definitely. US Civil War? Yup. The expansion of the Roman Empire? Again, yes. We might argue about whether the wars were justified or if various sides were using propaganda to justify invading another, the ideology or thinking that lead to that point. Maybe two or more people discussing it agree or disagree, maybe they think the factors involved are weighted differently in how much of an influence they had, but again, they are there. To do away with it entirely to focus on the horrors of war just waters it down. I can watch any number of movies/series, fictional or documental, that lay bare man's inhumanity to man; that's nothing new. Check out 20 Days to Mariupol, Restrepo, any number of Ken Burns documentaries he's done or, shit, read Hiroshima. If, at the end of the day, this is a movie that's telling us about the horrors of war through journalists' eyes and that's all it is, there are plenty of examples to choose from that have done it before. Films about it, real or fictional, have been created for decades through various points of view and even longer when it comes to text. I am still curious and maybe it's unfair to heap this much criticism before I watch it, but I don't think anything I say will change if I were catch (hopefully sooner rather than later) b/c what I'm writing here is independent of Garland's choices in his latest. Maybe I'll change my mind once I see, I don't/can't deny the possibility, but I've seen plenty of movies that depict the folly and terrible nature of war, just that most (all?) provide the context in which those conflicts happen.
I always think there’s something special about Dan’s reviews. I always respect his opinion. I’ll check out the others you mentioned too. You obviously have a deep caring about cinema ☺️
@@Vulcanerd I understand what you are saying and I think it is a valid point. But I also agree with Christy and what Dan are saying that if any form of justification for one side versus the other were put into the movie it will allow people to decide whether or not this fictional future Civil War was "worth it." In our current environment and especially in America it is the very fact that we have not seen battle or war on our soil in so very long that I think allows people to Hypothetically justify in their minds what would be worth it for something like that to happen. Garland is not allowing that by keeping it as vague as possible. I think Ken Burns has done wonderful things but history from long ago is easy to disassociate from. And atrocities of war that happen somewhere else, the same thing. I think the popularity of zombie apocalypse movies for the last decade or more was the fact that it allowed Americans to get as close as possible to what would happen to society in the case of a war while giving them the distance of knowing that such a thing couldn't actually happen. It allowed them to play the what if of what they would do from the safety of that impossibility. The argument it seems to be made in this movie potentially would be that essentially nothing should be worth civil war. Or at least that it should be avoided at all costs. I can look at the more ridiculous of those that say Texas should secede, and even silently agree with those that say "oh yeah? The Federal Government would crush them anyway." and think that because it's from the safety of what I hope is a hypothetical impossibility. Because if it happened in reality I'm not in Texas and while it wouldn't directly affect me it would still be a horrifying reality that should be avoided at all costs. Yes I obviously understand that civil war has happened here before, a long time ago, but it irrevocably altered the face of our nation, and the extreme circumstances that generated it have not been equalled in our modern time. Garland, it seems, is intent on casting civil war as a terrible outcome, regardless of sides. I fully understand that is an argument that can be disagreed with. I happen to agree with it and hope that for those that watch the movie they come out thinking the same way.
@@julesauburn8713 To be clear while 12 years of slave is in theory about Civil War or at least what precipitated it, Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with that (it is about being gay in a part of American culture--rural/cowboy--that especially didn't have the ability to accept.) I was just going for movies that toed a line of important messages not told as often that are heartbreaking and beautiful and whether or not I could pony up the courage to watch them.
When you and I agree, we agree on everything. When we disagree, we disagree on everything. This is one of those reviews that I completely agree with you on. I walked out of the theater last night with other people saying they were let down and disappointed because there wasn’t enough context to know what the war was about. They came for the wrong reason. This was about the journalists and the hell that they endure onevery front they go to. Each character suffered their own PTSD breakdown and then picked themselves back up to deliver the story to the people. This was the best way to tell the story for us to truly understand the horrors of war with our own nation.
I did see Civil War this weekend and I admit I walked away confused because I felt 'left out' on the who, what, where , when and why of it all. However, After your review I am now plugged in as you provided excellent clarity on the movies premise. We're simply not used to movies that don't care to - don't intend to - provide answers to the above questions because in this scenerio they're irrelevant! It;s simply a balance between the commitment of individuals with an 'at all costs mindset' (the journalists) and the horrible realities of such a possible reality coming to pass. Thanks again for you review. With it in mind now, I would like to see it again.
There were a few "war reporter" movies back in the 1990s, google away. They were set in central or south America. (Mel gibson in Indonesia) These are countries with a violent rap sheet. It wasn't necessary to explain because everybody already knew. This formula fails because there are too many elephants in the room to ignore.
DC is a pretty major news hub with almost every agency having an office in the city, do they ever explain why reporters already located in DC can’t interview the president instead of sending a team across a country in a civil war including several war zones?
Lately this kind of conflicts start with attacks, both verbal and physical, against journalism. So I imagine journalists in DC were amongst the first casualties.
I'm glad to see positive reviews on the channel. While it is essential to warn audiences of lackluster storytelling it is equally important to point praise toward films that deserve it.
The stupidest thing about the movie is that none of the "journalists" thought to film the historical moments they were witnessing, they didn't even record audio.
Being 80, born in London, UK in 1944 during WWII, coming to US in 1949 on the Queen Mary. Then 15 years later in the Vietnam War Era, being a 100% Disabled American Veteran of over 50 years ago, now sick with Diabetes and other ailments, fearing life today. God Save America, not again 😢
Spot on review....saw it this weekend. Love that it is apolitical and a human story like he stated. Sound team also deserves an Oscar for this as well.
Whys of wars are always important especially in regards to wars. If you don't understand the whys, you don't understand the causes, you repeat the same mistakes.
But the whys could be anything. People would likely ignore the message of the filmmaker in pursuit of a debate on the cause of war. I think Garland did a great job in distancing the film from that pitfall and instead focused on humanity (or lack thereof), which should be universally 'accessible' regardless of conflicts.
@@BankMoviegoer Oh, sure, the whys could be anything. Territory, precious resources, ideological, racial/identity animus... but, they're always there. Which is why we study them, which is why we work to understand them so as to avoid, as the saying goes, dooming oneself to repeating history that needs avoiding. Wars don't happen in a vacuum, context is essential and critical in understanding any conflict even if we disagree as to why it should or shouldn't have happened. Who were involved and why? Was it avoidable or inevitable or somewhere in between? All of it matters and are crucial elements if you want to have an honest discussion as to the reasons, causes, etc, and possible future steps and solutions to avoid them (or instigate them).
@@thelankywanderer The point isn't that mistakes will never again be made. The point is to minimize or avoid the same mistakes. Unless you or anyone else or even countries never learn from mistakes? In the history of the world, there's never been progress made ever? That seems like an odd (if wholly inaccurate) declaration/observation. Sounds cool, but not really reflective of reality, is it? Or is the lesson that we never learn so why bother? Still an odd argument...
The sound design in this is absolutely phenomenal. I watched it in Atmos with the streaming version, and despite it being the typically poor sounding audio you get from streaming, the actual mix itself was one of the best I've heard yet with Atmos. Everything is simply in the correct spot, and you feel like you're on the ground with group. The audio is going to be one thing all reviewers of physical media unanimously agree on when it releases on UHD in July. Also, I don't know if you pay any attention to The Critical Drinker, but he got this film so very wrong. Your take and his couldn't be any different, and while I typically agree with him more often than not, it's like we watched two separate films, or he was specifically looking for things in the film that were not meant exist in the first place only to complain about it. Your summation is exactly what I took away from the film too.
I don’t see why so many folks are fixated on knowing about the TX and Cali, I’ll admit I deff raised my eyebrows when I first about it in trailer 1.. but political differences aside, Texas and California are two of the biggest states, with some of the largest economies n resources.. so it’s not too surprising to see them partnering up.
