Civil War -- Why I Hated This Movie -- An Honest Movie Review

Substack -- please subscribe to support this channel: learningaboutmovies.substack....
Please follow me on Twitter for video releases and reviews: / drjoshmatthews
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/joshmatthews/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @learningaboutmovies
Understanding Movies 101 Course: joshmatthews.org/learn-more-a...
The Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Comprehensive List of the Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Movie Cliches Series -- Video Playlist: • Why Pianos Transform C...
The Great Directors Series -- Playlist: • Werner Herzog's 10 Gre...
Shot for Shot Analyses: • Understanding Movies 1...
Great Science-Fiction Movie List: joshmatthews.org/great-scienc...
Other Movie Lists: joshmatthews.org/topics/movie...
Disclaimer: All reasonable comments are welcome, including reasoned disagreements. You will be banned for foolish talk, harassment, and hate speech on sight; it's a tremendous waste of life. I believe in freedom of association and, by extension, freedom of dissociation from you.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

My fuller, more reasoned views of this movie are on Substack here -- learningaboutmovies.substack.com/p/civil-war-2024-movie-review Do not tell me "you don't get the point" while not offering what you think the point/message is yourself. That's just condescending trolling. And I am not making this for the money. If you think that, consider the RPM for this video. I'll probably make $20 on it. Do you think that's worth inviting crazy and delusional negative comments aimed at me? No. I simply make these videos because I love movies and I enjoy making movie-review material, despite all the negative possibilities that result from public opinions. The point of reviews is the analysis and the reasons why, not the judgments, to improve thinking and moral clarity and general movie-viewing. Thank you for viewing and for reading. The points of this movie could be: 1) Photojournalism is dangerous, and requires bold, cold people to do it. 2) journalism and the state are, or should be, or shouldn't be, at odds with each other 3) War is bad. 4) dictators should be taken down. In the case of #3, Mr. Garland knows that making awesome battle scenes is easily seen as *pro-war*, and this complicates at best this movie's relationship to its possible inspiration, "Come and See." In the case of #4, which is opposed to #3, the movie is far too ambiguous. It's not clear who is who in creating the atrocities we witness. This is explicit in what I think is the movie's best scene, the Winter Wonderland one, where sniper faces off against sniper. Who is on whose side there is directly addressed. The answer is: we don't know.

[@c-9233]

But the film does nothing to promote your 4 example points above. The film was cliched clap-trap. The story line disjointed and weak. the film was cliched clap trap, but I think I already said that.

[@Malt454]

I think the point is that war IS bad and isn't just "the continuation of politics by other means" as von Clausewitz would put it; it's that war is something completely different when it's in your own country, as opposed to travelling thousands of miles to find/fight in it - which is something the US hasn't experienced in more than a century. "It's not clear who is who in creating the atrocities we witness." - maybe not, but the larger point is that atrocity is a certain byproduct of war. Focus on the Germans, Russians and Ukrainians committing massacre in Come and See (and there are Russians and Ukrainians willingly aiding the Germans in that movie) or focus on Soviet troops during their advance towards Berlin, it's largely a question of what you choose to examine, when and how closely. The point is largely lost on those that demand clarity about the specific issues of the war itself as some kind of speculative world-building exercise. If you could assign blame for atrocity in Civil War only to one side or the other regardless of how the war began, it then becomes an Audie Murphy White Hats vs. Black Hats game while the point is just that Americans are murdered and not by whom. "Solving crimes" and rooting for those "avenging" them isn't what the film's about, so it won't fall into the cliché that one can "make it all right if the right people are caught and shot". Although it might not be a classic, Civil War refuses to become Red Dawn, despite all the latter's "clarity" about its depicted conflict. Showing combat in any kind of "entertaining" context indeed muddles the message, but it's also hard to imagine an American audience attending any kind of Western version of Come and See - Americans are too used to seeing war as a clear moral struggle (too much Band of Brothers, Masters of the Air and "greatest generation") to currently see war as anything but a tool and not a problem in and of itself. There's simply a conditioned glibness about the quick and easy resort to small and large-scale violence perpetually shown without real discernable consequence in the US, and that's what the movie questions. If American audiences would attend a Western equivalent of Come and See in the first place, the psychological landscape depicted in Civil War would already be fundamentally far different, but that's not the country the US is or that Civil War depicts, and that's part of the problem it deals with.

[@shaz_films]

Hated this film....should have been called JESSIE:THE ORIGIN OF A PHOTOGRAPHER 😑🙈

[@shatnose]

The most realistic part is how the POTUS ignores the fully equiped bunker with escape routes and just hangs out in the WH protected by secret service armed with Regan era 80's tech.

[@c-9233]

It was totally silly and childish cliche.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I think that no matter what, surely we can almost all of us can agree on this one. As well -- SPOILERS -- the one major character dying was overly dramatized. That person would/should dive to save the other person and remain huddled on the floor in the middle of gunfire. Yet that person keeps standing in the middle of the gunfight. One of those movie things.

[@rchot84]

The secret service reminds of random beat em up henchmen characters.

[@shatnose]

@LearningaboutMovies like the old A-team series bullets flying everywhere, yet only the bad guys get killed 😆, I guess I had my expectations set a little high. But even Zuckerberg built his bunker with secret escape hatches.

[@mirak63]

@@LearningaboutMovies It was a suicide.

[@horuslupercal9936]

I felt like this was a poor man's "Children of Men". If you want Dystopian Future, that's your movie.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Amen. That movie holds up well. And even if you think it's nut politically and/or biologically, it's an amazing watch.

[@PabloHernandez-yo9qd]

​@@LearningaboutMovies 😮‍💨🙄

[@daymenleo6895]

yep I'm watching Children of men in 2027 for a anniversary maybe a second time from watching it soon its a great movie !!

[@beyondz55]

The single take shot with the cars is one of the best single long takes in cinema. Agreed

[@pauljazzman408]

So because Civil war isn’t dystopian enough it isn’t any good?! So let’s not make any dystopian films again?!

[@DonaldAMisc]

As YMS said in his review of the movie, don't go into this movie expecting an explanation for the California/Texas situation, that the film could've been set anywhere but just happened to be the US. Most critics seem to love it regardless, go figure. 🤷‍♂️

[@TheExperiment24]

They love it because it's about them. Journalist "critics" creaming thier pants over a movie about thier own people where finally they can pretend to be heroes

[@Eddie87Grant]

Whenever a movie “critic” loves something I usually find the movie terrible!!! California and Texas are night and days apart in just about everything and I can’t see them teaming up to fight together. Thank you for not wasting my time that I can’t get back in watching this crap.

[@solokom]

@@Eddie87Grant "Whenever a movie “critic” loves something, I usually find the movie terrible" - so you don`t have an opinion on your own, and you think this is a good thing?

[@user-wv8oh4kk7q]

We just got up & left from it 15 mins ago! It’s boring, and all about two photographers filming weird random acts of violence with no point. Horrible movie! Don’t waste your money!

[@texascard]

What are you talking about? With no point? That’s journalism 🤣🤣 Boring? Yeah maybe shouldn’t leave 15 min into it the movie before anything happens

[@pauljazzman408]

@@texascard they probably decided in advance they were going to walk out.. The film still gets the money though.

