The most unrealistic part of the movie was that the president was inside the White House. If there was a civil war happening on this scale he would have been held in the most secure bunker in the world, probably embedded inside a mountain and in a top secret location. I was expecting a surprise twist where they find out he was not even in the White House.

Honestly, most people would probably come away from that movie thinking, "maybe a civil war isn't such a good idea" and I think that's a great message

Saw it last night. Appreciate that it wasn’t political at all. Instead it was just a brutal & violent road trip. 8/10 for me.

My favorite part was the very realistic alliance between Texas and California.

It was smart of them to make Texas and California allies. Great way to take partisan politics out of the movie.

You forgot the part where the Dunst character took a photo of her dead journalist friend but then decided to delete the image. That was a turning point for her character but then her protege takes a photo of her death.

I saw a very left-leaning (& somewhat infamous) reviewer, Grace Randolph complain that it didn't go far enough- because the British filmmaker elected to not favour one political side over the other... Interesting perspective from the so-called 'tolerant left'

the male photographer character (who played Pablo Escobar in Netflix's "NARCOS") didnt stop getting sht faced drunk and stoned throughout the entire movie, not a bad way to wade through complete horrific chaotic madness....

Tim Pool actually had a good quote on this. He said "Civil War is apolitical but from an anti-trump perspective. Meaning they don't outright say orange man bad but that's the premise." The film reminds me of that awful clip from The Newsroom, where the main character is showing off how he's non-partisan by critiquing the Right for being evil and the Left for...not winning enough elections. 🤣

This movie wasn't made by hollywood. It's was made by an independent film company called A24. Independent movies are the futures of film history!!!

The movie isn’t meant to be realistic. In the movie Kristen’s character even said “I took war photos across country hoping to send a message back home saying don’t start a war” in a way this movie is a message to us saying this is what would happen don’t do it. It’s not a political movie, it’s a movie about a war photographer and her perspective she doesn’t care about sides or views. She’s looking for the best shot the whole time. A lot of people missed that for some reason

It's alarming that people say almost casually say, "The country is coming apart." Think about that.

The establishment needs people to fight amongst themselves to continue their own crimes without all eyes on them.

Jesus Christ died for our Sins according to the scriptures and that he Was Buried and that he Rose again the third day praise God praying for everyone everyday God bless you All

While I was watching this movie I kept thinking it would have been helpful if I had watched part 1, first.

The fact that reviewers/commenters from both sides are saying it's pretty non-partisan is credit to Garland. To those saying that California and Texas wouldn't team up.... that's kinda the point. If it'd been red vs blue states you lose the non-partisan aspect. The downside is that doing it that way does remove it's teeth to a degree. Fair play to the makers though.

The best thing about this movie is that it doesn't date itself by picking one side. It simply makes you think about the possibility of a war happening in America and what that would look like. It is timeless because of its non-partisan nature. If it had referenced to many real people or simply been "Texas v. Cali", it would've been forgotten in half a year. But instead it takes the high road and makes an interesting, thought-provoking film. Even though the end did seem rushed.

I was homeless, got into drugs, went into prisons, then i got to know Jesus, He changed my life.. Now i make 22k weekly. have a home, a wife, a lovely daughter... A child of God. HALLELUJAH

The action and sound design are top tier. The last 30 minutes were some of the most intense I’ve seen in a theater

Honestly my biggest gripe with this movie is that Jesse Plemmons was only in it for about 5 minutes! Half the reason I showed up was because he was in the film!

The one reason this movie isn't total garbage is that it comes from a production company that is hyper aware of what's going on. A24 isn't your typical Hollywood production company they are "independent" and kind of do what they want. A lot of their movies are hit or miss. But they all definitely have a different feel than your typical Hollywood movie.

The problem with making a war movie with multiple factions without including any politics or information to explain backstory and motives is that the film just ends up being a bunch of seemingly pointless violence which makes me think the movie was more of a high minded liberal commentary on war itself which is very gay

It really struck me as a kind of warning about what could happen should we have a civil war. I don’t want a civil war but, we all know that it could happen. We definitely need to seek a reunification of the country before this kind of thing actually does happen.

Here is what you all are NOT getting about this movie. The character development of the two female photographers. The old one became emotional at the end and involved herself to save the younger person. She could no longer be desensitized. The young one was sensitive and became desensitized and wasn't affected by her death. There are other lines that could be drawn to us and our generations becoming numb to what we are observing.

A wise man called it a Lamborghini with no engine.

Journalists are heroic figures? Sorry but that is too much disbelief to suspend.

