Website: www.deepfocusl... Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.co... Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com
I have to disagree I think it resonated deeply in that the point was how it showed how during such events, man loses their humanity and gets to a very animalistic us vs them. It felt very realistic and reminds us of the pain that comes from such chaos
I agree, and the proof of this lies in the user reviews; half of which are pissed because they didn't know what side they were on during the movie. Lol. Also the action scenes were up there with Black Hawk Down.
I watched Civil War after watching a few interviews with Garland where he explained his intent with the movie. This might have been why going into the film I didn't have the expectations that other people did about how political it would get. He has been very clear this film is meant to be a warning about how division is bad in a society and also about how we need to respect the free press. It is a timely message and if he had made it too relevant to modern politics that message would fall on deaf ears of the people who need to hear it.
@user61920 The point was that journalists will try to record events as they happen. If you've got a brilliant idea about a new method of exposing evil and raising awareness for those who don't "pretend that this isn't happening", then I encourage you to make a movie about it.
Garland has always been a filmmaker more interested in raising interesting questions to us viewers rather than dishing out definitive answers, so this movie is the logical endpoint to this idea by literally putting us in the shoes of people whos job is to show lifes tragic glorious truths to us and let us decide what it means. In this case the journalists I guess Garland can see as himself in a way, I don't necessarily need a film to have a thesis, theme is something I appreciate a lot in film, be it in the subtext or metaphors, but it's not something I necessarily need, its certainly poked at, but character serves the movie enough for me here
I just stepped out of the theater. She's right about the shortcomings of the film, especially the lack of acknowledgement about journalists being almost irrelevant. Even the choice of using a manual camera for me in a world where everyone is using video threw me off. For me, it almost dated the film.
Agreed 100%. I think we also need to appreciate it's a film about journalists in the thick of war, and this film is made in a social and political context that feels like a war (in America). The film is tapping into this in an open-ended way that works more often than it doesn't. The masterpiece version of this film could probably only be made in a more settled time, I think. I say Bravo to Garland for swinging for the fences even if it doesn't quite get there.
I think the problem is that the questions in this film aren't interesting. The initial premise was interesting, but the plot development was just so trash. The social commentary is child-like and the themes are shallow.
What if the film is actually about Americans secret desire for a civil war only so they can be voyeurs of it. The journalist represent Americans addicted to tragic/violent stories, who claim to want to be aware of what's happening in the world but are actually addicted to the dopamine of bad news. They don't have to choose a side or actually help in any meaningful way but can go along for the ride
Its so interesting seeing your commenters not being able to conceptualize the true point of the movie, and wanting to be told how to think and being told to choose a side. Human life should be the side, and that's what the director kind of emphasises in the film. The more I read YT reviews to this makes me sad that people cannot create their own thoughts about this and understand the value of the film.
100% agree. Civil War made me feel, it stirred up emotions in me, you don’t always have to explain everything you feel, sometimes just feeling is enough to remember you’re alive. And I’m still feeling from seeing Civil War yesterday. I’m still shook from the film, and I don’t feel like explaining what I’m feeling from the film, but trust me that I got something out of it, and if you don’t, idk what to tell you, maybe look inward and do some introspection of your own mind, take some thc before seeing it, or meditate. Connect with your self on a deep level and open your mind up to the possibilities of seeing things in a different perspective other than what you’ve come to know as what a film SHOULD be, a film can be whatever its creator wants it to be.
I don’t need a film to tell me how to think, but I would like a film to tell me how it thinks. There were some really great moments in the film and I think the sound design and soundtracks were my favorite, but I didn’t walk away from it knowing its internal logic.
@@mikeymacaque So you didn't want to conceptualize it, or couldn't conceptualize the main point of the film ? If you couldn't conceptualize it, I find that very fascinating. Q/ You didn't feel anything in the film at all towards the deaths and casualties, torture ? Q/ And you did not or couldn't understand the value of real truthful journalism ?
@@WeylandLabs I’m not talking about plot or themes, I’m talking about consistency in tone and delivery. My affective reaction is only part of it. We are shown the horrors of war only to have the next, final act celebrate it. We’re given a Washington Post-approved message about “truth” in journalism but we’re given no reason to believe or root for this message. This film was enjoyable enough, but it suffered from a major identity crisis throughout and I don’t think its themes are as intelligent as the film wants you to believe.