When I get asked about the CA/TX thing (saw the early screenings), I basically said the same thing. It actually makes sense for them to team up given their resources -- against an apparent dictator.
I know. It's such a weird detail for people to get stuck on. Especially now that we're learning that the circumstances leading up to the war don't really matter to the story being told in the movie. Maybe California and Texas want to become their own independent countries that don't have to share their wealth or listen to any other national authority when it comes to laws/politics inside their borders. Neither state could beat rest of the nation by themselves, so they teamed up together to take down the only other force that could oppose them, and then they'll go their separate ways once the war is over. There ... in less than 10 seconds I came up with a plausible enough reason for the situation presented in the film that I can just enjoy the story the movie wants to tell, whenever I get around to watching it.
I mean, there are still plenty of "Real Americans" that wouldn't stand for a dictator taking over, just because Cali and Tx disagree in todays politics doesn't mean that everyone from either state wouldn't team up in the name of defending the US as a whole
I wasn't planning to watch this in the theater, but honestly this review is the best and most glowing reason for me to do so. I enjoy a "grey shaded" movie about war because it is a horrific subject matter that is too often glossed over or given glory in many a film (James Cameron famously hates war and yet makes it look amazing in all his films with a focus on the subject). Thank you Dan for this review and I am looking forward to seeing Civil War on the big screen now.
For a take on Jesse Plemons' character and scene, watch Downfall, about the final months of the Hitler regime. Some Germans did heroic things, some did very terrible things. Plemmons was literally keeping busy to avoid the actual front line fighting.
Sure, it’s a cautionary tale about the horrors of war that villainizes both sides. But then it treats those who abstain from picking a side as ignorant. The journalists are also depicted negatively as bloodthirsty competitors trying to get the scoop first. After watching it, I honestly have zero clue what point Garland is trying to convey here besides “war is bad.” Garland cites “Come and See” as a major inspiration, but Klimov doesn’t avoid the fact that Hitler was the ultimate bad guy there. Making a movie about a second US civil war but then not actually saying anything besides “war is bad” is just a spineless tactic to rile people up and sell tickets without alienating half the country. All wars are political. Pretending otherwise is just nonsense. Plenty of anti-war movies villainize both sides without completely ignoring all real world context.
@@tomleonard830 so then why does Garland negatively portray the parents and small town folk who don’t choose a side? Shouldn’t they be positively (or neutrally) shown as people trying to focus on their own lives and immediate surroundings rather than being obsessed with the news? IMO the story would have been much more interesting if the protagonists showed some struggle with the negative role that the media may have played in dividing the country, rather than holding up journalists as arbiters of truth that only publish unbiased facts and photos for others to interpret. They act as though the photos are unbiased documents of the war, when the framing and other choices that go into every single photograph contain bias of the photographer (whether conscious or not). The final photograph shot of the film is clearly staged to show bias. Why pretend throughout the film that the protagonists are impartial?
Being disconnected from your country and the deaths of your fellow citizens is not necessarily a "positive" trait. I'm not saying they should be villainized, but keeping your head down and staying out of it is not inherently good. Nobody is good in war. That's why "war is bad". That's the whole reason we need "war is bad" movies. I also did not get that Hitler was the "ultimate bad guy" in Come and See. That might be your interpretation, but that's hardly everyone's interpretation. It would be extremely reductive to pretend that the world consists of only good guys and bad guys and if they aren't praising someone, they must be demonizing them.
@@DaniFromNowOnI would say Come and See more portrays Nazi's as ultimate bad. All of the sequences in that films are directly based on the Writers's with Bellarussian's survivors of that conflict. Hitler just gets the brunt of the blame of that film because of the final scene and well... he's Hitler...
Wrong. The WHY of the Civil War is important given that we know the WHY of America's first civil war. Instead, by focusing on American symbolism and the Press, the plot of Civil War misses the entire point of what would cause the country to erupt in Civil War.
Well, if we base it on today's world, the answer would be that irreparable political fracture was the likely cause. That was also the case in the only American Civil War to date. It's not inconceivable that a conflict could start in the wake of one thing but then devolve into something else, once the various sides become entrenched and invested in seeing the conflict out to its conclusion. Civil wars are messy that way.
What a huge load of crap. I had the distinct misfortune of watching this last night. All the reviews say it's not political. My shiny tuchus but it is.
Dan, just saw the movie. Wondering if you have any insight into the use of certain colors that were repeated throughout the film? Think it was pink,purple,blue. Any symbolism?
I saw it yesterday and I 1,000% agree. But I will add that it is about the war time journalist. In how you have to essentially put a wall up in order to do the job but if you’re Lee, how that in many ways protect you from other relationships.
couldn’t disagree more with the director’s intent and Dan’s review and perspective on the film, but admire the review nevertheless! apolitical violence and warfare removed from its context is meaningless to me. never fully felt for the characters as i never got a sense for the reasons behind their actions. since i felt the apathy from the characters, i never fully locked in to this theme of dehumanization that Dan spoke of during the movie. I can see, retrospectively, how one could read this film in that way but didn’t come through for me. Pretty well shot film though.
Glad to hear that this movie is actually trying to tell a story. When I first heard about this movie, I figured it was just going to be 2-hours of blue state vs red state war porn to cash in on the current political climate in an election year. Just what we all need, more material glorifying the idea that the left and right are waging war with each other. Knowing that this movie isn't really interested in doing that, and is more about the human cost of war, makes me much more inclined to check it out at some point.
its kinda still that, just without blatantly labeling parties and some slight differentiation because its an alternate timeline... and it most definitely is trying to cash in on the election year/real civil war panic
@@maxtm3000 Yes, but it seems to be much more restrained than what I originally pictured in my mind. It also seems to be more of a cautionary tale rather than trying to play up the "cool factor" of a modern-day civil war. But like I said, I haven't seen it yet. So I won't be able to really form my own opinions until I have. However, this movie has gone from a skip to an eventual watch for me.
@@maxtm3000 You should watch Alex Garland talking about his movie. He is way too self-serious and boring to ever try and "cash in" on _anything_ , least of all an extremely volatile political situation
saw the movie first thing Friday morning and never have I wanted to see a movie again so quickly, there were so many great decisions from all angles, glad you brought up the sound design as well, during and after it was one of the highlights and hope it isn’t forgotten come awards season
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I know how the war started. One day, In-n-Out and Whataburger joined forces. They form the biggest fastfood franchise in the States. They eventually gain powers in military and politics.
This.
How do they train their forces? Animal style!
Oh my god!!!! That explains everything. Now, I know this could happen in real life!
What side are the Shake Shack forces on?
Awesome!😂
I just saw it now. This movie had me sweating in my seat. Jesse Plemon's character was more scary than most horror movie have.
He was a menace
So, what happens to the Florida alliance? Let me guess, they just bit** smack the South as insignificant, eh? Ha, what a croc
Lol it sucked! It was slow and boring and the dumb kid got two people killed
Jesse Plemons was the real star in this despite his very short screen time - him in the trailer was what got me to watch the movie in the first place
This movie was terrible , even had people complaining after it ended to the workers 😂😂😂
We saw civil war last night. What a scary cautionary tale. Also personalizes other conflicts around the world: Those conflicts could be us. Reminds me to not let our political and social differences outweigh civility. Important movie
Agreed 100%.
Civility is only something spoiled rich people care about. Anyone who has real problems could give a crap about it, because it's useless. Equality, justice, freedom, quality of life... these are the building blocks of a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated".
In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems care about. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.
In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems obsess over. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it really is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.
yeah...
