As a Texan who was born and raised in the Lone Star state, the idea of Texas teaming up with California for any reason is absolutely hilarious. Especially in this day and age.

The most unrealistic part about this is the fact that the president isn't 102 years old but instead closer to an actual average American.

Like Kirsten Dunst’s courage in resisting Hollywood plastic surgery pressure. She said “I'm not gonna screw up my face and look like a freak. I'd rather get old and do good roles." 👍🏼

I liked it, personally. I saw it in Imax, and it felt like I was there. I don't think the point was to tell a story on how it realistically could happen, but rather what an actual civil war would look like after a while. Nobody is the good guys, nobody really knows who they're fighting and what they're fighting for anymore. Everybody loses. The people who dislike it are generally quite partisan one way or the other and seem to be annoyed that it doesn't swing overtly left or right.

A modern Civil War movie, released in an election year. Couldn’t get more opportune timing than that.

Although I too was shocked and laughed a bit at your observation, I’ll say this for Kirsten Dunst: Good for her for staying away from plastic surgery and just aging like a normal person. There are people who aren’t even in Hollywood that can’t do that, so I find that pretty admirable.

Unfortunately, I'm not with Critical Drinker on this one. Sometimes a movie is akin to a canvas of painting, that does not need any additional story. Civil war in the USA is the end of the world as we know it. Simple as that. I recall watching Italian film called Gomorra, that has a neutral point of view as well, and it conveyed the ideas without any additional narration perfectly.

Usually I agree with you, but I think this film is smarter than you give it credit for. We saw the war through the eyes through apolitical journalists-therefore we saw horror, not politics. Obviously I think you’ve got some good points.

And the crowd goes mild.

The most unrealistic thing about Civil War is thinking any state would want to rebel against a Ron Swanson presidency.

The movie was about journalism and not about a civil war

I think the director purposely didn't give information about why the sides were fighting, because that was the point. A civil war is a defeat for everyone. I agree with the drinker about the characters, they needed more depth and they certainly could have added 10-15 minutes to the runtime to achieve that.

Ron Swanson finally made it. He took down the government from the inside. Absolute mad lad.

Theory: The president was, in fact, Ron Swanson. He hated the government so much he continued to climb the ladder until he could be the one to run it into the ground.

According to the director, he wanted to have Texas and California team up as he believes in an actual situation where a dictator took control of the white house, the two sides would abandon their differences to tackle the greater threat. That may be true, but it needed fleshing out more. We needed more exposition. I will say that for the small amount of character arc there is, it is well done. I thought Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny had great chemistry together.

Pretty impressive film, combat wise. It's been a minute since I've seen such close violence, often accompanied by no music. Gunfights actually sound accurate and it doesn't shy away from showing the obvious tragedy of war and needless killing.

Movie sucked cause there was no Captain America, false advertising

As a Torontonian, everyone died laughing in my theatre when Dunst offered $300 CAD and the guy immediately agreed to give them gas.

Its strong side is defined by its avoidance of taking sides in the clown theater. It shows the reality of war, which is pure and unabated horror, dehumanizing agony, horrible chaos, permanent distrust, backyard torture, leftover body parts, men running into flying metal, felt in every bone and perhaps not being portrayed in such a masterful, terrifying manner since Joseph Vilsmaier's "Stalingrad". It is also quite meta in that it shows journalists trying to show the horrors of war to their audience while it uses this plot to show its audience the horrors of war. And how desensitized, partisan or Marvel-brainwashed does one have to be to not get that? You're supposed to be invested in - beings! "Sound and Fury, signifying the fury of this signification of nothingness" - there, I fixed your quote from Shakespeare for you.

2:50 “None of these characters have actual character.” I, for one, am glad Civil War shows not tells. It’s a shame you didn’t notice for some reason.

To Kirsten's credit, Drinker, she's recently said that she doesn't want (or plan) to have a plastic surgery and prefers to age naturally. This is somewhat refreshing actually when most actors (both men & women) have been abusing the cosmetic procedures to the point that they can't even mimic properly when playing their characters, which imho affects their performance. Also, it could've been a makeup contributing to her weary look, in line with her character.

