Civil War – Movie Review



Thanks to Conflict of Nations for sponsoring this video – Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile: https://con.onelink.me/kZW6/10678jrh Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

Chris Stuckmann reviews Civil War, starring Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Jesse Plemons, Nick Offerman. Directed by Alex Garland.

source

42 thoughts on “Civil War – Movie Review”

  1. I mainly watched the movie for the photojournalist stuff and for Kirsten. Actually hated it. Seemed like a zombie movie without zombies. And the ending and end character resolutions was terrible.

    Reply
  2. I wanted story. There is none. There are other aspects of them film that succeed, but I found it hella frustrating. Some of the music choices were straight up bizarre and took me out of it.

    Reply
  3. The California Texas alliance is just crazy enough to be brilliant in its concept. Yes I know Blue and Red but (as a Californian) we have much in common. We are independent self governing states that do what we think is best for our interest, common or otherwise. Whether environmental, gun control or border politics we do as we see fit for our own best interests. Once a third term president or other power attempts to stifle that I feel common ground would be found. The combined economic, populous and military resources of the two states would be a force to be reckoned with on any stage.

    Reply
  4. Went to see this today at my local movie theatre. It was very well attended, cinema almost full. Very well crafted movie, brutal, honest, grim. Should scare the bejeezus out of anyone intelligent who follows American politics. Recommended to see at least once. Acting was exceptional by all the cast

    Reply
  5. The character change makes more sense if you view it as 3 concurrent coming of age stories.

    You basically have 4 characters who are in different parts of their 'war journalism' careers.

    -Cailee Spaney (Jessie) has just started her career as a war journalist.

    -Wagner Moura (Joel) is in his prime. The job is exciting to him. He comes off as an adrenaline junkie, he is going the extra mile to get that shot that will make a name for himself.

    -Kirsten Dundst's character (Lee) essentially is at the end of her prime. She's made a name for herself, photographing conflict and has basically seen it all, but the this has taken a heavy toll on her.

    -Stephen McKinley (Sammy) is past his prime. He really has no place being in a war zone. He's too old to keep up but his passion for the career has kept him going past the stopping point. He isn't invincible like he was when he was younger. He can no longer hide the fact that he values his own life and those around him. This impairs his abilities as a war journalist as they need to be very stoic and cold in order to operate in this environment.

    ****Spoilers****
    *********
    *********
    *********
    *********

    The toll of the career has basically worn Lee down to her limit. She is trying to hold face and maintain her presence, but the cracks are starting to show.

    Her and Joel both experience some extreme trauma within the film. Joel being in his prime is able to overcome it. Lee on the otherhand is at the end of her rope and finally just breaks down. At the start of the film, she implies, heartlessly, that if Jessie were to die, she'd photograph it. When Sammie is killed, she photographs him, but then deletes the photo. She can't keep up the stoicism required to be a war journalist any longer and she has developed into a parallel of Sammie. This happens right as they are thrust into the most intense combat. She is unable to function to her full potential as a journalist. She starts having a mental breakdown while in the middle of a battle.

    During this time, Jessie is starting to develope more into Joel. She has been through hell, but she feels alive. She's starting to hit her stride. She's excited to be in these situations and takes the risks needed to get the good shots.
    This nearly gets her killed, but Lee, now unshackled for the morbid stoicism of being a war-journalist saves her rather than taking a photo of her demise. This parallels to how Sammie saved the group earlier. Something he wouldn't have been able to do if he was still a cold blooded war journalist, as he'd have been in the same situation himself.

    Lee would likely have developed into a character very similar to Sammie if she hadn't gotten killed. Joel gets the big shot, he's going to make a name for himself, much like Lee had done when she documented the ANTIFA massacre (I think I recall this being her big scoop, but i could be misremembering). Jessie is now hooked on war-journalism. She will likely now develope into a character more similar to Joel. She captures a photo of Lee as she dies and is able to heartlessly move on even though she saved her life.

    It basically shows 4 different stages and evolutions of being a war journalist with the backdrop being an American civil war. Lee wasn't really acting out of character, it's more that her character 'came of age' at a really bad/(good?) time.

    I really feel like the short coming was not developing Sammie's character enough. I think if they had done more to establish how he got to where he is then drew parallels to how that same thing is happening to Lee. It would have made it more obvious what was happening to her and it wouldn't be misinterpreted as being out of character.

    Reply
  6. Ive seen the movie today. I only liked 2 scenes, i thought the last scene at the white house was badass. But it seemed rushed and low action throughout the movie which sucks. The movie focuses too much on the characters than what is going on in the government and it isnt explained why they are fighting in the first place. At least 2 of the characters suck, the 23 year old girl and the old man. In the end, the movie is NOT worth it.

