A24's Civil War is Worse Than You Think: Full Breakdown 

This movie was guaranteed to be bad the moment they decided they were going to try to make it apolitical, which is ironically the most political decision a creative can make.

It reads like babies first alt-history scenario, where like... the america just like half of it goes "we hate you!" and "argh! boom!" but like, these two places team up! cause they're buddies! lol

Alex Garland continued a proud British tradition of looking at a map of different cultures, pulling out an ivory pen, and drawing borders where they don't belong.

WHY’D THEY JUST LET THE BLACK GUY BLEED OUT AND DIE IN THE CAR INSTEAD OF HELPING HIM, i am genuinely asking this question

maybe this is me being an irreverent/media illiterate zoomer, but this movie just felt like the later "phone bad" episodes of black mirror.

it would of been great were in the scene were Kristen dunts has flashbacks taking photos, it was a flashback showing the start of the war and her at different places showing the war developing into what it is now. So we have more context to what this civil war is about and it still gives her character development

I hate to nit-pick, but at 4:36 you ask how they’ve gotten an interview with the U.S. President, but they haven’t - my understanding was that they’re traveling to D.C. to *try* and score an interview with him. They say it’s the only story worth reporting, but they don’t say they have an interview lined up: it seems they’re just aiming to show up and get one. Presumably with the situation so chaotic - it’s also mentioned at the beginning that the Western Forces are bound to take D.C. any day now - they think such an opportunity may present itself. They state that, by contrast, everyone else is heading to the front lines to report on the Western Forces taking D.C., so they feel it’s worth taking the long shot and aiming for an interview directly with President Nick. I saw this in theaters, then a second time at home (my ex rented it to help distract me from a difficult project), and that was my reading of the situation both times.

The manymany butthurt people in the comments need to learn that critique is not hate. Critique is part of the art world. It should not upset you that a critic does not like what you like. And you certainly should not act like a child if they do.

My guy, they smoked weed in Vietnam like it was going out of style.

You clearly haven’t seen Offerman in TLOU or Devs. The man is a terribly capable dramatic actor

Why was the president even in the White House Did Air Force 1 get shot down? Did the Secret Service just decide "Meh, let's do a MW2 and fight over the white house"? What is the Navy doing during any of this? Are the absurd number of nuclear weapons in the US being captured by rebel groups? Is Hawaii taking the chance to declare independence? Is Alaska being moved on by Canada or Russia? Most importantly Are we at least still getting GTA6 after all this?

I saw this in theaters and was sorely disappointed. With an extra 30-40 minutes of world building it could have been good. It feels like a nothing burger

Total randomness with an incomprehensible message, which makes it illusory in both the good and bad sense. Mostly the bad, in that for whatever good it does, ultimately you feel ripped off.

I absolutely hated Gardland’s last film for all the same reasons you’re clowning on Civil War. Good to know he hasn’t learned subtly yet

I find that the film "Bushwick" did a much better job at showing a future civil war than "Civil War." Although the film is from the perspective of protagonists Lucy and Stupe as they try to survive the warzone breaking out in New York City, there is plenty of sound political content throughout the film as well as brilliant character development. For example, the prisoner interrogation scene lays out a plausible scenario for why a seccesionist faction would try to invade New York City.

No no, part of thedystopian horror is that theAmericsn dollar is worth so little that Canadian money is worth more.

This movie woulda done a lot better FOR ITS CONCEPT if it was World War Z style. But the filmmakers wanted to do this contemplative road trip drama and USE THE CONCEPT to get butts in seats instead.

"so the movie is about the US going to civil war" "o wow. sounds like a good premise. so what would the war be about?" "i don't think we should get into politics..." 😐

The movie was about war journalism placed in something familiar to Americans. Scenes in this movie harkened to conditions I lived through in Venezuela but again, made to depict them for an American audience. The marketing was a bit weird for the theme of the movie for sure, but you missed the whole point of the movie if you were looking for politics or a full explanation on what was going on. It wasn’t about the civil war, it wasn’t about the story the journalist were writing, it was about the journalists themselves.

A lot of your criticism is pedantic. "Nick Offerman doesn't feel like a president" "Why us there a protest" (as though protests during war is unheard of. Joel having a crush on Jessie absolutely makes sense. Why else would he allow a rando journalist to tag along. Also, not everything needs to be explained. The shooting scene at the building is just meant to portray meaningless killing. Describing cause and sides wouldn't keep the killing meaningless. Perhaps you need to stick to the MCU if you enjoy being spoonfed exposition so much.

I need to see movie because these comments are interesting. Either one side of this is being a bunch of uptight fanboys trying to be super smart or the review is bad.