I've seen this film. Having experienced the riots of 'the 60s' and the US govt's use of its military against its citizens, I find this film believable. This film felt like a marriage between 1987's "Wings Of Desire" where the press in this film are the detached angels in that film, and, 1968's "Wild In The Streets" in which the youth (anyone under 30 - the 'good guys') take over the United States and lock up everyone who is older - the 'bad guys'. I did like this film, Civil War. I believe you presented a very fair and in depth professional review of an extremely tense and triggering subject.
I am from Poland, so I'm completely detached from any possible political implication with this movie (I mean not really with a war between Russia and Ukraine just outside our borders); but I watched it yesterday and I don't remember seeing a movie like this in a looooong time. It was extremely tense, and I got so caught up in this that I broke down crying several times in this few slower moments when my adrenaline dropped. It was both incredibly satisfying and weird. I love this film.
That's what's beautiful about how it was set up. It was apolitical. There is nothing about which people or parties are good or bad.
Exactly.
Agree. You got it exactly.
@@F.ckbidenintheassplz You obviously don't, it's apolitical not a political ad.
You sound like you need therapy tbh
Just got home from watching the film at an afternoon quiet theater in rural America. All I can say is Holy Shit. Without spoiling it, the first major scene had my blood pressure up and i felt as though I was about to puke. It reminded me of a day in Iraq in 2008. I was not prepared for this film. I think it's for sure one many need to see but the trailers and reviews so far do not prepare you for this.
That first 5 minutes you couldnt even hear anyone breathe in the theater when my son and I went.
My husband and I watched it last night. The theater was completely silent after that first scene.
@@dwk70075 why in the world would you be able to hear anyone breathe in a movie theater 😂😂😂
@@LemonCherryGelatoBiscotti Its a figure of speech lmfao
@@dwk70075 its almost the opposite. “You could hear a pin drop” maybe
I think I’ll go to the theatre based on what you said about the sound mixing. I expect that I’ll feel the way I did when I left the theatre after Winter’s Bone. Not good, but I knew I saw a movie that I’d think about for a long time.
Dan is not wrong about the sound mixing. I flinched nearly a dozen times from the gunfire.
@@ebert311 especially in imax it sounds so real it's scary
Winters Bone is an amazing film. Good allusion.
I found the sound at times overwhelming. I'm half deaf and still had to cover my ears twice. Regarding the music, the contemporary soundtrack felt jarring and inappropriate. It was the one major choice that felt totally out of place to me. I suppose that is because the creative team made this movie for the younger generations that they're presumably hoping will avoid the civil war, or learn from it... rather than the older generations seem to be recklessly tempting or actively trying to cause. Dunno.
The very first thing I said when standing up after the movie was "wow.. that sound design was fantastic!"
Highly recommend a theater experience, even just to be so fully engrossed in the choice to use silence.
Top 5 most competent and intellectual human review on YT currently ! Impressive use of analogy's and language, very well said Dan. 👍
The fact that this movie huge ambitious movie cost less than $100 million is absolutely impressive. A24 and their filmmaking team really knew how to use their budget really well, good job for them 👍
A24 is a distributor
@@MichaelWutsch They produce and distribute films. Sometimes they only distribute, Like Priscilla. but lots of films in the library including Civil War were produced by A24.
It is very impressive. Now, if only people would lay aside their preconceived notions and just watch the damn thing, that would be great. So many “elite critics” all over twitter are basically complaining that the movie didn’t depict their side (the left) as “the good guys”.
There really isn't that many set pieces outside the end
@@jw7019 I haven't seen that, and they never say who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. And you don't know which side most people are on at all. I think you're just pulling things out of your backside.
Totally agree with Dan’s review. I’m a Brit, so a countryman of Alex Garland. so I think it’s completely appropriate that he didn’t take sides or even present sides. He’s saying America, we love you. Don’t let this happen.
I don't think you have to worry the left doesn't like to fight they are more worried about pronouns.they don't like macho straight men but like them to defend their asses.
As an American, I was horrified by the movie, and thought it awful. But your comment about it is the best I have seen to date- and drives home the reason I hated it! God prevent such an event. Thank you.
Sammy does suggest at one point that the Texas/California alliance is a pragmatic, strategic one that will collapse the second Washington DC falls. He says it's 'the Race to Berlin', alluding to the U.S.-Soviet Alliance of 1941-45, ie: the short-term alliance of ideologically opposed forces against a common enemy, which promptly dissolved into the Cold War once Germany was defeated.
The “relationship” between the USA and the Soviets only dissolved superficially after the war. Both openly and actively collaborated in dissolving the last remnants of the European colonial empires in Africa and Asia.
The Cold War never happened.
@@goataghut5066 Sure dude, 100%
@@bbbylw your ignorance of history is astounding.
@@goataghut5066 I'm not interested in what you have to say. Thanks for sharing though.
@@bbbylw then why are you responding?
Jessie’s actions at the end of the film felt like something Nightcrawler’s Lou would do.
Exactly
“Good for her”
It's funny how people were getting so riled up over this movie because they thought it would take a real world political stance while at the same time getting mad it was presenting a political scenario that made zero sense in the current political climate (Cali and TX linking up), not realizing that was deliberate to present a modern American civil war scenario in an ALTERNATE timeline to explore how a conflict like that might play out, rather than try to make it about Republicans vs Democrats or Liberals vs Conservatives or Right vs Left or what have you.
Yup! Folks went in with the wrong mind set. It’s best to not go in to the movie with any mind set imo but, to see what kind of story the filmmaker is trying to make and form one’s own opinion from there. Of course this wouldn’t happen in real life and the only time something like this happened was during the American Civil War to protect the institution of slavery.
More like the guy writing it doesn't know anything about America.
@@suckerborneveryday1815 What a dimwitted take. Sounds like you're the sucker born yesterday.
Well said.
The movie is not the least interested in telling you how we got there or who is right or wrong, you have no clue throughout the whole movie
Is all about the horrible consequences that such a conflict would bring regardless of "fault"
@@yasielromero8236 It is a high degree of difficulty choice to write that story that way, as opposed to using a historical basis like the Spanish Civil War.
Saw it last night. I really, really enjoyed this film.
My favorite scene was the Winter Wonderland scene with the snipers, because, to me, it most overtly expressed exactly the idea that there are no good guys or bad guys. The spotter said is best and most eloquently- there’s a guy in that house who’s trying to kill us and we’re trying to kill him.
I left the theater haunted and impressed. There’d be no super heroes or big triumphant parade. There’d be death, destruction, sadness, and an immeasurable degree of violence.
I hope with all that I have in me this goes down as an interesting thought piece and not a twisted harbinger of times to come.
Regarding your last thought, I believe wholeheartedly that's all it will be. A harrowing cautionary tale. It's possible, but in spite of all our political differences, extremely unlikely. I also think it's meant to be seen as a warning, and a reminder, to all those opining for it that it's not all good guys and bad guys. It would be brutal unnecessary slaughter. Community vs Community. Neighbour vs Neighbour.
@@Taco1011yeah I really hope this makes all those people begging for a war to think
@@Taco1011who knows people now a days are more desensitized and apathetic it makes this somewhat plausible.
“I’ve got some good news.” From that sniper scene brilliant.
Like The Siege?
it’s actually brilliant to have tx and ca allying for unspecified reasons in the story, stops any political side to try to own or denounce the movie
Texas and California 2 largest economies and largest food producers in the US. 5 of the top 10 largest ports in the US. If the US was squeezing the states and its citizens for money then maybe they decided to bring that influence to bear and fight D.C. my $.02.
@@johnrivers9393 in the movie, there are also references to a third term presidency and FBI getting dismantled. that could add to it as well
@@johnrivers9393I’ve been trying to say this. Two massive economic powers that can join up and rival the rest of the country and cripple the United States dollar value
Tbh, it made a lot of sense to me when I thought about it, but maybe I'm dumb, LOL. I saw it as 2 sides on opposite ends that were EQUALLY displeased with the state of affairs. Probably started separately, then they linked up so that they would have a real shot at winning.