Ya I have to say, After 53 years in the US and knowing its modern American history. Its contribution to call it mainstream broadcast programming. I think that it's become so ingrained in our culture. I don't believe it can be separated no matter how dire the situation is. Nothing can be taken seriously. It has to be a manufacture entertainment spectacle. The camera will continue to roll, Band play, Right until the last inch of ship falls beneath the surface.

Divide and conquer should be the real name of the movie ….

WTF..."that guy who´s name I forget"...Narcos reminds you something?? How is it possible not recognize Wagner Moura?

I thought the movie was just ok. You make some excellent points, Michael, but the lack of context made it all confusing to follow. We never really learn the motivations of the factions at even a base level beyond “we must kill the president.” Without understanding how the conflict began and why it continues, all the rampant violence feels very pointless. I would give it a 4 or 5. Very much middle of the road, but not unwatchable or anything. It has some poignant moments, but lacks a lot of narrative depth that’s so crucial to good storytelling. I would consider watching it again, unlike the Star Wars sequels, but it doesn’t hold a candle to something like Dune or Godzilla Minus One.

movie was boring. wasn't about america falling apart. was about journalists looking for a great story.

Jesse Plemons the bad white man is Dunst's real-life husband.

Watching this video caused me to realize that I haven't seen a single movie since before the lockdowns. And I haven't missed them in the least. I hadn't even noticed their absence until this.

This movie released in April.. President Lincoln was assassinated in April, General Lee of the Confederacy surrendered in April. April also is Confederate History month for some states.. interesting timing

4:45 I think you nailed it. It's an attempt to re-establish an American's trust in the media.

9:52 I’d say that is a call-back to the death of Howard Beal in Network - still the greatest movie about the news industry to this day, with rockin’ performances!

I just can’t get past the fact that the journalists are these honorable heroes. That tells me all I need to know.

Thank you. You saved me $20

I just saw the movie. Your take on it is accurate IMO. I also agree that while the journalist in the movie brags that they are there to record and report, we all know that the real goal for them is to get the award-winning best pic!

The vast majority of the criticisms of the film that i see are from people who are upset that the two sides were undefined and therefore people dont know who to root for. This is ironic because i think that is the purpose of the film. Its not about war or politics or good guys or bad guys. As far as i can tell it is about journalism and photo journalism, but more specifically, what journalism is supposed to be vs. What it is currently in America. Journalism is supposed to be an objective snapshot of the facts of what is currently happening. And that's exactly what the film is supposed to be. A photo of a conflict without the photographers opinions injected into it. So it is vey ironic that most peoples gripe is that they're not told who's side they should be on. I think it is threatening to many people because it forces them to confront the fact that instead of looking at the people that are putting civilians in a mass grave and a tyrannical government that is slaughtering its own citizenry, and saying to themselves "i dont care if that side is left or right, im on the side that is fighting that", they are actually saying "yes, well i see the atrocities that this one side is committing but i dont want to say that im againt them because what if they are are actually portraying the tribe that i belong to". If you see a photo of an atrocity being committed and your first instinct is to make sure that it is not your team committing it before eventually deciding whether or not to condemn it, then you have some soul searching to do.

"Hollywood" seldom if ever makes "movies" about Communism, Leftists etc..etc..etc....I wonder why?

I was waiting for someone from the daily wire to talk about this movie before I potentially went & saw it. So, since Knowles gives it a thumbs up, I think I will go & watch it.

As a Canadian, it was funny to see CAD recognized as more valuable than USD. For me, it was mostly neighbour shooting neighbour and settling old scores, like the 1990's Balkans. Politics were never mentioned and my biggest impression was the idyllic country scenes followed by some random violence make for an interesting dichotomy.

So Nightcrawler (2014) meets Olympus Has Fallen (2013)?

I just hope people watch it and take away the fact that in no shape or form would civil war in America would be good or fun. I was glad they kept it very ambiguous!

I think it says a lot of truth about reporters. They dont care about the people, just their pictures. "Dont let them shoot me!" "Ah ya, thatll make a dope headline." 😂

More movie reviews! I appreciated this.