The biggest problem was having Jesse Plemons for ONE. SINGLE. SCENE

The Critical Drinker missed the mark on this one. Big time. Civil War is a profoundly deep look at media. How journalists have failed to both remain unbiased and retain their humanity. The movie also explicitly says in the first 15 minutes that the western forces will turn on each other as soon as they win. The only side that exists for ANY of the warring factions is destroying what's left of the Republic. But that's not the point of the movie. There's a camera seen in nearly every single second of the movie. The movie also blatantly says, "Oh, I get it now. You're a [pejorative term for a low IQ person]." When a journalist tries to figure out why some people are fighting.

Who else has noticed that Drinker doesn’t stop his reviews in the middle in order to bring us an advertisement for, say, shaving your balls and making them smell like a rose garden? Thank you Drinker! I appreciate that you have kept your channel free from adverts.

"Like Mauler and Moviebob teaming up to take on Nerdrotic" 😂😂

Film: "I'm a movie." Drinker looking through his red sunglasses, to the Film: "What kind of movie are you?"

It wasn't a political film (intentionally) it was about the dehumanization that comes from viewing everything through a lens/screen, basically an inversion of what we're all currently doing on social media in the modern era observing and pontificating on other's conflicts in the comfort of the first world. Thought that was a pretty obvious theme throughout. The lack of a clear parallel to current American left/right dynamic (or as people are saying, the unrealistic team-up of Texas and California) was on purpose because that's not the point of the story. Extremely well done and well written.

Im just disappointed that Florida wasn't brought in as a meth infused special forces team. Opportunity missed IMHO.

Kudos for Kirsten Dunst for not having a bunch of cosmetic surgeries.

The only thing I could think of when I saw Ron Swanson as the president was “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

Am I the only one who finds the irony that they’ll insert culture war bs in every Hollywood movie EXCEPT the movie about an actual war?

Civil War: Stop being divided. War bad. Audience: Cool, you got a reason to be together other than war bad? Civil War: ... Audience: Thought so. Anyway, about that thing happening in November...

California and Texas joining together is like those movies where a crew in a street gang has one of every color.

as a nevadan, i love how 70% of these comments are californians and texans saying they would never team up🤣 edit: holy woah wtf have i started, it is literally a civil war here

'Like an interview with Hitler in 1945 with uncle Joe's finest knocking at the door ' - loved this analogy!

I was laughing out loud as soon as you said the words "Fine upstanding journalists".

2:11 For those of you who don’t know, “ Uncle Joe” was a nickname given to Jospeh Stalin by the press.

"California and Texas have teamed up"--- Aaaaaand, suspension of disbelief *obliterated.* If anything, California and Texas will be the biggest factions fighting against each other.

I want to bleach my hair, put on red sunglasses, scratch my face, and win an Oscar.

A movie that isn't trying to explain the world to you like you can't think for yourself - what a concept. I loved it.

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell, 1984

“Half of these kids thought that the civil war was about a fight between Batman and Superman”- Fist Fight(2017)

So in conclusion, if it had more big explosions and Tatiana in a bathing suit it would be the equivalent of every Michael Bay movie made in the last 20 years or so

Having Ron Swanson as President during a dystopian civil war is actually the best casting since John Candy as Uncle Buck

As an Australian who has never even visited, much less lived in the US, I can confirm that Texas and California are best buds, and would absolutely team up in the event of a civil war.

"We're going to DC to interview the President!" "They kill every journalist they find." "Nah...it'll be fine!" "Take me with you." FFS

What I like about the CD is that he is still growing, essays keep getting better and "mature", the style keeps evolving. Good job.

I figured the Cali and Texas alliance was supposed to show a “red” and “blue” state joining to fight tyranny and save democracy or something. But the lack of world building and one liner hints at what led up to the events of the war really let it down. Tbh, the war was more of a backdrop to the young photographer’s journey

I love how the director said in an interview that his message was "Journalists are going to save us from tyranny as the 4th estate" or some shit and I fell over laughing. It was on the daily show with whoever it is now.

"This movie will be the most controversial movie in modern cinema history." *Proceeds to say absolutely nothing*

All these people saying Texas and California would never unite. Take away the politics and rhetoric of people extreme on either side. And Texas and California are very similar. I am a born and raised Texan 8th generation and a son of the republic. I’ve lived in Oregon the past 13 years and I know many Californians and I’ve been there several times. They are wayyy more similar than you think when you actually get down to it. California isn’t all San Francisco and La and Hollywood. It’s very conservative in a lot of the state and the number one agriculture state for years now. Both have giant economies and a large Hispanic population and were both owned by Mexico before becoming their own replubics.