A civil war movie about a news team in the style of "look who's back" (the h-man movie) would actually be incredible. But... That would be political, lmao

Oh I really liked it. I think the title and trailer were very much the movie equivalent of click bait, but as a movie about photojournalism, an effort to stay impartial in objectivity terrible circumstances, and then the trauma that comes from that it was really good. I thought the ending was obvs referencing a irl picture of US soldiers posing and smiling with the corpse of a terrorist leader as if it is a deer and this was a cool hunting trip. Like, I guess that was a bad guy, but eh it still feels icky and dehumanizing. The “who are the good guys/are there any good guys really” I think was the point. Bc photojournalism is supposed to be about capturing the “truth” of the situation on the ground and allowing the viewer to make up their own mind about it. Justice for Sammy, tho.

I actually liked this movie quite a bit, although I agree with you on many points! The main thing is: The ending of the relationship between Lee and Jessie. When she stood smack in the middle of that hallway i wanted to shoot her my own damn self. SO STUPID. And then Jessie just replaces Lee in the long line of war journalists - gave me a gross feeling. I could not stand Jessie, she was so friggin annoying the whole time so to me, that explained part of why Lee was so rough to her. She did not want this annoying ass child tagging along and did not want the extra added responsibility of looking after someone while she was doing her own (very dangerous) work. Also like you, did not like that extraneous scene with the sexual tension. Maybe the guy was all revved up from the explosions and just wanted to fuck something but even so the scene was not necessary. To me though, the focus of the movie was on the journalists and their neutrality. The multiiple factions, confusion, not knowing any real facts or who to even side with, made me feel like I was looking at my own country like an outsider. Like how we as Americans can look at war scenes of other countries on the news. It's just chaos and it doesnt really matter who is who, people are being hurt and everything is a mess and terrifying. I feel this was further solidified by the scene where the two soldiers are laying in the grass shooting at the guy in the building. As for hackneyed tropes, I dont really watch action or war movies (bf dragged me to this one lol) and in the scheme of things, not too much live action media at all, so there may have been some cheesy things that went over my head. You're way more of an expert on this than I am lol. I guess the last thing I want to touch on was the ending with the still photographs. Made me feel uneasy in a dissatisfied way. It's like ok now what. I got the point, life moves on and the journalists just follow whatever outcome there may be, but it just left me feeling off. Anyways love your vids, just saw your newest and cant wait for the next one

Personally i liked the movie , it was an unnerving experience. And i knew as it was in the synopsis , that this movie would be about what the photo journalist played by dunst was experiencing on her trip from new york to washington DC. We are seeing the movie through her eyes . So the movie would be limited by scope , nevertheless it was still intense . A24 is still a small movie studio and the budget of 50 million is the largest they have ever spent on a movie , which is clear by the decent visuals and amazing sound design. Its unfornate some people didnt like it , but at the end of the day it wasnt going to end up being a legendary studios epic war movie on a 200 million plus budget. So i went in with limited expectations and was pleasantly surprised .

Alex Garland claimed he didn't want to focus on the film being left or right (despite calling it Civil War) - but paid and directly thanked in the credits a well-known far-right provocateur, a far right wing pundit, and a transphobe activist. None of which needed to be paid or thanked for the footage he used, as there were plenty of apolitical sources of the same material. So, yeah...

I had pretty much the same impression after seeing the movie on an airplane with crappy airline issued earbuds. I thought I had missed something. Apparently not.

I think you missed the point of the movie lol. It’s not about the politics of each side but how confusing an American civil war would be. From a journalist perspective ofc they would want to capture all they can from such a chaotic event. That’s their job take the chaos and make it palatable for general news. If they made it about politics that’s the only thing the movie would have been about.

As someone that has literally just came back from a war zone in Ukraine, taking photographs, I can tell you that we don’t need to know why a war started, we don’t need to discuss the politics of a war, that’s NOT the movie As a photographer that’s just been to Mykolaiv and Kherson as well as destroyed villages, I have seen first hand and also lived with people that experienced a war first hand. I can honestly say from the perspective of a photographer in a war zone, the movie fully resonated with me and was extremely truthful in so much of it I would actually go so far to say that in war zones, the daily conversations are not even about the war or politics, so to be demanding that the movie explains the war and discuss politics throughout the movie when there is no reason to, seems like something that you’re upset over nothing about This movie could’ve been set ANYWHERE and it would’ve played out the same, THAT is the movie we got! The movie isn’t actually about the war, it’s about photographers in a war zone and it’s personal stories, the war is just the background, the backdrop Maybe you would’ve been happier if the movie was set in a different country? Or the movie was called “Photography in war on a road trip ” as that fundamentally is what it was about as you state But getting back to my point, as a photographer that’s seen some horrible things (not as horrible as what’s in the movie) I can fully state the movie was a very good depiction of what it is like of being a photographer in a war zone… If you watch the movie ever again and watch it through the lens of someone else, you may change your opinion, or not… but it’s definitely NOT a bad movie

What's wrong with Nick Offerman as the president besides not liking the actor or whatever? He was amazing in The Last of Us. Hell he's the first actor to actually make me cry in like, ten years. I haven't seen the movie yet but i thought the Nick Offerman thing was weird.

