This.

How do they train their forces? Animal style!

Oh my god!!!! That explains everything. Now, I know this could happen in real life!

What side are the Shake Shack forces on?

Awesome!😂

That's what's beautiful about how it was set up. It was apolitical. There is nothing about which people or parties are good or bad.

Exactly.

Agree. You got it exactly.

@@Minienthusiast You obviously don't, it's apolitical not a political ad.

You sound like you need therapy tbh

He was a menace

So, what happens to the Florida alliance? Let me guess, they just bit** smack the South as insignificant, eh? Ha, what a croc

Lol it sucked! It was slow and boring and the dumb kid got two people killed

Jesse Plemons was the real star in this despite his very short screen time - him in the trailer was what got me to watch the movie in the first place

​@@Murican-FaithWhat they said about the Carolinas was strange.

Agreed 100%.

Civility is only something spoiled rich people care about. Anyone who has real problems could give a crap about it, because it's useless. Equality, justice, freedom, quality of life... these are the building blocks of a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated".

In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems care about. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.

In my experience, "civility" is usually something only rich or spoiled people who don't have any real problems obsess over. Equality, freedom, justice, quality of life... these are the things that actually build a strong society. To quote one of my favorite people, "civility is overrated". And it really is. It's also often used as a facade to mask some of the most oppressive and evil societies that have existed.

yeah...

Fuck who you know where you from?

I still cannot believe bro said Hong Kong. Such a clearly wrong answer in that situation 💀 bro coulda mentioned any us city

I gasped, and I never do that when watching a movie. One guy at the end of the movie started screaming about trump and Biden and left before the ending. This was the most intense movie experience I've ever had.

@@Gentleman_And_Scholar I suppose when you're under extreme duress it's not easy to think straight.

A24 is a distributor

​​@@MichaelWutsch They produce and distribute films. Sometimes they only distribute, Like Priscilla. but lots of films in the library including Civil War were produced by A24.

It is very impressive. Now, if only people would lay aside their preconceived notions and just watch the damn thing, that would be great. So many “elite critics” all over twitter are basically complaining that the movie didn’t depict their side (the left) as “the good guys”.

There really isn't that many set pieces outside the end

@@jw7019 I haven't seen that, and they never say who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. And you don't know which side most people are on at all. I think you're just pulling things out of your backside.

That first 5 minutes you couldnt even hear anyone breathe in the theater when my son and I went.

My husband and I watched it last night. The theater was completely silent after that first scene.

Texas and California 2 largest economies and largest food producers in the US. 5 of the top 10 largest ports in the US. If the US was squeezing the states and its citizens for money then maybe they decided to bring that influence to bear and fight D.C. my $.02.

@@johnrivers9393 in the movie, there are also references to a third term presidency and FBI getting dismantled. that could add to it as well

@@johnrivers9393I’ve been trying to say this. Two massive economic powers that can join up and rival the rest of the country and cripple the United States dollar value

Tbh, it made a lot of sense to me when I thought about it, but maybe I'm dumb, LOL. I saw it as 2 sides on opposite ends that were EQUALLY displeased with the state of affairs. Probably started separately, then they linked up so that they would have a real shot at winning.

And despite what so many @$$H0L3$ have been saying to the contrary on these threads it is NOT unrealistic. I know our 2 states have their differences but enemies have to join forces to take on an even bigger and scarier enemy and if the federal government becomes oppressive it makes sense for the 2 biggest states to join forces. During the 2nd world war USA and USSR joined forces despite hating each other because not even Russia wanted the N@Z1$ to win.

I don't think you have to worry the left doesn't like to fight they are more worried about pronouns.they don't like macho straight men but like them to defend their asses.

As an American, I was horrified by the movie, and thought it awful. But your comment about it is the best I have seen to date- and drives home the reason I hated it! God prevent such an event. Thank you.

"I got good news..."

The red and blue camo on his face was something else.