[@texascard]

@@pauljazzman408 I watched it twice and kept track of 15 minutes… bro didn’t watch anything 😂🤣

[@alxmtncstudio2066]

As somebody who does documentary photography, you absolutely don't understand photo journalism and why they took the photos they take. But that's alright to be an ignorant.

[@SereneBobcat]

Thank god for this review, because I thought I was going nuts the way people are salivating over this movie. The premise is so stupid, so out there non-sensical that I just couldn't wrap my head around the idea that people would sit and watch this and take it seriously. Then I heard it does not explain the sides and how they came to be, and I realize yeah, cause there is no way to split the US military into two factions along poltical affilation. Like you said how does Texas and California suddenly get a military large enough to take on the US military?

[@kyloren1014]

You do realize that Texas and California have military bases and those soldiers would have made a choice stay or go and I’m sure there would people who would join to take out a dictator President

[@texascard]

Have you ever heard about fiction? Superhero movies aren’t real so should I hate on it because that’s not possible in real life? Movies aren’t supposed to be real in most cases Stop trying to compare everything with real life

[@belowaveragedudewithanopin2249]

@@texascardexcept those movies usually have plots and context to explain events. I watched the movie and they don’t explain anything. “Why was there a war?” Because. “What did the president do to cause such a nightmare?” Something. “What is the third Florida faction doing?” Nothing I guess. “How did California and Texas get such a powerful military and what caused them to unite” they borrowed it or something. “Why did the U.S government generals surrender” because.

[@Goremize]

I think the problem is just that, because of how bad things have been something just luke warm/adequate comes out, its seen as good

[@texascard]

@@belowaveragedudewithanopin2249 You’re thinking way too much into this It doesn’t need anything to be explained That wasn’t the point The point was to show a war through the point of view of a journalist That’s it Too many people are saying it’s not realistic because Texas and California joined… well it’s not suppose to be a documentary.. it’s fiction…. Not real. Why can people accept humans with powers fighting aliens but not a civil war in the United States?

[@TheExperiment24]

This was the most honest review I've heard. I just wasted $30 to see this in theaters and I've never left a movie Angry about getting ripped off

[@Acebets70]

SAME

[@vishuddhathakkar]

£25 here .. sad to see all that money go down the drain

[@texascard]

How are you angry about this?

[@rustyshacklferd535]

Same here.

[@OTG1776]

It was the borderline deceptive advertising that made people upset. ​@@texascard

[@UpperCrustthe3rd]

Wooooah journalism is so cool!

[@Nerdzombiedisco]

Hated it. Mainly watched for the photo journalist stuff and for Kirsten. Felt like a zombie movie without the zombies. And the ending/character resolutions was terrible.

[@TheTenaciousDog]

The real zombies are the ones shilling for this movie. Alex Garland made one good movie ex machina and the rest of them all suck.

[@Nerdzombiedisco]

@@TheTenaciousDog Agreed

[@MaskMan-bx6kr]

The war aspect, the cinematography of this movie is good, I wish this movie focus more on the war and how it got started instead of making a bunch of insufferable characters which the group of photoshop journalists as the main protagonists. I said in my rant video that they should of called this movie "The Press" since they're the main focus of the movie

[@drdavid1963]

Hi Josh, having seen some other glowing reviews of this film, I thought I might come back and ask a question. Others seem to be under the impression that the film is intentionally ambiguous (ie. it is not designed as a narrative fiction with good guys and bad guys for the audience to root for or against but to reflect on the depiction of a world where it is difficult to recognise who is who) because it is a cautionary tale about the divisiveness in modern day America rather than a science-fiction movie. They seem to read the film's intentions as to provoke discussion about this potentially fatal divisiveness rather than to create a fantastical depiction of some far-off future dystopia. Having not seen the film and being dissuaded from seeing it from your review but still left undecided, how would you address these questions in terms of the film's potential redeeming value?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I'd say it's more about journalism, the tough steely coldness of being a journalist -- which may or may not be praised by the movie. To me, the film used the "civil war" discourse, which I find disgusting, and pictured something that was both offputting and cool-looking in parts. That is the same trap that all movies that depict war fall into. That can be fine, but here the science-fictional aspect is unavoidable -- it is about the present AND the future at the same time. As for the future, I have said that it is a not well-thought-through future -- were there EMPs? Did the dollar collapse, and if so how did the Canadian dollar unpeg from it? Why don't the journalists communicate with headquarters when they could do that back in 1862 at long distance? Why are there decoys and yet everybody trusts the "PRESS" label? Why in the world was that POTUS' plan in the end?!? But that future is also so ambiguous you can root for it. I have seen commenters here tell me that the movie is about the need to fight dictators. They assume the ending is just and fair. And because of the movie's contextless for itself, *any* interpretation works -- pro- or anti-civil war, pro- or anti-secession, etc. Whoever you are referring to is missing other possibilities because of this movie's rather massive open-endedness. To me this is not "Come and See," which makes you hate either the invaders or war itself, but that's pretty clear on point. I am certain that I could defend this movie from any point-of-view, warmonger to pacifist, ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative, and read what I want to into it. To me, you won't find rich, complex characters, and the plot arc is about like a videogame fetch quest. So you are left with some of the shotmaking and the weird uses of non-diegetic music for your aesthetic pleasure. I didn't find any of the performances fascinating except for Plemons, although everybody in it is fine. There are about two striking scenes to me, and the DC battle sequence, which is arguably pro-war because it looks pretty cool. However, I told my friend who was an embedded war correspondent in Iraq back in 2003 to watch it. I would tell that to aspiring journalist students, and also my buddy who is a scholar of the actual Civil War. There are many reasons to watch it I suppose.

[@drdavid1963]

@@LearningaboutMovies - That's very interesting, Josh. It sounds to me that it is a film worth watching if it seems to yield such different responses. I would also say that watching it hasn't been a waste of time as it has sharpened your lines of argument as it has made you reflect on the conventions of video games, war movies and science fiction and the appropriateness of the various strategies the film employs. I think I will have to watch it to satisfy my curiosity. 😃

[@bryanf6638]

​@@LearningaboutMoviesOk you didn't like it, you don't need to explain it to death. Get over yourself, you're not an authority on whether or not a movie is good. It's subjective, and everyone has their own reasons for liking or disliking a film. Same with any art. I haven't seen anything written or directed by you hit a big screen so maybe do something with your life that matters

[@FlippedNormal]

This movie feels like a 12 year old wrote it.

[@TheyRiseBand]

The most ridiculous thing about this movie is, Texas and California teaming up.

[@jayeightate7347]

Former military here..this literally gave me a headache

[@jerrygarner]

I am so sick of the false heroism, self righteous pap of photo journalists. The only thing worse is the false heroism and self righteous pap of actors. So we’ve got two great tastes that taste great together.

[@danielmunoz1275]

Tell me a single scene or moment where they the press was portrayed as heroes?

[@jerrygarner]

@@danielmunoz1275 it’s seen through the eyes of a journalist. I’m talking in the larger sense where the press, or a journalist or group of journalists have to go beyond just telling the facts but have to editorialize so as to give the unenlightened masses a moral azimuth. It’s not about a single scene, it’s the whole movie. Just like “She Said”, “Salvador” , and any self aggrandizing talking head in major media.

