CIVIL WAR (2024) REVIEW!! | Alex Garland | A24
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- The Outlaw John Rocha brings you his Non Spoiler Review for CIVIL WAR (2024) from A24 and writer/director ALEX GARLAND. The film stars KIRSTEN DUNST, CAILEE SPAENY, JESSE PLEMONS, WAGNER MOURA, STEPHEN MCKINLEY HENDERSON, and NICK OFFERMAN. A journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House. The film is in theaters now!
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:33 Overall Thoughts and Alex Garland's Direction and Writing in CIVIL WAR
3:58 Thoughts on the Acting Performances in CIVIL WAR
5:50 Thoughts on the Story in CIVIL WAR
6:42 What I Didn't Like in CIVIL WAR
7:08 Overall Score and Final Thoughts
SUBSCRIBE:
/ johnrochasays
#civilwar #alexgarland #a24
FOLLOW THE GEEK BUDDIES:
Twitter: / geek_buddies
Follow John Rocha: / therochasays
SUPPORT US:
PATREON: / johnrocha
________________________________________________________________________________________
➡️ Trailer Reactions from The Outlaw: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ Film and TV Reviews from The Outlaw: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ The Geek Buddies playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ The Outlaw Nation Show playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ The Jedi Way playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ The John and Wendy Show playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
➡️ The Deep Cut playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list... - Zábava
I couldn't wait to hear John's review.
His trailer reactions were classic.
With what’s going on in the world today, hard to wanna go see a war movie
You are a big reason why I ended up seeing this movie… Your reactions to the trailer gripped me, and just had me grateful that we have service members like yourself. The movie really focus more on the journalism aspect of it all but still gives a pretty good idea of what can go wrong if we don’t hold up our principles.
Thanks for your thoughts here
Glad you saw it, man!
I loved it and was glad I knew ahead of time that it was about the journalists, not necessarily the war itself as it reset my expectations. This was also visually stunning and had great sound design. A few sequences were genuinely horrifying
Great review as always John!
I saw it Thursday, thought it was absolutely incredible! Will definitely be in my top 5 at the end of the year!
The only issue I really had with the movie was the ending, and I'm talking like the last three to four minutes. Everything leading up to it in the final sequence was great.
What didnt you like?
100% made no sense in that moment.
I agree with you and I will say more about it when I do my spoiler review, but I kind of alluded to the ending in things I didn't like about it. So I'm on the same page here.
Really enjoyed Civil War. Not completely satisfied with the ending so it couldn't knock Ex Machine off the top of my Garland chart but really thought he was back on his game after Men. I'm a little surprised by some of the "ambiguity" talk around the movie. I thought it was pretty clear what was going on and thought they did that pretty effectively. Also, Cailee Spaeny was my favourite...can't wait to see her in Alien.
Looking forward to Kirsten Dunst performance
I don't usually watch war / grim dystopian movies, but I never miss an Alex Garland movie.
Great review John, 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.
Same… some of the songs/soundtracks seemed out of place or just jarring with the visual -Seems like a 70s or 80s movie…
It's so annoying that if you go to any comment section with a clip of this movie people are already judging it as a liberal movie. It doesn't pick sides. The one scene is this movie also has a great commentary of "sides" thing.
Yes.. you are absolutely correct. The movie is not about "Liberal" or anything...
But they do made it very clear that any people from CHINA are evil... Avoided to portray any Russian, Middle East, North Korea or any of the news media identified them as 'axis'. But if your reply incorrectly.. you should be 'KILLED'. How do they define to be real American? Have to be born here in the USA? Have to be an American Citizen? Have to have 99% of certain DNA type? Of course the film producer didnt clarify and went to that route... like they claimed its not their intention to takes any side which contradicts how they directed the movie. Go figure.
Rocha, hermano! You are so damn right about your take with this film! I knew I would already love this piece of art before I saw it but I for damn sure didn't expect it to truly rattle me like this.
Awesome movie! War is ugly. And for me it's a 9/10.
for what the film aimed to be, imho it did not match the heights of a film like Salvador (1986)
I also thought the movie was excellent but didn’t like one choice they made at the end of the movie
We might be in agreement on this.
Yep, i think I know what you guys are referring to, but don’t want to spoil. It just came out of nowhere, and then went back to nowhere…
@@JohnRochaSays Also agree here (if we're talking about what I think we're talking about). I know what Garland was going for, but it didn't totally work for me. Really enjoyed the movie overall though.
Same. Fantastic movie all the way through until that moment in Whiskey Hotel fire fight. Made no sense to the character and then they just stand there while bullets are flying just felt wrong. Then it ends like 5 minutes later!