And despite what so many @$$H0L3$ have been saying to the contrary on these threads it is NOT unrealistic. I know our 2 states have their differences but enemies have to join forces to take on an even bigger and scarier enemy and if the federal government becomes oppressive it makes sense for the 2 biggest states to join forces. During the 2nd world war USA and USSR joined forces despite hating each other because not even Russia wanted the N@Z1$ to win.
I think the fact the main ppl you follow are journalists should indicate that it’s meant to be view on a neutral stance. While I know journalist can play into biases, that’s not what they’re supposed to do. I agree that making this apolitical is better than choosing a side and outwardly blaming one or the other. I think the omitting the cause of the war and focusing on the horrors of it is better as it speaks to the ones who are calling for a civil war, who are actively supporting one. A ‘this is what you’re asking for’ type of attitude. I’m much more interested in seeing it than before as I thought it would try and be a cautionary tale of the future based on current events.
When in the past 20 years when have most journalists been neutral?
That's their duties in a democratic society, unfortunately many haven't gotten the memo!
Two things that are unrealistic to me. Ca and Texas being allies, and journalists being an unbiased impartial point of view. I am sure the media would like us to think they are impartial, but that is not the case.
Im so glad i didnt watch any of the trailers and only knew the logline going in. Ever since I walked out of the theater Ive heard so many reviewers and found whatever criticisms interesting to hear, but Dans view on the film was pretty much how i felt. Considering how easy it would be to pick a side narratively in order to flesh out the conflict more, I feel its specifically designed to be in the periphery, distant enough to keep you focusing on the effects of a civil war rather than why it came to be. It allows the viewer to attach whatever political narrative they want, personal or otherwise, to what's happening around the characters. By doing that, It reinforces the ultimate cautionary tale and message on a different level that it doesnt matter whose side your on, that we should all aim to work together peacefully, cuz even if you think you want this, you dont.
“Where are you from” was an insane scene
Fuck who you know where you from?
I still cannot believe bro said Hong Kong. Such a clearly wrong answer in that situation 💀 bro coulda mentioned any us city
I gasped, and I never do that when watching a movie. One guy at the end of the movie started screaming about trump and Biden and left before the ending. This was the most intense movie experience I've ever had.
@@Gentleman_And_Scholar I suppose when you're under extreme duress it's not easy to think straight.
I don't think it doesn't matter how the civil war started because, when you're embroiled in a war, you don't care. You just want to survive the civil war no matter what.
It's a movie titled "Civil War" but somehow there's no superheroes fighting at an international airport?? That's it, i'm giving this a "Stay Away" score 🙃
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
not enough beards either
OK , I'll stay away . previews looked too Hollywood , too cheezy.
I was going to complain if Sam Wilson's Captain America and War Machine started fighting but was pleasantly surprised by a road movie.
@@EzeICE - what are you finding SO funny?!?
My wife and I had a really good time with this movie last night. We were sort of confused at the end but after talking it out we realized that it's supposed to be ambiguous and it made us love the film even more!
The photographer gave the young photographer her huge shot. Of her getting shot. They talked about it in the beginning
Err, there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the end of the film. What movie did you guys watch?
@@irtnyc The entire conflict is ambiguous. What are you talking about? Lmfao 😂
@@jamaican8767 They sorta swapped roles and became who they were in the beginning of the movie. That's definitely obvious
This is a bot or you and your wife are bonkers, because I have heard zero people describe this movie as “a good time.” Intense, scary, harrowing, surreal, important. In this very review he says this is not a fun time at the theater. So this is fake or you have terrible phrasing.
Not having a side to root far turns a war movie into a horror movie
Three are two sides: horror of war and humanity. And sometimes you even wonder if rooting for humanity here is the right call.
Once a dispute gets reduced to violence, the initial reason behind the dispute becomes irrelevant.
Given the subject matter, the intention to stay as 'apolitical' as possible & well utilised $50m production budget & $20m marketing budget, I thought all its audience score metrics esp CinemaScore would be interesting to track especially as Alex Garland's movies typically don't have high audience scores with Ex Machina being the only one of the 4 movies he's both written & directed that both critics & audiences have loved! Currently has a B- CinemaScore, 77% RT (3.9/5), 76% PostTrak, 6.3/10 Metacritic & 7.6/10 IMDB audience ratings, so looks ok but not great overall in terms of its box office legs.
Another great review Dan. You’re one of the best movie critics in the game imo
I saw it last night and it definitely felt like a hollow experience. Sure, there are some well-shot sequences that have deeply disturbing imagery, and has some good acting (with some clunky dialog), but it has very little perspective. It feels like a cautionary tale without any meaningful analysis.
Funny enough, wouldn't mind that normally either, but the idea and even how it's all set up feels like it can't really afford to be that distant from the concept.
It is well done but there are obvious biases in the movie that are trying to hide the fact that it is portraying Trump as a power crazed president, when it's complete opposite in real life, most movie companies have to be liberal to get support and not unlike The Hunt these plots underestimate the American citizen that will at some point defend itself from these type of power crazed politicians and deep state running the government. However I think don't think this type of conflict would happen but instead be more like the "Leaving the World behind" type of scenario where the deep state is cornered and pull the plug so it become a kill or be killed scenario where they can hid in bunkers and wait for everyone to kill each other before coming up and saving the day...
It's about the man behind the camera that risks their live and about getting traumatized and desensitized by violence in the process. It's about hearing stuff like "It's happening over there, I don't care" and trying to take a photo that would make people care. Lee and Jessie are the core of the story, the actual conflict is the perophery. The movie shpuld've had a defferent title probably. Civil War is kind of misleading, and I can see why some people are upset.
The problem is that in his effort to stay apolitical, Garland didn’t flesh out any of the characters beliefs or motivations and thus they only become a vehicle for the film to be experienced from
@@wlot28You found the point of the movie lol congrats.
I see 2 movies coming in the future. The timeframe is before this movie and after this movie.
First movie is related to how the characters' lives and interactions with each other/how the war began.
The 2nd movie is how the war continues and how the characters interact with each other, how the photographer develops into her hero, and such......
Dan, I really didn't like the ending. I agree with everything you said except for the ending. It was really rushed and the characters stopped reacting like they did in the beginning/middle of the movie. It was shot great and it is super intense. I don't think I can watch it again. A24 really knows how to pick their movies.
> and the characters stopped reacting like they did in the beginning/middle of the movie
So you mean, they... developed?
Admittedly yes they were pretty sudden developments, but that's what those were. Events change people.
@johnnypopstar no literally there characters all completely flip after a single scenes character development is a gradual process
@@joshwilner5622 and yet, shell shock *does* just happen out of the blue suddenly. It's not that unrealistic
Thank you. I felt exactly the same when I came out of the theater. Neither side is presented as "The Good Guys,” and the entire movie was made to be as unsettling as possible. The entire point is summed up by Dunst's character when she comments that she thought sending pictures of war home was a warning not to do this.
There literally isn't an "either side" in the film. It's the end of a war between four or more different militaries. You're perhaps projecting a domestic political POV from the present onto a fictional universe. Try watching Starship Troopers instead. That film does that on purpose to make you think. This one doesn't. To make you think.
This is America. People will judge the movie off title and premise alone. There will be no review over content and context by general audiences.
This. Reading some comments (which get harder and harder for me to tell if they're even from real people) claiming they won't even watch because they thinks it's propaganda for one side or the other...
I had the pleasure of seeing last in IMAX last night and I would say it's one of the strongest films so far this year. No perfect, struggles with plausibility in the Sniper Scene and the final battle, but still very strong.
To be fair, it was being promoted in a way that was quite different from what it ended up being.