[@bjbucknum]

War is heinous. The justifications or explanations provided are rarely, if ever, fully satisfying. They might appeal to reason or morality, but even those defenses fail to substantiate the horrible totality of war. Is war inevitable or necessary? I don't know, and I hope not, but it is not explicable and the cost is always extremely high. I would argue that Garland effectively dispensed contextual information about the territories and their motivations in the film. We do get some explanation. When Joel is preparing for his potential interview with the President, Sammy's questions increase in intensity until he asks about turning weapons on US citizens. We also learn that the President is in his third term, which implies a weakening or amending of the Constitution by an authoritarian leader. Enough info to demonstrate motivation and earn buy-in from all viewers? Not really. This is where we may agree but definitely diverge. I think Garland wants viewers to experience the inexplicability of war, which is the engine of this film's horror. I also don't think this is an abstract, art-house decision. The lack of clarity or shared set of ideas around the conflict in the film is tied directly to the fim's focus: journalism. When we view the film through this focus, it is fair to give Garland more credit for his creative decisions to play with the flow and volume of information in the film. It's also fair to say that this was not a successful choice or that there was a marketing misstep. But I would disagree. I found this film to be a gut-wrenching, soul-crushing war film, and as such a powerful work of anti-war art. What am I missing, Josh?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I think the movie is sensationalizing, even if Garland is trying to be anti-war, a heinous idea, visualizing it for us and therefore stoking the flames of its possibility even more. That plus the one-dimensional characters, the cliche of senex and student and their relationship arc, and the videogame fetch-quest of a plot -- all to serve to tell us something about old-school journalism that is frankly dying if not dead (RIP Reuters).

[@bjbucknum]

@@LearningaboutMovies Thanks for your reply. I can't in good faith push back firmly against the one-dimensionality of the characters or the cliches. Dunst is one of my favorite actors, and I enjoyed her performance, but there is little about Lee that resonated with me hours later. However, I think there is more to chew on with what Garland is doing with Joel's character and spectacle. Garland makes a point to show us his adrenaline-soaked glee and then his despair before his hard-on for combat rises again. To address your first point, my challenge for you would be to consider if Garland's careful dispensation of context (or lack of it you might say) contradicts your claim that he is stoking the flames of war. Wouldn't a transparent back-story with clear references be less responsible, if that is even something a filmmaker must to consider?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

No, I think science fiction hallmark is better thinking, generating that, but to do so you can't just imagine anything you want and not explain how any of it came to be.

[@ezemdianosike5277]

THANK YOU!! I'm gonna save the money AND time!!

[@c-9233]

The time especially. I would feel hard done by if I was given ten time the entry (£5 UK) to watch it. My time and freedom are worth more than that, and I don't want my mind infected with such cliched clap-trap.

[@pauljazzman408]

@@c-9233 yes save more time and never watch a movie again(!)

[@jonathanwilcox8819]

Great review I knew I wasn’t crazy this Movie has a lot of holes in it

[@teddyhose]

When I heard Helen Lewis and Andy Ngo have credits in it, I was like Hel Ngo 😤

[@drdavid1963]

Thanks for heads-up. I was looking forward to it but I might skip it. I think the film is trying to tap in to the 'divided country' idea and dramatise it. Crash did it better 20 years ago.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

With Crash, we could at least see what the sides were and what the grievances are/were. Truly we all should just watch "Do the Right Thing" again and call it good.

[@texascard]

There’s the problem … watch it for yourself instead of skipping it because of a negative review.. what if you saw a positive review ? Would you watch it then? Why not just watch it for yourself and judge it yourself …. I watched it despite seeing people hating it and guess what? I enjoyed the movie

[@drdavid1963]

@@texascard - Because I don't have to. I can choose not to.

[@texascard]

@@drdavid1963 I know that but had he given it a good review would you have watched it?

[@marianotorrespico2975]

--- THE FILM-MAKER WANTS TO TAKE A VERY STRONG STAND . . . without offending anybody at the cocktail parties. This fictional tripe is what "an impartial documentarist", such as the ideologue Ken Burns, would produce: Not for it, not against it, but au contraire, because it was "such a learning experience" for one and all; the sheep and the shearer.

[@c-9233]

The filmmaker needs to be ridiculed at everyone cocktail party they ever attend, the actors too. How embarrassing for them to be part of this cliched silly clap-trap.

[@pauljazzman408]

@@c-9233 like ridicule at cocktail parties is really something to be feared(!)

[@coltenasherkulak7172]

If anything Texas and Cali would be fighting each other not together... and we all know who would win pretty quickly

[@elmohead]

People who come out of wombs with guns blazing vs people who come out of wombs with unassigned genders

[@Zurround]

You are wrong. They would have to join forces to take out the more powerful FEDERAL government first then maybe in the sequel turn on each other.

[@ageofmich]

Guess this confirms what i guessed about the movie by the trailer. The cailee spaeny movie to watch is priscilla (sofia coppola). Was a 8/10.

[@coldchillin8382]

I’m 10 minutes in watching a bootleg and I’m about to fall asleep. Looks like it’s about 2 journalists. 😴

[@PeterChoyce]

i saw a short interview with the actors and immediately knew the movie would be terrible, with the exact points u lay out. First, i don't trust films that feel obliged to have to hire famous Hollywood Millionaires in order to get people to watch it. Stars ruin movies. As soon as they started to explain the films purposeful vagueness, i knew what it would be - another video game of things whirling above and blowing up with no point outside of what we should already know- like wouldn't a civil war be bad. No context, no need to tie anything to real life. It is not a warning, it's mindless entertainment, complete with a bombastic score Films like the 1985 UK -THREADS and even the US TV movie THE DAY AFTER built up and gave context to the thing as it unfolded, making it a thoughtful emotional experience to be had. Like u say,, who cares about the plight of the photojournalist. It's trite and insulting

[@beyondz55]

Threads was terrifying. Agreed.

[@benjamindover4337]

A very substantial portion of the US military is located in California and Texas. From the actual bases to the fundamental manufacturing of Lochead Martin etc. Also, the military isnt made up emotionless drones. They wouldnt just side with the government no matter what. And California is a lot more conservative than people realize. Anyway, it's not really relevant since the context is an abstraction, as you alluded to. Thanks for sharing your review.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I assumed it was the states and not just persons from those states. I can't see how military personnel would feel loyalty to anything else. What commands loyalty today besides self interest? This is not the 19th century.

[@jimclayson]

​@@LearningaboutMoviesWhile I've no doubt the movie is utter crap, and I've zero interest in watching it, your military analysis is lacking. There's no way the US military could cover enough territory to forcefully retain states the size of California and Texas if the populations of those states were determined to secede... certainly not both at the same time. "Nukes," you say? On US soil? Sure, if you wanted to galvanize EVERYONE against you, domestic and foreign, and poison territory over which you're trying to gain control. The US military isn't all-powerful, and HUGE portions of the active military would likely side AGAINST Washington, DC.

[@WilliamJames48]

If an absurd movie helps get the point across that actual Civil War is absurd, then let it be. It is what it's supposed to be.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Except once again a war movie has "cool battle scenes," so it's pro-war when it's anti-war.

[@mike45gt]

@@LearningaboutMoviesyou’re confusing “good battle scene” with “good visual effects” Because it’s awful to see people with their hands up gunned down like dogs

[@joseyzadoria7815]

What is funny is I thought this was a review of the movie 'Gods and Generals" and that we were going to do a discussion on another bad Civil war movie. My bad! Lol!