It’s so interesting how many reviewers I’ve watched and people I’ve talked to about this film found it too wanting or ambiguous, whereas I found it so beautifully precise in its purpose and storytelling. While watching movies themes usually stand out to me first and then the methods the themes present themselves comes second to me. However, here I find that the method comes first. Like the photo journalists, Alex Garland doesn’t editorialize political meaning. He presents a snapshot of a civil war that allows us to ask the questions, and I found that very effective for myself, and ended up getting into many great conversations because of it. Firstly, I believe the fact that the story started at the end very intentional along with the ambiguity of the start and divisions of the nation. To me, the intention was that no matter what the starting political views are, no matter what you start fighting for, the nation afterwards will be unrecognizable. The worst of mankind will be let free, many will lose sight of what they’re fighting for and will fight just to survive. And after one side wins, who’s to say the fighting ends there and the regime that follows isn’t worse. As Lee says in the movie she hoped that going over seas and taking photos of war would caution America to prevent going in the same direction. I think this film is trying to take a small snapshot of a possible future for the same purpose, and let us ask questions from there. Then there are smaller themes throughout each theme. For one example, I found the scene with Jesse Plemons the violent conclusion in war of something I see today where people on both sides of the political spectrum don’t care to know your story or why you believe something, but are willing to vilify you and write you off based on one thing: which side you vote for. Nothing about the storytelling is incredibly complex, but I do think it was precise and impactful as long as you aren’t trying to make the film more ambitious than a cautionary snapshot.
This was one of the strangest moves that I have ever watched. Not strange as in strange, but strangely empty. All of your analysis was spot on. I wanted to like this movie so much but I really do struggle and have to go to lengths to find any meaning. On the other hand, it is an interesting and timely concept, the actors are good, the filming and production value is quite good, the war scenes are quite visceral but, but, there is something very important missing in this movie, just can't put my finger on what it is. It's like the story is missing. Like when they went into the town that was oddly normal they commented that it was like the twilight zone I really perked up thinking oh boy, something odd and strange is about to happen ... then nothing. big sigh...
I totally agree with you on this one. The movie was interesting to watch and the so-called "story" is interesting to follow, the quality of the production is great but it's actually rather dumb movie. I had problem with the characters and their decisions and how everything felt completely unbelievable. Like the car chase scene. Why they just didn't stop? There was no reason to continue with high speed and risk everyone's life. And then goofy stunts when they swapped persons from car to car. Why they did that? In a Bond movie, characters do that because in that context they don't have anywhere else to go so they must do that. In this movie, they had all the choices to do a safe thing and secure everybody. But no, they just did the most irrational thing without any kind of reason. And this was an example where the movie failed in general. All the big scenes makes zero sense because the rationality of going one place to another is missing. The sniper scene came totally out of the blue, I had hard time to understand that what was the value of that scene in the complete picture. It didn't show any kind of development of the story, it was just a scene for the sake of showing something. The last act was completely ridiculous. It made zero sense that military personal even let journalist to be in that position. And then they stormed into a high value place with bunch of soldier instead of doing something clever like doing a plan before entering to somewhere. Or if they don't care about that kind of stuff, then how they are so successful with the operation in the big picture? I think the movie tries to be really clever, but it's actually rather silly. The movie shows way too much about big things which spoils the little things what it tries to underline.
@@rams6992 You know, when I watched the movie, I really liked this scene and how creepy the scene was for a variety of reasons. It just really felt like it was building up to some very strange or even supernatural payoff. Now that you ask the question, I really do not have a good answer that wouldn't ruin the authentic reality feel of the movie. So, in hindsight, the payoff is the military guards protecting the city. Everyone is acting normal because the military protection allows them this sort of fake reality. So yes, upon further thinking about it, there is nothing I would change about the scene. I still came out of the theater with a sense that the movie, while having some good individual moments, there was something very lacking or missing or a better work is empty about the film.. However, that may have been the goal of the director. Thanks for getting me to re-think.
