Its not just "war" it's "civil war", in the context where the mainstream media have been trying very, VERY HARD to pretend Trump is a fascist and jan6 was an "insurrection". This movie was CLEARLY meant to be in line with that, but they backed out last second when they realized the woke propaganda wasn't making any money.
Attempt 1/? Well, it wouldn't be Satan... And it wouldn't be Moloch... And it wouldn't be Baal... OTOH, Texas might've turned through mass migration Blue, so there we go. We're obviously dealing with Alien Space Bats in this particular scenario...
@@hadtopicausername Not him, either. If anything it would be various states led by CA & NY having elected Cthulhu. Texas, if nothing else, would have gone- "Hey, Florida Man, you wanna shoot some Eldritch horrors in the face?" "Well, I don't know what el-rich whore-ores are, but if they ugly - I'm down for some huntin'!" And they'd both YEEEEE-HHHHAAWWWW! Again, this is why any director / writer should have been told to stick to what he knows, rather than what he wants to happen, in a film like this...
@@WayStedYou Now that is a possibility... It would mean that the population of CA would have to drop by, what, at least 50% (if not more) (either deletions or refugees running away) for it to align with our timeline's Texas... It would have been a charnel house on a scale that hasn't been seen in the Western Hemisphere in centuries... Now *that* would have made for a better film.
Neither is Martha Washington from Miller's "Give me Liberty" (at least USA had split up into interesting factions in that comic ... California run by animatronic puppets? Northwest run by a purging semi-cyborgic Surgeon General? Virginia run by crazed feminists? YES!)
Gary is right, if they'd recreated famous battles or other dramatic events in world history but set it against a modern day US backdrop, it would have worked brilliantly.
"We can't hold an election when a civil war is happening" We did in 1864. Lincoln vs. McClellan, a general that Lincoln sacked because he wasn't as effective as Grant. McClellan is thought to have considered the war "unwinnable" and would have sued for peace with the Confederacy.
The Civil War of the 1860s was very regional, and didn't include any of the Confederate states (both because they didn't want to legitimize the election, and because voting in those states would be impractical during the war).
The only way to make an unbelievable premise worse is fully expecting people to believe it. It's like trying to take the ingredients for a birthday cake to make beef wellington.
Questions unasked: who did NATO side with, and where are those forces? Why didn’t China or Russia invade? How many people ran to Canada and Mexico? What happened to all the rich a-holes? What did the cartels do?
Don't you understand? The director / writer / whomever outright said he wanted to fight Fah-Cyst-Muss! All those groups no doubt banded together, in the same spirit as CA & TX, to help Texas and California fight Orange Man Bad!
I wanted to reply that it was an American movie and Americans don't really care or realise that they're not the only country in the world, but then I realised that the writer and director is actually British😂
attempt 2 / ? They're obviously supporting Blue CA and Blue TX. Obviously. Materiel and Intel, not necessarily through commitment of forces. They are *also* fighting fishes, too! Because Oranges are Bad!
Attempt 3 / ? (to even *attempt* to be visible without shenanigans)... Don't ask questions. Just consume product and accept that like in poorly written stories, everything outside of the CONUS is on pause. Oranges are bad! The director / writer told us so!
It was Lala Land for journalists. Lala Land is a homage for selfcongratulating "struggling actors" and this is as selfcongratulatory for journalist. The president is "bad", military personnel are stupid and journalist are heroes. It's beyond me who greenlit the idea that they are more in the action than actual soldiers when soldiers have to put their life down to protect them. So ungrateful and such a retcon of reality. The last scene with the military taking the White House was pretty awesome. The setting, the sound engineering, the tactics, the flow of the action, cameras, lighting. Everything in that scene was peak. The rest of the movie is just entertaining. At least it had good pace and didn't drag too much.
Tell me you didn’t actually watch the movie without telling me you didn’t watch the movie. The journalists in no way are portrayed as “heroes” they’re critiqued heavily within the movie.