Keen to see this. As a British person it’s mad to see what’s going on in the US. When I was growing up the US was always a place to aspire to. Now it seems like a different place. I hope you guys sort it out. Great review
The gunshots point you made was spot on!! Every single bullet had weight
Ive listened to 3 different reviews of this film so far and theyve benn wildly different. this one is going to be interesting!
Saw it today and loved it. Appreciate your review
Hoping to see the film. Here’s my concern before watching it: it seems that it portrays all those engaged in violence as bad. For those who’ve seen it, is that true. I personally think we’re headed for a civil war in the US, so I don’t think a film that displays possible horrors of such a conflict is a bad thing. It may make anyone overly trigger happy slow down and think twice. But I’m certain that if we end up in a civil war there will be some who act virtuously.
We are not going to have a stupid civil war.Only the simpletons acting out their fantasies in a woods somewhere. USA!🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲.I want to see this movie now!
I was kind of on the fence initially but with a glowing review like that, I'll head out and see it this weekend.
Saw it yesterday and while the comparison is kind of obvious, it reminded me of Full Metal Jacket in some really good ways. No top-down view, just people dealing with the situation by numbing themselves or enjoying it too much. The fact that civilians are as dangerous as the military reminded me of encounters in Mad Max or The Road. It's apocalyptic stuff.
Also, Garland always hits with those musical choices. I don't know if they were exclusively American artists but if so, I think they were juxtaposing the creative things the country has made against the destructive.
Civil war was well directed. , but it felt toothless. The president was clearly a trump stand-in, but Florida and Texas are the main states trying to force him out? It felt so centrist. A civil war in USA would be rife with racism and bigotry, but there’s literally like 2 throwaway lines in the whole movie of one character being bigoted. It’s both-sidesism.
Whats crazy is that it seem like a studio note to play it safe and not offend conservatives, but Garland in interviews said “if there was a fascist in the White House, I think these states would drop their petty differences and fight against fascism”, which is wildly naive to say in this climate. Trump literally said he’d be a dictator “on day one”, is a known rapist, known con-man, undermines election results, extreme xenophobe and calling the press “the enemy of the people”; not to mention he literally said he wants to stay in for more than 2 terms, and 30% of voters STILL stick with him and praise him.
Sorry, if you think a president massacring antifa members and staying in for a third term would make US conservatives turn against a republican president, then you’re just bafflingly ignorant to what’s happening in the US right now
It’s funny how so many people seem to want to know how the Western Forces came together and who, in the real world, they are. As of the writers could actually see the future. They pared up the two largest and most diverse states, which represent the entire spectrum of politics, specifically in order to avoid pointing at any one current faction.
Actually real conflicts are about interests, so two resource rich States aligning together for a tangible cause is not far fetched at all. What is far fetched is people expecting a civil war to break out over trans rights or movie girl bosses.
"Apocalypse Now for Centrists" indeed.
You literally don't know what the politics are so you cannot be a centrist... this movie is almost literally absent of politics.
Not taking a side is not centrism when neither side is defined.
@@aldoalto4087 Right, and I don't think that's an argument in the film's favor. If they wanted to make a film with just the message that war is bad, which is a very old message, then they should have set it in a conflict that existed, like the war in Iraq, or the height of the civil conflict in Colombia, etc. This would have made the film sound more substantive.
War is hell, the movie
Centrism is incredibly stupid in this day and age
@@CargoSlim Centrism implies passivity. To that you'd be wrong.
I have watched dozens of reviews of civil war and I almost gave up because the majority of people talking about this movie missed a huge point about this movie and you have been the best in understanding it’s messaging and tone and purpose so far. Good job dude.
I've noticed the biggest criticism of this film is the California / Texas alignment. Really? Obviously, those who criticize this are deeply invested in surface politics, and have no historical reference to reality. Actually, I would argue that Texas & Cali are natural allies. Both states have the largest populations & economies west of the Mississippi River. Moreover, both states are heavily invested in technology and agriculture. So, "left" v. "right" ideology is incidental at best. One of the great measuring-sticks for what makes allies & enemies is the 30-Years War. If most of my fellow Americans had any idea of this period in history, they might just see the very likely alliance of these two very powerful states
I saw it in theater last friday. We are sunday and this movie still grips around my brain like a spider who won't let go.
Whilst it was a little clunky and expositon heavy with it's early dialogue and some of the vignettes like sniper battle were a little on the nose, it was a truly callous feeling experience in a good way. Like national geographic but for human self destruction.
The harsh and juxtaposed needle drops help to drive home the detachment from the atrocities going on just out of frame, and the burgeoning detachment of Jessie contrasted with the accumulated toll of detachment, catching up with Lee was great to watch.
One needle drop in particular was magnificently inappropriate. An amazingly bold choice that really doesn't jive with the visuals of that moment at all, and _in not working at all_ makes you feel exactly how Garland wants you to feel. It's sublime. I've seen other reviewers completely miss the point of this.
@@johnnypopstar Exactly. With someone less deliberate that Garland maybe I'd be tempted to ask "why is that playing here", but after even just the opening scene of the film it seems obvious. To do the job they do, the mundane and normal has to live alongside the absolutely depraved for you to get by.
And then later in the film, driving through the burning forest, the music matched perfectly, showing that everyone was actually feeling affected at that point.
I think the needle drop worked better in Full Metal Jacket.
*Plot:* after events of Captain America Civil War; California and Texas declare war on President Ron Swanson after raiding Bunker Hill, the Alamo, and Harpers Ferry causing Finno Korean Hyperwar veterans Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty to serve in Second, Third, and Fourth American Civil Wars with awarded valor and perspectives ever since serving in WW3 and WW4
Probably the most intense movie experience I have ever had.
I’m a leftist, but I believe we must find a way to work with the right to unite the American people against our common struggles and do everything we can to avoid violence. And prepare all we can to reduce damage if violence becomes inevitable. The only way to do all we can to not kill our people, our community, the people we love dearly, is to unite together for the common goal of protecting our loved ones and to leave a country for our posterity rather than a wasteland of tragedy and evil. We must work relentlessly towards a PEACEFUL revolution against those who seek to separate us. And only then can we find common ground and create a nation or nations in a peaceful manner that coexist with each other and protect each other for the common goal of protecting the people we love so dearly.
I owe this movie a huge apology. I was nervous that it wasn’t going to have the guts to really make a statement or just be some sort of weird bait in a time where there’s so much over the top political discourse, and it wasn’t that at all. You’re right in that it’s an extremely apolitical movie. A movie that focuses on the disturbing nature of war and the consequences violence has. I knew it would be a violent affair, but did not expect to be thrown into it as much as we were. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film and hope more people come out of it seeing how ugly and illegal these kinds of war crimes are. The world would be a much better place without the excruciating level of violence that happens each and every day that most people are completely oblivious to.
I'm busy this weekend so I'm going to watch it on Tuesday. Have been looking forward to it.
This is a brilliant, astute review.
Civil War is one of my favourite films of the year so far.
I’m amazed some people didn’t comprehend what the film was trying to do.
People on RUclips at least are like that. Actual critics seem to love the movie
It’s not about comprehension the movie was straight up boring. The whole plot is just following 4 photographers driving to Washington DC to interview the president, which they didn’t even do. Felt like a long filler episode of the walking dead with no zombies and bad characters
Some of the civilian soldiers did wear Hawaiian shirts which is a right wing militia group called the Boogaloo. I'm not saying it was intentionally done by anyone, but a bright colored button down shirt isn't tactical or a common shirt for multiple guys to be wearing at once in that location.
That's what I'm saying
On the other hand, if you don't want to accidentally shoot your own soldier's, it's not an awful idea to wear a uniform that is dramatically different from khaki colors or cammo.
Very insightful review, Dan.