"Both Sides: The Movie"

Watched Dark Crystal recently and I gotta say, based on the title I was kinda hoping they'd give the crystal more screentime. They just spend a lot of time on these puppet characters and how they feel about things.

stopped at 24 seconds when you didn't commit to the bit of wearing the stupid hat

The movie meta plot is that both sides are Larping so hard that they start a war with eachother. While most politics is a lot of bravado and posturing at the extremes, bullets have real consequences once the larpers feel justified in using them.

Was this movie made specifically to show Americans how people from other countries feel when their wars are depicted by Hollywood?

One of those takes that's so dumb I have to click that "don't recommend channel" button

i can tell u don't smoke weed, "paranoid lettuce" is a new one fs

I might have just been in a forgiving mood when I watched this movie, but I just assumed Kristen Dunst’s character was doing a suicide by martyrdom. Through the whole scene she’s just done, not even trying to take pictures.

The movie had nothing to say, it just screamed at me for an hour and a half.

Texas and California are an unrealistic alliance but so was the peace agreement between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. And if I'm not mistaken I believe they do hint that as soon as the alliance take DC they will most likely turn on each other. But I could be wrong about that particular detail. Regardless the point of that unrealistic alliance has a higher purpose. To ensure that Republicans and Democrats don't co opt the movie for their cause. By making the most extreme states allied against a bad President then the audience regardless of ideology can get into it. So the moral of the story, a civil war is not something either side should want, will be distributed across both sides of the aisle.

What I don’t get is that the president knew he was a target and just stayed in the White House?

Funny enough, this movie just proves to me how idiotic is upholding the 2nd amendment in today's US and how it can spiral out of control, even if this example is farfetch and ridiculous at best.

Disagree, the movie is about the morality of photojournalism, specifically what it means to profit off of the suffering of others while doing nothing to stop it. Which y’know, it’s a metaphor for general apathy.

Why would people even make this movie if they were going to be so cagey about politics in it?

ok, the thing about weed is just weird, bro. As if smoking weed and other drugs weren't a big issue during Nam, it was literally the second most used drug besides alcohol. Weed also has a calming effect, for literally most people. Yeah, there is a joke about being paranoid, but that is usually when you over indulge. Anyway I like the video you seem to have some critiques that are based more on incredulity than fact but.. Hey to each their own.

Loved this movie when I saw it in theaters. Will probably love it again when I watch it at home with a couple friends that absolutely need to see it. I won't go in-depth on that love here-I did that in my Letterboxd review-I'll just say I got an entirely different read on this movie relative to what's expressed here. That's fine, opinions can differ with talking about art, we're all looking at it through different eyes. Opinions can differ, and they can also be wrong, like that take on the ending. This anti-war movie wasn't flipping on itself to glorify it as good guys beating bad guys, that's trying to assign morality where there was none. That shot of a bunch of soldiers smiling & posing over the dead president couldn't be seen one way or the other by the audience, because they gave us no reason to side with either of them the entire movie. History is written by the victors, and that picture will be framed in the new oval office of Ron Swanson's usurper.

Oh so your just obtuse and proud..... please never recommend brick wall movie reviews to me again youtube

Excellent film, wildly misunderstood.

People who see Nick Offerman and think comedian have not seen Devs

The one question i have in my jead since the beginning is the following: couldn't the interview have been a god damn zoom call??