@@kylevernon not having the same take on a movie doesn't mean you/I didn't see it. Instead of underestimating my take justify yours. Where do they look bad? Fake humility is not humility and that is all the main journo has. Also in the "spoiler" "spoiler" "spoiler" final heroic act of saving the girl at the end the death was super forced in. I didn't see any scene where the journalist weren't the "good ones". Please be argumentative. 🙆♂
@@esteva03 1. Wagner Maura’s character is shown to be quite inhumane and is an adrenaline junkie. It shows that there clearly are bad people in journalism and they’re psychotic. 2. Kirsten Dunsts character is detached from humanity and she is redeemed when she stops being a journalist and starts being a good person and stops worrying about taking pictures and focused on helping. 3. The younger girl went through an arc where she went from being disgusted by seeing hanging people to where she sees her role model get shot and she moved on, which allows for her to take an iconic picture of the president getting shot and she’ll have a good career afterwards. The movie is clear despite the directors own words. Journalism = Losing Humanity.
@@kylevernon 1-I think he is just a charming dude. He is shown to be very upset over the dead of his colleague so I wouldn't call him "inhumane". He is also an adrenaline junkie but he is not stupid and he takes care of both girls in his support role. 2-Kristen's blunt because what she lived trough has made her hard. I think she cares a lot about the young one and because of that she ends up like she does. Again she is heroic and selfless. 3-The girls arc is just a regular coming of age story. Soft character goes trough shit and becomes an adult. Again there is no "loosing humanity" on any of those characters. They are very good flawless characters who succeed the whole movie. Except for the old guy, everything works out thanks to them and I think that is a little too self congratulatory. But if you think they are not that humane maybe you have a different view on how to deal with trauma and feelings and that's ok.
@@sburns2421 Even if the "blue" one is highly unrealistic. No rational person is going to believe the side that marches with adult toys to make fun of firearms and can only engage in a fight when they have overwhelming numbers and are dressed in black pajamas (still usually losing) will prevail in an actual conflict.
Speaking as a California resident, CA actually has the highest number of registered repiblicans in the nation (I know, mind blowing). So the idea of them teaming up is TX is not totally unfounded. When you get out of the bay area and LA, it gets way more conservative, especially in areas like Orange County, San Diego, Kern County, and mostly anywhere in the countryside.
For real. I live in a right leaning libertarian area of SoCal(OC) and people don't realize how "purple" California is so, some of Garlands hypothesis isn't far off.
0:56 "why was the President evil" I havent watched the Movie but if you answer one question I might be able to give you an "educated guess". The question is: is the President in this movie a straight white middle aged man?
To ask the question is to answer it. I mean, he disbanded the FBI, therefore he is a bad man. I mean, if he really wanted to be effective, he simply would have purged the FBI and instead reconstituted it as to be something more useful to him.
@@TheMaleRei Looks like RU-vid auto censored by last comment. But it calls back to the previous admin and the corruption that came to light of the FBI and their meddling.
Pretty much all the institutions have gone full partisan since the Obama administration and need major reforms if they're ever going to have the public trust again. The FBI is no exception.
Former military/contractor here. There's no way we'd be clearing a building, looking for an HVT, while dragging some useless press with us. They'd have to wait at a safe area or something.
A film which before release was being talked about as being a possible controversial film with audiences during a election year. But its looking like within a few weeks the film will be forgotten .
It might live on in discussion about false advertising and movies that have nothing to say. Not forgotten, but remembered in all the worst ways, kind of like Last Jedi being used a teaching material about all the ways you SHOULDN'T write a movie.
Me when I heard about this movie coming out: "This just seems like an attempt to cash in on the public's currently over hyped fear. Akin to 2012 and the like." Movie comes out and while some and the media are trying to hype it up as something it's very much meh: "Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected."
Btw, nuclear fallout from a bomb isn’t like fallout from a meltdown. Common misconception, but the aftermath of a nuclear bomb isn’t like active nuclear fallout that’s killing people. Yeah youd want to hide out for a few days until it settles, but look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people were still there immediately after the bombing, and it’s been studied quite extensively. Just an fyi
Thank you. Someone with more than a movie understanding. Yes, fallout can suck but the short term dangerous stuff decays rapidly. Within a couple of weeks, in most cases, it is considered pretty safe to move around in areas with fallout. Yes your chances of cancer, birth defects and otherwise shortened lifespan is greatly increased (the longer you stay there the worse your chances) but it's not an instant death sentence.