I first saw Callie in Bad Times at the El Royale and had the feeling that she'd be a person to watch for years ago. Happy she's been getting a lot more roles of late that people are now starting to see how talented of an actress she is. Also, I'm surprised you haven't seen Narcos and how terrific Wagner Moura was as Pablo Escobar in those first couple of seasons and as the big bad wolf in the recent Puss in Boots film.
I have been cailee spaeny fan since her debut in Pacific rim uprising. She was great in Priscilla and has a bright future ahead of her. Looking forward to her and isabela merced in Alien Romulus.
For me, at its core, this movie is a workplace movie. The relationship between Lee (Dunst) and Jessie (Spaeny) is your classic mentor/ mentee dynamic. You see how worn out and cynical Lee has become and Jessie is eager to make her name in her industry.
I’m not too upset the movie didn’t get into what caused the Civil War. We get it, this is how outsiders like Garland see us Americans.
Had to wait for this review before deciding to see it, thanks John 😊✌🏾💜🕉
Definitely need to see this in the cinema.
Saw it Thursday evening, and this movie I have still been thinking about since I saw it. Kristen Dunst performance as Lee i think is a really great performance,. Kristen Dunsts Lee has seen lots of really horrible disturbing things, and she's made herself numb to them. And her relationship, interactions with Jessie i really thought that was one of the best parts of the movie. The actress who plays Jessie i thought she did really well good part, like how she is willing to put herself into danger to follow her dream to be a photo journalist more like Lee. The movie is unsettling, very tense throughout the whole movie, as Lee and Jessie and the other photo journalists travel through towns to get to their journey to Washington DC.you are not sure what people they will encounter, and if they are a friend or not. Thought keeping the movie non political, not explaining in depth about why rebels are fighting or reasons behind it, i thought that was a good choice I thought. Because the movie clearly is way more centered on the Lee, Jessie story thread, and also showing the horrors of what a civil war would look like. this is one of those movies I think has a lot of meaning to it I think. thought this movie is very well made
EXCELLENT review
Thank you kindly!
sounds interesting, might see it
Great film! 🎉
Loved it!
This movie felt very isolated as if America would ever fight a war in isolation ( by themselves) . I would have liked to have seen Roman Emmelrich direct this like he did the 1st Independence Day b/c he involved multiple countries or do it like the Movie Traffic where you have multiple storylines converging
The raid of the White House at the end seemed like a bunch of boot camp trainees doing mout training, but other than that, loved it.
Doesn't that make sense though? It's the 'Western Forces' who are raiding DC, not the official US Military.
So, you are saying that is a bad thing? I thought it was done well. Very immersive. And in a civil war, there will probably be people who are fighting that don’t have too much real combat or training.
In the final scene, the character lies on the floor and spent cartridges from blank cartridges are lying around him!!! All? Buckets of normal spent cartridges were not found for filming??
I always wonder how parents feel letting their children play such a dark character like she did in Interview with a Vampire?
Toby Peter number 1 Spider-Man was not there to save his woman
There is a scene in the film where a tank attacks a checkpoint. The tank is camouflaged British!! Chieftain. They didn’t find any Abrams for the film??
@JohnRochaSays By the standards of filmmaking Civil War is well made...Everything else I can comfortably say I do not need to see that again. While watching it I was often comparing to another movie which I have only seen once. That movie would be Natural Born Killers (1994). The imagery in this movie is graphic and horrifying, its very cynical. I recommended friends that I know to wait for it on streaming so they can pause and stop the movie if its too much. I love re-watching movies to analyze them. With this one, once is enough. I respect your review John, but for me this movie was not my cup of tea. You are doing great work on your channel keep it up!
Personally I found the only message of this film being "war is bad" kind of a let down. Yes we all know war sucks. This had the opportunity to say more about the state of the America and about how they could avoid this ever happening. The Civil War is kind of a just an aesthetic backdrop, this could've been the same movie if it was war photographers in Iran or Vietnam with the same message.
I don't think this was bad though I enjoyed it, just wish Garland had more to say with it.
It was a good movie. Now I'm seeing A24 reviewing their financials and creating a sequel to this film. Maybe Civil War 2 or call it Civil War Aftermath. Where the Western Forces move forward against the right wing factions.
I hope that is no true. No sequel, please. This movie should stand on its own - we don’t know what happened before the movie nor see what happens afterward. Keep it ambiguous.
I Agree on that too
And the fact that the characters are getting into a dangerous business and there are no first aid kits or a tourniquet anywhere on them to provide assistance in case of a gunshot wound doesn’t bother you?
People who are labeling this movie Democrat or Republican are idiots! This movie takes absolutely no side. You don’t know who’s who which is the genius of it.
No one is labelling it that.
