Agreed, gave me chills.

such a strange, frightening, human, chilling moment. one of my favorites in the film (not to mention cailee's acting in that moment too)

No photojournalist would have that kind of breakdown in the middle of an assignment. It was a bit too much.

@@bngr_bngr have you ever seen an American photojournalist experience a civil war firsthand?

@@brittyn January 6th.

He was great as the wolf in Puss in Boots!

he is gorgeous all the ways

Mais um brazuca com carencia de reconhecimento,

haahaaha dude, literally every single video of moura in this movie ive seen you are the top comment talking about Moura lOL, u gotta love the dude

His voice, his acting, the substance of what he said about Brasil, Bolsonaro and democracy are all top notch. His comment to Garland was a bit cringe but I don't hold that against him.

At the same time, I feel this is how every director should operate. He basically gets credits for normal behaviour.

@@TheSteelGeneraI There are many film professionals who would disagree with you. There are lots of drawbacks to this style of directing. Every minute spent on set is precious, so if you turn up without a shot list and can't work out a difficult scene, that's time and money that is being burned at a rate of knots, while your entire crew waits for you to figure it out.

He doesn’t even know that the background effects in the lake is called bokeh. It’s not a magical effect.

The United States isn't a democracy. It's a representative republic (or if you like, a democratic republic). It is still definitively not a democracy.

Are you kidding. We are fighting around the world to defend freedom.

@@bngr_bngr that doesn’t mean that everyday civilians don’t take for granted how easily democracy can evolve into fascism. Plenty of european and South American countries have already been through that, but we’re fairly new in the grand scheme of things, and when you talk to the average person, they don’t think about how easily a society can fall into fascism. Democracy isn’t guaranteed. That’s my point.

@@alexandrakopko if you look at American history there has been many wars on US soil not just the Civil War.

@@bngr_bngr … I know lol

Wagner Moura? Sujeito prepotente que quando abre a boca deixa visivelmente os outros entrevistados entediados e constrangidos 🥱Tem um vontade incontrolável de lacrar e ter a palavra final, patético e por isso é "so underrated"..

Moura is trying so hard to sound intelligent.........and failing horribly.

@@jimgregory6185 He crosses his legs to castrate his balls so he looks like a sensitive man. So annoying!

He really brought good points…I don’t know if he’s brilliant in other aspects but he said the basics and said them well

@@jimgregory6185 he is not trying anything. he *IS* brilliant and successful in everything he does. sorry.

Alex kinda told Richard to stfu with his response. The gun question jumped the shark.

@@bluesquidny Well it's a legitimate journalistic question.

@@ChrisPage68 ok

Yeah, that moderator/interviewer is what you would expect from the Austin (far left) Chronically Obsessed with Politics Paper of some kind. Yeah SXSW has been ruined by the woke like everything else! Why are they always British or Aussies, these "moderators" ever notice that? Garland was trying to ​steer the conversation away from politics. These hacks like Limey Austin Boy, no disrespect to Garland who is also British, were most likely told by their boss; ask how it relates to Gun Control and work in January 6. So Garland had some, great responses to some annoying questions judging from his body language and facial expressions. I've noticed in most of the interviews he is noblely trying to divert attention away from the partisan issues which could have made the movie very polarizing. Believe me I'm sure Garland is Liberal and not exactly in a classical sense but he sounds very open minded at least Talking about how great it was to work with people of different backgrouds and opinions. In a time when actors and even directors have the unmitigated gall to call out haters of certain movies as "toxic fans". Or idiot director peers of Garland's like Jonathon Glazer who felt a need to express his support for Palestine and thoughts towards the supposed Isreali genocide towards them at the oscars. It's refreshing to see someone who is going against the grain in a time where Hollywood seems to be imploding. So he'll continue to be a director whose new projects I'll be looking forward to and I was a fan of most of his work already.

In other interviews (eg with BFI in the UK) Alex Garland , says that the politics of the film is about centrism vs extremism, there is a relationship to this and US politics, but also UK, Turkish, Indian, Hungarian, Dutch, etc, etc. His replies have been that this is beyond party politics, - it's a bigger canvas.

That voice is so husky.

Anatomy of a Fall 😊

Where are you from?

Where are you from?

@@serknurram Probably the Phillippines

She should have taken her camera or at least come back for the memory cards. I wonder of a scene was cut out.

Yeah, try speaking your mind in America (in 2024) if you disagree with leftists. Already in Canada and Scotland they imprison people who don’t agree with leftist ideology.

That's the idea except when it gets you killed in many places.

Except liberals (in Canada, Scotland, and trying in the U.S.) will put someone in prison for not speaking the way liberals want.

