"Civil War" was a pleasant surprise for me, especially considering my low expectations, influenced by my experience with "Annihilation" and all the opinions I've read and heard about "MEN," the typical horror film I usually tend to abhor. My initial prejudice stemmed from the fear of facing an excessively political, monotonous film shamelessly designed to be Oscar bait (God knows how much I despise Oscar baits that American critics acclaim). However, this film completely subverted my expectations, offering a captivating and multi-dimensional cinematic experience.
The narrative of "Civil War" unfolds from the perspective of a team of photographers and journalists traveling across the USA, documenting the horrors of the civil war. This viewpoint is crucial, as it provides a profound reflection on the dangers of journalism in conflict zones, as well as the courage and ambition necessary to witness historical events firsthand. This aspect is well-executed and has the potential to increase the audience's respect for the hard and risky work of war journalists.
One of the most interesting narrative choices, which will certainly divide opinions, is the impartiality with which the civil war is portrayed. The protagonists are not presented as heroes, nor are the antagonists labeled as villains. This balanced treatment of the conflicting sides can be confusing for some viewers, but it is intentional. The script opts to hide several details, making us like the journalists: impartial, curious, and eager for new developments about the war.
The tension-filled scenes are plentiful, raising the audience's anxiety levels. One of the most memorable scenes involves an accidental encounter with a lunatic nationalist. These scenes are brilliantly executed and keep us in suspense, providing a dynamic rhythm to the narrative.
The cast's performances greatly contribute to the narrative's development. Kirsten Dunst appears exhausted, utterly tired, but ambitious and determined. Wagner Moura brings energy to his character, who seems to observe everything from a less dramatic perspective, as if he has already gotten used to the almost apocalyptic scenario. Cailee Spaeny emerges as a good revelation, delivering a performance that left me with ambiguous feelings about her character's intentions.
I'm pleased that this is a production with the quality seal of A24, a studio that, for better or worse, knows how to produce films uniquely and distinctly from other studios. Imagining "Civil War" under the work of studios like Warner Bros, Universal, or Disney could result in a more banal, tedious, and blatantly Oscar-targeted product.
However, there are a few points I didn't appreciate as much. They are not extremely negative and may improve with a second viewing. I refer to the final act itself, which paradoxically had both epic and anticlimactic elements, and the expectation of seeing more scenes of the civil war itself, with confrontations, demonstrations, etc. An additional 15 minutes to develop these moments would have been welcome.
In summary, "Civil War" is one of the best films I have seen this year, providing an intense and reflective cinematic experience. However, I warn that it may not be a film for all tastes due to its distinct approach.
The narrative of "Civil War" unfolds from the perspective of a team of photographers and journalists traveling across the USA, documenting the horrors of the civil war. This viewpoint is crucial, as it provides a profound reflection on the dangers of journalism in conflict zones, as well as the courage and ambition necessary to witness historical events firsthand. This aspect is well-executed and has the potential to increase the audience's respect for the hard and risky work of war journalists.
One of the most interesting narrative choices, which will certainly divide opinions, is the impartiality with which the civil war is portrayed. The protagonists are not presented as heroes, nor are the antagonists labeled as villains. This balanced treatment of the conflicting sides can be confusing for some viewers, but it is intentional. The script opts to hide several details, making us like the journalists: impartial, curious, and eager for new developments about the war.
The tension-filled scenes are plentiful, raising the audience's anxiety levels. One of the most memorable scenes involves an accidental encounter with a lunatic nationalist. These scenes are brilliantly executed and keep us in suspense, providing a dynamic rhythm to the narrative.
The cast's performances greatly contribute to the narrative's development. Kirsten Dunst appears exhausted, utterly tired, but ambitious and determined. Wagner Moura brings energy to his character, who seems to observe everything from a less dramatic perspective, as if he has already gotten used to the almost apocalyptic scenario. Cailee Spaeny emerges as a good revelation, delivering a performance that left me with ambiguous feelings about her character's intentions.
I'm pleased that this is a production with the quality seal of A24, a studio that, for better or worse, knows how to produce films uniquely and distinctly from other studios. Imagining "Civil War" under the work of studios like Warner Bros, Universal, or Disney could result in a more banal, tedious, and blatantly Oscar-targeted product.
However, there are a few points I didn't appreciate as much. They are not extremely negative and may improve with a second viewing. I refer to the final act itself, which paradoxically had both epic and anticlimactic elements, and the expectation of seeing more scenes of the civil war itself, with confrontations, demonstrations, etc. An additional 15 minutes to develop these moments would have been welcome.
In summary, "Civil War" is one of the best films I have seen this year, providing an intense and reflective cinematic experience. However, I warn that it may not be a film for all tastes due to its distinct approach.
Tell Your Friends