I think it’s a timely and important film. My biggest complaint is the dynamic between the 2 protagonist photographers (teacher/apprentice) which veers towards trite and predictable.
It seems like a remake of Under Fire with Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman. Three journalists go across Nicaragua during the Sandinista rlcivil war with Somoza. They interview both sides and end up having to get involved.
Civil War also takes many cues from Children of Men. Both films are set in a dystopian near future, the old societal order is in decline, the cynical protagonist is reinvigorated one last time by a mission to protect a young person. Unfortunately for Alex Garland, Children of Men is the far superior film in every way, despite being 18 years older.
Well-articulated as always. I quite enjoyed your lightbulb analogy. I may use it on my channel (with credit). Civil War almost seems like it would be better as a series or even a video game. There is much to dig into while still being apolitical, and it sounds like this fell short.
I grew up watching Siskel and Ebert, Whether one agreed with their personal opinion was beside the point. They informed the audience. I loved them. I have not enjoyed movie reviews since, UNTIL NOW. you do much the same and more. I love your reviews. Here for example I do see how even out of context "What kind of American are you? can stir our beliefs in many ways. Deep-focus, It is.
How is it no TV network has hired you, for a late night slot, with a soft jazz intro, and heavens above... Maybe even a chair! In lieu of a Siskell & Ebert, or film... (Here in UK) I sorely miss this kind of critical content on TV.
Hi there, can't wait to watch this one on the big screen. I love listening to your thoughts on various topics and movies, even tho I don't agree a 100% all the time, I feel it challenges me to take a closer look and reflect on my opinions much more. So thank you for that! One small request or side note. Please consider bringing your content, in audio-form, to Spotify. I would love to listen to it on-the-go.
This was a great film and very simple. This is a cautionary tale of a strongman. The journalist are just a view of the fallout from the ambition of a strongman taking power and the response of people when they feel desperate. Nick Offerman's character arch is the most important to this film (although it is told in a minimal way. The horror he created set up the the importance to his arch. I would suggest the story similar to Frankenstein. Dr Frankenstein's ambition created a monster that wreak havoc on its community. And it ends with torches and pitch forks.
I am glad I saw your review. I felt pretty much the same way after I recently watched it. I could not really articulate in my head what it was that I was having issues with but I think you summed it up quite nicely. I would also still recommend it but I would not build it up too much. Thanks really enjoy your reviews.
I was so incredibly disappointed in this film. It lacked emotion, context, depth and interest. I don't know what else to say. Put it up against "Come and See"? Are you kidding me? Here's one film that ripped me to shreds and left me drowning in a puddle of despair with just enough breath to survive and believe in some sort of humanity at the end versus a yawn filled, uninteresting movie that had one 3 minute scene of interest with Jesse Plemons. I am a huge fan of Alex Garland: including "Annihilation" AND "Men" but both of those films were 100 times more interesting, disturbing and impactful versus "Civil War". I dare say this movie was terrible and weak at best. I just left the theater thoroughly depressed by the unimaginative loss and waste of time energy and possibility that was this movie.
When I was walking out of the cinema after this movie, I was thinking why do I even go to see these things? It's really a pity that these kind of movies don't even want to try. Very low on creativity and without any kind of risks. Super safe eat-your-popcorns-and-go-home movie.
I think you could compare any film unfavourably to 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘦, especially if the comparison misses the point completely. What do they have in common, exactly? Klimov didn't show a civil war, presidential failures, journalists, or teacher-student relationships, and Garland didn't show a gradual transformation of a tense scene into a gory hellscape. The problem is that immutable disinterest in the subject matter nevertheless compels some to talk about things based on superficial comparisons from a grab bag of intertextual references, such as genres and authors, instead of bothering to learn something new and interesting about the actual intent behind the work. The result is yet another take on something not being what you initially reckoned it'd be.