    Reply
  7. As a black man I really have to question some of the decisions Hollywood makes. In regards to the man in the tire being burned alive imagery. It seems like for the real gruesome torture these filmmakers have no problem always depicting this happening to someone black. That's one of the reasons why slavery movies no longer do well with black audiences. I'm sure making that character a black man was intentional for shock value. I just hope we can get to a place where black bodies aren't just used for torture porn.

    Reply
  8. I felt like they didn’t give enough character development to some of the main characters enough for me to really FEEL for them in some of the heavier sequences…..I also felt like the storyline wasn’t clear. Why are they fighting – WHO is fighting WHO, etc…. They did an incredible job on the war part….i wish there was more work done on the civil side

    Reply
  9. The whole sanctimonious "objective journalist" angle..yuck…
    As if they aren't all just partisan activists…..
    99% of them Marxist Leftists 😮
    The movie was a total mess…
    The characters were flat except for the old guy ..

    Reply
  10. People say this movie doesn’t take a side, but the inclusion of the Jesse Plemons basically shows that the movie decided to villainize and stereotype one side of the political isle. No surprise there, it’s Hollywood.

    Reply
  11. OMG this movie was such trash!!! The biggest disappointment so far this year. There was literally no set-up to explain why a civil war was even occurring. In summation, the movie was really about some 15 yr old kid becoming a war photographer. So eff'ing lame! Saw this movie w/ seven other friends. We all left with the exact same impression… trash!

    Reply
  12. This movie trailer feels like the equivalent of a YouTube click bait. The movie is bad, the premise is good and I had so much expectations but this movie disappoint in almost every aspect. A24 is well know for creating overrated shit that is treated as masterpieces when in reality… this is one of those shitty films.

    The only dystopian thing about this movie is the fact The president seems to have zero intel, no support from the Pentagon and all the military bases around DC that are supposed to be loyal to him, no Marine One, no Air Force One, no access to the underground tunnels in the White House bah the movie is dumb, slow, it feels cheaper than 50 millions and the last 20 mins are a total shit show.

    Reply
  13. Let me guess the scene with Jesse Plemmons he's portraying the far-right conservative.
    Oh he's wearing a "J6" patch on his arm. Doesn't take a genius to see the anti-conservative swipe that is.

    No matter what I still see these types of movies because of what ifs and the trauma and putting a little bit of possibilities in them.

    Reply
  14. Just saw it and happy to report two things. First, this movie makes the idea of this conflict unfathomably terrifying and horrific. Absolutely no glorification. Second, people confused by CA and TX joining forces needn’t worry. The movie gives enough context to gather that the president is a tyrant (regardless of party) and two large states with divergent politics join up despite their differences. The movie just does this subtly and tastefully because it’s not the point. The deeply personal study of war journalism is the most compelling and emotionally impactful part of this movie. Action was nuts and sound design was brilliantly horrifying.

    Reply
  15. Just saw this and I think most reviewers are missing things to an extent. First, for people who are REALLY that concerned with the political messaging, it gives you enough context to gather that the president is a tyrant (regardless of party) and two large states with divergent politics join up despite their differences (CA / TX). Also the things we see make the idea of this conflict unfathomably terrifying. No glorification and no pandering either. Garland handles the politics subtly CAUSE ITS NOT THE POINT. The film is most compelling and emotionally impactful by studying its characters as war photographers. A thrilling, twisted artistry that bites when showcasing the trauma involved. Finally, the action was nuts and the sound design was brilliantly horrifying.

    Reply
  16. Civil War was the shittiest shit film i have ever watched. Meaningless contrived cliched drivel. A waste of my afternoon. Surely each and every actor in it must be embarrassed for themselves.

    Reply
  17. Boring ass movie about a woman with no personality driving and taking photos… walked out early I was so bord.. Land of bad was better than this crap.. It's literally 1 hr and 30 mins of blank stares,quite conversations, and taking photos.. 15 mins of over the top action… I wanted a movie about a family in the middle of the conflict or soldier in the middle of it and the pain cause on multiple people with our division.. with over the top action..

    Reply
  18. STUPID MOVIE, SERIOUSLY… THIS IS A LEFTIST DREAM! AND AT THE END THE COMMUNIST JUST WALK IN AND SHOOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN COLD BLOOD. RIDICULOUS BECAUSE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WOULD BE IN A BUNKER THAT CAN TAKE A NUCLEAR ATTACK. ALSO, THEY SHOW WHITE MEN KILLING IN COLD BLOOD AND THEN THE LEFTIST MAJOR WET DREAM WHEN A BLACK WOMAN FROM THE COMMUNIST FORCES EXECUTES THE WHITE PRESIDENT.

    THIS MOVIE US OUT OF TOUCH AND DESERVES ZERO STARS.

    DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY

    Reply

Leave a Comment