Civil War (REVIEW) | Projector | Flawed, but not apolitical
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 04. 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @filmbrain
[Ad] Sponsored by Entertainment Earth - my affiliate link: ee.toys/filmbrain
Linktree: linktr.ee/filmbrain
Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, and Cailee Spaeny journey through an American torn apart in Alex Garland's ambitious film, that has divided opinion - but maybe not for the reasons you'd expect.
#civilwar #kirstendunst #wagnermoura #caileespaeny #alexgarland #stephenmckinleyhenderson #jesseplemmons #nickofferman #review #filmreview #moviereview #cinema - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The movie is a perfect example of how neutraility and objectivity are not one in the same. It wants to start a broader conversation about increasingly tense political divisions, but because it refuses to go into the politics of the world, it left me feeling more empty than curious.
Sounds like it makes the mistake of 'bothsidesing' the political aspects of the film. I always think its an interesting thought experiment to 'bothsides' WWII. You can point to the Allied bombing of civilians (inc Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the behaviour of Soviet soldiers in Eastern Germany and the racism displayed towards the Japanese by the Allies as negatives, but would anyone seriously try to argue that there was a moral equivalency between the Allies and the Axis?
The problem with making an anti-war film about a fictitious civil war without addressing how the war came to be is that you put yourself in the absolutist position of saying 'war is always wrong' which, while morally easy, is basically an un-defendable position to take. This is why most anti-war films focus on wars which were historically judged to be 'unjust' or 'pointless' wars to avoid the response, 'yes, we get war is bad, but sometimes not fighting for what is right is even worse'.
Thanks for making that point. Usually the virtue signaling overrides everything and we wind up shelling daycares in Donbass to prove our moral superiority.
In the words of Randy Marsh: "You have to overdo it in today's society. You can't be nuanced and subtle anymore or else critics go 'Wow, what was the point of that?'"
Unfortunately, obvious isn't obvious enough.
This movie being a favorite of people still watching South Park would be the least surprising thing. 📯 (Didn't see a DJ airhorn emoji, though I admit I could have missed it.)
People act like this is times changing how people are but honestly, it's just more people having a platform and everyone being exposee to more people's opinions
The thing that bugged us was the underlying message of the older generation stepping aside for the younger generation. It wouldn't have been an issue if they'd cast a woman in her late 50s/60s, but they cast Kirsten (41yrs) barely into middle aged.
she looked 50 years old.
This film having a shocking widely talked about concept but ending up being what is essentially a completely different genre as advertised reminds me a lot of the first "The Purge" film. Who knows, maybe it'll follow that formula and in four years we'll have "Civil War 3: Red vs Blue", where people are dressed up in mecha power armour shouting ridiculously over the top lines and it's so gonzo it wraps around to being enjoyable
Journey to the West meets Metal Wolf Chaos. I love it. Have a treatment on my desk Monday.
I was thinking the same thing. I am a big fan of THE PURGE films, it has that violent, paranoid, politically charged nature of that too. But CIVIL WAR is more highbrow and understated.
That mention of the helicopter at JC Penney reminds me of the Homefront game where the game used White Castle and Hooters to present the states better than any fictional place like Burger Town could.
Alex Garland did an interview with Pod Save America where he discussed the California/Texas connection. At the end of the interview he thanked them for allowing him to speak about his politics, which he normally doesn't get to do. It's available on CZcams.
I think the map was a little bit of a troll. That really did affect some people and I think it was intentional for the mid scene with the red sunglasses guy.
What in my opinion adds to the final act being rushed is the introduction of the other two reporters as sort of soft antagonists that want to beat them to the White House. It felt like a semi-discarded idea from an early draft or something.
I dunno, I feel like dismissing the political ideologies of either side of the conflict severely affected my ability to care about the plot; films like Come and See benefit from being based off real-life wars, but you kinda have to justify why these two factions are going against each other in a hypothetical “what-if” scenario
Did the side win that had surgically altered their boys into girls? Asking for a friend.
You did a good job tackling it given how thorny a subject mater the film is covering, especially in the current climate online where it's hard to have any nuance in debates.
Thanks for the review filmbrain. I enjoyed this movie
Pray that nobody decides to splice 21:50 - 22:07 out of context for a laugh.
Should stress I was at the sink and looking at myself in the mirror, heh.
I went in wanting to see the set-up that had California and Texas allied, but I appreciate what the film did in not giving us a side to root for in the war. A product of the internet spaces I spend time in is repeated exposure to the group of left leaning people who are rejecting the idea of voting to change things and calling for the glorious revolution that will fix everything instead with no understanding of what that revolution would involve. Jan 6 is uncanny in the people that stormed the capitol did not and continue to not understand what they did. They stormed the capitol and tried to over throw the government, but did not realize there would be consequences. No matter who the President is or who the Western Front are, no matter if Civil War is the story of a President who don't support being overthrown by the side you support, or the President you support losing against the side you don't support, the Civil War sucked. It getting that far is not going to be a victory for your side, too many will be dead, too much will have been lost. Most Americans, including many that have been in war zones, do not understand what would happen after our country descended into Civil War. People do not pack up and go home after a civil war, the country is not fixed, and the problems that cause the war do not disappear.