[@maxfalconi6995]

The 12 year old looking photojournalist flirting with Joel/ Wagner Moura killed it for me... Characters were not well developed , shallow at best in several scenes. Too many holes in the plot and the only scene this movie will be remembered in perpetuity for, well, we all know it. It could have been much better but the script was garbage to begin with. The battle scenes are visually good but the ending is lame at best: the 3rd term cowering Trumptator hiding under the Hayes desk? why not in the bunker under the WH?! They needed to rush and wrap up the ending.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

The fake convoy that leads to POTUS just hiding in the White House is a script idea from a high-schooler, in terms of plausibility. One could argue it's symbolic of something, a feeling rather than a reality. However, I don't think that would be consistent with the rest of the movie.

[@gcammar]

my comment to the friend I watched it with was:"this must be the worst movie I ever watched. Not a single thing in it was plausible, yet it was shot like everything was plausible".

[@CoinOpTV]

doh! maybe i’ll have to wait for streaming! In other news - have you sampled the Fallout show that just dropped on Prime?

[@texascard]

Why not just watch it and judge it yourself? ……..

[@CoinOpTV]

@@texascard watching it on streaming still counts as watching ‘eh? 🤣

[@OTG1776]

Nah just skip this one entirely. I'm reading KZbin comments instead of watching the movie because it's literally that bad. ​@@CoinOpTV

[@joeytosi]

I felt the movie used Texas and California joining as Western Forces to unite against an authoritarian government as a device to say that both left and right politics are rightfully worried about an ever-increasing authoritarian uni-party government. The Western Forces are fighting for the traditional liberal values America once stood for. It’s also is looking at the fall of legacy media and the rise of younger generations who want news to be sensational and opinionated. In the film it is suggested that legacy media has suffered due to its lack of neutrality, and Dunst’s character is an example of a journalist with remaining integrity. The younger journalist reveals that she doesn’t share the values of her hero. The younger journalist’s arc goes from one who is claims to worship a traditional journalist, to one who will let their narcissism recklessly endanger the liberal values that legacy media once stood for in order to capture the most sensational images she can get for her own personal gain. I feel like many people who have reviewed this film have overlooked its message because they wanted a film that get political, and instead they got a film that warns them of how news is moving from informing with a conscience to manipulating without a conscience. The jumping from car-to-car scene is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I like this comment, though it's by no means clear that the US government in this is "authoritarian." And it's not clear what the secessionist forces are fighting for. Are you saying that NYC is on the side of an American dictator? The same is with the journalists' comment. It's by no means clear that this middle-aged generation has integrity. They swarm like maggots to rotting meat whenever they see military action. We do not know how they are presenting it, either.

[@joeytosi]

@@LearningaboutMovies I would never utter a disparaging remark about the great NYC! However, during the NYC scene, while the journalists are gathering in the hotel to make their plan, the news mentions that rebel factions are fighting what they feel is an authoritarian government. Dunst's character evolves form one who documents without judgement or empathy, to one who has grown older and develops a protective instinct for her fellow man. This ends up being her undoing because her fellow man acts recklessly and endangers those around her without regard for their well being. That's what happens in the story. It's a road movie commenting on the state of America. I think you should give it a second look.

[@KCatalano88]

@@LearningaboutMovies I'm a New Yorker from Forest Hills, Queens (been in Greenpoint for 15 years) and I could absolutely plausibly see our intelligentsia supporting authoritarianism if it was expedient or fashionable to do so, lol. However there's constant allusion to the US Fed being extremely authoritarian in this film - they outright state multiple times that journalists are being killed in the capital. This is why the mission to D.C is viewed as suicide to begin with. If we assume those statements were true, of course. The film didn't give us reasons to believe or disbelieve that outside of a brief description of unusual and outright despicable acts taken by the admin, re: a third term, disbanding the FBI, using air assets against American citizens etc. I enjoy how oblique they made the partisan root of the conflict, this is a subject that could very easily give way to demagoguery. However, I genuinely don't think this film succeeded at saying much of anything else about journalism or war. Whichever way the 'new hat / old hat' war film was played, we've seen that dynamic in war films before and we''ll see it again.

[@paulbentley1705]

What are liberal values?

[@KCatalano88]

@@paulbentley1705 If you're not operating on the 60+ year American political definition of 'liberal = left of center', generally people mean 'foundational liberalism' and I think that's what he meant in the context of his comment. Ideas like belief in a separation of powers, the bill of rights, etc.

[@84paratize]

I strongly disliked it as well!

[@84paratize]

@@user-bd6eo9wk9j I sure did

[@awl7788]

1 star out of 4 or 5? I liked Ex Machina, but Annihilation was garbage and Men looked horrible- therefore I assumed Garland wouldn’t deliver with this. I’ll save my money and wait for it to hit MAX

[@htvlogs80]

Finally an honest review. I don’t understand why people are raving how good this movie was. Horrible story, horrible acting, & horrible music selection.

[@ButterCookie1984]

I fell asleep in the theater after about 8 mins in.

[@kevenmcginn5406]

I went with friends who also felt as you do: it was a patchwork mess and a waste of time- even as a propaganda film (timing questionable) which it obviously was. We had to find it, as it wasn't even listed on the marquee!

[@miguelvillalobos8966]

I totally agree with this review. I just got home from the cinema, and having gone with high expectations, I was floored by the film’s utter mediocrity and unoriginality. Basically, it was a waste of powerful idea. The walking dead did a much better job at imaging a future scenario of political collapse in the US, and a more plausible one, too. Yeah, this is as a bad story line, cliched characters, no context to make sense of anything, and… I dunno… just a lot of dumb.

[@combatvet1969]

Hyperinflation and a military coup might be a couple of scenarios that might trigger something similar to the movie and thus this movie gives us a glimpse of what may happen if either event should occur. How would you feel if your life savings suddenly could only purchase a candy bar? In the movie, $300 US dollars could only purchase a ham or cheese sandwich. Societal fabric can easily be torn asunder and the consequences can quickly get out of hand. For instance, what would happen if all EBT and welfare checks suddenly stop...

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Except the movie says the Canadian dollar is worth more than US dollar. So the writers didn't care about economics period. Plus in the movie, NYC seems to be mostly functioning economically.

[@Kognitosan]

Oh noz. Then all the single struggling mothers would take to the streets to overthrow the gubberment with their rolling pins and paring knives unless they can't find babysitters.

[@redredred1]

On the plus side, you could pay off your mortgage in a month!

[@tperk]

Let's just say Cali has all the tech and Texas has all the oil. They get a sympathetic ear from Canada which allows the WF to stage from Quebec and grind southward through New England. Foreign support comes in from every country except the UK. They violently grab NYC and the financial sector. Plus the USA president is a tyrant that no one likes, so he can't control his own military. An armed conflict limited to a half dozen states. That's the Civil War universe if you ask me.

[@Patrick-Snow]

@@LearningaboutMovies The CAD was worth more than the US dollar during the 2008 recession. It was at $1.30 for a period of time. That was during a recession. What would happen if the US broke up into 4 separate countries as depicted in the film?

[@MBAinternetmktg]

Thank you! I'll save my money & give you a Thanks. I don't see a plausible scenario where CA & TX will join forces.

[@benjamindover4337]

I don't think it's really THAT far fetched. But people have a very simple understanding of how politics work so it leads to assumptions like this.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Probably the dollar would have to collapse to enable anything like what's in this movie, and the movie hints at that. Yet NYC seems to be functioning here. I think you'd have to have massive economic devastation along with the scenario for it to be plausible.

