Комментарии:
Nick was likely choose for all the right wing memes people made of him at least thats what my kid says
ОтветитьThe timing of the film coming out couldn't have been more suspect, but the messaging was all over the place and, quite frankly, toothless. There is no point in beating around the bush and avoiding being political because, at the end of the day, if a Civil War breaks out in the US again, it will be PRECICELY because of politics, as the first one was (yes, slavery vs. anti-slavery is political).
You need to firmly establish which sides are for what, even if it's a multi-side conflict, so that people can understand what's going on. Even in war, people have some semblance of what's going on. Making the whole thing as hollow as they did to try and avoid one side or the other giving them shit just makes the film itself worthless.
This is one of the few terrible films coming from A24. You never get the feeling of a civil war and what it brings to a country with life seems to be going on, terrible acting, plot.
ОтветитьDude all that stuff about the missing narrative of why the country’s at Civil War can be filled in by simply looking at the state of our country in real time I had zero problem figuring out why the war was happening It’s common sense However having said that I would love to have seen this story in the setting of a 3-4 part mini-series. Cool review Peace ✌️👽
ОтветитьI was so excited to see this and the lack of info and world building did disappoint me the acting wasnt bad at all i could enjoy the characters but just the lack of actual details made it kinda boring
ОтветитьI hope someone makes a better movie or series with this premise
Ответитьdont make a movie about a federal govt thats shitting on its people, they rise up to restore the Republic.....cant have that....
ОтветитьPersonally it seems like the movie was pointing out the shere pointlessness of the conflict and how it doesnt fix anything
ОтветитьI think what hurt the movie the most was the lack of explanation. Now it's good not to spoon feed your audience every bit of information about your world. It's good to keep them guessing and wondering. But in this situation, the lack of information hurts the movie. Your characters are in the middle of a civil war. One: Who's fighting who? Sure, we have the United States vs. the Western Forces, but are the WF the good guys? How did this civil war happen? How long has it been going on for? Unless you have prequel media, you can't just shove things in your audience's face and expect them to know everything that's going on. This could have all worked if the opening scene was more of a news reel or montage of headliners from say ten years before the events of the movie like in Dawn of the Dead with that Johnny Cash song (The Man Comes Home)
Picture this: the president and vice president have both been killed in a terrorist attack during a reelection campaign. The country mourns but quickly celebrates a new president, the designated survivor of the previous president, but it turns out he is nothing short than a blood thirsty tyrant, the news documenting radical laws and using scapegoat minority groups to blame for all the suffering. The senate is disbanded and all executive power goes to the new president, senators who speak out are never heard from again, and otherwise peaceful protests are massacres, explained away by the house speaker as little more as treasonous acts of radicals. Not everyone takes this though, as states begin sussed from the US, joining a new coalition to stop this psychopath in office. Potus, being the dictator he is, is not having this, and declares war by carpet bombing coalition state capitals, say New York and Boston are on fire. Get a montage of battle scenes, air strikes, firefights in suburbs, naval engagements, all leading up to the president saying the United States will never yield to separatists and no matter they will stand as a united America once more. Boom! Fixed the movie in a five minute opener. You're welcome.
Dude. My perception of where I live is different than yours. Feel me?
ОтветитьI feel like you utilize a standardized way to judge art. It seems depressing. Open up a bit. Break rules. Art has none, but you hinder your enjoyment by thinking there are.
ОтветитьLoved this movie. Most people who complain about Texas and California teaming up completely missed the point of the film. They went into it expecting a cool action movie set in a civil war directly based on modern politics. That woulda sucked big time. This is an antiwar film and which side is doing what and why is irrelevant to the people on the ground suffering.
ОтветитьI hate this movie. It was terrible. Everything was vague. Kirsten dunst face barely moved the entire movie. It was basically a boring road trip movie with 3 or 4 dark moments. Im glad i didn't pay to watch this trash.
ОтветитьIt's sad to see Americans bending backward to minimize and ignore the fact that this is your future if you don't get your shit together. It's doesn't matter how many cartoons you use to mock this movie. You are the US depicted in this film, fractured, divergent, cruel, and too arrogant to face reality. You've reverted to the people you were at the beginning of your first Civil War. You were a great nation, and maybe you still are. If you can just put away your pride for a while and work to become the great country you profess to be.