Exactly

“Good for her”

Three are two sides: horror of war and humanity. And sometimes you even wonder if rooting for humanity here is the right call.

Yup! Folks went in with the wrong mind set. It’s best to not go in to the movie with any mind set imo but, to see what kind of story the filmmaker is trying to make and form one’s own opinion from there. Of course this wouldn’t happen in real life and the only time something like this happened was during the American Civil War to protect the institution of slavery.

More like the guy writing it doesn't know anything about America.

@@suckerborneveryday1815 What a dimwitted take. Sounds like you're the sucker born yesterday.

Well said. The movie is not the least interested in telling you how we got there or who is right or wrong, you have no clue throughout the whole movie Is all about the horrible consequences that such a conflict would bring regardless of "fault"

@@yasielromero8236 It is a high degree of difficulty choice to write that story that way, as opposed to using a historical basis like the Spanish Civil War.

This. Reading some comments (which get harder and harder for me to tell if they're even from real people) claiming they won't even watch because they thinks it's propaganda for one side or the other... I had the pleasure of seeing last in IMAX last night and I would say it's one of the strongest films so far this year. No perfect, struggles with plausibility in the Sniper Scene and the final battle, but still very strong.

To be fair, it was being promoted in a way that was quite different from what it ended up being.

The “relationship” between the USA and the Soviets only dissolved superficially after the war. Both openly and actively collaborated in dissolving the last remnants of the European colonial empires in Africa and Asia. The Cold War never happened.

@@goataghut5066 Sure dude, 100%

@@bbbylw your ignorance of history is astounding.

@@goataghut5066 I'm not interested in what you have to say. Thanks for sharing though.

@@bbbylw then why are you responding?

So like it would be in German :) Is it a common name in Brazil?

@@WanderlustZero it’s not uncommon, but I’d say it’s becoming less common with the newer generations.

Regarding your last thought, I believe wholeheartedly that's all it will be. A harrowing cautionary tale. It's possible, but in spite of all our political differences, extremely unlikely. I also think it's meant to be seen as a warning, and a reminder, to all those opining for it that it's not all good guys and bad guys. It would be brutal unnecessary slaughter. Community vs Community. Neighbour vs Neighbour.

@@Taco1011yeah I really hope this makes all those people begging for a war to think

@@Taco1011who knows people now a days are more desensitized and apathetic it makes this somewhat plausible.

“I’ve got some good news.” From that sniper scene brilliant.

Like The Siege?

When in the past 20 years when have most journalists been neutral? That's their duties in a democratic society, unfortunately many haven't gotten the memo!

Two things that are unrealistic to me. Ca and Texas being allies, and journalists being an unbiased impartial point of view. I am sure the media would like us to think they are impartial, but that is not the case.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

not enough beards either

OK , I'll stay away . previews looked too Hollywood , too cheezy.

I was going to complain if Sam Wilson's Captain America and War Machine started fighting but was pleasantly surprised by a road movie.

@@EzeICE - what are you finding SO funny?!?

War is not grey shaded though… you telling me that the Nazis maybe had a point??

A “getting too old for this” Kirsten Dunst was one of the most dystopian things that I think I’ve ever seen.

@@kstepko yeah kinda sad to see her that way…

@@Justforthefifteen Are you aware that other wars besides WWII happened?

@@johnnypopstar it was just an example… duh

Funny enough, wouldn't mind that normally either, but the idea and even how it's all set up feels like it can't really afford to be that distant from the concept.

It is well done but there are obvious biases in the movie that are trying to hide the fact that it is portraying Trump as a power crazed president, when it's complete opposite in real life, most movie companies have to be liberal to get support and not unlike The Hunt these plots underestimate the American citizen that will at some point defend itself from these type of power crazed politicians and deep state running the government. However I think don't think this type of conflict would happen but instead be more like the "Leaving the World behind" type of scenario where the deep state is cornered and pull the plug so it become a kill or be killed scenario where they can hid in bunkers and wait for everyone to kill each other before coming up and saving the day...