In an ideal world, yes, whereas in the real world where the same people that call for free speech don't respect those who don't agree with them, it's something deemed impossible. You can't even determine which side is the the aggressor, since the actions get lost between mindless reactions, up to a point in which it doesn't matter anymore, you just have to accept it and keep it to yourself, otherwise... Otherwise you'll be tagged by every side that you try to speak against, only to realise that deep down they don't really hate each other, they just hate those who disagree with them.

Not sure where you're getting "moderator is not happy with the director's response" from. Feels like you're projecting based on YOUR reaction to his question. Also, to pretend that easy access to military weaponry wouldn't make it easier and faster to kill is wilfully ignorant.

@@Micktrex LMAO clearly you liked your own comment because this video has no traction and the comment posted like minutes ago LOL, and the lack of traction for this video is probably because of ALL the complaints about the moderator in this comment section, not just mine. But you had to comment here because you missed the entire point that the director was making because you're so anti-gun that you just ignore all of world history. How do you not know that many underdeveloped countries did not readily have access to firearms and yet they still managed to massacre and even genoc*de others in their own country. Read a history book sometime before you get all in your feelings over a comment on the Internet. The ignorance of world history just makes you sound like a professional Redditor 🤣

In the prelude to Rwanda, a large amount of machetes were imported from China. That said, we all produce urea nitrate on a daily basis.

I mean its a relevant question, especially since two of the most harrowing scenes in the film involve being shot at by an unseen attacker. Can't snipe with machetes. You can spend time with the nuance of that. Asking about that is not how you "steer a country down the path of civil war". Not unless people are willing to kill someone for questioning the accessibility to firearms, and if they feel that way, that HAS to be talked about.

@@alexandrakopko You should really listen the other commenter and understand what happened in Rwanda if you don't understand how effective a simple machete can be. There's also mass stabbings all the time but those are not politically convenient for media organizations to broadcast nationally so it never gets the same attention. And yes, using politically divisive language IS how you continue dividing people. Haven't there been plenty of people who say the same thing about Trump's commentary? But it's not politically divisive when it suits your own personal interests apparently. Hypocrite.

Why? Do you enjoy listening to morons?

@@jimgregory6185 Why is he a moron?

Kirst Dunst is an overrated hack.

I kinda suspect all of them have a hangover 😀 It was shot the next morning after the premier of the movie

@@maximrukinov3101 Fair enough. I like his earlier films.

@@Filmmaker809 What the guy above said....they were all probably just a bit tuckered out lol. But also....Alex is kinda always like this. He's a bit of a prickly curmudgeon. I like it though. Everyone on TV is always so damn bright and sunny and smiley, like they're running for office, and frankly I find that void of authenticity pretty exhausting. The world needs people like Alex to balance things out a bit. :)

@@avedic I'm not a fan of Cival War, I prefer is older work.

I think he hates doing these things.

29:45 yikes

He's just British

@@JoshuaBates117I'm British too mate. There's a difference between not being arsed and him seemingly feeling unable to engage with the whole thing.

Poor guy, having to talk for a bit about his own movie. What a chore.

who are the bad guys? the photographers?

He's Brazilian. We say that all the time

@@fabianacecin7026 Okay, that may be so, what do i know bout the way Brasilians talk? But given Garlands reaction, it came across as major cock sucking. Cringe! Don't get me wrong, the moderator (English!) did the same to Garland and the two women were also a tat too happy with each other, doing a whole mother-daughter bit. WTF!?! It was cringe.

I have no reason to stump for this guy lol, I don't know him from adam. But I mean... yes. Rookie mistake to not attach a question at the end of a series of statements. But I do think he was trying to actually engage with the film on a broader level and he does it through the technical aspects as well as the large ideological aspects. Alex Garland didn't seem to want to talk about some of those things per se but he did absolutely understand where the conversation was being driven-because imo the best interviews are not Q&As, they spark a train of thought. Personally, I always think about it as the job of asking something that makes the person go "huh. I hadn't thought of it that way." He was not aiming for that level of interviewing, that would require a more intellectual questioner. But he wasn't too bad. I think what I find dissatisfying is the missed opportunities: Dunst should've been asked that question about Lee's taciturn nature. After Garland said what he did about commonalities to other countries, Moura should've been asked specifically about Brazil. After Garland talked about the world looking at America, he should definitely have been asked about how that POV informed his approach to keep things out because this film feels a LOT like it's anti-American exceptionalism-the criticism it's getting about being "apolitical" are, imo, silly because we see movies that elide "sides" about wars in other countries-but to put it on near-future American soil is pretty radical. Definite missed opportunities there & the guy seems capable enough of doing that: he brings up pretty good examples, like Basrah & the Gulf War. I also think his provocation on guns was obvious and smart... I do not think Garland's response was good there tbh. Loved the film, but c'mon Alex Garland, you set a film in a country with ubiquitous guns and yes, if you're admitting that civil war can be more "efficient" because of it, you're agreeing that it's a related not separate issue lol. I love Dunst's quick response about being wary of talking from the POV of a war journalist. It was a quick privilege check done very well.