There are two different versions of nuclear detonations with two very different consequences: 1.) Airburst - a detonation around 1,000 feet above the target. This maximizes the blast wave and levels anything within a certain radius. Radiation levels are kept to a minimum because the radioactive material is vaporized before it can spread too far. Your biggest dangers, assuming you weren’t within a mile of ground zero, are firestorms, the destruction of local infrastructure, EMP, and localized radiation that will be rendered harmless within a week. 2.) Groundburst - a detonation at or below ground level. This is meant to destroy hardened targets like missile silos and underground facilities. Radiation levels are much higher as radioactive dust is lofted into the stratosphere and carried by the winds. The half life of this kind of radiation is far longer and will last for generations, but the detonation itself is more localized.
Much "cleaner" all things considered...but the people that hung out after the bombs did likely die of cancer. Yeah it was years later but they were casualties of the bombs just the same when all is said and done. No different than those present during the trinity test or John Wayne & Co. on the set of The Conquerer back in '54.
It's also mostly that the worst problems of a ground detonation is the loss of infrastructure, the fallout of attacking a city would be minor as compared to the cost of handling the aftermath. The blast would take out most cities, but it would also cut off a lot of broadcast towers, cars, radio and other infrastructure. The radiation would be a concern, but most would not be able to tell what was safe or not unless they were equipped to do so. The more radical would be an EMP burst that breaks down radio and infrastructure, and leaves most machinery and appliances unworkable. An airburst EMP (one that was intended to be surgical/limited) would probably take down most electronics for 600-1200 miles around most of the east coast of the US, including washington. But ... that would be enough to seal the fate for hundreds of millions of people within a 3-6 month period. Trucks could deliver in supplies, but where would they end up ? there's no refrigeration or water due to pumps not working, grid power would be sporadic or limited to areas where they have steam/gas turbine generator systems and could replace parts, sensors, radio and safety to get them back online. Most strikes would be seen as tactical, hitting infrastructure or military targets. A handful would be cities. In the movie's story, that's a relatively short distance from NYC to Washington DC. around 200-240 miles. There's a lot of military bases... but not much else apart from Trenton/Wilmington, Philadelphia ... maybe Pittsburgh or Atlantic City. If anywhere, it would probably have to be Baltimore or Philadelphia. But, that's very close to DC. A nuclear strike on US soil would still affect radio and power, that's also gas stations, water, and so on. Recovery could start in 4-8 months, replacing electrical infrastructure, but most of the food, water, and surface areas are deeply radioactive after that initial period.
Yeah, it's "apolitical" despite the heroes being corporate journalists (all but explicitly left-wing), every evil character being all but explicitly right-wing, and the president whose killing is presented as the film's fist-pumping happy ending being a blatant stand-in for Donald Trump. "Apolitical" my aching ass.
"Civil War" was the perfect example of the phrase "if you try to please everyone, you'll please no one". They were so petrified of saying anything that would offend one side that they made a totally incoherent mess where neither side are the government, both sides are the rebels, and the only meaningful response to a Civil war in the most powerful country the world has ever seen is "war bad yo" Ironically the only thing they DID end up saying was totally self-serving. Journalists are honest and great human beings lol
@sargentocapitao9668 I disagree. Aside from putting this movie out during an election year, there's a way to do a civil war 2.0 movie, but it requires subtlety and the ability to portray both sides fairly. Like, instead of following one group of partisans for the film, there's 2. One on the "red" team and one on the "blue" team. And you learn about them, the world, and the politics through their interactions with other groups both in and out of the conflict. Heck, you don't even need to make both the main characters. One can be more of a B story. And the whole film is about their journies to the same final place. You could show the audience that neither side's fighters are the "bad guys" even if you disagree with their leaders' politics and show how the war is affecting the regular person. Basically if you've ever seen Gettysburg, something similar to that. You can't argue the confederates are the good guys in that movie, but they're portrayed objectively and the audience is allowed to see things from their point of view and even the view of the outside observer from Britain. They're humans, not just the faceless bad guys.