It's about the man behind the camera that risks their live and about getting traumatized and desensitized by violence in the process. It's about hearing stuff like "It's happening over there, I don't care" and trying to take a photo that would make people care. Lee and Jessie are the core of the story, the actual conflict is the perophery. The movie shpuld've had a defferent title probably. Civil War is kind of misleading, and I can see why some people are upset.

The problem is that in his effort to stay apolitical, Garland didn’t flesh out any of the characters beliefs or motivations and thus they only become a vehicle for the film to be experienced from

@@wlot28You found the point of the movie lol congrats.

There literally isn't an "either side" in the film. It's the end of a war between four or more different militaries. You're perhaps projecting a domestic political POV from the present onto a fictional universe. Try watching Starship Troopers instead. That film does that on purpose to make you think. This one doesn't. To make you think.

Dan is not wrong about the sound mixing. I flinched nearly a dozen times from the gunfire.

​@@ebert311 especially in imax it sounds so real it's scary

Winters Bone is an amazing film. Good allusion. I found the sound at times overwhelming. I'm half deaf and still had to cover my ears twice. Regarding the music, the contemporary soundtrack felt jarring and inappropriate. It was the one major choice that felt totally out of place to me. I suppose that is because the creative team made this movie for the younger generations that they're presumably hoping will avoid the civil war, or learn from it... rather than the older generations seem to be recklessly tempting or actively trying to cause. Dunno.

The very first thing I said when standing up after the movie was "wow.. that sound design was fantastic!" Highly recommend a theater experience, even just to be so fully engrossed in the choice to use silence.

The photographer gave the young photographer her huge shot. Of her getting shot. They talked about it in the beginning

Err, there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the end of the film. What movie did you guys watch?

@@irtnyc The entire conflict is ambiguous. What are you talking about? Lmfao 😂

@@jamaican8767 They sorta swapped roles and became who they were in the beginning of the movie. That's definitely obvious

This is a bot or you and your wife are bonkers, because I have heard zero people describe this movie as “a good time.” Intense, scary, harrowing, surreal, important. In this very review he says this is not a fun time at the theater. So this is fake or you have terrible phrasing.

You literally don't know what the politics are so you cannot be a centrist... this movie is almost literally absent of politics. Not taking a side is not centrism when neither side is defined.

@@aldoalto4087 Right, and I don't think that's an argument in the film's favor. If they wanted to make a film with just the message that war is bad, which is a very old message, then they should have set it in a conflict that existed, like the war in Iraq, or the height of the civil conflict in Colombia, etc. This would have made the film sound more substantive.

War is hell, the movie

Centrism is incredibly stupid in this day and age

@@user-kl6os3gd5s Centrism implies passivity. To that you'd be wrong.

True, War is not "civil" in the "polite" sense but Civil War has more to do with the "ordinary citizens" definition

@@AEmceeMuzikForever i've never see opponents go "oh how do you do on this fine day? are you ready to kill now?" 🤣

Maybe 'intranational war' would be more accurate?

People on KZfaq at least are like that. Actual critics seem to love the movie

It’s not about comprehension the movie was straight up boring. The whole plot is just following 4 photographers driving to Washington DC to interview the president, which they didn’t even do. Felt like a long filler episode of the walking dead with no zombies and bad characters

> and the characters stopped reacting like they did in the beginning/middle of the movie So you mean, they... developed? Admittedly yes they were pretty sudden developments, but that's what those were. Events change people.

​@johnnypopstar no literally there characters all completely flip after a single scenes character development is a gradual process

@@joshwilner5622 and yet, shell shock *does* just happen out of the blue suddenly. It's not that unrealistic

One needle drop in particular was magnificently inappropriate. An amazingly bold choice that really doesn't jive with the visuals of that moment at all, and _in not working at all_ makes you feel exactly how Garland wants you to feel. It's sublime. I've seen other reviewers completely miss the point of this.