To respond to the question you pose at the end of the video the message i took away from this movie was a critique of war journalism and to an extent journalism in general. Generally speaking trying to address the ability for anyone to truly just capture events without inputing beliefs or in their own ways effecting events. We are given characters at different points in there journalistic careers and we watch as they respond to the conflict based on that level of experience and how they grow as a result. While the more seasoned journalists are clearly not effected by things like violence they attribute it to a detachment from the situation and from bias. However like you point out, they are throughout the film shown to have biases. Even what we do know about much of the circumstances revolving the conflict is given from people who could have their own biases or bad sources. To me what the movie was trying to show was that no matter how much someone may try and remove themselves from a situation human biases will always come out and the only thing that will be achieved is a detachment from ones humanity whether that be partially or entirely. That being said i dont even really like this movie and i think they could have done this a million better ways. I also however dont think its not necessary to flush out all of the specifics of the conflict because that really doesnt have any bearing if the focus is journalists and their biases. We really only need to know who they are actually biased towards and maybe some basic reasons if anything to get the point across. I also think alot of stuff you point out in this video is weirdly nitpicky if not a little insensitive. In particular framing the random murdering of civilians by military or militia groups as unrealistic or dumb as if that is not a very common occurrence in basically every conflict in history. As well as your point about the americans going about their lives ignoring the war. You frame it as the director making fun of Americans for being uniformed it seems but do you really think that every country that has a civil war it just involves everyone? Obviously most people will choose a side but even then, how many of those are literally just because they want to go about their daily lives and stay out of the politics. As an antizionist Jew myself the long list of resources recounting zionist crimes and anti zionist counter movements as well as nonzionist jewish movements who simply want to stay out of the fray comes to mind. Like i said, were these things done well, i dont think so. But imo they were still done and from this review it really seems like you had a very different take away. I also didnt see any marketing for this before i watched it so who knows i just read the little blurb under the movie that said it was about journalists in a war and assumed itd probably be trying to say something about war journalism lol.

The main guy in this movie is the MOST "cop"-looking guy ever.

What made you think they got permission to interview the president? They said once they enter Washington, reporters are shot on site. Why did you confuse Nick Offerman‘s president as president Ron Swanson? Did you watch the Last of Us ep3 and you couldn’t get into it because you saw Ron Swanson instead of, I don’t know, a character?

5:02 They didn’t ever say they got/were invited for an interview with the president. They explicitly say that they want the opportunity to interview the president before he gets overrun by the resistance. It’s a hail marry play for a historic quote. It’s really strange to me that you’d get that wrong when it’s so obvious? I guess I just kinda assumed that you knew what was happening but after watching the actual movie it’s clear you didn’t really understand what it was about or what was going on at all.

I enjoyed the movie for the spectacle, but other than that it doesnt offer much. Its very toothless in its set-up and world building.

You're missing the entire point of the movie. The reason it's apolitical and focused on the war journalist. Is bc it's about how war, especially civil war destroys and impacts your home. The director didn't want to get involved in political ideology. He wanted to show that somebody would hang and torture a person they went to school with. Despite everything ppl we know will change into monsters if war were to become reality.

The movie is pretty plainly not about the precise political motivations of either party, but about the way violence is portrayed and recorded in today’s media and how that effects us. The vagueness about the reason behind the violence is, in my understanding, intentional. I think going into a movie expecting a “good guys vs bad guys” narrative limits your ability to have an open mind and think about the larger themes of a piece of art. It’s also a mindset the movie directly addresses at multiple points, some of which you’ve mentioned in this video. The violence perpetuates itself, and it is senseless, brutal, and seemingly unending. The finale of this movie being unclear about if the war ended or not is in service of that point. I do not think it was portrayed positively, the smiling soldiers standing over a corpse was unsettling and, to me, was representative of the glorification of violence as a means to a political end. We literally just saw these people shoot an unarmed woman trying to negotiate with them. The violence, the revenge, was their goal, and they chose that option over the offer of peace even if that could have meant an end to the violence.

Yeah it was just OK. Nothing to write home about. I won't watch it again

It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that tries so hard to do so little. There literally nothing to take away from this film once the credits role.

Feels like a lot of your criticisms are predicated on expectations. I watched it without seeing an ad for it, because i don't see ads ever. Heard about it from some friends and watched it on my favorite illicit streaming site. With no expectations, the themes were both interesting and well executed. Those themes being distance, callous observership, and the role of a journalist as an amoral actor on the sidelines of serious conflicts. The movie also pretty explicitly paints the western forces as the more moral force.

The very beginning lost me as someone from atlanta where thee protest scene was clearly filmed. I get movies film in different cities but dont put a landmark like big bethel church which Jesus saves and pass it as atlanta. It's such a historic area. We don't take the danm empire state building and say it's ours. Boo

I love watching videos that are ultra critical, it makes me appreciate subtlety. I’ll admit this is a little dumb, but his early criticism that this movie just refuses to explain itself using “ typical storytelling techniques” is so silly. A24 is usually experimental, and exploring these scenarios from the eyes of journalists who have closed off understanding of the conflict, puts us in their shoes. I’m not claiming this movie is a master of subtlety, only that it feels like a more metaphorical and aesthetic exploration of a future Civil War. Put Of course, at the end of the day, it’s just a movie, a very on the nose movie about living through weirdly specific shit. By being wispy and very metaphorical, it does lack the concrete world building we expect. I’m not ready to just say that the movie isn’t good because it just doesn’t have enough complexity in it. This is a flick about being a viewer and being on the outside looking into a conflict, I think it completely works in that regard.