Before watching I saw a lot of reviewers accuse it of 'fence-sitting' too hard, as if it was too afraid of being hot or cold on contemporary issues and so it just comes out feeling mild. After watching it I realized how badly those people missed the point. It's just about war, and the brevity of it. The mercurial history of the movie's conflict feeds the questions I believe it wants you to ask. Here's what I took away from it: It doesn't play politics and it doesn't even try to discuss the causative elements or the moral contentions of whatever's going on. You're with a bunch of journos in the thick of the shit while they ride the coat tails of soldiers--soldiers don't play politics either, they just soldier. When you're inside the element, the 'why' doesn't really matter (this is highlighted in a few scenes but particularly the one where they take fire in the car and duck out with the sniper nest.) War is that element, and it's on, so that means the talking failed. It doesn't talk shop about lore because it wants to tease the question, "what could have led to this?" Explaining that would be no less labyrinthine than trying to disseminate our current political world to a fledgling mind, (or its imitative fictional politico which would probably be just as enrapt, but in a different way) so it doesn't even bother. As you're enamored in atrocity, eruptions of graphic violence and reflective stalls of murderous tension, I think it wants you to arrive at the answer that the reasons don't matter because nothing could possibly justify this anyway. Or, that the reasons are so inane and incontrovertible that they're tragic in of themselves, because the realm of dialogue is dead and now this is all you're left with, with any hope of verbal resolution being a forgone antiquity. When bullets start flying all that matters is are you left, right, or in the middle. Nobody can reconcile with the dead. There's probably a world of discussion there related to journalist's partisan role in engineering conflict, or their responsibility in its midst. That'd probably be a lot of talking in of itself. My main take-away from it was 'war is the total breakdown of communication.'

God bless you, Michael!!!!

That brief trailer showing Texas and Commiefornia as allies is what lost me entirely. Like most things made in the past decade, I'll pass.

Your future rating scale should use Mayflower cigars. “I give this movie a rating of 7.5 Mayflower cigars out of 10.” Love your work!

A real Civil War movie about the US would be a Game of Thrones multi season epic. Not only would you need context for how our internal disagreements became a shooting war, but you would also have to show the international implications. For example, what would happen in Ukraine, Isreal and Taiwan if a real US Civil War erupted? A second tier conflict would be how do our military leaders react to this? Do they join sides? Do they stay completely out of it? Do they attempt to manage the international stage while civilians duke it out at home? What do individual members of the military do? Do they desert? Do they plead with their family not to get involved? Then there are the faction leaders in the US; how do they decide to organize? Surely there would be internal fights over who is calling the shots. I just dont see this as a 2hr movie with any depth. And that makes it a comedy.

So it’s a movie about modern days and desperate need and desire to have a camera lens as a buffer (our technology addiction) between us and the REAL WORLD.

This sort of sounds like Oliver Stone’s film Salvador. One of the journalists gets shot near the end of the film. Loosely based on John Hoagland who was shot and killed in El Salvador back in 1984.

A journalist will be there at the end of the world right before the madman launches the nuclear weapons asking for a photo op.

That Homer was onto something with road trip stories. Mark Twain did pretty well by the idea too. My favorite modern Odyssey type movie is "The World's Fastest Indian".

That was rude. The guy whose name I forget. Then write it down.

For me one of the biggest points is: how deep and dark America will become, to get at this point of chaos. And the complete opposite of is how someone decides for don’t care at all . And this is happening now

The biggest problem with this movie is that the journalist think that they are the only ones who have cameras. The Internet and social media have proven that we no longer need journalist to tell us their version of what really is happening in the world. This movie does not reflect that and instead Pushes the idea that somehow we need journalist to figure out what the truth is. There are literally millions of online journalists who will get no recognition from the mass media, but do a better job.

I don’t remember the situation, but a few years ago, a photojournalist was honored for taking a photo of a person dying of either thirst, starvation, or something else. After a few months, he was chastised for not having helped the person. You can get the story and still be a Mensch.

The filmmakers stated explicitly that they purposefully made it not reflect current politics. They didn’t want to make current left or right the good or bad guys. So your observation that you couldn’t tell which side they were trying to portray as good or bad was intentional. They were trying to show the anxiety we’re feeling without being preachy one way or the other.

I just see BDU Jim Gaffigan softly singing, "hawwwt pawwwketz" as he "cleans house"...

There must always be peace in America. If we can’t get along then there should be a PEACEFUL separation.

I was kinda hoping it was a Kaiserreich style Civil War between The United States, American Union State, Combined Syndicates of America, and the Pacific States of America

"The Antefa massacre" Antefa obviously _were_ massacred -- they're nothing but cannon fodder, and their own side recognizes that.

I do find it very interesting that liberal media would make a movie portraying a civil war against what’s clearly a tyrant. Very pro-gun, very supportive of the 2nd amendment lol

Create fear. It is needed to create panic. Understand who manipulates the information and why.

I was deployed in Bosnia and I ask my interpreter why did neighbors turn against one another and it was all political for the most part people chose a side folks that went to school together and grew up loving each other turn on each other over BS. So I see the same thing happening here slowly but surely. God help us ❤

It either should have not been called civil war or should have focused more on the actual civil war thats going on.