I agree with everything the drinker said but I have a question, more akin to the pitch meeting sketches: guy #1: the white house is known to have a bunker, capable of withstanding a lot of damage. So why Ron decided not to use it? guy #2: Because. guy #1 That works.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. " - Voltaire.

The movie was about the importance of independent, honest, and raw journalism that the mainstream media has absolutely failed to provide...

The whole point is that there’s no point. There’s no good side and bad side. It says whatever the cause for a divide, war sucks and messes up people. One doesn’t need to take sides to know that everyone suffers. The choice of California and Texas was intentional to disconnect from present day politics. It’s a grim warning message and should be appreciated as such. I loved every second of the movie.

One good thing about this movie - it was decent product placement for the Abrams tank. How often do you see this impressive bit of military hardware getting to really do it's stuff? Usually it's just cannon fodder (so to speak) for superheroes and monsters to fling around and stomp upon.

California and Texas teaming up? Upstanding Journalists? This movie should win a best science fiction award somewhere!

In an actual civil war today, there would be no need for "real" journalists. Streamers on the scene would provide all the coverage and grab all the eyeballs.

I loked this move better when i understood that it wasnt a war film. It was a film about photojournalists and their attraction to danger. Jesse talked about how she was so scared but never felt more alive. You can see Joel's giddyness whenever he is embedded in the action. This is a movie about these people chasing the high to get the shot -- similar vibe to the Hurt Locker. Even Sam is looking to get in on the action, and the one moment that Lee does t look broken down is when they stumbled upon the skirmish and got some good shots. Lee's perspective is interesting though becaise she can gone to the top of the mountain and is wuickly falling down the other side. She is completely jaded and the high doesnt do anything for her anymore. She is now just hollowed out because she doesnt beleive anything she does actually matters. She just getting the shot to do her job (contrast with Jesse who is getting the shot because its exhilarating). I dont disagree with most of Criticals points here, but i do think that you have to watch the movie through the photojournalist's perspective, when most of america is looking for answers from the political or military perspective, and they just wont find any of that in this movie.

A flashy premium package but when you open it it's empty. Pretty much sums up where we're at today.

To be totally fair to Kirsten Dunst, shes always looked a bit older than what she was, she was only 18-19 in SM1 but I wouldve thought she was 25 or so. James Franco was about 23 and they look the same age. Plus she looks like someone who is ACTUALLY a 41 year old woman, not someone who dumped her face full of Botox, fillers and injections so its kind of nice to see in Hollywood

The idea of a state that has all the guns ever, allying with a state that’s afraid to have more than 3 bullets in the gun, is the funniest thing I’ve seen this year

I really liked this film, it's two stark, brutal hours of a linear story done well. It doesn't explain anything really, which is great, because it has no flab and allowed me and my friends to speculate and talk about what we thought. Sometimes less is more.

Critical Drinker you missed the main focus: PRESS. War journalists. The details of the pointless war are secondary

“When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state ... this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people.” - P.J. O’Rourke

"A movie that says nothing, does nothing, and ultimately accomplishes nothing." That pretty much sums up all of Hollywood.

Great review. It was quite an astonishing lack of character building and storyline. But I guess that is what they wanted. Also decided last night it won't stop me watching films at the cinema. I always have a good experience even if it's crap. Was at the late night The First Omen last night and walked home around 1am. Brilliant.

As a Canadian who listens to Infowars when I heard the movie had Texas and California teaming up I was like wtf and found it kind of funny, think I even laughed a bit.

I don’t mind there not being a lot of reasoning behind the war itself. It works for us to be neutral about the war because the characters are supposed to be neutral. I think the movie was more trying to go after a character story, but the characters needed more fleshing out. My biggest issue was the fact the White House was under siege and the president is just chilling in the Oval Office, not tucked down in the bunker. My other issue was the stupidity of the characters.

TL;DW "Some journalists liked a movie that valorizes journalists."