Thanks for your input. I believe some of the negative criticism comes from many who have not served in the military or likely do not have any experience in war planning or fighting because their reviews are all based on modern action movies and dramas that they grew up watching instead of being actually deployed to a poor, ravaged foreign country and being looked at with great vitriol, threatened and/or shot at just because they’re an American. My perspective comes from someone who’s been used around the world to satisfy the goals of the empire and who believes that as a result of our global expeditions and campaigns, we’ll eventually experience those pains in our homeland someday and I’m not happy about that, but I am a realist who knows enough to prepare for difficult times ahead. So I see the movie as a sort of documentary whose goal is to open our eyes to a reality that many Americans still deny. Many people may not think the events depicted in the film could ever happen but think of this, the U.S. is structured like a large version of Europe with states that mimic individual countries held together by the state’s promise to uphold the Constitution in which the mentalities of 21st century political leaders and citizens have clearly concluded, is just an old piece of paper. This format once proved that a massive civil war could and did occur and often history repeats itself, whether people want to believe it or not. Sure it’s just a movie, but it’s a serious one and there is a major message in it for us which is, war is truly hell and it’s not something that we should glorify nor something that we should ever hope occurs in our communities. Critics should stop trying to analyze this film like they’re watching some make believe superhero movie, an Oscar contender’s review or some political circus commentary akin to the events of the 2020 election. I suggest we watch it like we’re analyzing potential future “real world” events because the premise of this movie might be much closer than some of the many naive Americans think. From a military (not militia or political) perspective, often wartime strategic alliances form strategic partnerships which are not necessarily based ideological similarities. States like Texas and California both are very large populations (30-40 million residents), massive police and national guard forces and GNP’s that are comparable or larger than some of the current top ten percent of wealthiest countries on the globe. Texas was once its own republic and has governed that way since. An alliance of these to states and perhaps a third one of similar status and structure would be a major problem for DC politicians. Given today’s times, we need to hope for the best but only those who can’t see or hear won’t prepare for the worst. Most Empires haven’t lasted more the 500 years throughout history so, I think it’s very important for people to accept their possible future or that of their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren because we are definitely heading for a major change down the path of U.S. history. This fate is even foretold in the book of Revelation and in greater, specific detail in the “extra-biblical” text of 2nd Edras. Time and experience has proven the old Mark Twain quote that, “truth is stranger than fiction” I thought it was brilliant. It reminds me of a realistic Christopher Nolan movie with hints of an Apocalypse Now style vibe. The music took me to the post Vietnam era. Many wanted to know the cause of the war but the context of the war is not important. Most 21st century Americans (except the naive) know how this could happen. Overall, this movie was an essay warning us (Americans) to not let our politicians lead us in this direction because…, in a war everyone loses. A future cult classic movie for sure!
Great review! What I find most appalling about filming a violent conflict in a democracy (democratic republic I know ) like ‘Civil War’ is the director chose not to explain anything . Since when has a film not wanted to explain who, what , when , where, why ! I took film class and the first thing written on the board by the instructor was ; ‘your job is ; WHO , WHAT, WHEN , WHERE , WHY’ that is storytelling 101 . That is book writing . That is in every script . Filming a story about paparazzi journalists seeking to get the best scoop is milk toast trash . These are not the stories of true photojournalists. The real ones get the story and interview , interview , interview . They send in a complete synopsis with positions , sides, reasons .. this is just lazy ! Maybe he’s riding off the infamy of his former films .
First time on your channel and I wanted to say, well done. You have a talent in your presentation that will allow you to stand out in the long run and I have subscribed.
You nailed it when you said, "Children of Men." Just like that film, the world is a character itself and it gives up the background of this movie if you really pay attention.
haven't seen it but from reactions, it seems like a critique people seem to be circling around is that he's AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING. which is understandable since you obviously don't want to alienate half the audience. so there's this semantic vacuum at the core of the movie that seems to be... obnoxious. and frustrating. and not wholly in a good and intentional way. like people want to tell garland, "ffs, just say something!"
Based on this and other reviews - I'm going to pass on it. What bugs me is it seems to be exploiting political division as a gimmick to get people into the theaters but then shrinks from the subject matter. Understandable, that subject matter would be an impossible minefield in this era, so then don't make the movie. But it seems the producers want to use the political vitriol to get people to go, then feed them some idealistic pro-journalism movie that avoids the real questions the name of the movie begs: what were the events leading to CWII, what caused the factions such as they are, what are the ideological conflicts. But to put a story about photojournalists in the context of a 2nd civil war, when that story could be told in any war, seems to be a gimmick somehow even more offensive than any political slant bc at least a political slant would be about more than just money. Hollywood, no surprise.
i actually liked this movie but i do agree that the world building feels a little thin and the characters where a little one note but i thought the movie was really immersesive and jarring. the scene where the girl falls into the pit lingers in my mind and will probably stick with me for a while. love your reviews, hope you do one for challengers when that comes out
Watching your review made me what to go see come and see, not civil war. Garland is good at concepts, and bad at execution. In general I wait to watch his films on streaming.