@@kodywalker5842 How do u know ppl aren’t? I’ve seen the comments.
I saw this movie Monday night in IMAX. I get the movie is apolital but I just think the audience should be let in on what's going on or at least what started it. I could easily view this, with the vague info we got, as the President wanted to become a dictator (3rd term mentioned) and dismantled the federal gov't (FBI mentioned) as we know it and three of the richest states (Cali, Texas and Florida) in the union said nah son. We have to fight this. Inform your audience. This movie was false advertisement plain and simple. The trailers that they played said one thing and the movie played out differently.
In the vast majority of wars what started it usually doesn’t matter, especially once you get a few decades away. What started Vietnam - doesn’t matter turned out it was stupid, what started WWI even dumber and nearly impossible to explain in simple terms. WW2 is a strange outlier, with clear ideological battle lines - even the civil war (the real one) has greyer ideological lines. It’s just not important for the story Garland wanted to tell. But here is the thing, even in something as “clear”as Ww2 we still debate and disagree, any movie that would give a clear idea of why the war in America started would have to pick a side and from that point on its a film about right vs left (or whatever) which is not what this movie was meant to be about. It just sounds like you wanted something more political - maybe watch the Expense?
@@veronicamaine3813 well, I do believe the American Civil War was about slavery and World War 2 was about the extermination of Jews and Japan bombing America. 9/11 and the Iraq War will be remembered also. So, when you say it doesn't matter it does matter. Maybe just not to you. And like I said Garland mislead ppl with the title of the movie and trailers. If he wanted to show a movie about photo journalists, he should have named the movie Journalistic War or something. Ppl went into this movie with a idea plainly laid out but got something different. That's why the movie rating with audiences is currently at a B-. That's really bad for movie that isn't of the horror genre.
All the Americans banging on about Garland's choice of a Californian/Texas team up.... Did his decision to do that aggrevate you too?
This is a work of fiction. And you can’t say he is picking sides since all the sides are shuffled to the America we know.
Nah. It’s a work of fiction. And in his world, California and Texas band together with Florida. It makes sense. Three of the biggest states with the biggest economies would push back against a government gone rogue.
@@JohnRochaSays Good. It feels like they've missed the point of the movie if they can't suspend disbelief for a part of it that makes logical sense within the storyline.
I geel like this movie is to the topic of a second American civil war... the way that Cuties is to child exploitation.
Kirsten Dunst was good but the whole movie was a mess. Nothing made sense. I wouldn’t recommend it.
You're a film reviewer? What kind of film reviewer?
Joking aside, great video you hit on some great points. Look forward to your next reaction
Ha! You needed to add you scratching your neck like he did.
I guess this would've been interesting if a POTUS didnt use US military helicopters against peaceful protestors in DC and instigate an insurrection. This movie is redundant.
This movie is a blatant rip off of the book Meindulce Project on Kindle. Will the movie industry ever learn?? smh
The more I learn about this film the less it appeals to me. The subject matter seems like a cash grab given the reportedly unrealistic portrayal of the journalists, the lack of explanation regarding how the war started, and why some groups who are naturally opposed to each other in real life are allied with one another in this story. It seems we are expected to suspend a TON of disbelief and swallow a TON of assumptions just to get to the film’s “Civil War.”
My film loving brother... THIS ISN'T A DOCUMENTARY. Who gives a shit what the alliances are in real life, this is a fictional story. If you can't see that, that's a YOU problem, not the films.
@@BarnesGannon it’s not a documentary, yet Garland is attempting to send a message. That message is so unrealistic in its setting that the results are nonsense. Thats a story problem.
@@jamesmorrowcjjames6327 The message is DON'T START A SECOND CIVIL WAR IN THIS COUNTRY. You think that's not a worthy message to send?
@@JohnRochaSays How is the audience supposed to get the message when they are asked to swallow so many assumptions and suspend so much disbelief? He starts the movie at step “10” of the war instead of “1”-no explanation as to how it started. He has Texas aligning with California-huh? No explanation why and how these politically different states allied. For an audience to hear a worthy message it helps if they don’t give up on the film before that message is delivered.
@@jamesmorrowcjjames6327How can it be nonsense if you don’t know why these two states join forces? It is only nonsense when you are projecting your ideas of what it should be.
The fact that this doesn’t seem “real” just makes the movie more timeless.
Nixon would have been impeached in the 70s if he did not quit knowing he was going to lose, but he would have gotten away with it in our current divided and polarized Congress. Times change -alliances are formed and broken over time. If you can’t imagine Texas and California coming together, that is your lack of imagination, not the director’s problem.
It was boring. I was expecting more thrills. 5/10
This man has ZERO credibility. None.