I also thought it was nuts to pair California and Texas, but my brain can make a very compelling back story if details are not provided by the movie directly. Think about it, California and Texas are populous, economically vibrant, and used to be independent countries (if briefly) before joining the Union. These states would not share deep social and historical connections to each other, rather they would be an alliance of competitors who share a common cause. They are non-contiguous so they may not even directly help each other but they might. Nobody would doubt Texans ability to fight, but we should not discount that California has more gun owners than many Red states put together. And outside the urban areas, Californians have grit, especially if provoked. California will hold off the Western Forces (neutrality or stalemate) while Texas holds off the Florida Alliance. That way, they can focus their efforts on defeating the fascist government. It's plausible that California and Texas may even have different motivations for wanting to overthrow the government, but so long as their goals are aligned they will be reluctant partners. Until after the war...

The plot section of the Wikipedia article says the country has fractured into 4 separate factions…and there is zero mention of this in the actual movie itself. I think a movie detailing why the country splintered and fell into a civil war would have been 100x more interesting than a story about some lame journalists who just wanna interview the president before he gets shot in the face lol. Also, yeah why cast Offerman if he’s not even gonna be playing a character really…dude had like 3 sentences of dialogue in the entire movie.

I am a combat veteran and have served in Iraq,2006-2008 Egypt 2011-2012, and Somalia 2018-2019. The message of the movie is " hey jackasses who are talking about how they want a civil war in the US... no you fucking don't ". Good message. I hope people soak it in.

I'm rewatching "Firefly", and it really shows how to do this right: We never really understand the "big picture" (since it only got one season), but the characters, their relationships, and their aims are all understood from the very beginning.

I'm really glad the comments section have helped me understand this movie better. Let me summarize what the fans of the film have explained to me; It's deep, but it's shallow; the message is incredibly obvious, but deliberately left blank; it's supposed to be vague and applicable to anywhere, but specifically a message to Americans about what will happen to America; it tells us about the dangers of extremes, but deliberately avoided any extremes because that's not relevant; it shows the sad futility of humantarian journalists trying to save us from ourselves, but also shows how journalists are disconnected and jaded and no longer care about anything but the next shot; it's a meaningful and moral movie, but also just a fun war movie with no message. I'm serious, fans of this film are all over the damn map, but are all sure that anyone who criticizes it is just being obtuse. The only things they say reliably is that the movie tells us "war is bad," which is incredibly shallow and obvious and not even well-communicated when all you do is show us planks of wood photographing random people shooting things, and that "nobody wins in a (civil) war" which is just objectively wrong. If you like this movie, that's fine, but really, go read what all the other people who like this movie are saying, how divergent all the opinions are, before you tell me it's actually really good for whatever reason you think it's really good. Media is supposed to make people think and/or feel, and so if a piece of media is inducing wildly different emotions and causing widly different thoughts, in fans and critics alike, maybe you should see that as a sign that it's actually failing a pretty basic requirement of good media and people are just reading into it whatever they want.

You are dead on. Dunst shocked me when I saw her on screen for the first time. I thought she must be 52 years old! I also expected the MESSAGE. The movie did a decent job of making sure to make no statement and offend nobody.

"fine, upstanding journalists?" Drinker, that may qualify as the oxymoron of the year! 😂🤣

I'm guessing that an actual civil war in the US wouldn't be state vs. state but rural, suburban, and small city vs. urban metropolises. It would be truly horrendous. Nothing that I would ever want to live through.

I think the purpose of this film was to simply confront viewers with the fact that this is a possibility and, more importantly, not one that would be good for anyone in any way. The costs of letting angry discourse spill over into actual warfare are unfathomable and too many on both sides of the political divide are starting to delude themselves into thinking that a shootout would make their lives better. Our stability and comfort are largely based on US power which would be so damaged by this nonsense that everyone's lives would be worse post-war. The journalists in this film are the vehicle to show us a snapshot of what this might look like and, hopefully, help us to realize that even if one side is righteous in its cause, the costs of this approach can never be paid. Hence, who these characters are is irrelevant. With that said, the young journalist going from being too scared to snap the two hanging guys at the gas station to photographing Dunst's character literally being shot was pretty efficient character development. The film leaves room for us to fill in the blanks and find meaning for ourselves. It respects us enough to let us think about this without telling us the meaning. Did it feel a bit unsatisfying as a result? Perhaps. But it was better for it. Finally, for anyone who thinks Texas and California could never team up, what about the US and the Soviets in WW2? Or France and Britain after centuries of fighting? Or China and Russia's quasi alliance today? Politics and the world changes. Enemies and crisis makes convenient friends. Have a little imagination. Texas and California both have a lot going for them and a lot of challenges and neither is monolithic. Im glad we have both, and the world is better off with both in the same country.