Couldn’t agree with this analysis more! Honestly so many sloppy details in this movie and story telling. Character development was some of the most disappointing I’ve saw, the scenes and some lines were just….not doing it for me. Music choices also very interesting…. What it did do well was anxiety and tense moments. Bullet sounds, A+ - also I thought we were traveling across the US, not through Pennsylvania…. 7.5/10 still but could have been a 10/10.
Think you're spot on with the warring halves of Garland. Civil War ends up being a character piece, he smartly dodges the obvious political traps that a dumber filmmaker would fall into immediately by using a political landscape that we don't recognize but feels familiar enough to work. Little clumsy in the first third but once it gets going I did enjoy it. The sound design reminded me of Heat (complimentary)
I'm seeing this tonight! I'm so excited. I have so much respect for war journalists, and read the ap every day. Thats my main reason why I want to see this film.
Movie trailer bombast causes me to look away from the screen and tune out but it took some effort not saying “oh, fuck you.” out loud during the trailer for _Civil War._
thanks again for the great review! it said a lot about the age of cameras, the new recruit using an old film camera, and the veteren using digital, we had an interesting conversation with an historian for those who want to know more.
Good review as to the ambiguity of what we are watching: the concentration on specific vignettes, moving towards the larger picture in the background; the ability to focus on this group of photo-journalists, because of the demonization of a once noble, truth-seeking profession, was good. We could be in any country, but America/USA galvanizes the greatest energy/ anxiety due to its post-truth politics and move to autocracy. Liked your use of filmic references like Children of Men and Come and See. The scenes looked very real and the battle scenes were spectacular, nail-biting.
I also think Garland talked to Military Analysts and used a lot of subtle things to give the film depth. On the other hand, the white lights when clearing the building set my teeth on edge . . . .
I walked out of the theater feeling the need to shake off bad/unwanted feelings. And the feeling stayed with me for a while, which is a positive indicator for impact/quality. I do also question the timing of this type of movie's release; why now, what implications, what hidden agendas?
Thanks. I saw the movie earlier today. Indeed, the slippery equivocation of the script vaporises whatever real depth the film might have had. The concentration on nameless combatants and motiveless photo-journalists instead of the civilian experience damn near destroys it. A deceptively dumb movie made by intelligent people about an important subject that they don't really want to address. A pity. This review is bang on the money. Cheers.
Finally somebody says that this movie is dumb. Because that's what it really is. Everything is very irrational without any kind of clear decision-consequence connection.
@@jussi-pekkaturunen689 Yes, it's a pity because the film is extremely well made and Garland is a good director, but the script's caution handcuffs him really. Having said that, people are at least talking about the movie's general concepts, and that's no bad thing.
THANK YOU for this review! I have been SO sick and tired of seeing the same stale, basic dismissals of the film because people (typically Americans) can’t get over the vague premise of the film-they want a political reason for the eponymous war and can’t get over the fact that this isn’t what the film is even trying to be about. Hearing you call the film “refreshingly apolitical” was a blessing. And that’s precisely because, like you, I had a lot of problems with the film: it seems thematically confused (and/or nihilistic) and doesn’t raise its questions in a particularly compelling way; the characters make such stupid decisions that it breaks my suspension of disbelief; etc. It’s impossible to discuss the substantive problems of the film when people are just caught up on the superficial absurdity of California working together with Texas, or when they otherwise insist on viewing the film exclusively through the lens of contemporary partisan politics. I’m so glad you took the time to delve into the substance of the film here.
Looking forward to seeing this when I start watching the latest releases again; too expensive at the moment on a retiree’s budget w/ so much else going on at the moment. Ex Machina was a striking debut for screenwriter Garland; I didn’t like Annihilation at all (bored actors didn’t help) but Men quickly became a favorite for me. So I’m thinking CW will be at least worth seeing, Dunst/Offerman often choose stretchy roles in off-beat films.