ОтветитьCalifornia and Texas are not the same entity, at least not to me. They’re individual factions against a common enemy. They’re even labeled differently on the map that was made for promotional content.
ОтветитьAfter watching the film a couple of times I don't think the western Forces are actually secessionists. More likely they are an alliance to restore American democracy
ОтветитьAs an Army veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, i liked the movie. It was intense, at least the actual fighting was. But i agree. I didnt like the lack of history and world building. Seriously, why did the nation fall apart into the war? Also, i think i saw a bit of a plot hole, early on. I have to re-watch to check it, but im pretty sure that highway sign pointing to Washington DC had a Georgia state highway marking on it. Im guessing the movie was filmed in Georgia, as those back roads look like the ones I traveled on when i was stationed in southeast Georgia. But its still sloppy as hell. And their routing to get to DC from NYC? Wayyyyy out of the way. But works with the plot to have the catch the Western Forces.
ОтветитьThe president was clearly Trump. All people in hollywood keep going on about how he's a tyrant, and will destroy democracy. They have tons of TDS
ОтветитьA movie that forgot to be about something.
ОтветитьI agree with most peoples take that this movie had such a great opportunity to expand on a “civil war” America, which wouldve been super interesting. However, none of that, is the point. That’s not what the director was going for, they really didn’t care about the politic part of it, its not suppose to make sense. He did it on purpose just to set the story he was actually trying to tell, which was the way journalist/press/photographers would record war and other situations that come with it. Plus it also served to get people interested. But it misled a lot of people, personally thought it was a great movie. But I understand why lots of people didn’t like it.
ОтветитьThe whole problem with the movie can be chalked up to the director desperately wanting to name the Prez Trump but at the same time knowing that it would be too on the nose resulting in an meaningless mess.
ОтветитьDmz was better than this
ОтветитьWhat I got from it was The president was a dictator. He was trying to do what putin did but in the us. He wanted to stay for another term. He disolved the fbi and the usps. Were supposed to be rooting for the western forces . The disoulution of democratic institutions is what drove texas and california, washington state as the western forces to secede. Florida doing its own thing was, well its florida. What do you expect.
ОтветитьWhile thrilling in some level and engaging to see the war torn aspects in this "what-if" scenario as it explores the possibility of a civil war (given the current political landscape), the film does play it safe within a centralist perspective as it tries to show us how the war itself is bad without diving into the specifics of what each ideology is about, which some would argue is the point. Now, I still liked the movie, I thought alot of it was well shot, immersive, scary, tense, lenient, and the actors clearly give it their all, but that's precisely the frustrating part: The film provides little context for why this is all happening outside of the "Look what is happening now in the country and where we are heading". One thing the film does do right however is showcase the war, the destruction, the deaths, the haunting imagery, and how it is shown from the perspective of photojournalists who are here to simply document the event, taking no side in the conflict because their aim is to show that the war itself is the true enemy, and all sides of the war are greatly affected by this conflict who take their factions, ideologies, and alliances to the extreme. It is clever for the film to let the audience interpret what the ideologies are all about, and why we root for the photojournalists as they navigate the war-torn landscape, (love the mix of 28 days later, walking dead, and Apocalypse now influences), but this makes the film feel oddly safe and not deep enough on a political level (sort of like passive neutrality or centralism). Given that the film was written and directed by Alex Garland (a non american), it would be safe to say that this is his perspective on the conflict, a distant, murky, and uninvolved position that touches on the surface level details, but is not really concerned with the deeper levels of why the civil war started.
ОтветитьThink they re making a prequel to this called “warfare”
ОтветитьIf Ron Swanson was the president, it would be barely believable xD (But technically Ron would've succeeded in his mission)
ОтветитьThere’s no way Texas & California could beat the other 48 states. Just laughable 😂
ОтветитьYou do realize that a civil war does not respect or acknowledge any rules of war, aka war crimes and anything related to it are out the window because of the lack of structure in such a situation
ОтветитьAs much as I wanted to love this movie, I could not for the life of me make any sense out of it. Like, who was the good guys, the bad guys, the whole point of the press in these war zones if the whole country is at war, etc. outside of Jesse Plemons phenomenal small role, the movie just felt soulless.