@@cmd31220 ok but I can see everything you suggested being misinterpreted on purpose, oh so the X team is the B story, why not the A story? how dare they make a civil war movie were the 2sides are right in their own way? are they saying the south wasnt wrong in the first civil war? Even gettysburg would be demolished nowadays just for insinuating the south isnt totally evil, the political climate wouldnt allow it, and when in doubt you go with what 99% of the movie industry approves it had to be a nothing burger to avoid gigantic backlash. I do agree with you that it should be possible to do it, I mean we can all watch a movie about england fighting france and both sides being equally good/evil, but we cant have that between blacks vs whites or germans vs the allies, no movie would ever have the balls to say "hey guys this cowboys vs indians thing its not so black and white, there's nuance, natives were also evil in some aspects" bam! you're the biggest racist ever, and again the movie industry will only support one view, you're probably blacklisted for life if you try to give a nuanced take
Ironically, Marvel's Avenger's Civil War had more nuanced then this movie. The movie portrays everyone as VERY ONE DIMENSIONAL meatheads. Its like the Austrian mustache man accidently got aphrodisiac injected in his hand instead of a antibiotic, woke up one morning like "lets take over the world for shits and giggles"
Well the original comic storyline was (at least initially) written with the assumption that _both_ sides bring up good points regarding whether or not a superhero registration act is a good idea.
And what happened to Kirstin Dunst?!?! I couldn't believe that she's only 41 years old... I would have guessed she was at least pushing 50! Also didn't realize that she's actually married to Jesse Plemons.
As someone who’s near that age and been online dating a while, it’s crazy the difference in appearance between people in their 30s and 40s. Some look younger, some their age and some look a decade older. You can have two 40 year olds that don’t look even close in age. Just saying that life probably happened to Kirstin. Genetics
She looks better outside the movie. In the film she's this grizzled war photographer in the middle of a war, and kinda looks the part. I liked it. With all the prep done for press tour, she looks better.
Your not supposed to coom to her character, buddy. She supposed to be hardened by a career of war journalism, not someone with a social media personal brand based on her looks.
@@Pepesilvia267 I'm sure she cleans up just fine like most everybody else except the extremely hard-lived and/or plastic surgery guinea pigs and genetic lottery losers.
Because Orange man bad, basically hitler and would definitely go 3rd term full emperor if elected this November. This was the most political message of the whole movie.
Just wanted to point out that Garland's 'Annihilation' movie was based on a series of novels. So it wasn't an original story like his other movies, such as Ex Machina, Sunshine, 28 Days Later or Civil War.
The movie was awful. No one to root for & really depressing. You kill the character we are supposed to care about that we followed the whole film and unceremoniously leave them on the ground and then it just ends. Everyone in my theater was like WTF. I wasted $35 for two tickets at IMAX. I honestly considered asking for my money back.
Thing is, that sort of ending could be really effective if handled properly. I think the director was just trying to make the point that war sucks (but I mean, who doesn't know that) so having it be bleak and pointless at the end could work. But apparently this thing lacks all emotional resonance, so it's just a wet fart instead of a gut punch.
I wouldn’t necessarily see having no one to root for as being a bad thing given the film is about civil war and such conflicts don’t often feature “good guys”; rather, it’s just people who have fundamental ideological differences coming to blows. I have read up on the Spanish Civil War and that was one conflict where really no one was clean; both sides were made up of bloodthirsty thugs.
@@Garrus1995 That reads like a "moral relativity/everything is subjective" non-argument to me. War brings out the worst in everyone but there's always right and wrong if you understand the hierarchy of objective moral imperatives (and sometimes the "wrong" is right given the context, such as capital punishment for egregious acts of treason *cough Trudeau cough* , sex crimes, and serial murderers for examples). Sometimes people know better, don't care, and are out to oppress and harm others for their own benefit and/or gratification. They should be dealt with accordingly (in wartime or otherwise).
Turned me off with the trailer when they had F-22s conducting bombing runs at 1000 ft and an Apache attacking something from a hover at point blank range like it is Call of Duty or something.