Bingo... when she said that, I'm like "politcal my ass"... a "non-political" war film from a liberal industry that has proven it has no issues using the medium to spew it's political views.
@@timhullfilms there are politics that can be pulled out of the film. it's just not in your face, and it shouldn't be, because we're experiencing this story from the view of wartime photographers and journalists - who SHOULD be objective.
Completely agree... didn't think about that whole "what kind of american are you" not having any weight because they don't really show what the different americans belief in... but yeah, on point like always , thanks
I think it was more about how Americans LOVE to divide themselves. Mexican American... African American... even dividing ourselves by states What type of American are you...
@@juanvasquez8616 leftist politics is about dividing people into identities. they are segregationist at heart. the left are the real racists. They want people divided because their marketing plans depend upon it. A divided populace is an impotent populace.
So well said- it only works in pieces. I like the inner circle of characters, but there wasn’t enough realistic horror of what a civil war would be like in the US. It needed to be darker and more brutal and take more risks.
Don’t disagree with most of your review, although I think I it’s a bit better film than you. I will disagree with one point, print journalism isn’t suffering as much of a bias problem as say television news. Of course there is some bias in all media, as it’s made by humans with all their ingrained biases, but Reuters tends to be quite neutral, and more a data collection service. AI might change things, but they still image is one of the most honest. I did think Jessie using film was unrealistic, but added to the unbiased nature. Of course she was an amateur using her dad’s gear, but she will definitely go digital when she wins her Pulitzer! It is funny she never had to show her press pass. Anyway, that’s why I assume Garland choose those type of journalists.
Excellent review your perspective is always interesting and it’s so fitting that deep focus lens does a in depth analysis of this film and I agree completely with your takes. The film was mistitled should have been called “don’t shoot we’re Press” lol the emotions I was supposed to be feeling for the main characters were usually the opposite because like you said they knew what they were getting into and then felt like the press pass was like a VIP to a concert or their camera was some sort of shield it was somewhat comical when should have been heart wrenching.
Yes yes i fully agree. I dont mind the angle they took at all but i wished they elaborated and expanded upon the characters and the world so much more.
I passed on "Men" but im intrigued in this one because of the what-if scenario about a war on american soil in present day. the modern political context aside, i like the concept and i'd actually like to a decent realistic movie about that.
Interesting that you did not find ex-machina visually there. I, found that the movie was built on the juxtaposition of natural beauty up above, compared to the sterile feel of the world the AI existed in bellow. The theme here is “beyond” Turing Test….where an AI contained within an inescapable cage, will convince humans to let it out….and this film did that. Going from the prison into the open is shown..and as predicted…the human is tricked into letting it happen. So it’s possible that the story told through these visuals was by design .
@@chrisgipson455 devastating put-down!….so..my girlfriend’s cousin died being a jackass on train tracks. Word to the wise, dont be a jackass on traintracks. More succinct Chris?
I had a feeling that Garland, like John Ford, had really developed back story for these characters but (mostly) did not hare it with the audience . . . .
"Again, here, the theme of partiality and impartiality so far as, you know, the press is concerned - it's not fleshed out enough for this to really create a special moment". That's kind of ironic to fault the film for impartiality and for leaving things outside the frame vague, since the entire point of those photojournalists was that they just take the pictures and leave interpretation and partiality to others. "Muddled" basically means that the movie didn't tell you explicitly what you're supposed to feel about every given thing and didn't lay on the exposition to build a world that's ultimately less meaningful than any action of any character therein, on which the film actually focuses.
Excellent thoughtful review as always. The depth you go to explain crux of the films is truly envious. Something is lacking these days from movie critics. If you are reading this: Is it possible to watch past videos, movie watch along videos on your Patreon? I'd love to join your platform there
I agree. The movie is like a solid 7 across the board. The characters are just kinda.. good enough, it's not a particularly good action movie nor is it a great anti-war movie. The whole thing just felt like an extended episode of The Walking Dead minus the zombies.... some mid season filler episode with off-shoot characters engaging in a road story. Didnt love it, didnt hate it. Just fell flat IMO.