I partly agree with the end image. I think that end image is a dark and important comment. But it means the film ended the B plot but never wrapped up the A plot of our characters.
Someone needs to sit Garland down and tell him that Come and See is not "apolitical" and was based off the accounts of a lesser known part of WWII and the Holocaust.
For those who like CIVIL WAR and want to see THE PURGE films, please do follow ELECTION YEAR, FIRST PURGE (#4, not #1), and FOREVER PURGE first (the better entries in the franchise) before you even go to the 2013 PURGE film and even ANARCHY.
Michael Herr's Dispatches seems to have had an influence on this . . . .
I cant believe the director (who was clearly influenced by Come and See) tried to make a War Is Bad film but thinks he can sidestep shit like you know, history and context.
Horror movies play upon the anxieties among the population and if you dont say anything about the background of said fear then like what is the point?? You cant play bOtH SiDeS when one side in war is a clear aggressor.
Its really not saying anything novel or groundbreaking.
Even through the Purge movies definitely came to mind I was reminded more of the Independent movie Bushwick from 2017 starring Dave Batista which is very similar to Civil War in alot of ways narratively.
This was massive disappointment for me; Terrible worldbuilding and a truly stupid plot beat kills the thing for me.
Wild the Fallout show had more to say.
Thank you for a balanced and thorough review as always.
You have tipped me over into going to see this if my life allows. Thank you.
CIVIL WAR is my #1 favourite film of 2024 so far. Violent, uncompromising, understated, and likely to stir, pardon the expression, shit up! Many of the comments highlighted its similarities to the PURGE films (2013 - 2021) or even that HUNT film by Craig Zobel and I think that's appropriate. However, the message in question isn't quite as in-your-face or as left-wing as let's say PURGE.
Just seeing it in a cinema in the U.S. with the charged pro-Trump, anti-Biden climate that seems to be playing right now in the news was quite a tense, difficult experience and with Ukraine and Israel-Gaza going on, it's hard not to see things that may not be directly there and put your own perspective on it. Worried the film may cause possible radicalisation to the wrong kind of people or a possible Aurora, Colorado type massacre in cinemas?
Cali was annoying in this movie with how much trouble she was getting into and how irresponsible her character was.
I seen it yesterday and I love it and might one of my favorite movies there something about it that works while there are flaws in the script but it is a masterpiece
weirdly over-enthusiastic imo
I've not seen this yet, largely as a result of the trailers which made the film seem like sort of Ben Shapiro or Tim Pool wet dream projected onto the silver screen; IYKYK. So their marketing campaign has in some cases put off people that would possibly have been bum on a seat at the box office. Anyway, I think the film brings to mind 2006's Children of Men somewhat. Setting aside the religious allegory, that film presented a sometimes eerily prescient vision of a ruinous, collapsing UK society, dominated by xenophobia and fascism. With actual urban warfare breaking out as insurgents (the 'Fish') take control of Bexhill; seaside town turned transit camp ghetto. The scenes of a familiar but broken country, juxtaposed with crunching, unsettling violence were very effective.
Alex Garland is a very talented writer and filmmaker, who also happens to be extremely dumb. The fact his comments about the content of his film seems to directly contradict the text of that film, is very telling. It's like an anti-Paul Verhoeven.
To be fair, I think he was trying to appeal to both sides in a polarised country by trying to sell it as 'apolitical'. If using a UK filter, if a film maker said his film was 'anti-Brexit', the pro-Brexit side are almost certainly not going to watch it and assume it's very hostile to them while the theory is by playing the politics down they can get both sides to see the film and then make there own judgements [as naive as that might be]. Verhoeven's films were made in a very different time [especially as the Internet wasn't really a factor].
I honestly just think that the movie was a bunch of various scenes that are often found within actual Civil/Revolutionary wars placed upon an american esthetic. It seemed the writers/director were doing their best to blend the lines, allowing the viewer to guess who's; who, all but one of our presidents has been black so him being a white guy didn't really scream trump to me. I know trump was verbally hostile towards the media, but Obama was just as, if not more legislatively hostile towards them, going as far as to jail whistleblowers. Like I said, its up to the viewer and I guess I saw a blurring of presidents and parties where others did not.
I hated this movie. It was so disappointing. It should have been better.
The Ukraine conflict started because of American involvement. Whether it was the CIA or NATO? America started it.
Please resume taking your meds
@@bouncingbluesoul5270 why don’t you stop listening to MSNBC and CNN. Stop listening to Rachel Madcow. She lies all the time.
Kirsten. Not Kiersten.
I've heard her saying her name. She says it like I do. Keer-sten.
Believing, let alone worshipping journalists, is one of the dumbest ideas imaginable.