I just saw it. I'm Irish, and watching it, I was reminded of a very dark joke here in Ireland. A man is walking alone in Belfast one night. He's suddenly pulled into a dark alley. He can't see anything except a gun pointed at his head. The gunman asks, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" The man had been walking for so long, he lost track of what side of Belfast he was in. If he gives the wrong answer, he'll be shot. The man suddenly has an idea and says. "Neither. I'm Jewish." The gunman pauses and then asks, "But are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew." The problem is not what side you're on, but the fact there are sides.
This movie was secretly a veiled threat to Donald Trump! All of his political rivals are saying that he is going to disband democracy and will not relinquish power ! The president in this movie did all that they claimed Trump is going to do, and if you look at the presidents haircut seem to be a little bit flamboyant that immediately made me think of Donald Trump!! Another aspect to consider the person that killed the president was a black woman female that just a little bit too much on the nose!! Also consider Barack Obama‘s Netflix movie called “leave the world behind “ it seems almost similarly prophetic that almost seems too much to be a coincidence!
No, the problem here is not having a gun of your own in case a psycho in an alley starts pointing his gun at you. Besides, saying that the problem is that there are sides in the first place is just nonsense. We will never be in 100% complete agreement with one another. It's impossible. Furthermore, if we did ever reach that level of total unity, we'd go extinct the first bad decision we make because we're still fallible; we're still capable of poor choices. We disagree for a reason- to avoid extinction.
No, the problem here is not having a gun of your own to defend yourself when a psycho in an alleyway starts pointing his gun at you. Besides, you can't not have sides. It's just nonsense. We're never going to be in complete agreement with one another because we'd all go extinct the first bad decision we make. We're still human; we're still fallible. We're still subject to poor choices. We're a species who takes sides for a reason- to avoid extinction.
Don’t forget about Barack Obama‘s Netflix movie “leave the world behind” it seemed similarly prophetic… It was obvious that this movie was veiled threat against Donald Trump because of how they treated the president in the movie they didn’t attempt to arrest him or capture him so he could be brought forth in a trial. They threw him on the ground and shot him like a dog . And with all the political prosecution that are happening in the United States against Trump, the person who shot the president was a black woman, and it just seemed a little bit on the nose!
@@BILLEON2005 was it "on the nose" with this fictional president ending the Constitution, disbanding of the FBI and in his third term? The point of who this president is, created an imbalance to our Representative Republic, and ending democracy and the Constitutional guardrails that threw this near future story into chaos and ultimately, succession with 5 different factions of rebellion. This idea of it being about trump is a biased view. Other movies depictions about dystopian reality based on presidential characters didn't discuss left/right, just fascism and the ending of freedoms.... Gabriel over The Whitehouse is an excellent example and it was made in the 30s....
1991 Yugoslav Wars vibes. One of the most brutal wars between group of people having hundreds years of common history, speaking simillar language and looking indistinguishable the same. Yes it's possible that USA could implode into this bloody mess.
I feel like watching Come and See and deciding to respond with a “both sides bad, why can’t we all just get along?” movie is… ill-informed at the very best.
I like how this comment section goes from braindead, 2-dimensional political takes to well-constructed, nuanced understandings of the world around us and the themes of the movie. Good video, keep it up man
i think a lot of haters missed the point or didn't see it and are just hopping on the hate train. I loved it, and you helped me understand something a little better: i see now that jessie and lee had like a yin-yang character arc. The image you showed with lee in the white shirt and jessie in black, it makes more sense for lee to be getting severe ptsd and jessie to be desensitized and embracing this career path in the end.
The haters were looking for the opening scene of Tropic Thunder. But they would still complain no matter how the movie was made. They hate just for the sake of hating, because all they really want is for someone to give them attention.
Sorry so many are chewing you in the comments. But this is one of the better reviews I've seen. I like that you also specify republic but that's just me. I think you are on the right track, though I do have to say the film feels a bit hollow still, since it goes so far out of the way not to point dirty fingers, that it has basically no world building, or explanations to flesh out the film. Like how is the president a tyrant? The most the film says is three terms, bombing Americans and getting rid of the FBI. Only one of which can't be justified (I'll let keyboard warriors choose which.). I find this too be one of the stranger films I've watched as when I was in the theater I was invested and absorbed. But almost as soon as I left I felt dissatisfied.