Can it be that we are too close to the subject? We live in a divided America. Thus, we focus so much on the background we lose the story he wanted to tell. If it were on a different timeline or place, we would understand it better. The quote can't see the forest due to the trees
It's a superb, thought provoking film that says all it needs to say. For me, its up there with Garland's previous work - Ex Machina, Dredd, Annihilation, Men etc. A real tonic to all other fluff that gets released to cinema these days.
wow, excellent review. I agree on all points you made re: Alex Garland in general. Although I don't think this film is second to anything in terms of images and sound design. I thought it was really progressive and absolutely stunning, technically speaking. He never seems make his films work as a cohesive piece, but the little moments where they do work really hook me.
This was a fantastic anti-war film. Using the perspective of the war photographer was brilliant, because that is a human yet neutral perspective, allowing the horror of war to shine through without leading the audience to support either side.
@@thrawncaedusl717 Yes, it's a war film told through the eyes of a photojournalist, and it's terrific, and powerful. James Woods's performance is amazing.
The slow motion scenes with pop music surprised me from Garland. As did the dialogue’s bare bones first draft quality. And the general timidness when it comes to exploring anything interesting about this inherently exciting scenario. The scene with the sniper struck me as so poorly executed. Like the idea of the scene is the scene; explaining itself to us. I get what its going for, but it just lazily gestures at it rather than going for it. Sorry so vague, trying to avoid spoilers.
I’ll also still never miss a film Garland makes still. This strikes me as a prove it studio project where getting it done on time and budget while showing he can do big action films was the focus. Like Sicario for Villeneuve opened up Bladerunner and DUNE for him, I think we’ll see larger studio projects from Garland in the future. I wonder what IP he would ask for? A Terminator or Robocop maybe?
Like the movie though I picture in 5-15 years someone will take the civil war premise and not be opaque with backstory. The action scenes when the Western Forces get to DC are really good and I'm glad I saw it in a cinema to take in all the noise.
I honestly thought there was going to be a big twist where the young girl turns out to be an agent of some government or faction, and she was going to shoot the president instead of capturing him (I thought the army would want to capture him). But no. None of the characters are very interesting here, save for the older reporter guy, him I liked.
Garland strikes me as a copy of Guillermo del Toro: same heavy, preachy ideological allegories mixed in with flashy gore for effects. But he wasn't always like that... I miss Garland's more classic writing projects such as Dredd and Sunshine. 😔
I saw some traces of Dredd in Civil War. I love Dredd. Much like Alien to Aliens , they went in a unique direction with the Karl Urban version. Also, I did not like Civil War. I felt it was too art house and niche for my pallet.
@@ShaneyBright I adore Dredd too. Not too preachy while freely indulging in some delicious violence 🤗. It's a worthy sequel-in-spirit to Robocop. Top cyberpunk film imo 👌.
I always find Garland's work interesting to watch, but I was worried when I heard it doesn't tell you the basis of the conflict. Like it's been designed to avoid controversy. And it's about a political subject.
You talked about a few things in your review but with Civil War/Alex Garland I think the value relies on the writing. Personally, I find whether or not Garland's visual style is "cohesive" totally irrelevant to 90% of viewers. I think suggesting this movie is on-par with Annihilation is crazy. The reason is because Annihilation was actually interesting but Civil War is devoid of anything interesting. Civil War fails because of the writing. You mentioned a few of some of the most annoying examples of its failures: the main characters are stupid, the dramatic moments are focused on side characters no one cares about, and the entire conflict is so vague you wonder why he wanted to make the movie at all. There are other writing failures. The few times Garland tries to examine how people feel about a Civil War it's cringe. A photojournalist smugly asks a store clerk "ummmmm... like, don't you know there's a war???? XD" And that's the end of the examination. Garland almost seems to be setting up mechanics of the world within the first handful of scenes. Civil unrest in cities, suicide bombers, gas shortages, hyperinflation, and you never know if who you're talking to is friendly or not. That all sounds great. All of that is in the trailer. None of it is in the movie. They're good ideas left on the table because Garland didn't want to get caught up in specifics, he wanted to do... something else I guess? The emotion of the film is unconvincing. One of the main characters is a care-free thrill seeker. He's eager to barrel toward a death wish because it's exciting. We see he has no real attachments to anything but his work. This is completely believable for the character. Then he experiences one tragedy and we see him screaming in anguish - worse than any other character in the film. Completely unbelievable for the character. Civil War feels so empty. Deftly manuvering around anything remotely interesting. This is an incredible contrast to Ex Machina and Annihilation where pretty much every scene provoked something to think about. The scenes in those movies had you reassess what you think about a character, learn a little more about the world, or consider an interesting idea (nature of consciousness, or humanity's desire to self destruct). They were so captivating because they were so interesting and mysterious - an atmosphere Garland has said he intentionally tried to create. Civil War has none of that. I didn't like Men either, but at least that movie swung for some visual aesthetics he's never done before. Civil War doesn't swing for anything. Totally forgettable and a complete waste of time.