@@johnnypopstar Exactly. With someone less deliberate that Garland maybe I'd be tempted to ask "why is that playing here", but after even just the opening scene of the film it seems obvious. To do the job they do, the mundane and normal has to live alongside the absolutely depraved for you to get by. And then later in the film, driving through the burning forest, the music matched perfectly, showing that everyone was actually feeling affected at that point.

I think the needle drop worked better in Full Metal Jacket.

They only show the right in a bad light.

@@devoff7014 That's the light they choose.

​@devoff7014 no they dont!!! The milita that wears Hawaiin shirts that was fighting the government soldiers is a Right wing group. There is only ONE Miltia in America that sports Hawaiin shirts and they are the main enemy of Antifa Communist!

​@@devoff7014stop being brainwashed and watch the movie!

@@devoff7014 The movie doesn't say who is on the right or left at any point.

There are lots of positive reviews here!

But as Dan said, some high profile people are openly supporting the concept of a civil war. The people on the other side are not.

@@greggibson33 I lived through the summer of 2020 in Minneapolis -St. Paul. I know full and well that there are plenty on both ends of the spectrum who gladly wish violence upon the other. Trying to paint it as a one sided issue is simply incorrect.

@@greggibson33 One side is openly supporting the concept of a civil war. The other side is openly calling for the abolition of the United States.

The reality is that a modern civil war in America would be about 15 times worse than what’s depicted in this movie

@@Vaajraath Right, but, get off that fence and take a look at _which "side" started wanting to do violence first apropos of nothing_ and which "side" is only talking about "violence" _in a preventative and/or retaliatory_ sense. There is still a material difference here. Only one "side" in this has ever chanted "blood and soil" with their tiki torches out. Do come along. Join us at the adults' table.

I saw Alonso and Christy's review and I get what each was going for, but I felt Alonso's point more. There is always context in war. You may not like the context of the why's or the who's or what started it, why each side is fighting, etc, but no war happens in a vacuum even if the stated (or unstated reasons) seem petty, trivial, unfathomable, whatever. Many people could probably tell me why WW2 started, who the participants were, what were each of the participants goals, who won, who lost, what the aftermath was. That exists for all wars. Rwandan Civil Wars? Yup. Internal strife in Colombia in the first half of the 20th century? Most definitely. US Civil War? Yup. The expansion of the Roman Empire? Again, yes. We might argue about whether the wars were justified or if various sides were using propaganda to justify invading another, the ideology or thinking that lead to that point. Maybe two or more people discussing it agree or disagree, maybe they think the factors involved are weighted differently in how much of an influence they had, but again, they are there. To do away with it entirely to focus on the horrors of war just waters it down. I can watch any number of movies/series, fictional or documental, that lay bare man's inhumanity to man; that's nothing new. Check out 20 Days to Mariupol, Restrepo, any number of Ken Burns documentaries he's done or, shit, read Hiroshima. If, at the end of the day, this is a movie that's telling us about the horrors of war through journalists' eyes and that's all it is, there are plenty of examples to choose from that have done it before. Films about it, real or fictional, have been created for decades through various points of view and even longer when it comes to text. I am still curious and maybe it's unfair to heap this much criticism before I watch it, but I don't think anything I say will change if I were catch (hopefully sooner rather than later) b/c what I'm writing here is independent of Garland's choices in his latest. Maybe I'll change my mind once I see, I don't/can't deny the possibility, but I've seen plenty of movies that depict the folly and terrible nature of war, just that most (all?) provide the context in which those conflicts happen.