[@milk-ub9zo]

@@LearningaboutMovies Yeah the movie does mention the dollar being weaker then the Canadian dollar but it feels kinda clumsily and it's just a single line

[@benjamindover4337]

I could easily envision scenarios which would bring those states together. If Mexicos government collapses due to a failed attempt to root out cartel influence, that could send a hundred million people north. If the states felt the feds were not adequately supporting their defense in such an invasion, they'd be inclined to go their own way. If that entailed a local army rebellion, the feds would be inclined to stop it before it grew to other states. Now they're at war. Like I said, it's not that far fetched. But none of that will be in this movie because it isn't a series of Dune novels.

[@nate665]

The whole point is an implausible scenario, that detaches it from current politics.

[@loremipsum976]

"Civil War" leaves a lot of room for a pre-quil and a sequel.

[@mirak63]

that's really no the point on the contrary

[@Daneiladams555]

garland has only made one good movie, ex machina, hes smart for stopping, hes a better writer

[@c-9233]

This writing is shit and cliched. Embarrassing.

[@tuandonvseverybody]

I hated this movie, too. The commercials never reflect anything about photo journalism. The title is bait. Waisted time.

[@pielabanana]

What got me most about the movie where some of the firefights were so Hollywood like the guys are shooting at the pillar instead of shooting at the dude. The entire movie I'm asking myself who's fighting who why is a uniform forces and then there's guys in Hawaiian shirts with armored Rigs. And why did it seem like team minority versus Team white guy did anyone else see that

[@LearningaboutMovies]

both sides were diverse, but the guys doing the atrocities were bumpkin white guys.

[@bossgandy]

So many things missing in this: it is set in our world because they have iPhones and flat screen tvs Nukes (or even discussing of it) Drones The famous WH bunker Land mines radios How TX and CA are working together Discussion about online and technology or Ai All I got was opinions about journalism and journalists

[@gsogymrat]

I discover this channel because I was looking for a review of "A Matter of Life and Death." I don't like war movies, or movies with gore and graphic violence, so I didn't plan on seeing it. I watched this review because I was curious how a second civil war would be explained but clearly the producers used the the idea as a marketing tool-- it appears this story could have been set in the Middle East with more authenticity. I'm glad I didn't waste my time seeing journalists take an ultra-violent road trip through ambiguity.

[@AlexUSAF]

I hear what your saying on your logic problems with this ultra violent, & very dark disturbing Sci Fi movie, however the reasons they do not give a big back story is because you the audience members fills in the blanks yourself in the "theater of the mind" -(similar to the first Halloween movie before the sequels on why the antagonist does what he does. You just do not know but you fill it in yourself.) Basically the backstory I put together was that the Western Federation (or the Texas California Confederates) is most of the original US Military, who break up where they fight against both the Left Wing & Right Wing Militias (both commit acts of Terrorism & war crimes), & finally the Government's Loyalist Army & the Regime fanatics in the Secret Service & FBI creeps at the very the end facing their own violent deaths (like how the Waffen SS, & the Gestapo in the Nazi Party fought the Russians to end as their regime was being destroyed back in WW2). But you get that from the dialogue of the characters & the different various players involved.

[@AutomanicJack]

i dont get it. watched the movie yesterday, and after 10 minutes it was clear to me that this movie doesnt make a lot of sense, and its more of a pulp movie (didnt watch or read any reviews for this movie before watching it, only saw the trailer).and with that pulp mindset i really enjoyed it. it never occurred to me why i should ask myself how this or that does or doesnt make sense, because EVERYTHING was clearly very unrealistic in this movie. i honestly would question myself if i am that person who asks for context in such a movie.

[@Eclectic_RN]

I'd rate it at 4.5, stupid journalists doing stupid things, in a stupid world... disappointed.

[@christopherknox7009]

I agree. This would be a very complex story line to figure out. They went for the over siplified version.. Just figuring what chain of events for our country to go down as to land in a civil war is very intense. I am a hobby writer as I once put my mind into this. Looking at a map of the verious christian faiths, where poltical leaning strongest with eather party. How the poltical party themselves would break down even further. A once great super power breaking down into factions. How many states would remain whole of break down into territorys. Would things settle down or lurch into intence fighting of faction wanting to take controll. A real perspective would be very polarizing and conflicting. It should upset everyone.

[@lynnglidewell7367]

Good to hear a differing opinion from the ones big name film reviewers on youtube express about this film. I haven't seen it but hearing this explanation makes me want to hold off seeing it until the film is in the five dollar bin at Walmart. I don't think I'm going to be entertained on the subject of photo journalism using Civil War as it's context. I think I'll see Abigail instead.

[@treauxvidieaux5668]

Seems the point of this film has escaped many viewers and reviewers.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Then tell us the point, as if art has just one point, which it does not.

[@42hamneggs]

I liked this movie. I went in very doubtful, came out quite impressed by the way it had avoided the trap of a polarized audience. It's definitely not for people who need a Hollywood standard package. I particularly liked the way it did not try to explain, message or propgandise political positions. I did not take it as glorifying journalism either. Quite the reverse. What it did do was take real world examples of war violence seen in other countries and place it in US towns. A glimpse of the insanity of a war. The gun violence, destruction and emotional reaction was very different to your regular Hollywood heroics. The story was very reminiscent of Apocalypse Now (aka Heart of Darkness). Not saying its a great movie. It has flaws. It was nice to see something outside the regular cookie cutter template. By the way it's not science fiction. It's speculative fiction.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you

[@mirak63]

I saw the same movie as you. Only thing I expected is that with Kirsten Dunst it would have some cleverness in it. This movie is some sort of warning.

[@jfh1741]

My issues with this film: 1. Why not make a dark comedy like 1, 2, 3 by Billy Wilder or Dr Strangelove? 2. How is the United States actually divided into? 3. What started it? 4. Why is no one texting and scrolling TikTok? 5. Shouldn’t social media be the primary source where people get their information? 6. USE YOUR PHONES to take videos and pictures. The little girl literally had infinite film stock in the last sequence. 7. The dialogues suck. 8. No mise en scene. 9. Dumb soundtrack and use of sound editing.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Yes, where are the phones at? Just like the drones. I feel like this movie is a "What if" if 1995 never developed more technology beyond some cooler guns.

[@c-9233]

I will reply to 1. ....because that takes talent. Lots of money does not relate to talent.

[@Neil_McCauley_]

Couldn't agree more. You pretty much covered every problem I had with this movie. I'm amazed how many content creators are trying to defend this film, have no idea why. I also liked Ex Machina, so was surprised how bad this film was. The defenders of this film are mostly saying the ones who don't like it just don't understand what the filmmakers were trying to do, that's BS, we can see what they're doing: focusing on these press characters, keeping things as neutral as possible, which in turn like you said is directly related to the major lack of context in the film. One star is a very fair rating. I don't regret seeing it, it's one of those movies that is so bad, that it's an experience in itself of witnessing a bad film that was hyped up so much.