I remember Garland saying in an interview his main thing was to warn Americans against the idea of a civil war by transplanting images of active conflict zones in the middle of the US. Insert enough politics to make the movie world logical. The point is not the politics, the point is not to resort to violence. One thing to note, Garland was born in the UK in 1970 and was raised there. His childhood and early adulthood would have overlapped with The Troubles in Northern Ireland. While most of the violence was in Northern Ireland, there were several bombings in England and with a political cartoonist father I'm sure Garland probably followed the conflict regularly and some of that made it to the script.
A LOT of people are complaining that this isn't what they expected or either they were mismarketed or something but the truth is that they just wanted the movie to say exactly what they wanted to hear. But that's not how it works. I already knew the movie wasn't keen on taking sides or "having a backbone". To me this was a regurjitating movie about war, human nature and a not so sweet road trip. People think being apolitical is cowardly but I disagree.
I recently saw the movie and tbh it’s only a 5/10 imo It’s not terrible. It had plenty of good scenes and intense moments, but I felt that it tried too hard to not be controversial that it ended up not saying too much, the characters aren’t that likable, and the ending was rushed. Enjoyable, but not as deep as I was expecting.
From the refugees, the devaluation of the US dollar, the hanging of looters, the death of friends , the mass grave with only the black men looking up and the car's license plate reading WFO ( we fucked ourselves)... the whole movie is full of symbolism.
Nothing in this movie was nearly as visceral as seeing the newly anointed Darth Vader march up the steps with the 501st to carry out Order 66, and the subsequent duel between him and his master on Mustafar. Obi Wan's allegiance to the Republic, to democracy, clearly contrasted Anakin's authoritarian slide, "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." As soon as Anakin drew his saber on his master, the Galactic Civil War began, and we know how it ended. The escalation and normalization of Anakin's violence, from the slaying of Tusken Raiders, to his fellow Jedi, to ultimately his treason and betrayal, is masterful film making with regards to the topic.
We expect exiting ideologies of deffence of good against evil, WWII style, when going into a war movie. Civil War is not that, is the chaos of war, an atmosphere of war in a familiar place for a large portion of audience that are not used to big guns being fired at their country.
The depiction of middle America as being deserving of getting scoffed at for being over the political machinations of both coasts is super uncomfortable in it's cringe holier than thou elitism of the characters and by extension Garland...
The video, like the movie, is largely lost on its intended audience. One thing I would say, though, is that the question asked isn't "is this possible?", it's "is this worth it?". Too many Americans simply missed the point of this film, partly because society is usually thinking in its default "action movie mode" in which all violence is justified as entertainment and so, now, it often follows that all violence is justified, period. Garland wants to ask questions about the trajectory of the country to a people whose thinking can't recognize the questions because they're desensitized to violence itself just looking for an action movie that labels their various factions as heroes and villains - they can't and don't really question a potential second civil war as a political means, so they only question what and whose ends it serves.
@@isaac6077- Garland does ask those questions, and people still miss the point because they'd rather argue about the "validity" of the war instead of why war shouldn't be a repeated option for solving America's political problems. Garland's only real mistake, because of his budget, is being unable to show a conflict that would match the scale and destructiveness of the real thing using modern weapons. Americans are now just so used to the portrayal of neat and tidy violence that gives them psychological satisfaction but no disturbing lasting consequences that having a few bodies swinging in a gas station and one mass grave being overseen by three or four guys can't shock anybody; it's just all too small and sanitized.
By the time we got to DC I’m already horrified. The whole push to the White House and the interaction with the beast almost made me feel a little ill. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the image of Offerman being drugged out from underneath the desk with his fingers clawing onto the decorative trim.