I always think there’s something special about Dan’s reviews. I always respect his opinion. I’ll check out the others you mentioned too. You obviously have a deep caring about cinema ☺️

@@Vulcanerd I understand what you are saying and I think it is a valid point. But I also agree with Christy and what Dan are saying that if any form of justification for one side versus the other were put into the movie it will allow people to decide whether or not this fictional future Civil War was "worth it." In our current environment and especially in America it is the very fact that we have not seen battle or war on our soil in so very long that I think allows people to Hypothetically justify in their minds what would be worth it for something like that to happen. Garland is not allowing that by keeping it as vague as possible. I think Ken Burns has done wonderful things but history from long ago is easy to disassociate from. And atrocities of war that happen somewhere else, the same thing. I think the popularity of zombie apocalypse movies for the last decade or more was the fact that it allowed Americans to get as close as possible to what would happen to society in the case of a war while giving them the distance of knowing that such a thing couldn't actually happen. It allowed them to play the what if of what they would do from the safety of that impossibility. The argument it seems to be made in this movie potentially would be that essentially nothing should be worth civil war. Or at least that it should be avoided at all costs. I can look at the more ridiculous of those that say Texas should secede, and even silently agree with those that say "oh yeah? The Federal Government would crush them anyway." and think that because it's from the safety of what I hope is a hypothetical impossibility. Because if it happened in reality I'm not in Texas and while it wouldn't directly affect me it would still be a horrifying reality that should be avoided at all costs. Yes I obviously understand that civil war has happened here before, a long time ago, but it irrevocably altered the face of our nation, and the extreme circumstances that generated it have not been equalled in our modern time. Garland, it seems, is intent on casting civil war as a terrible outcome, regardless of sides. I fully understand that is an argument that can be disagreed with. I happen to agree with it and hope that for those that watch the movie they come out thinking the same way.

@@julesauburn8713 To be clear while 12 years of slave is in theory about Civil War or at least what precipitated it, Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with that (it is about being gay in a part of American culture--rural/cowboy--that especially didn't have the ability to accept.) I was just going for movies that toed a line of important messages not told as often that are heartbreaking and beautiful and whether or not I could pony up the courage to watch them.

But the whys could be anything. People would likely ignore the message of the filmmaker in pursuit of a debate on the cause of war. I think Garland did a great job in distancing the film from that pitfall and instead focused on humanity (or lack thereof), which should be universally 'accessible' regardless of conflicts.

People and nations repeat the same mistakes regardless.

@@BankMoviegoer Oh, sure, the whys could be anything. Territory, precious resources, ideological, racial/identity animus... but, they're always there. Which is why we study them, which is why we work to understand them so as to avoid, as the saying goes, dooming oneself to repeating history that needs avoiding. Wars don't happen in a vacuum, context is essential and critical in understanding any conflict even if we disagree as to why it should or shouldn't have happened. Who were involved and why? Was it avoidable or inevitable or somewhere in between? All of it matters and are crucial elements if you want to have an honest discussion as to the reasons, causes, etc, and possible future steps and solutions to avoid them (or instigate them).

@@thelankywanderer The point isn't that mistakes will never again be made. The point is to minimize or avoid the same mistakes. Unless you or anyone else or even countries never learn from mistakes? In the history of the world, there's never been progress made ever? That seems like an odd (if wholly inaccurate) declaration/observation. Sounds cool, but not really reflective of reality, is it? Or is the lesson that we never learn so why bother? Still an odd argument...

> Whys of wars are always important especially in regards to wars. I'm printing this out and sticking it on my fridge.

The movie sucks

When I get asked about the CA/TX thing (saw the early screenings), I basically said the same thing. It actually makes sense for them to team up given their resources -- against an apparent dictator.

I know. It's such a weird detail for people to get stuck on. Especially now that we're learning that the circumstances leading up to the war don't really matter to the story being told in the movie. Maybe California and Texas want to become their own independent countries that don't have to share their wealth or listen to any other national authority when it comes to laws/politics inside their borders. Neither state could beat rest of the nation by themselves, so they teamed up together to take down the only other force that could oppose them, and then they'll go their separate ways once the war is over. There ... in less than 10 seconds I came up with a plausible enough reason for the situation presented in the film that I can just enjoy the story the movie wants to tell, whenever I get around to watching it.