Just like Vlad😄

Hollywood full Democrat shills and fanboys/girls

The moderator was doing what American "journalists" do nowadays, which is make a series of politically charged statements and not ask a clear question so that they can simply insert their own politics into the interview and hope they get a reaction and a chance to clip the interviewee's response for views. It's super common in leftist circles especially.

The interviewer was likely aiming for more of an exchange rather than a standard Q&A film promo interview. Just a different style-perfectly acceptable in my book. The cast seemed quite disengaged and a bit of an inarticulate bunch, though (except for Wagner Moura ).

Biden wouldn't it past him to ríg 2020 and 2024.

Well, disinformation is a global issue. When the president weaponizes his highly malleable cult, and goads them into believing that their vote doesn't count, the results are kind of predictable.

RobertK1993 • Just like your bozo Trump

Impossible

It is actually

@@joseluissanchezjr Tell me more. Why? Does it change the landscape of cinema or a genre like Dune 2 has?

@razzram1629 dune 2 didn't change anything guy. I love dune but dune 2 didn't change anything. Still great movie!

@@joseluissanchezjr I think it has just by reading many of the reviews. It has changed the landscape of sci fi forever. Deal with it.

Your Constitution needs updating.

God isnt' real. If he were, like George Carlin said, he wouldn't have a favourite country - and if he did it sure as shit wouldn't be 'murica.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

@ChrisPage68 if you spent 5 minutes with me you'd realize you stand for far less than I do.

depends on the story

Using your imagination isn’t a bad thing. Try.

For this story being told though it would be spoonfeeding as it is unecessary to what the point of the film is , and plus you can piece it together yourself from just actually watching the film

@jdj830 He'd probably be pleased that someone used their artistic freedom and not get butthurt by it.

If you made it would suck! 😅

Or are you the type of American who will say whatever the hell you want to anyone because you don't give two shits about other people's feelings because you are probably a sociopath (undiagnosed) and have convinced yourself that your opinions are the only ones that matter?

I agree with all your comments here. We need journalists and Americans that think like you

I agree 100%. It would be so much worse. Probably EMPs would also result from the nukes that would inevitably be used. Whole power grids would fail. Most towns would run out of fuel, food and ammo within months. 90% would starve in the first year, and the survivors would kill each other over a moldy load of bread. I mean .. if it was actually a full scale military conflict within the most powerful military in the history of mankind

Could not agree more. Why are the bloody scenes in this film - no worse than hundreds of recent bloody film scenes - held up to be so earth shaking in this firm? The dialogue is so predictable you could expect cue cards - especially the ending. And a more incompetent group of 3 experienced war journalists would be hard to find. A totally mediocre fantasy that seems to serve as a Left horror film indulgence.

Napoleon said: "Don't interrupt your enemies while they're making mistakes". America is dismantling itself. Why bother invading?

No and allowing it to become what it’s become is the point; that’s proving how Americans take it for granted.

Would you elaborate?

@@andrewgonzalez5232 I personally felt it was viscerally unexciting compared even to recent non-war movies and thought it was a pathetic waste of a good idea. Did an injustice to the reality of war and handled its premise in the safest and lamest way imaginable. The only way it could have been worse is if they were all stuck in a single house the whole time watching the “war” on tv.

@@micahtewersofficial The sound design was excellent, but I felt that a good bit of the cgi was very obvious. Too small scale. Sure there are small scale battles in even the largest wars, but at least show one of the large ones- or show the battlefield remains. Thousands of tanks and artillery vehicles would be mobilized in a full scale civil war here. I think they were trying to show that a lot of it would be small fought arms, since America has SO many guns. (Neighbor s fighting neighbors ). But the destruction from even just the conventional weapons the untied states possesses would be unimaginable. The bridges and train tracks would be taken out by one side or the other, and then a Lot of people would starve. I think facing defeat one side or the other would even resort to tactical nukes, if even just aimed at military targets. And so on and etc. surely some other countries would be involved in one way or another as well. I didn’t want a Michael bay fest, but a bit more at least

Woke leftists will take huge losses in Civil War 2.0. Then go into hiding and reemerge in a few decades. Typical Bolsheviks.

You can't even spell lefties correctly. Small wonder Trump said he 'loves the uneducated'.

America IS riven by divides. The Far Right like it that way.

Will never know until he doesn’t prequel

It was to ensure that this didn't seem like an anti-right or anti-left diatribe. He made it about the characters instead.

The president in the film seems craven. There is also terrorism in the city he controls. He might be a dictator himself, violating some core values of federalism and vexing both States.

Texas needs liberating.

@markburk6842 Nah, Texas needs liberating from the creationist, sexist, bigoted religious fundamentalism of the American right.