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.

Thats like blatant We are the good, they are the bad

It's Hollywood, it would be have nothing but left wing propaganda if it was. So this boring trash is slightly better than blatant left wing propaganda

Politics are the only alternative to war. But war is a tool of politics.

War is hell, but you can't have a hell if you don't even have a devil or sin if you know what I'm saying...

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...

@@TheMaleRei Cthulhu?

Or the majority of the guys with firearms might agree with each other in those states and decide to take over and team up.

@@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.

A true tragedy😭😭

Neither Grant nor Lee.

Ah... Just reminded me of Marvel's good days.

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!)

Did You Know? Don't Lie To Me. *DID YOU KNOW???*

Now I want that movie

civil war modern day battles like gettysberg-antiem-atlanta etc

This would require basic intelligence, knowledge of history, research, and just general investment in earning their pay.

Post apocalyptic gettysberg sounds fun. But that would require intelligence. We're dealing with morons here.

It was a great movie

Damn, You were lucky the brits were too busy lusting after The Beatles to take advantage and invade you!

@@mennymoto Lol, thanks for catching that typo. Fixed it.

@@jimluebke3869 Why did you fix it?! Now the joke is spoiled. ;-)

​@@mennymotothe British invasion.

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).

They are independent countries in this scenario. They aren’t the same they just happen to share a common enemy.

I mean, it's fiction.

@@Mike-xh8fl There's only so much suspension of disbelief that many people can take.

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.

@@TheMaleRei look up the A24 map and you’ll see they’re separate autonomous micro countries.

the irony is that it really just makes journalists look like fcking morons (which they usually are)

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.

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!

What about the US forces abroad?

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!

Were you in special ops or something? I just ask because I feel like most contractors are.

@Garrus1995 no, I was just handy with a rifle and had some good friends in high places.

It easily could have been good

An attempt to be omni movie

WHOOSH

In hindsight a "red" cut and "blue" cut to pander to the respective sides might have made it very interesting and successful.

@@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.

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.

You think you hate MSM journos enough but you don't.

@@lonewolfandcub668 yep.

true but if they had picked a side they'd get demolished for doing it. the whole movie was a bad ideia, there was no scenario in which it would work

@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

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 Rings of the contempt Trump had for the FBI after everything came to light about the "Russian Collusion."

​@@TheMaleRei Looks like KZfaq 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.

@@TheMaleRei I think at this point, disbanding the FBI would actually be a good deed.

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.

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.

I already forgot about it.

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.

Nah, there was plenty of nuance. Most people are just too dense to see it. Movie was very cynical of journalists.

Yeah, the director was obvious with his contempt and attempt at crafting a propaganda fluff piece.

Yup. The president was definitely a lefty, power fantasy wet dream version of the bad Orange Man that will be a dictator and never leave office.

@@brockdavid Not as good as Fallout was at obfuscating the bias at all

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.

Exactly, saw this coming from a mile away

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.

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.

Cause I'm sure you're a fucking model, plus she is meant to look older due to the stress she's been through as a seasoned war journalist

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.

For real lol

Yeah exactly. Enjoy retirement Alex Garland. Leftist hack.

Ok, but why is he evil?

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.

Too cowardly to put a Maga hat on Jesse Plemons, so they went with red shades.

Yepper!

Yeah. Movie was stupid in so many ways, I can’t keep count.

Alaska is a big state, why not texas side with them?

​@@jessejames8900Too far away. Alaska annexes Canada all the way down to Washington state.

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.

@@PolarExpress-ql3nk lol no.

@@A_KZfaq_Commenter Dear god, was that in the movie? Who ever wrote this has absolutely no concept of logistics.

Yeah, and both the novels and film sucked a series of golf balls through an undersized garden hose.

Easy there drama queen...

@@TheOneManWhoBeatYousays you.

The trailer is misleading. There is no bombing run and the Apache never shoots anything.

​@@Kilgore6549great! That will help word of mouth. 🙄

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.

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.

ALWAYS wait for based critics and general user reviews and boycott ham-fisted propaganda (even the subtle kind if the biases stack up high enough).

@@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).

Well they failed because no one is going to see this movie

@@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.

You should! It's based on a true story and has that Guy Richie touch, almost on par with Inglorious Bastards.

I hope that movie turns out good. Cavill deserves a win.

Like we need another anti white anti nazi movie.

Jewish movie

The movie seem like a flop

Agreed, and it sounds like the whole WNBA at large

This is one of the funniest comments I've read in a long time lol.

A team that demands to be paid "according to their needs, from those who have the means"

Or a team in Dodgeball - a film that has more to say about the horrors of war than this.

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.

Well it's not like there are zero good movies being made. You just have to be looking for them harder.

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.

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

Good.

My guess is the original cut was much more left leaning and the studio actually got worried of the potential backlash, so they cut it down

@@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.

He’s way overrated, I won’t miss him. Civil War is excrement.

@@AmericanAdvancement you just know had Trump won in 2020, this would have been a s total political manifesto for 2 hours haha

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?

California has more rights a d free market than Texas does

"Commiefornia" Bruh

It's totally realistic you have no clue about what war is lol.

He was elected to four terms. He served three full terms and then died early into term 4, and Truman took over.

That was a foreign war, not a civil war that split the nation in pieces.

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.

@@gottesurteil3201 the real US Civil War did though and elections were still held

@@fireironthesecond2909 and who pray tell won that one?

That makes sense. It's like reading an issue of _Judge Dredd_ and thinking "WTF? These characters are supposed to be _Americans?_ "

Well Gilbert Gottfried is dead

@@Eirik_Bloodaxe technology can do amazing things....

I thought the president was what's-his-name from Parks & Rec? Hofferman or whatever.

@@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

I've read and seen enough to know I want no part of any potential conflict here.

NOT EVEN FOR FREE

Yes

I recommend that for all modern movies TBH.

Hold my Moose Slobber.

​@@jessejames8900Moose Slobber would make a good name for an IPA.

Canada didn't do that. Britain did that.

Ha! Gary knows what's up!

At the same time, his prime minister has been on camera discussing his disdains for 95% of their population.

Just saw the 40K video you did. Cheers.

Dang. I do love good action sequences

Basically. The whole thing kicks off because a "president" decides to buck the constitution and keep the office for a third term? So what they keep saying Trump will do, despite the fact he already gave up power once? It's such BS.

FDR was fascistic.