Can this happen in the US? The answer is "Not as you think." The only way the US can enter the state of this movie is through mass and streamlined migration as you're seeing today. There's a reason why every other country on the planet (except the US) has very stringent (in the liberal sense, xenophobic) requirements to immigration. It's to ensure their own countries aren't usurped by a foreigners. By only allowing a select few become citizens, they in fact force those accepted to assimilate. If the US were to have today's immigration happening prior to WW2 with an influx of Germans and Italians, the war would also be fought on US soil, because the large number of Germans and Italian immigrants would have aligned with their countrymen to protect themselves against Americans and the Northeast would have been a warzone.
kinda funny how they did absolutely nothing about an entire building complex burning down when floyd overdosed but mass immigration will never be a problem cuz free money and global world government
Telling a story about people getting lost in the violence to the point that they no longer know why they’re fighting is fine and it’s done well here. But when this film opens on actual footage from the blm protests its lack of a definitive stance feels toothless at best if not outright exploitative of the current political climate
@@TheCrusaderRabbits instead I got a vague “both sides” narrative that leaves little to dissect or discuss after a single viewing. Quite literally toothless
What "BLM" protest? The opening scene is a fight about water and the water truck being blocked by police and people needing water!!! 😂 I think you "heard" the story of Jessie asking Lee how she got into journalism and Jessie remembering her (Lee) taking a photo from a "BLM protests decades before"....... See, this is the problem, no one pays attention to the contextual aspects of the story from the beginning and spin some other crap in based on their own biases and projects that into nonsense here in comments about reviews of the movie.
BTW, there were several "actual" footage of several events used in news flashes, it had no bearing on the context you're inserting to make this "anti-trump".... That's worse than the lack of political sides everyone is running to as justification for your biased views. There are several far right people who reviewed this movie with the same echo chamber rhetoric and it's tired and weak and lacks any facts on what this movie is about... 😂
@@fragout9575 the film has news clips of riots at or near the start. Those are from real archival footage and at least one of them, a guy with a handgun snatching an AR out of another guy’s hands and unloading it, is taken at a blm protest in 2020/21
The message I got was the age old cliche, "war sucks".We will be in an ocean of war forever; but it solves nothing, other than massive death and destrution.
Garlands a hack and you are doing both apocalypse now and come and see a disservice comparing it to his slop. Guy legit thinks he is a better writer and film maker than he is. He finally gave up working on shitty scifi after ripping off famous short stories and novels and mutilating them beyond belief.
The point of Civil War, is a warning that war is hell so don't you dare start anything or it's going to get bad. Just go along no matter how bad things get or how many of your constitutional rights are violated, because the alternative is too difficult to bear. And besides, you don't want to disrupt the next season of your favorite TV show or close your favorite coffee shop. There are worse things than war. That's why we used to fight them. Now, it's just to support the military industrial complex and to launder money into crooked politicians pockets while everyone else's lives turn to shit.
imo my biggest issue with the film isn't that its "depoliticized" or takes no sides. It is way too bland and uncontroversial, and is mostly just the media industry patting itself on the back. Garland said from the get-go that the film wasn't really gonna be some damning political expose against the American Right and early screening reviews further confirmed this. But you can make a damning political statement without diving into the murkiness of contemporary politics. That statement was meant to be the horrors of civil warfare, simple as that. Issue is that civil war isn't even that. Its subject matter is by its very nature anxiety-inducing. The film is meant to be the culmination of all contemporary fears of the "cold" Culture War finally going hot and shifting from us shittalking eachother on Twitter to right-wing militias, left-wing militants and all hosts of paramilitaries battling bloc to bloc in intense urban warfare over the future and very soul of this country. But this isn't what Civil War is about. The context of the war is simply just a backdrop for a nerve-racking road trip movie about a group of journalists trying to get "le ebic scoop^tm" just because. Why are journalists being specifically centered in this story instead of an ensemble cast of aid workers, soldiers, generals, intelligence officers, and ESPECIALLY newly displaced refugees from various walks of life pre-war? The main cast IMHO isn't very likable and their motivations behind the trip are so self-aggrandizing. When I first heard that the MC's gonna be a photojournalist I was excited because I thought that they might be part of a bigger reporter team showcasing how the war utterly wrecked the lives of everyone; whether you're rich or working class, man or woman, cishet or queer, black or white, hispanic or WASP, religious or not. The very social fabric of the country is shattered and while some groups will obviously be worse off than others, even previously well off individuals would struggle with survival and grief to a degree previously unthinkable. I have a lot of negative opinions about the quality and state of current Western Journalism, but I do recognise it as important, but I don't understand why they should be the focus of a film about national trauma, let alone making the entire driving force of the plot basically them wanting to get an exclusive interview with the moribund dictator president. I really couldn't care less about if they were so brave in attempting so, and the film frames it less as them trying provide free information about the conflict and moreso driven by extremely self-serving motivations and a good ego boost. It's the highest form of vapid self-masturbation.