Plemons' character with the one arm vertical AR carry inside the 21 foot engagement rule, booger hook on bang switch and his LITERAL ROSE-COLOURED GLASSES (VERY figuratively subtle /s; in the literal sense however it's generally not great for a rifleman to wear anything that inhibits perception of grayscale and motion detection at range) was what made me nope out in abject disgust. I watch how law-abiding patriotic firearms afficionados like Garand Thumb and Administrative Results train and carry themselves. Many, like those two examples, are ex-military/law enforcement or at least ppl like myself who've done the cursory 2 year contract and taken basic infantry training and soldier qualifications. As a matter of fact those who don't know better, learn damn fast from those who do, or else consequences occur. That's why it's so egregious when we see this sh*t in movies. You'd be thrown off the range, reported to law enforcement and have your firearms seized if you walked around like you're Alec Balwin on the set of Rust like that ffs (not to mention the little fact like you could easily have a negligent discharge and harm an ally or civilian). Your friends/peers would check you immediately like "what in the actual f*ck are you doing man? Have you lost your goddamn mind?" "Gatekeeping" and "mansplaining" are imperatives when it comes to firearm culture lol, it's the norm and it's a damn good thing it is. Most hollywood actors that aren't Keanu Reeves are a bunch of clowns that should rightfully be ridiculed for not gitting gud. Ntm it's f*ckin dangerous to push that cavalier attitude on kids and know-nothings. Like read the f*ckin room ffs sheesh 😬
@@AnoneemusNoenamePlemons character is clearly presented as a psychopathic and unhinged racist murderer and not acting on behalf of any orders and the glasses and the way he carries himself and his gun are clearly meant to reflect that. Maybe watch the movie.
It was for the predictive programming, conditioning the minds of the masses for what’s coming to America. It never needed to be a great movie, it’s just for the viewings
@@davidsummer8631 I doubt that, it went to theatre. Theatrical movies get the most viewings rather than an indie movie or non theatrical cuz they are less heard of
@@davidsummer8631the movie White Noise was another CIA predictive programming movie that a lot of people didn’t see. The viewership is irrelevant, the goal of making such movies is purely to put the warning out there for occult reasons.
Maybe its because they are the 2 economically/politically/population strongest places, plus they can easily put aside their minor differences to defeat a 'Fascist' USA.
So many questions with the movie's vague-as background... How did the split happen, the way it did? How long's this war been going on for? What happened to all the rich & famous people- did they evacuate to Australia? What's going on with the rest of the world? Why is there no international intervention/ interference/ invasion? Why are a handful of photo-journalists the protagonists? Why was the President in the Oval Office instead of the secure bunker?
1. I believe the Call of Duty line "that (West Wing bunker) is just for tourists." Think about it: would you want everyone to know where your head of state will be hanging out if the capital is being overrun? 2. I am convinced that if an actual civil war broke out, journalists would be among the first ones people would want to rip apart, even more than politicians. The logic being that most people on either side are going to be blaming them for stoking the tensions that made things get this bad.
2:57 also President Swanson not immediately evacuating into one of the many bunkers, the Secret Service being in suits with mp5s against straight up military kitted enemies is bullshit and makes them look bad.
Also waiting until they had almost no leverage to negotiate for safe passage of the president. They knew DC was going to fall, they should have agreed to surrender before the battle started on the condition that the president can be evacuated.
I saw this early in the week and as a former British soldier who did three tours in the Balkans (2x Bosnia and Kosovo in '99) found myself nodding at many of the things it covered. However, the story was all over the place and what should have been happening being replaced with how Hollywood wants to portray things. It could have been told so much better. Oh, and the whole no one knows what is going on situation and how some towns seem to have avoided the war is quite accurate. War can be quite weird in how some things are totally devastated and others left untouched (for a variety of reasons).
This is what frustrates me, because I can see what the director was trying to do. One of the most chilling things I've read has been first hand accounts of Bosnia and other modern conflicts about people going out into the rubble that was once the city they lived in to try and scavenge for basic supplies to keep their families alive another day. It paints such a brutal, painful picture, like every post-apoc movie condensed, because it's not flight of fancy. It's real. It happened and it can happen to anyone. Civil War is not a political movie, it's trying to be a horror. In a real breakdown of society, 90% of people are going to just be trying to keep themselves and their families alive. Everyone who keeps asking about the politics of the situation, I understand, you want to understand whats going on, you want a story. But that's not the point. The point is this... Do you really care about the politics of the person putting a bullet in your head?