[@wowster-so8sx]

Civil War, No Iron Man, no captain America

[@TNTLandino]

as a person who watched this movie a hour ago i would like to make a LONG detailed review/comment while its fresh in my mind. personally i was expecting a Movie about modern warfare and personally thats what i wanted not, a lot of good war movies come out and this one is not AT ALL what i expected. now before i get into what i did and didnt like about this film i just wanna say it was a Good film and i think that the message it sent was far more real then anyone in the theater expected it was a window of possibility on what could happen and it could vary much happen and i feel like this movie was a warning to us all asking us, Do you really want this?.and that itself really thunderstruck me. now the cons. i personally thought jesse was a total piece of dogshit and she was a absolute dumbass but that isnt really a con its more of just a fact that we all already knew now i disliked the whole PRESS thing that was going on i thought it really was annoying and its not like we DONT HAVE FUDGING BODYCAMS but YOU KNOW those are not a damn thing just walk around cross fire and all that and dont expect to get shot. and a ABSOLUTE FACTOR why i disliked the film is why they did not explain why texas and californa were teaming up and that bugs me i totally understand what they were trying to go for but i would rather know and have a COMPLETE story and understand why because then u can feel some emotion for why they are fighting and not just feeling like its a pointless conflict and i feel like the conflict felt stupid and pointless because we didnt have a explanation thats a HUGE con for me and it just feels like a book with a whole in it. it feels like a PART 2 to a movie series but we didnt get the first part. Thats just my opinion not fact overall do i think u should see this film YES 100% it is a really good film i just wish the director did it a LIL diffrently thanks for reading. also one last thing i did not like how much they disrespected the US Military. 4/10 movie

[@startingover1]

Hated it. A waste of time.

[@texascard]

How

[@rsesters]

I knew after watching this that people would have this reaction. The trailers made it seem more like an action movie than what it is. That's not saying there isn't action, but it's not the main focus in a movie about a war. I do agree that it needed more context about the sides. My girlfriend sent me a map that they made explaining it, but you shouldn't need to do required reading to see a movie for context. And to be honest the map didn't even do a great job explaining things. They should have had a better scene with Nick Offerman talk about the sides and how he was going to fight them off and explaining things. On the surface Texas an California does seem like a odd choice, but it does kind of make sense. Northern California and Texas do have similar political views, it's the big cities that make California a blue state. As for them beating the US forces back it makes perfect sense. Texas and California are both have military bases all over the states. San Diego is a huge military city, and San Antonio has both major Air Force and Army bases. Not to mention a bunch of other bases.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I don't need an action movie. I need a sensible movie that combines content and form in meaningful ways that can resonate with viewers, including offering insight, better thinking, and/or wisdom. Please keep explaining how California and Texas team up to assault DC and attack the east coast through seceding together.

[@skunkdfishing]

Thank you sooo much for an honest review!!!! For being genuine and not bought.

[@123rockfan]

We disagree on so many movies, so whenever you hate a movie, I know it’s always one I need to check out lol. One of the most suspenseful movies I’ve seen in a long time. I also appreciated the lack of moralizing, preaching in the film. Also, it’s still pretty easy to tell which side the director is on. So it’s not like this movie is completely neutral.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thanks, glad to help! Since I've been getting all manner of comments here, I disagree that it's easy to tell which side. I've seen three different/opposite interpretations that all seem valid -- that the movie is pro-Secession because of a tyrant president, that the the movie is pro-President because of secessionist slaughter, and that the movie is against both sides because war is anarchy writ large which is awful. I think the movie is open to all three possibilities. That to me means it is a confused vision. That might mean it's a descriptive vision -- the way, or a common way, people feel about the topic today. I don't think that's the case, but that would be the only way I could rescue this movie from what I consider to be its major flaws.

[@123rockfan]

@@LearningaboutMovies also, I have to add that I wasn’t being glib, hopefully didn’t come across that way. genuinely love your reviews and appreciate your point of view

[@KazTheKeeper]

Are you going to review the fallout TV show?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I'll put that on my summer to-do list!

[@christmastree-ku9dm]

i thought the movie was boring myself

[@Spractral]

I feel like I know exactly how this movie is gunna be and I think I'm just gonna watch it (or at least scroll through it) to see if I'm right.

[@mike45gt]

A very upsetting/unsettling movie, but worth seeing.

[@cruddddddddddddddd]

If the film was only about the nature of photo-journalism, then why make it about a future, American civil war? A lot of pretty unlikable characters. I know it's never stated, but the president seems to be a villain. The problem with that is, we've got no context to go on, other than the thrill-seeking journalist dude seems to hate him (based on his reaction at the end). Was he meant to be a Trump stand-in and they were too afraid to tell us what they really think? I'm not even saying they should have delved into the politics of the world, but they should have delved into something other than photo-journalism - I want more motivations from my characters than, 'gotta go take this picture, lol'. I disagree with you on the battle scenes - I think that last one, in particular, was pretty well-done. Idk - it's a film I'm going to need to think about. It did leave a sour taste in my mouth, but tbh that's more than most newer films leave, sad to say.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Your first question Is spot on. What this movie is doing with journalism could be done in a past or present day scenario. I don't think it speculates on future journalism very well. They don't seem to be communicating at all with a headquarters, and they don't publish anything.

[@notchristopherwalken]

@@LearningaboutMovies Lee uploads her photos with the shitty hotel wifi at the beginning. They make a pretty big deal out of how difficult it is.

[@42hamneggs]

The film was about violence. War violence. Violence, fear and destruction. Not about photojournalism. There's no glorification of journalists. Quite the reverse. You see the lead characters desensitized, adrenal junkies, avoiding moral questions. They get people killed, watch war crimes, share jokes with killers. Photojournalism is the method of showing the violence of a civil war without having to include political messages, good guys and bad guys. Setting the film in the USA is confronting. If it was set in some foreign country or distant future it would lose the impact.

[@cruddddddddddddddd]

​@@42hamneggs Better films have covered those themes in more interesting and engaging ways, so CW will be compared to those films.

[@42hamneggs]

@@cruddddddddddddddd Yes. I don't disagree that there are other movies out there on the topic. Better and worse. The contemporary US setting makes it a bit different. I'm reading a lot of comments here trying to fit the theme into a current political narrative with good and bad guys. Or into a heroes journey pattern. It would have been so easy for the film to fall into a partisan take, current politics or some sort of justification. It's pretty uncompromising in just looking at the violence of a civil war. For me that made it good but clearly its not for everyone.

[@mirak63]

The movie was very good. Better than I excepted. It's sort of like when I went to see Snow Piercer, and wasn't sure it would be a smart movie. Journalism is just a device here, to reinforce the neutrality that helps show the absurd nature of the civil war. You don't know why they are fighting, it doesn't even matter. What matters is the absurdity of a civil war.

[@drdavid1963]

I know that you won't want to relive the 2 hours of your life that you've lost but did the film remind you of either Come and See or Children of Men - sounds a bit like a hotchpotch of the two?

[@LearningaboutMovies]

No, it's not Come and See in any way, shape, or form.

[@drdavid1963]

@@LearningaboutMovies - I guess nothing could be really.

[@robertmarginean164]

Well, I don't see a Terminator travelling through time anytime soon either, but I can go along with an implausible scenario for the sake of a story

[@LearningaboutMovies]

those first two movies are pure movies, divorced from reality to an extent, existing as audiovisual spectacles. And they both have rationales/plausibilities for why the action is happening!