Worth seeing for the sound editing alone. The transition into that first firefight was *asotinishingly* jarring, I've never experienced anything like it. Such an intense film, absolutely go see this right away if you can!
I always wonder why the term "civil war" exists. it's quite oxymoronic as there's nothing really "civil" about war.
True, War is not "civil" in the "polite" sense but Civil War has more to do with the "ordinary citizens" definition
@@AEmceeMuzikForever i've never see opponents go "oh how do you do on this fine day? are you ready to kill now?" 🤣
Maybe 'intranational war' would be more accurate?
Maybe domestic war might be a better word? Either way, it's not a conflict fought between opposing foreign powers, it's fought amongst the elements of "civil" society in a governmental sense. And, actually, Shakespeare made a similar comment about the nature of wars/conflict fought at home. In the opening monologue to Romeo & Juliet, the narrator talks about how "from ancient grudge break to new mutiny, where civil blood makes civil hands unclean...." It's a completely ironic use of the word civil.
i think people were expecting a movie like leave the world behind. thats why so many dont like it. it doesnt glamorize the violence or make it seem "cool" like white house down. this has more a style like oliver stones "salvador" the civil war is kind of a back drop with the main characters at the forefront. i would say its more like a apocalypse now journey down the river kinda flick and see how fucked up things eventually get.i like it.
Going to see it for the second time tonight! I loved this film and I want to support A24 as much as I can to keep projects like this possible in the theater.
Another great commentary, Dan. Thanks for bringing your expertise to the forefront.
If the movie is supposed to be told from the view of a war photo journalist then wouldn’t it make sense that the movie doesn’t have to be”choose a side “ or have a message for the viewer. It shouldn’t hold your hand it should leave the viewer to decide what they think. Just because the movie doesn’t tell you what side is bad or what side to pick doesn’t mean it’s poorly made
They only show the right in a bad light.
@@devoff7014 That's the light they choose.
@devoff7014 no they dont!!!
The milita that wears Hawaiin shirts that was fighting the government soldiers is a Right wing group.
There is only ONE Miltia in America that sports Hawaiin shirts and they are the main enemy of Antifa Communist!
@@devoff7014stop being brainwashed and watch the movie!
@@devoff7014 The movie doesn't say who is on the right or left at any point.
I am still laughing about an alliance between Texas and California! That would be like an Eastern Alliance between Florida and New York!🤣🤣🤣🤣
As Wagner Moura’s countryman, I’d just like to say that his name is pronounced “Vagner” and not “Uagner”. 🙂
So like it would be in German :) Is it a common name in Brazil?
@@WanderlustZero it’s not uncommon, but I’d say it’s becoming less common with the newer generations.
Just remember a press pass is a magic talisman that allows you to flit from one horrific death scene to another unscathed.
As someone who's been increasingly feeling politically homeless in our country's current political landscape this movie definitely stuck a powerful chord with me. I can understand why others would be upset though, especially those so blindly committed to "their side" and to othering "the other side" that they openly refuse to acknowledge their own participation in the rise of division and political extremism.🤷
@@greggibson33 I lived through the summer of 2020 in Minneapolis -St. Paul. I know full and well that there are plenty on both ends of the spectrum who gladly wish violence upon the other. Trying to paint it as a one sided issue is simply incorrect.
@@greggibson33 One side is openly supporting the concept of a civil war. The other side is openly calling for the abolition of the United States.
@@Vaajraath Right, but, get off that fence and take a look at _which "side" started wanting to do violence first apropos of nothing_ and which "side" is only talking about "violence" _in a preventative and/or retaliatory_ sense. There is still a material difference here. Only one "side" in this has ever chanted "blood and soil" with their tiki torches out. Do come along. Join us at the adults' table.
@@johnnypopstar And join the side that proudly chants "Death to America"?
Pass, but thanks for the offer.
@@johnnypopstar Between that side and the other side that proudly chants for the unalivement of this country(I commented previously with what the actual chants were, but I guess that's too controversial for RUclips), both such lovely options.🙄
I was very firmly embedded on one side, especially post 2016, but living in St. Paul-Minneaoplis during the summer of 2020 was an awakening and complete disillusionment of the party I was supporting. I will not be a party to any group that supports the violent hypocrisy on full display that summer, nor will I support the opposition.
Is that freeway shot the same one as from zombie land? It looks just like it
Disclaimer, movie will get bonus points if you are or have been a photographer lol. "This might be dangerous but it will be a great shot" is relatable to most photographers.
I'm a photojournalist and you are so right.
Great review Dan, thanks as ever. I saw it yesterday and can concur with your review. Jessie Plemons was chilling. My only downsides of the movie were the over use of needle drops which I felt didn't always suit the on screen action (Would have much preferred a haunting score).
With regards the gun fire noises etc, In a recent interview in Empire film magazine, Garland said that one of his biggest bug bears of cinema is how violence (in particular when someone gets shot) is unrealistically depicted. He was determined with Civil War to show violence in a more realistic way, even if it meant it was less sensational than in the traditional movie sense.
In order to capture this action he used a new type of camera that melded handheld and Steadicam to capture the urgency of what was unfolding on screen. He also used real military hardware on the sets to get the most authentic performances out of his actors as possible.
I have watched other reviews that danced close to the point that Dan is making about this movie and I am glad to see Dan making the point. The closest I think was Christy of Christy and Alonzo over at Breakfast All Day. It makes sense to me what the director is going for, As I think many peoples idea of war on our soil falls back to action spectacle like Red Dawn.
As to whether I would go and see the movie itself I put this movie into the same group as movies like Brokeback Mountain and Twelve Years a Slave-- Movies with an important message that hasn't been told enough but that I am hesitant to see because I can tell what the message is going to be and I don't know if I want to put myself through it if I already understand it. I saw the former and it was heartbreaking and beautiful and I never wanna see it again. The latter I didn't watch because I knew it would be heartbreaking and I would have a tough time watching it. I know this makes me a cinematic coward but we have to be honest with ourselves. I do believe that unfortunately I will put Civil War into that latter category.
My main hope is that those people in our current political environment that heat up their rhetoric enough to sometimes talk about secession, or taking matters into their own hands with our second amendment see the fact that Texas is fighting against the federal government and think that they're going to see the tyrant toppling movie they hope for. I hope they end up learning something deeper about what the horrors of war would be on our soil and why we need to avoid such a dark future at all costs. For me, I'm good. I get it.
I saw Alonso and Christy's review and I get what each was going for, but I felt Alonso's point more. There is always context in war. You may not like the context of the why's or the who's or what started it, why each side is fighting, etc, but no war happens in a vacuum even if the stated (or unstated reasons) seem petty, trivial, unfathomable, whatever.
Many people could probably tell me why WW2 started, who the participants were, what were each of the participants goals, who won, who lost, what the aftermath was. That exists for all wars. Rwandan Civil Wars? Yup. Internal strife in Colombia in the first half of the 20th century? Most definitely. US Civil War? Yup. The expansion of the Roman Empire? Again, yes.
We might argue about whether the wars were justified or if various sides were using propaganda to justify invading another, the ideology or thinking that lead to that point. Maybe two or more people discussing it agree or disagree, maybe they think the factors involved are weighted differently in how much of an influence they had, but again, they are there.
To do away with it entirely to focus on the horrors of war just waters it down. I can watch any number of movies/series, fictional or documental, that lay bare man's inhumanity to man; that's nothing new. Check out 20 Days to Mariupol, Restrepo, any number of Ken Burns documentaries he's done or, shit, read Hiroshima.