Bad writing and Terrible implementation is BAD WRITING + TERRIBLE IMPLEMENTATION... Does not matter whether the movie is woke or NOT. There are Good non-woke + woke media AND Bad non-woke + woke media. Shocker! Wow! Who knew?!? 😂 😂😂😂
Every review of Civil War, where the reviewer believes the movie is apolitical, goes on to miss a lot more of the content of the film. Civil War is obviously not apolitical.
I saw it & agree - I feel however perhaps he needs to shoot more & work on the editing to get the best material for scenes as possible - then streamlining it all via creative edit work. I dunno - maybe he needs to focus on the writing - so many films today seem like they were just slopped together. the process pays off > one of the best pictures I've seen in a long time was The Zone of Interest
I loved Alex Garlands novel the Beach, very dark indeed. Then the film came along changing the british backpacker to Leonardo and watering the whole thing down. A rare miss indeed for Danny Boyle and I tried again recently and it was worse than I remembered. Ex Machina is wonderful. Still creeps me out !!!
I have not yet seen Civil War but when I heard several weeks ago that it was a political that concept sort of stunned me. You reference Alex Garland referencing "Come and See", a movie about the holocaust in Belarus. There were good guys and bad guys in that movie. There is historical consequence that gives the movie an incredible impact to the point that many people consider it a horror movie. What is more of a horror than an armed Nazi during that point in history. Not having seen Civil War I already know that is could not be a fraction of the movie Come and See is. Take a more similar movie to Civil War (in terms of the photo journalism angle) in The Killing Fields, that movie you also know about the incredible vicious brutality of the Khmer Rouge and their absolute genocidal intent. Again, I have not seen Civil War but it seems like it has no balls and I think a movie with no balls could only be made during this time when people basically have no balls due to cancel culture or not wanting to step on toes. Now this confuses me because Men did have balls, did say something. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts on Civil War and hope to see it in the future.
thank you for your down-to-earth review.. i haven’t watched this movie yet, & i really wanted a spoiler-free/unbiased/balanced review - esp after watching an interview w/Alex Garland regarding his intentions w/o any spoilers.. i’m VERY impressed/glad you brought up & elaborated on “Children Of Men” - one of my “rare/unheard of” film suggestions to others.. i rented that film when it came out in a video store, not knowing anything about it & was impressively surprised! you’ve helped me balance expectations vs the director’s stated intentions back into “neutral” & unknowing of anything about the film - just like “Children Of Men”.. i will rent this when the rental costs aren’t equal to purchasing the physical version of it on bluray.. again, much thanks..
I watched Civil war on April 8 premiere. There were moments but the overall movie was lacking and even non sensical at moments. Photo journalists dont operate so close.
That’s what I’m saying, literally mise we’ll have been riding the people they were following. So unrealistic in so many ways as a photographer, didn’t appreciate that at all.
Than make yourself a movie with realistic photographers, it will be lame as Hell. You have to sacrifice a peace of your Films realism if you want to get a Point other than portraying the reality across
I thought the film was kinda boring myself. However, there are plenty of photo journalist through out history that have operated in the front of many battles. Robert Capa was at the D Day landings. Eugene Smith was in the Pacific with Marines fighting the Japanese. Don Mccullin lived with U.S marines in the jungles of Vietnam.