The best thing is that this movie isn' t nothinh like what that the brainswashed zombies expected. Start to think outside your little boxes, cause shit is hitting everyone all the same
The coding of the end of the film is not ambiguous. It is left-kills-right. Anyone who felt the thrill or chill or that ending, depending on their allegiance, knows this. Journalists as heroes is in very bad taste given what we know about the last 20 to 30 years of journalistic misconduct from the larger players in that industry. I think you are giving this film far too much credit.
This movie is a joke. Whatever its message or a moral story is, it is totally missed because the audience can't stop laughing at the preposterous plot, contrived dialogs, and just dumb premise. Don't waste your money on this movie. It will be on TV soon for free viewing.
It's pretty unrealistic, and I'm not even talking about the TX & CA alliance. Because the director is right, if there was something bad enough, they probably would see their differences as lesser than the threat at hand. I've seen less likely alliances. But no, how quickly it escalated without any mention of any diplomatic attempts in between is ridiculous. The fact that the ANTIFA losers of Oregon not only managed to create their own state but conquered any other state, let alone Utah, is beyond fantastical. There is no basis for purposing that the people who tried and failed after only 3 days to establish their own stronghold could form an entire nine-state faction of rebels. FL splitting off and having the resources to form an entire regional faction is out of left field and literally impossible. And idc how wealthy CA & TX are, nor how efficiently they would help each other in such a scenario, they would not be better equipped than Washington in their arsenal. Washington has technology that we couldn't imagine in science fiction. They'd be using drones, mechanised infantry units, and advanced riot gear on the borders of the western forces and the FL alliance before thinking of using aircraft. They wouldn't get close to the capital. This isn't Russia. Washington is not so primitive and helpless. And all of this happening within mere months of an election. Stupid. It would take at least a couple years after a hostile takeover for war to escalate to such levels.
Why make the journalists American? What would make an American citizen want to go and report on a war that is happening in their own country? I would imagine one would either want to fight in the war or escape it, not document it. Foreign reporters make sense because they are an uninvolved 3rd party and are many times left alone by the armies at war. I just don't buy into the idea of American reports, doing this during a conflict within this country. If the director would have made the journalists from Canada or Mexico then I think it would have been more believable for me.
@@Horvy_13trump had people arrested by unmarked police in Portland, gassed protesters so he could hold a Bible upside down for a picture, encouraged his supporters to overturn a democratic election, said he’d take the guns first then ask questions, and constantly called the news fake and an enemy of the state
@@loslobos786 the onus is on you to bring the evidence when someone questions your statement. You don't have any. Yes offermans character does comes across more clearly as a trump like figure given his popularist language/speeches. A strong man claiming victory despite what we see in the film as a clear defeat. The president reflects more broadly dictators rather than trump specifically especially when the film does refrence real life dictators.
In his interviews, he's said the film is implicit on how the war started and that there is a clear answer because it's something we've already seen. And the way he describes the fictional president, it's clear he intended him to be a fictional version of trump
@@果従莞友 in his interviews Garland describes oferman as a ‘fascist president’ who has smashed the constitution. So are you saying Trump is a fascist?? You must be, if you think this is ‘clearly’ based on Trump.
Annnnd, still. Is there a single person on Earth who knows what a "civil war" is?? [Hint: It absolutely IS NOT 1861-1865] To mention nothing of the fact that the US has never, isn't now, and never will be in a state of "civil war".