If, at the end of the day, this is a movie that's telling us about the horrors of war through journalists' eyes and that's all it is, there are plenty of examples to choose from that have done it before. Films about it, real or fictional, have been created for decades through various points of view and even longer when it comes to text. I am still curious and maybe it's unfair to heap this much criticism before I watch it, but I don't think anything I say will change if I were catch (hopefully sooner rather than later) b/c what I'm writing here is independent of Garland's choices in his latest. Maybe I'll change my mind once I see, I don't/can't deny the possibility, but I've seen plenty of movies that depict the folly and terrible nature of war, just that most (all?) provide the context in which those conflicts happen.
I always think there’s something special about Dan’s reviews. I always respect his opinion. I’ll check out the others you mentioned too. You obviously have a deep caring about cinema ☺️
@@Vulcanerd I understand what you are saying and I think it is a valid point. But I also agree with Christy and what Dan are saying that if any form of justification for one side versus the other were put into the movie it will allow people to decide whether or not this fictional future Civil War was "worth it." In our current environment and especially in America it is the very fact that we have not seen battle or war on our soil in so very long that I think allows people to Hypothetically justify in their minds what would be worth it for something like that to happen. Garland is not allowing that by keeping it as vague as possible.
I think Ken Burns has done wonderful things but history from long ago is easy to disassociate from. And atrocities of war that happen somewhere else, the same thing. I think the popularity of zombie apocalypse movies for the last decade or more was the fact that it allowed Americans to get as close as possible to what would happen to society in the case of a war while giving them the distance of knowing that such a thing couldn't actually happen. It allowed them to play the what if of what they would do from the safety of that impossibility.
The argument it seems to be made in this movie potentially would be that essentially nothing should be worth civil war. Or at least that it should be avoided at all costs. I can look at the more ridiculous of those that say Texas should secede, and even silently agree with those that say "oh yeah? The Federal Government would crush them anyway." and think that because it's from the safety of what I hope is a hypothetical impossibility. Because if it happened in reality I'm not in Texas and while it wouldn't directly affect me it would still be a horrifying reality that should be avoided at all costs.
Yes I obviously understand that civil war has happened here before, a long time ago, but it irrevocably altered the face of our nation, and the extreme circumstances that generated it have not been equalled in our modern time. Garland, it seems, is intent on casting civil war as a terrible outcome, regardless of sides. I fully understand that is an argument that can be disagreed with. I happen to agree with it and hope that for those that watch the movie they come out thinking the same way.
@@julesauburn8713 To be clear while 12 years of slave is in theory about Civil War or at least what precipitated it, Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with that (it is about being gay in a part of American culture--rural/cowboy--that especially didn't have the ability to accept.) I was just going for movies that toed a line of important messages not told as often that are heartbreaking and beautiful and whether or not I could pony up the courage to watch them.
Spot on. I am glad you mentioned the sound. That added a dimension of reality that surprised me.
When you and I agree, we agree on everything. When we disagree, we disagree on everything. This is one of those reviews that I completely agree with you on. I walked out of the theater last night with other people saying they were let down and disappointed because there wasn’t enough context to know what the war was about. They came for the wrong reason. This was about the journalists and the hell that they endure onevery front they go to. Each character suffered their own PTSD breakdown and then picked themselves back up to deliver the story to the people. This was the best way to tell the story for us to truly understand the horrors of war with our own nation.
Aside from some strange music choices...the movie is a masterpiece. I anticipate that it will be an important film in the coming months and years.
Yeah was not really impressed. I’m a how and why guy but I can see why others like it in some ways.
I jumped multiple times at some of the gunshots. The sound was really good.
@@ASTRAGEMNice projection. Lay off the drugs little bubba.
Loved Ex Machina when I saw it at home, so I'm inclined to watch this at my local cinema.
I did see Civil War this weekend and I admit I walked away confused because I felt 'left out' on the who, what, where , when and why of it all. However, After your review I am now plugged in as you provided excellent clarity on the movies premise. We're simply not used to movies that don't care to - don't intend to - provide answers to the above questions because in this scenerio they're irrelevant! It;s simply a balance between the commitment of individuals with an 'at all costs mindset' (the journalists) and the horrible realities of such a possible reality coming to pass. Thanks again for you review. With it in mind now, I would like to see it again.
There were a few "war reporter" movies back in the 1990s, google away.
They were set in central or south America. (Mel gibson in Indonesia)
These are countries with a violent rap sheet. It wasn't necessary to explain because everybody already knew.
This formula fails because there are too many elephants in the room to ignore.
Give us the Stephen McKinley Henderson cut!
Any plans to review Fallout? Would love to hear your thoughts.
DC is a pretty major news hub with almost every agency having an office in the city, do they ever explain why reporters already located in DC can’t interview the president instead of sending a team across a country in a civil war including several war zones?
Lately this kind of conflicts start with attacks, both verbal and physical, against journalism. So I imagine journalists in DC were amongst the first casualties.
They addressed this in the movie.
During the movie they do say that "they execute journalists in the Capital"
They aren’t going “across the country.” It’s New York to DC. And yes, they do explain why there are no reporters in DC.
Yes, it's clearly explained.
I just saw it. very distributing and violent. like the director not having a political agenda. i liked it
I'm glad to see positive reviews on the channel. While it is essential to warn audiences of lackluster storytelling it is equally important to point praise toward films that deserve it.
There are lots of positive reviews here!
Dann ! No way just found my favourite reviewer didn't know he was still going.
The stupidest thing about the movie is that none of the "journalists" thought to film the historical moments they were witnessing, they didn't even record audio.
They were photojournalists. Other journalists are shown recording video.
Being 80, born in London, UK in 1944
during WWII, coming to US in 1949
on the Queen Mary.
Then 15 years later in the Vietnam
War Era, being a 100% Disabled
American Veteran of over 50 years
ago, now sick with Diabetes and
other ailments, fearing life today.
God Save America, not again 😢
After Dredd, I'll always give Garland a chance. Seeing it today.
Spot on review....saw it this weekend. Love that it is apolitical and a human story like he stated. Sound team also deserves an Oscar for this as well.
Whys of wars are always important especially in regards to wars. If you don't understand the whys, you don't understand the causes, you repeat the same mistakes.
But the whys could be anything. People would likely ignore the message of the filmmaker in pursuit of a debate on the cause of war. I think Garland did a great job in distancing the film from that pitfall and instead focused on humanity (or lack thereof), which should be universally 'accessible' regardless of conflicts.
@@BankMoviegoer Oh, sure, the whys could be anything. Territory, precious resources, ideological, racial/identity animus... but, they're always there. Which is why we study them, which is why we work to understand them so as to avoid, as the saying goes, dooming oneself to repeating history that needs avoiding.
Wars don't happen in a vacuum, context is essential and critical in understanding any conflict even if we disagree as to why it should or shouldn't have happened. Who were involved and why? Was it avoidable or inevitable or somewhere in between? All of it matters and are crucial elements if you want to have an honest discussion as to the reasons, causes, etc, and possible future steps and solutions to avoid them (or instigate them).
@@thelankywanderer The point isn't that mistakes will never again be made. The point is to minimize or avoid the same mistakes. Unless you or anyone else or even countries never learn from mistakes? In the history of the world, there's never been progress made ever? That seems like an odd (if wholly inaccurate) declaration/observation. Sounds cool, but not really reflective of reality, is it? Or is the lesson that we never learn so why bother? Still an odd argument...
> Whys of wars are always important especially in regards to wars.
I'm printing this out and sticking it on my fridge.
You missed the entire point of the movie. WOOSH.
The sound design in this is absolutely phenomenal. I watched it in Atmos with the streaming version, and despite it being the typically poor sounding audio you get from streaming, the actual mix itself was one of the best I've heard yet with Atmos. Everything is simply in the correct spot, and you feel like you're on the ground with group. The audio is going to be one thing all reviewers of physical media unanimously agree on when it releases on UHD in July.