I mean, there are still plenty of "Real Americans" that wouldn't stand for a dictator taking over, just because Cali and Tx disagree in todays politics doesn't mean that everyone from either state wouldn't team up in the name of defending the US as a whole

Lately this kind of conflicts start with attacks, both verbal and physical, against journalism. So I imagine journalists in DC were amongst the first casualties.

They addressed this in the movie.

During the movie they do say that "they execute journalists in the Capital"

They aren’t going “across the country.” It’s New York to DC. And yes, they do explain why there are no reporters in DC.

Yes, it's clearly explained.

@@ASTRAGEM oh well, I'm seeing it Monday afternoon. I have nothing else to do and the ticket is less than half price. But thanks for the warning!

Stop crying, tell your mommy you need a diaper.

Do we need a movie telling us that civil war is bad when everyone is all kum-bi-yah? No, the movie is needed when for many it is a plausible future.

How come?

Agree. There will always be characters in our society that will use an emergency, natural disaster, war......as an opportunity to go lawless or create their own "society" where they can do and get away with things that are illegal during normal situations.

@@rickbase833 Perfectly said 👍🏾 that's so true

In what way?

"Welcome to the Jungle” would be the PERFECT song for the end credits!

"alliance" is an ahistorical way to describe what was at most a short-lived non-agression pact.

@@asrajune2709 true, but again history happens in weird ways, my guess is that after the war was over cali and texas turned against each other but who knows not the point of the film to polarize a side

They were photojournalists. Other journalists are shown recording video.

I think the point is that people are already riled up and this is a cautionary tale about what happens if this division continues.

@@tomleonard830 so then why does Garland negatively portray the parents and small town folk who don’t choose a side? Shouldn’t they be positively (or neutrally) shown as people trying to focus on their own lives and immediate surroundings rather than being obsessed with the news? IMO the story would have been much more interesting if the protagonists showed some struggle with the negative role that the media may have played in dividing the country, rather than holding up journalists as arbiters of truth that only publish unbiased facts and photos for others to interpret. They act as though the photos are unbiased documents of the war, when the framing and other choices that go into every single photograph contain bias of the photographer (whether conscious or not). The final photograph shot of the film is clearly staged to show bias. Why pretend throughout the film that the protagonists are impartial?

@@ZO6Buccaneer He portrays them as naive, but not necessarily negative.

Being disconnected from your country and the deaths of your fellow citizens is not necessarily a "positive" trait. I'm not saying they should be villainized, but keeping your head down and staying out of it is not inherently good. Nobody is good in war. That's why "war is bad". That's the whole reason we need "war is bad" movies. I also did not get that Hitler was the "ultimate bad guy" in Come and See. That might be your interpretation, but that's hardly everyone's interpretation. It would be extremely reductive to pretend that the world consists of only good guys and bad guys and if they aren't praising someone, they must be demonizing them.

​@@DaniFromNowOnI would say Come and See more portrays Nazi's as ultimate bad. All of the sequences in that films are directly based on the Writers's with Bellarussian's survivors of that conflict. Hitler just gets the brunt of the blame of that film because of the final scene and well... he's Hitler...

its kinda still that, just without blatantly labeling parties and some slight differentiation because its an alternate timeline... and it most definitely is trying to cash in on the election year/real civil war panic

@@maxtm3000 Yes, but it seems to be much more restrained than what I originally pictured in my mind. It also seems to be more of a cautionary tale rather than trying to play up the "cool factor" of a modern-day civil war. But like I said, I haven't seen it yet. So I won't be able to really form my own opinions until I have. However, this movie has gone from a skip to an eventual watch for me.

@@maxtm3000 You should watch Alex Garland talking about his movie. He is way too self-serious and boring to ever try and "cash in" on _anything_ , least of all an extremely volatile political situation

What are you rambling about? It's predictive programming at its finest...

Hmm...we'll see.

Unlikely

I agree

I'm a photojournalist and you are so right.