Thank you for your service.. I’m Canadian but was fortunate to grow up in west Germany due to the Canadian military, I was in Berlin when the wall fell and learned from living history.. I’m currently living in a dictatorship in Canada
Beats me why people still go to the movies... I mean, people, not brainless oafs who just love watching moving pictures and going 'DUUUHHHH''. And these guys don't count, I may disagree with them on several things, but they're smart. The thing is, this is their job. We do a lot of shitty things for our jobs.
We get it, man, you’re the only sane one. You’re smarter than everyone else and the rest of us are brainless idiots who just get 8n your way. I’ll speak for everyone ever and say, sorry for existing in your universe.
I suspect that there was another longer cut of the film. Alex Garland came out a few weeks ago and said he's done making films. I wonder why? I'm guessing studio interference was behind his decision. And watch him as he plows through the interviews. He seems pretty dejected.
@@cian239He said that the script was written prior to 2020, so if you view it from the perspective that Trump was the president then everything begins to make more sense. I think that Garland was forced back to the drawing board since Trump “lost” and he was forced to make the movie more generic than what he had previously imagined.
We also had an election in the middle of the real world Civil War. Also, FDR’s 4 terms was why we amended the Constitution to limit Presidents to two terms.
My theory is that Alex Garland is like Alan More, a Brit who is fascinated by America, but also repulsed. The movie didn't make sense because it is a dystopian version of the US from across the pond.
Maybe the writer was making a point? When you chose to fear your own countrymen, see superficial differences as a chasm and start from a position everyone else is subversive or inferior you end with…civil war?
Gary hit the nail on the head. Being an American, I can honestly say that was TAME compared to the all out cruelty that would actually occur. I am not one for horror p**n for no reason, but if the only message to get across in the film was "War is bad," then they should have leaned WAY harder into it.
It wanted to capitalise on America's fear of civil war, but was afraid of offending either side of the aisle, and that's why Civil War failed. On the other hand, its does give us the message of "war makes monsters of us all".
A World War Z style short series about journalists traveling across a war torn US collecting stories and dealing with a variety of dangerous situations could in theory work.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly did a better job depicting a civil war in the way this movie is trying to. Now, that was the actual US Civil War, a famous historical event, so the film could assume the viewer already had a passing knowledge of who was who and why they were fighting. But the movie didn't take a side. It just was this obstacle in the way of our protagonists who had no personal stake in the conflict. But it shows the horror of these battles quite graphically, at least for the 1960s. And any good western will always be an example of how to depict making it through a lawless, dangerous land.
Utah and Idaho on the same side: Yep, anything else would make no sense. Utah and Idaho allied with Portland instead of Texas: WHEEZE If you REALLY wanted four factions, it would be 1. the west coast led by California, 2. the east coast with D.C. and New York in a power struggle, 3. the south and mountain-west led by Texas and 4. everyone else led by Chicago with other cities eyeing the top spot.
Ohio a loyalist state? LOL! Living here, the state would split: urban areas loyalist and rural would be rebels. Ohio would literally be a battlefield state.
I went with my father to see this. We had no idea what the point of the movie is. We couldn't tell who the good guys or bad guys were outside of the obvious. We both agreed that every side was garbage because they all slaughtered people psychotically.
They should have some crazy reveal for the president being some ridiculous celebrity. Like Gilbert Godfrey or Kanye or just something absurd. Amy schumer
@@nothanks3236 sure but wouldn't it have been better to flip the desk over for the reveal and bam. Terry crews dressed like he was president in idiocracy
It should've been a character study, with the journalists interviewing and collecting stories from different people, putting a human face on the war. It would've made sense to have the journalists as the central characters, made the movie more compelling, and helped flesh out the backstory of the war. Instead it was just spectacle with no rhyme or reason to it.
The idea of journalists making a documentary of a 1st world nation fallen into a civil war and maybe trying to figure out how everything went to hell and what could possibly be done about it _is_ an interesting idea. It's too bad the movie wasn't as smart.
How would California get any army across Arizona and Nevada deserts if they were loyalist states? And would California also worried about invasions from the north based on that map?