ОтветитьYou mean it’s boring.
Somehow they managed to make a film around a modern American civil war, but it’s not about the war, It’s about random journalists. People that no one trusts nowadays, and then ignore the interesting stuff to follow them around. The trailers for it lied.
Standing in front of a riot and taking pictures a literal 3 feet away is crazy 💀
ОтветитьInstead of centering around journalists the movie should have revolved around the soldiers in the war
ОтветитьI liked this movie. If you don't look at it as a movie about a civil war in the US but instead as a movie about the toll the job of a war correspondent takes on a person and what it takes to do what they do. Also, it's a testament to the extent photographers and correspondents will go to "get the story".
ОтветитьI can speak for most soldiers when I say we don’t like war dumb ass civilians running around us. I don’t even like military photographers. Movie sucked to.
ОтветитьI don’t understand why people insist the movie should have got into details on politics. I think the movie pretty much portrays actual modern civil wars decently - once the shtf people’s motivations and allegiances in the conflicts aren’t clear cut - I’d say that’s even true of pre conflict politics. Look at left and right in USA, to think either side is made up of people who think the same way is naive, the same would be true in an actual conflict. Also the Texas/California thing is pretty much explained in the movie itself - they didn’t secede because they wanted to make a new country they seceded in order to overthrow the “tyrannical” US government. It wasn’t important why that government was tyrannical, the point was that the presidents administration was a dictatorship, which regardless of political views I don’t think democracy loving Americans would want lol even in the movie the old dude says the WF would turn on each other or something like that, the secession was a reaction to one guy/group dismantling checks and balances on power etc. Movie wasn’t a masterpiece I just think some of the complaints kind of miss the point, a little unnerving that people think it’s important what the dictators politics were lol
ОтветитьThe movie had so much potential. First off, way too small scale for a Civil War. I was thinking World War Z level chaos, especially in the final scene where basically a 5 person squad takes over the White House.
And Garland shied away from the most interesting parts of his premise. How would a Civil War go down and why?! Rather he thought audiences were dumb for wanting that and tried to spoon feed us our vegetables about something something war is bad.
Though I agree with your critique... I still enjoyed this film.
ОтветитьThis would have been a reality if Trump were successfuly unalived in his last rally😢
ОтветитьThere's no war crimes in a civil war. Only crimes.
ОтветитьYou should make a video covering Bushwick (2017) it's a far better Civil War film.
Ответитьit started badly,and tailed off a bit in the middle, and the less said about the end the better, it’s an interesting idea, but ever so poorly executed
ОтветитьThe cw probs started because the us gave to much material support to Ukraine lol
ОтветитьThey should’ve had a non American studios do it’s maybe we would’ve got what we wanted
ОтветитьI typically agree with your analysis and critique, but I believe you wholly missed the point here. The war is not meant to be explained, it is not meant to pick sides or show who the worst people are. It is a warning, a black mirror of what could be if we continue down the hostile tribal path. Its not even dystopian, it is a violent time of war intended to fix what aggressive self-righteous politics has wrought; but the US isn't lost or without hope even then. Capturing this all through the lens of dispassionate photographers was the perfect perspective to force the audience to feel the tension and see the real human cost. Staying out of the politics is necessary not to cast one side out or stoke further division, because it isn't about philosophy; this is about that very division, it is cooperation or death. Are we the United States? Or are we the states of decay?
ОтветитьThat intro 😂
ОтветитьWhat's ironic ab this take Niyat is that while you crticize Garland for not taking a partisan view on the current events in his film of great turmoil which would inevitably drive that turmoil deeper in real people's live, you yourself take a stance that to take a partisan view is the morally justified viewpoint. You've infact failed to prove that is the case and have shown that you are swain by the political drivel in today's America.
If Garland created the film you and other wanted it would simply portend the descrution you wish to view in fiction, in reality.
It’s called fiction calm down lol the movie is a character piece not a war movie. I will say the movie should not have been called Civil War though
ОтветитьYou're mad that the millionaires who made this didn't tell you who to hate? Or that they didn't demonize a group of people in the US?
ОтветитьThe opening has an explosion with people getting wounded and killed but one of the protagonists just takes photos and doesn’t help anyone. Like bro wtf
Ответить