[@CarlitosGringo]

Figured this would be the case…thanks for saving me the pain

[@MrEnder098]

Don't agree 100%, but you kinda hit the nail on the head. Without context, this movie did not scare me. Everyone is talking about how scary this movie was, but it is so implausable and so fringe on it's premise, you have to suspend your disbelief so much you can't make heads or tails of it. Wanna REALLY scare me, then do the actual Red vs Blue thing, show me a possible future that is more realistic than California and Texas teaming up. Know whats scarier than Jesse Plemmons as a psycho killing a bunch of people? Crowds, mobs looking for scapegoats and dragging people in the street killing them and being so whipped up by bloodlust the moderate or sane people not only can't stop them but follow along and participate because they fear being singled out. With 4-5 factions in this film, that was difficult.

[@mike45gt]

There are movies out there like that already. Watch those.

[@rohanasuthkar9543]

This is the beauty of Cinema and art, there is a diversity of opinion. While some Critics are raving about it, others found it terrible. I really enjoyed Civil War, to me its an experiential film much in the sense of Avatar, the plot of James Cameron's Avatar is stupid,( bad guys want "Unobtainium"), but the film shines as a metaphor for the Natural World vs the industrialized capitalist world in addition of being full of beautiful visuals. Civil War is about the effects on the country and shows the degradation of morality through a politically agnostic lense. It shows how civil war brings every person to our lowest points. A24 maintained their Independent-film card by showing a colossal event throught the fly-on-the-wall view of journalism. Asking us to find our own meaning of it. A lot of reviewers have pointed out that this film takes it's influence from Apocalypse Now (which is one of my favourite films), and after seeing Civil War it reminded me of a quote from Francis Ford Coppola: "This film is not about Vietnam, it IS Vietnam". From that statement, I think Alex Garland just wanted to strip the pre-conceived notions of war to just, "They're shooting at me, and I'm shooting at them". And that's what Civil War devolved into after all the ideology is gone. I do agree that the marketing of the movie has caused a lot of disappointment among movie-goers. If this was called, "War Photographers" then people would have been more lenient to what the film's intentions were. With that being said, I would point out that many films have the curse of Marketing affecting their perception. For instance, The Northman, was marketed as the next Gladiator, the poster even had a silhouette of a character behind a backdrop of warships sailing to shore. in reality (and to many people's dismay) it was a raw, violent, personal revenge-story that was a Viking Hamlet. By the way, I'm not suggesting that this is a perfect film or a masterpiece, I have many criticisms of the movie to how it wasn't satisying story, and how character motives fluctuate. I just found that I didn't hate it and that it was quite refreshing in the SLOG of Comic book movies.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thanks for this thoughtful comment. fwiw, I do not care about the marketing pitch, unless the movie gives away everything, which trailers often do these days. Your consideration here needs to be the large amount of people taking this movie to say something about the President being a dictator who needs to be taken out in the film. I think this is a plausible viewing. Because you are right and they are right, the film is simply too open-ended for its own good, while containing what I think is a fairly lame plot arc, several "cinema sin" howlers, such as the President's escape plan in the end, and pretty static and basic main characters.

[@judypolstra]

I am following asleep 2 minutes into your review . I definitely will pass on this one! Thanks for the review!

[@papasquatofficial9282]

I really enjoyed this movie 🤷‍♂️. We don’t need to have all the war details fed to us, because it’s not a war film, it’s a character drama. And it was shot beautifully, the sound design was great, and it’s an original story. I think it’s obvious that Texas and California were on one side, as to not distinguish the political beliefs of the war sides. I don’t mind that.

[@marianotorrespico2975]

--- THEN WHY THE INCORRECT TITLE? . . . A story that tells little about THE SUBJECT advertised in the title.

[@papasquatofficial9282]

⁠@@marianotorrespico2975Because it is in the setting of a Civil War? Would you complain about the title of “Chinatown” not being primarily in Chinatown? A misleading title can be a fair criticism, but you can’t criticize the movie itself off of it.

[@marianotorrespico2975]

@@papasquatofficial9282 --- A FACILE COP-OUT . . . Roman Polanski's masterful "Chinatown" (1974) does not mislead, because of the conclusion; but the title "Civil War" (2024) deceives because the story is about the deep feelings of journalists "covering a civil war" about which nobody knows nothing. The analogous proof is "Under Fire" (1983) which film tells the story about the deep feelings of white-saviour journalists photographing the Nicaraguan Civil War, and does not pretend to BE about that civil war. As a critic of cinema, our Host is correct; all the pulled punches - about the ADULT SUBJECTS of the politics, the racism, and the class warfare that provoked the civil war - ensure that the "Civil War" will sell tickets and dvds and then be forgotten for the bland, Seinfeld-nature of the script . . . about the deep feelings of photojournalists "caught in a maelstrom of some kind of a civil war"; substance guarantees that the viewers will re-watch the film.

[@jonahbusch1194]

Yeah I don't really understand the complete hatred for the movie that some people have lol I can understand thinking it's familiar, cliche, or even a "Children of Men wanna be" but I had a blast with this movie. I have no issues with (most) politics in movies but I actually thought it was a breath of fresh air to not be preached at. I thought it was a pretty clever and thrilling spin on a road trip style movie. Especially worth while if anyone has the ability to see it in the Imax cause that was epic lol

[@marianotorrespico2975]

@@jonahbusch1194 --- THE PROBLEM IS ABOUT "NOT AS ADVERTISED", BEING . . . promised a proper STORY (beginning, middle, end) told in pictures, rather than a collection of action-movie sequences, and not about "being preached at", but the spectator does need some information about "the why?" by either side; as in "The Deer Hunter" (1978) the dramatic vacuum limits the film to action sequences, and little reason to re-view the entire film. But, I must ask: Are you an aficionado of film or a public relations employee? Your command of clichés and P.R. language does not address the complaints about the shallowness of the script.

[@n_n_n_n_n_n]

When I saw all the positive Rotten Tomatoes reviews pouring in for it, I knew it had to be bad. There is no way mainstream critics would have good takes on a movie covering this topic.

[@Martinmd-zt7vu]

This almost makes me want to watch the movie because of how funny and ridiculous it sounds

[@LearningaboutMovies]

it's not fun to watch in an unintentionally funny way though. it would be better if it were.

[@themistero]

I hated it too. Boring, plot made zero sense.

[@MarEkkertsen]

Sorry. You didn't get it at all. The descriptions you use missed it at each detail.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Check the top comment. "You didn't get it" and you provide nothing for us from your all-knowing fount of wisdom?

[@MBAinternetmktg]

Thanks!

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Thank you very much

[@MBAinternetmktg]

@@LearningaboutMovies I appreciate your comments on movies, thank you!

[@ametora1231]

I'll let you know after I see it this afternoon. I can already say, on the face of it, that the idea of California & Texas allying in any way already seems absurd. I've been a fan of yours since the beginning (different username). You've come a long way!

[@LearningaboutMovies]

thank you for being there since the beginning. I really appreciate it!

[@ametora1231]

@@LearningaboutMovies I just got back from the cinema. You were right. You're a much harsher grader than myself but I was fairly disappointed with the film. It would have been more interesting if the film were about the conflict itself and not about journalists. Also, it would have been more interesting if the background story of the film was a little more realistic and reflected our current political divide (Texas and California in an alliance???)

[@allend777]

Civil War was a big waste of time for everyone that made the movie. A waste of time for those that watch it. Photo journalism died with Life Magazine. Civil War script seems written by freshman college students that have little life experience.