Also, I don't know if you pay any attention to The Critical Drinker, but he got this film so very wrong. Your take and his couldn't be any different, and while I typically agree with him more often than not, it's like we watched two separate films, or he was specifically looking for things in the film that were not meant exist in the first place only to complain about it. Your summation is exactly what I took away from the film too.
I don’t see why so many folks are fixated on knowing about the TX and Cali, I’ll admit I deff raised my eyebrows when I first about it in trailer 1.. but political differences aside, Texas and California are two of the biggest states, with some of the largest economies n resources.. so it’s not too surprising to see them partnering up.
When I get asked about the CA/TX thing (saw the early screenings), I basically said the same thing. It actually makes sense for them to team up given their resources -- against an apparent dictator.
I know. It's such a weird detail for people to get stuck on. Especially now that we're learning that the circumstances leading up to the war don't really matter to the story being told in the movie. Maybe California and Texas want to become their own independent countries that don't have to share their wealth or listen to any other national authority when it comes to laws/politics inside their borders. Neither state could beat rest of the nation by themselves, so they teamed up together to take down the only other force that could oppose them, and then they'll go their separate ways once the war is over. There ... in less than 10 seconds I came up with a plausible enough reason for the situation presented in the film that I can just enjoy the story the movie wants to tell, whenever I get around to watching it.
I mean, there are still plenty of "Real Americans" that wouldn't stand for a dictator taking over, just because Cali and Tx disagree in todays politics doesn't mean that everyone from either state wouldn't team up in the name of defending the US as a whole
I wasn't planning to watch this in the theater, but honestly this review is the best and most glowing reason for me to do so.
I enjoy a "grey shaded" movie about war because it is a horrific subject matter that is too often glossed over or given glory in many a film (James Cameron famously hates war and yet makes it look amazing in all his films with a focus on the subject).
Thank you Dan for this review and I am looking forward to seeing Civil War on the big screen now.
War is not grey shaded though… you telling me that the Nazis maybe had a point??
A “getting too old for this” Kirsten Dunst was one of the most dystopian things that I think I’ve ever seen.
@@kstepko yeah kinda sad to see her that way…
@@Justforthefifteen Are you aware that other wars besides WWII happened?
@@johnnypopstar it was just an example… duh
For a take on Jesse Plemons' character and scene, watch Downfall, about the final months of the Hitler regime. Some Germans did heroic things, some did very terrible things. Plemmons was literally keeping busy to avoid the actual front line fighting.
"There ain't no good guys. There ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me. And we just disagree." - Dave Mason
Great job Dan… thank you for the work!
Sure, it’s a cautionary tale about the horrors of war that villainizes both sides. But then it treats those who abstain from picking a side as ignorant. The journalists are also depicted negatively as bloodthirsty competitors trying to get the scoop first. After watching it, I honestly have zero clue what point Garland is trying to convey here besides “war is bad.” Garland cites “Come and See” as a major inspiration, but Klimov doesn’t avoid the fact that Hitler was the ultimate bad guy there.
Making a movie about a second US civil war but then not actually saying anything besides “war is bad” is just a spineless tactic to rile people up and sell tickets without alienating half the country. All wars are political. Pretending otherwise is just nonsense. Plenty of anti-war movies villainize both sides without completely ignoring all real world context.
I think the point is that people are already riled up and this is a cautionary tale about what happens if this division continues.
@@tomleonard830 so then why does Garland negatively portray the parents and small town folk who don’t choose a side? Shouldn’t they be positively (or neutrally) shown as people trying to focus on their own lives and immediate surroundings rather than being obsessed with the news?
IMO the story would have been much more interesting if the protagonists showed some struggle with the negative role that the media may have played in dividing the country, rather than holding up journalists as arbiters of truth that only publish unbiased facts and photos for others to interpret. They act as though the photos are unbiased documents of the war, when the framing and other choices that go into every single photograph contain bias of the photographer (whether conscious or not). The final photograph shot of the film is clearly staged to show bias. Why pretend throughout the film that the protagonists are impartial?
@@ZO6Buccaneer He portrays them as naive, but not necessarily negative.
Being disconnected from your country and the deaths of your fellow citizens is not necessarily a "positive" trait. I'm not saying they should be villainized, but keeping your head down and staying out of it is not inherently good. Nobody is good in war. That's why "war is bad". That's the whole reason we need "war is bad" movies. I also did not get that Hitler was the "ultimate bad guy" in Come and See. That might be your interpretation, but that's hardly everyone's interpretation. It would be extremely reductive to pretend that the world consists of only good guys and bad guys and if they aren't praising someone, they must be demonizing them.
@@DaniFromNowOnI would say Come and See more portrays Nazi's as ultimate bad.
All of the sequences in that films are directly based on the Writers's with Bellarussian's survivors of that conflict. Hitler just gets the brunt of the blame of that film because of the final scene and well... he's Hitler...
Wrong. The WHY of the Civil War is important given that we know the WHY of America's first civil war. Instead, by focusing on American symbolism and the Press, the plot of Civil War misses the entire point of what would cause the country to erupt in Civil War.
Well, if we base it on today's world, the answer would be that irreparable political fracture was the likely cause. That was also the case in the only American Civil War to date. It's not inconceivable that a conflict could start in the wake of one thing but then devolve into something else, once the various sides become entrenched and invested in seeing the conflict out to its conclusion. Civil wars are messy that way.
What a huge load of crap. I had the distinct misfortune of watching this last night. All the reviews say it's not political. My shiny tuchus but it is.
In what way?
Dan, just saw the movie. Wondering if you have any insight into the use of certain colors that were repeated throughout the film? Think it was pink,purple,blue. Any symbolism?
I saw it yesterday and I 1,000% agree. But I will add that it is about the war time journalist. In how you have to essentially put a wall up in order to do the job but if you’re Lee, how that in many ways protect you from other relationships.
couldn’t disagree more with the director’s intent and Dan’s review and perspective on the film, but admire the review nevertheless! apolitical violence and warfare removed from its context is meaningless to me. never fully felt for the characters as i never got a sense for the reasons behind their actions. since i felt the apathy from the characters, i never fully locked in to this theme of dehumanization that Dan spoke of during the movie. I can see, retrospectively, how one could read this film in that way but didn’t come through for me. Pretty well shot film though.
This is not a good time for a movie called Civil War. At all
Stop crying, tell your mommy you need a diaper.
Do we need a movie telling us that civil war is bad when everyone is all kum-bi-yah? No, the movie is needed when for many it is a plausible future.
How come?
Texas would never be part of the California agenda - that is the 1st reason I’m skipping this move..Hollywood fail again
Glad to hear that this movie is actually trying to tell a story. When I first heard about this movie, I figured it was just going to be 2-hours of blue state vs red state war porn to cash in on the current political climate in an election year. Just what we all need, more material glorifying the idea that the left and right are waging war with each other. Knowing that this movie isn't really interested in doing that, and is more about the human cost of war, makes me much more inclined to check it out at some point.
its kinda still that, just without blatantly labeling parties and some slight differentiation because its an alternate timeline... and it most definitely is trying to cash in on the election year/real civil war panic
@@maxtm3000 Yes, but it seems to be much more restrained than what I originally pictured in my mind. It also seems to be more of a cautionary tale rather than trying to play up the "cool factor" of a modern-day civil war. But like I said, I haven't seen it yet. So I won't be able to really form my own opinions until I have. However, this movie has gone from a skip to an eventual watch for me.
@@maxtm3000 You should watch Alex Garland talking about his movie. He is way too self-serious and boring to ever try and "cash in" on _anything_ , least of all an extremely volatile political situation
What are you rambling about? It's predictive programming at its finest...
saw the movie first thing Friday morning and never have I wanted to see a movie again so quickly, there were so many great decisions from all angles, glad you brought up the sound design as well, during and after it was one of the highlights and hope it isn’t forgotten come awards season