One thing that really impressed me about this review is that the Drinker pronounced Wagner Moura’s first name like a German speaker.

This movie just feels like another 2012: a product of something people are talking about way too much so someone said, "fuck it I'll turn that into a movie". Then magically no one cares anymore, just like the 2012 end of the world prediction.

What a title. I didn't expect Shakespeare to be referenced in relation to Civil War, but there you go.

In all fairness, the portrayal of the second American civil war as a natural disaster with neither side really having a goal to actually fight for is probably the most accurate you could get. Our political climate these days basically boils down to, "fuck those guys, they don't wear our colors". Everyone is caught up in identity politics and nobody seems to care about the real problems that created our mess in the first place.

You hit the nail on the head I went and seen this in theaters and I was really disappointed. It was a movie that said nothing. It had no teeth I was really hoping it was gonna be a blockbuster, but I really felt like if you just watch the trailer you’ve seen the whole movie. No need to watch the movie unfortunately

I think people missed the point. It was a PR for journalists. Journalism is dead people hate them. It's well known they are not dependent upon. So this is a PR for them Just like detective shows are pr for cops. Military movies pr for military. College scenes are pr for college.

The Journos are the good guys lmao This is your daily reminder that you don’t hate journalists enough and should a conflict like this ever ensue, they will have played a huge part in bringing it about

I didn't even watch your review. I can just tell from your title and the comments that you don't like the movie. Thanks, Critical Drinker. Now I know I SHOULD watch the movie.

Wow, I must have watched a different movie to the Critical Drinker. I pretty much disagree with every comment, except how well all aspects of the film making were. For me it wasn't about a specific War, whether Civil or otherwise... which is why it didn't need politics or definition, except it was there as the foil to the revealing of our casts personal and interpersonal stories, and as a subtler telling of war in general. Very humanising and gorgeously told. And that's without throwing extra credit for a budget so we'll used that it never felt lacking.

"Mauler and MovieBob teaming up to overthrow Nerdrotic." 😂😂😂

The movie couldn't be more on the nose with its message: "Every time I survived a war abroad, I thought I was sending a message home: 'Don't do this.' But here we are."

The amount of people misinterpreting the message of the movie is glorious.

@po801_4 As an American who was born and raised in the Land of the Free, the idea of the USA teaming up with the USSR for any reason is absolutely hilarious. Especially in this day and age of 1939.

Alex Garland says he's fallen out of love with film making, and it shows. Maybe he just needs a long break

California and Texas actually getting together now there is fantasy writing.

I thought it was incredible. But I was also an active duty US Marine/war correspondent during OIF/OEF, so it’s only natural I’d appreciate it more. This is about as close as one can get to seeing what it’s like to be a photographer in combat.

This wasn't about the reasons for war, who's wrong, who's right, this is about witnessing that and chasing it, and i loved it for that, i feel The Hurt Locker is a similar movie where it's more about being in the middle of conflict and craving it to an extreme.

It's like the movie tried to make a point but then politely stopped short, trying to get the audience to get said point by sheer proximity to it.

My favorite part was when Thufir Hawat stood up and shouted "3 guild navigators; a total of 1.46 million and 62 Solaris, round trip." Not a dry eye in the cinema that day.

I'd like to also point out that the combo of TX and CA is absolutely not unthinkable. What is politics, leadership, power driven by? Money. What are the two biggest economies in the country? TX and CA. If you think that governors from TX and CA are "too different on social issues" to not partner up, you vastly misunderstand the power of money on our society. The movie is based on a president who refuses to leave office, attacks US cities, kills journalists, disbands the FBI, etc. These institutions this now-dictator is doing is destabilizing for the country. And what do markets reject more than any other single thing? Instability. It's the money.

The movie explain 0% why the civil war happened, no explanation. How did they drop the ball this hard with such a good subject 😭