I really wanted a sort of attempt on Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now. They sort of did this, but a greater descent into chaos or destruction the nearer they got with a gradual, evident change as they travelled would be very interesting. The fact that they ruined the build up by starting off with some fairly heavy stuff was a shame
"how are there still supply lines" my guy these are Hollywood people. They unironically believe food comes from the grocery store, gas comes from the station, and that electricity is magic.
The map of the country divided into factions looks like it was designed by, say, an English filmmaker who knows nothing about America but has played RISK before.
12:38 You're telling me that California wouldn't be allied with Oregon and Washington? Seriously? NorCal and Seattle are two sides of the same coin.... And I saw this as a Californian, native to the Bay Area, with family in Seattle. We "trade" people back and forth constantly.
I'm fascinated by the map at 12:33. There's a split between Kentucky and Tennessee? How did that happen? Are the blue states loyal to a conservative or liberal leader? There would have to be a whole lot of backstory to make sense of this map.
I haven't respected journalists since Walter Cronkite helped convince the American public that the Vietnam War was lost right after the Tet Offensive. The Tet Offensive was a great loss for the communists! Sure, it was a huge, coordinated attack, but the North Vietnamese communists and the Vietcong lost thousands and thousands of soldiers, and the Vietcong infrastructure was decimated. The Tet Offensive was a huge victory for the U.S., but because Walter Cronkite was there and perceived it as a loss, it was never seemed to be reported correctly. That's when I realized how the press/media shows us what they want to be the truth.
Considering that so many Californians are flocking to Texas, the idea of them teaming up isn't totally farfetched. Also, so many people want a cliched "good guy versus bad guy" premise, but I appreciate how this movie kind of eschews that in favor of something more interesting.
What I got from the film was that is seemed like episode 36 out of 40 episode season, we often criticize overexposition but here a lot was left out. I know we were supposed to come to our own conclusions on how this all started, how long has the war been on at its current escalation level, why is there photography and other such details, but this just drops the viewer into what seems like the ending act. Mostly I thought it was simplistic on how the 'lines' were drawn, its all just two big armies sprouted up ( I guess they were meant to be the Texas and California national guard? who knows), fully functional and well supplied, and supposedly steamroll the existing standing US military all the way back to D.C. If it was a total revolt by the military against unlawful orders, I could understand that, and that may be implied but they don't go into it with any detail. I was impressed that they did hint at areas of the map where its just paramilitary militias in the back country, committing atrocities, likely killing all the rioters/looters/protesters, which is why we don't see rioters or even street gangs in any real numbers in the film. That one based town that stays peaceful and sane because they tune out of the news, that was a nice touch. And yeah the vibe of 'we're journalists, we're still relevant, trust us' was so obvious as the central message.
A note about the random violence. It doesn't necessarily need to occur during a civil war. During the previous internal conflict in USA the situation at the home front was mostly stable. Both sides maintained their administration and police force. Sure, it wasn't as safe as during peace-time, but a civil war doesn't necessarily need to mean a complete disintegration of the country. Especially a country like United STATES of America, where each state has its own police forces and guard. But we might be simply overthinking a dumb movie here. :-)
The whole movie is so clueless, at least they should've seen how Burma descent into civil war for reference what happened if civil war broke out in modern time
People don't really understand how nuclear weapons work, they think Chernobyl accident and think it's the same but compared to nuclear reactors melting down the weapons work very differently. They release the radiation in a burst, and then it is very much to the type and yield of the weapon and if it's exploded in airburst or ground level how much irradiated debris, earth and dust is blown into the atmosphere. Weather, wind and other factors like rain impact the contamination. You can go into Hiroshima and see it's a thriving city, not some location from the Fallout series.
Once again you guys spoke what we are all thinking: whats the point of this movie? the action is just 20 min of a 120 min movie... the story is as thin as a stick
I saw the movie last night and found it very intense and enjoyable. I think the vagueness of the worked well for the film. I didn't need to know all the "whys" of the movie. However, I do acknowledge the points touched on in this video.
Plus I’m sure there would be outside pressure and interest by bad regimes that would be involved in the US being torn apart by a civil war. No discussion of allies taking sides.