[@OldGregg00]

Texas Military Forces are actually the largest of the US state forces.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Which makes this not one iota more plausible

[@lorimatthews7145]

I agree with you on this. I wasted my money.

[@jordanvenne1166]

I didn't have high hopes for this one after seeing the trailer at the theater...glad to hear my suspicions confirmed!

[@LaughMuBai]

OMG, the first person I heard pronounce Ex Machina correctly on YT, well done 🌟! Black Hawk Down, great film, but don't think I'll buy this one... streaming only, maybe...

[@LearningaboutMovies]

This is the first time I have been praised for my pronunciation in four years. This is better than winning the lottery. Thanks.

[@williamjonsson7142]

Totally agree had a good amount of potential but it totally sucked in all aspects. 5/10

[@letsplaywar]

I HATED THIS MOVIE, The Civil war sucks.

[@RagedContinuum]

thumbs up to this review - stupid movie

[@c-9233]

All these actors should be embarrassed for the rest of their lives for being involved in such a shit story of a film.

[@texascard]

Hahahaha I doubt it ….. Let’s see you make a better movie

[@thetraveldrunk]

A24 knew this film was trash because they put out a trailer that misrepresents what the film is. Jesse Plemons was its only redeeming feature.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I thought the Winter Wonderland scene was the best one, and the movie should've been more of that weirdness. The Plemons scene was there too, but it was interrupted by those journos jumping into each other's windows...

[@Nightshade1881]

The photojournalist were literally in all of the trailers 🤣

[@TheExperiment24]

This comment is the true reason people don't like it. The misrepresentation of the film because even they knew it was trash but still had to recoup thier money

[@c-9233]

@@LearningaboutMovies It was still cliched clap trap.. The Christmas Scene is straight out of a Simpsons/Family Guy. Jesse Plemons needs to be embarrassed for this film.

[@timjohnson1307]

I just saw this movie and couldn't agree more with your take. Terrible movie. I like mostly all movies I go to see, but this one caught me off guard; did not expect it to play out how it did. How is this scoring so well on Rotten Tomatoes? What am I missing?!

[@LearningaboutMovies]

I have the same question.

[@TravisCombs-oi4zo]

I disliked the movie as a whole because I think it did a poor job of creating the atmosphere or what I would consider realistic situations or scenarios, but I think you missed the point when you talk about it being about journalists. Ultimately there are two major themes: The first theme is how people are able to disassociate themselves from conflict when it is at a distance or not impactful to their personal lives and then juxtaposing it against what happens when that barrier doesn't exist. America is widely seen as a place that would never experience full scale invasison because of it's geographic barriers, infrastructure, and defense spending. Most Americans have a hard time envisioning conflict here and having never seen up close conflict are rather laissez-faire when it comes to global conflicts and mass death. The second is what putting people in these positions and tearing down the social structures around them that keep people from harming others can do to a society. We see in every military engagement war crimes are committed, and from their very first encounter on the trip where they have the run in at the gas station it sets up the premise that you can't trust anyone anymore and that everyone has an aire of danger. These people may have seen each other as fellows 10 years ago and now they're lining them up for kill squads. Dunst's character was able to disassociate herself from conflict overseas but is worn down and disgruntled seeing it happen at home. Several times during the movie they reference family members in Missouri and Colorado pretending the conflict isn't happening, disassociating themselves because of the distance from primary conflict. Journalism is used as the lense for the dissonance because journalist are supposed to be the ultimate disassociators, sent to report but not take sides. Sent to observe but not intervene. They are silent watchers that disassociate as a means of their profession. Over the course of the movie we see that barrier destroyed as the conflict transitions from something they observe to something that impacts them in meaningful ways. The relationship between Dunst and her protege is one between someone who has had their resolve as a silent observer worn down vs someone who is actively building up their tolerance. As the movie progresses Dunst becomes more weary while her protege becomes more active and assertive. Ultimately this leads to the end, if Dunst were still disassociating herself fully she shoots the photo of her protege dying, instead she intervenes. Vice versa, the girl found herself so immersed in the observation she takes the photos of Dunst dying almost instinctually and only realizes the gravity of what occurred in the moments after the shooting. Ultimately I think the movie's pace, somewhat contrived dialogue, inability to create realistic scenarios, and lack of exposition really left it feeling a bit aimless. A character study but one where we really just don't know enough about, or honestly even care for the characters. I'm left wondering why they keep coming across 1-3 soldiers fighting 1-3 soldiers? Why is it only small guerrilla combat seemingly miles away from the front lines and who is ordering these tiny incursions? These are the things that happen in an occupation, not in full blown wars. Small units may engage larger units behind the lines, but you would not continually run into units of 1-3 guys miles away from any base of command just engaging random enemies. Why is there a mass grave of people being buried less than 100 miles from the front lines where WF have already gained territory? Yea we see the inhumanity, but for what purpose? Garland presents scenario after scenario but without meaning or cause they are just hollow caricatures that provide little insight into the human condition. By making the soldiers into plot device cliches without souls the true impact that these are Americans killing Americans is entirely lost, we don't care when they die or that they're killing Americans which is completely antithetical to the point the director is trying to make. I like the idea, poorly executed. My friends loved it though so it has an audience.

[@Dread_Pirate_Homesteader]

The majority of the military is in TX and CA

[@rchot84]

There are bases all over the country.

[@Dread_Pirate_Homesteader]

@@rchot84 you understand the word majority right

[@motocilino]

You nailed it perfectly.

[@biashacker]

Finally someone who is speaking the truth!!!!

[@Martinmd-zt7vu]

I love that the first thing I see is you face palming.

[@JoLGSuny]

"Hey! Lets make a movie about civil war and leave politicals out!!" "What's it going to about?" Nobody knows...

[@joebobjones2238]

How I loathed this film! Occasionally a movie may benefit from the viewer being thrown into the thing completely at unawares. Not here, not in Civil War. There was no story or development, it was just an implausible photojournalism jaunt from scene to scene, and yes, leading to the foreshadowed cliched ending. None of this made sense, especially some of the more mundane bits, like driving around for hundreds of miles in an SUV, largely unmolested, and finding things like working gas stations in the midst of a civil war. It was ridiculous, and purposefully ambiguous, either to not offend, or more likely, to allow both sides of our terribly polarized political divide to place themselves in the good guy roles. If there was one. But we don’t know, because there is no story or development. It was brilliantly marketed, and I hated this movie all the more because of it.

[@ZapAndTroy44]

This was a movie created by someone who knows noting of world events, but seems to see the world though a Jan 6th window. As assessed by a Russian Analyst an American Civil war will first off result in a complete world economic collapse. China will move to control the South China Sea control all Asian sea commerce , prompting capitulation or resistance by ASEAN. Iran an Syria will attack Israel resulting in oil shortages. But most importantly the Russian assessed that the US will not divide into two but rather 5 areas of session. Northeast, Southeast, north central and south central, and then basically the west coat. CA and TX banding together? What color is the sky in the writer's world.

[@LearningaboutMovies]

Thanks. In this movie's world, is the Canadian dollar really worth more than the US dollar? Since central banks peg their currency to the world's reserve currency, the dollar, I don't think the writers cared too much to think about this possibility either.

[@texascard]

It’s called non fiction … who said it’s real? Do you go into a superhero movie thinking it’s real?

[@ZapAndTroy44]

@@texascard Yes I do.