Guess I'll stick to the neoliberal politics of Captain America Civil War, at least that one's entertaining

Having it be from the photojournalist perspective was a big mistake. It could have been about soldiers or refugees, but no, it’s about idiots that put themselves in harms way to take pictures

The Purge is a more believable civil war movie.

Thanks a lot for helping me steer clear of something I thought was just “okay” to begin with!

Minute 5:16 & I've already seen daisies in actor hair twice good oblique editing eye

Never even heard of this movie.

Florida Alliance lmao

I liked this movie. Especially from a fantasy perspective

ur mom got you the right hat

Thanks for watching this for me. I had a feeling it was gonna be something exactly like this

Your point about California and Texas teaming up is interesting, but I think your conclusion is wrong. My opinion is that the movie wanted to evoke the image of “our country is broken and this is where we’re heading” but didn’t want to hinge itself too much on modern politics. If you very clearly depict real life belligerents in a battle, then you will inadvertently place yourself on a side of that line. TLDR: I think the movie sacrifices realism for greater marketability. Harder to offend people if you’re purely in fantasy land

Bafflingly bad creative decision making all throughout this film. The action sequences were well done tho, and some decent performances.

This seems like a horribly bad faith review. it really sounds like you wanted it to be shit so you made up you mind way before you even laid eyes of that IMAX screen as you said. Please do better, as that shitty Captain America show said.

Canada isn’t fine because a tank of gas is still $300

I actually really liked this movie

I haven’t seen this movie but based on your description it sounds a lot like a Christian production analogous to the “left behind” movies

I agree with you, this is actively the only movie where I had to fight sleep 😂

Hey make the ending a warp core breach flooding engineering with radiation that only Spo.... I mean Leigh can fix without dying too quick. Yes, it's a non sequitur but better than the ending we get in the film.

I can't blame you dawg.... that hat looks sick on you 😉

You should review a movie you like

graphic violence and gore? this was pretty tame for the most part, and theres barely any actual gore. just a handful shots of standard r rated stuff that no teenager would be bothered by. that super fucked Jesse Plemons section was one of the few scenes worthy of the films title. aside from not wanting to alienate mainstream audiences with violence thats too harsh, its also a politically cowardly film. just a24s attempt at a blockbuster

Alex Garland movies have all had diminishing returns, though. Ex Machina was fantastic, Annihilation was great, Devs was okay, but Men and Civil War were just bad. At least Men was creepy.

Kinda seems like you're just a mouth breather who doesn't understand character drama...

I agree with everything u said

I honestly didn’t think it was that bad.. there were just holes in the plot.. could of been better as a multiple season show

Ofcourse the snipers on the statue of liberty scene didn't happen, stop for 1 minute and think: "who would/could they possibly be shooting at?"

This is the ONLY review I've seen that isn't just sucking Garland's dick. That "movie" was pure trash. There is NO plot. It's like someone calling themselves an "artist" when all they've done is hang a completely blank canvas, and demanding the viewer tell the artist what it is, because they couldn't be bothered to think of anything remotely interesting. But all the edgelord fanboys are just gonna whine and scream, "You just don't GET IT, man! It's too CEREBRAL for you!" like an angsty teenager screaming at their parents before slamming their bedroom door.

"Paranoid lettuce" you can tell this man doesn't know the difference between an Indica and a Sativa.

Tell me you don't smoke weed without telling me you don't smoke weed. Lol. I mean paranoia lettuce sounds like some kind of crazy dystopian propaganda they used back in the 90s in my dare program.

I loved this movie

I love the movie

I ❤ you Pat!

The sound was well done. Some decent sequences. Other than that it was atrocious.

"oh why would a bunch of soldiers massacre a bunch of people??" "why would they kill the president without trail??" Yeah well tell that to the guys in the middle east i am shure thwy would also love an explanation

Agree with just about everything. Terrible movie.

A civil war would have and has had in other countries devastating impacts on the economy. The GDP, infrastructure, disruption of trade, loss of workers and companies etc. This would definitely increase the value of Canadian currency over the American. I usually like your videos but oof this one's just to fill the algorithm or what?

Im sorry this is a bad review. Also i would like to know what you think is a good movie? I almost wonder if you watched rhe movie or read clifnotes.

This was such a bad review holy shit this definitely turn me off from your channel 😂