Seems it's an OK action movie...that simple..viewers will think what they want...Red Dawn was more my style...about civilian ownership of firearms

I think it is supposed to be so ambiguous to allow the viewer to decide who are the “good guys” and to show an 2nd American civil war won’t be so red and blue more like shades of purple

I think the major problem with this type of reviewer and thinking is that they say they aren’t unbiased and therefore honest, but They don’t present the viewpoint they don’t agree with. I think it’s dangerous to have people view their profession like Matthew Knowles.

The great thing about this movie which I think threw everyone off is that the movie isn’t about the actual Civil War. This is Nightcrawler but with war journalists. The sides aren’t important. It doesn’t matter if Texas and California is teamed up. It’s not about that. It’s simply about these journalists going through hell just to get a story and a picture. This “political” movie is very apolitical.

Gee none of us saw this movie coming this year did we. 😂🤣😂

Of all the critiques and reviews of " Civil War" ( Kirsten Dunst, Jesse Plemmons, Nick Offerman) , Michael Knowles, in My Humble Opinion, is the most sober and sane, straight forward , After Action Review ( AAR) , on " Civil War", an A24 Productions Movie 🎥🇺🇲🇺🇸🦅🗽📜🛡️⚔️🪖💣💥🔥💔🇺🇲🇺🇸‼️

The movie sounds as pointless as this review, yet here I am.

I haven’t seen this and I think the part I have heard where they let some people get tortured instead of helping them is something that really turns me off from seeing this movie. I don’t care that you’re a journalist. You should still help people and you can document it to as you’re helping.

All I gotta say: Clearly, the guys who made this movie never heard of the TV series Jericho. Which is a more believable split of the United States. I wonder? In Civil War: The Loyalist States, the Western Forces, the Florida Alliance, and the New People's Army. In Jericho: The United States (also called the Columbus Government), the Allied States (also called the Cheyenne Government), and the Independent Republic of Texas.

Michael Knowles is so delightful. So easy to listen to

Predictive programing movie like Pearl Harbor movie that came out just before 9/11 ?.. timing of this movie is interesting being it a election year

Snipers in the statue of liberty's torch? I'll pass.

I feel like Michael and Andrew are the most normal hosts DW has

@The Critical Drinker liked the plot but said the characters are totally one-dimensional about whom we really know nothing, and they never grow. I trust The Critical Drinker to give me great movie reviews.

*"Third term and attacking American citizens".* Is this movie about Obama *(a.k.a. Barry) ?* 🤔💡😂🤣

If just from this review I feel gaslighted, I can't imagine what it would be like if I watched the whole movie.

I want to know when DW will do a review of Mankind In Amnesia by Immanuel Velikovsky? Here is the answer to War and the ongoing Worship of the planets. But we can’t accept this because of our trauma concerning real catastrophic e events within recorded history. If we are to have a future it will be this book’s cure that will lead the way. If not, no harm no foul.

I actually really liked the movie. I liked that there were multiple factions and none were given preferential treatment. Even the cause was not disclosed

Michael, I think you missed the message about journalism: they are lecturing journalists that it is wrong to try to be objective. The message is: they need to instead take sides and be activists and allies.

Reminds me of The China Syndrome(1979) where the news reporters are the supposit true heroes and nuclear power station problem is secondary.

Sound take on the movie. But one sequence was lazy. It is not possible the gunman at the mass grave would not have heard the truck coming and taken evasive action -- or more likely, shot the driver. I've seen this silly sequence in too many movies.

I read a lot of reviews on the movie and most said they were disappointed in it.

This was my hubbys pick. Being a horror movie fan , I saw A24, so I had high hopes. Instead, I want that 2 hours of my life back😮

Movie is highly overrated, I found it very mediocre, I feel I was watching Meet the Spartans version of Independence Day. Even my friend Robert just saw it with his wife few days ago, said it was one of the worst movies he ever saw in theaters!

| An Apache helicopter hovering in the middle of the street while firing heavy munitions at targets is portrayed as totally not loud…

Ah yes, the fog of war or revolution. Who’s the good guys and who’s the bad guys? Well, all of them. Isn’t that how it eventually goes?

The beauty of Legacy Media propaganda, ladies and gentlemen. That's what this film represents.

The movie was really good! I think many people miss the point of the movie. The movie intentionally pairs California and Texas together, an unlikely pair, so that it wouldn't be accused of taking a side by either parties. The main goal of the movie was to show what could happen during a civil war, where there is a breakdown of law and order through the perspective of flawed photo journalists. In a societal breakdown, those with the guns would be the ones with might, imposing their wishes on those who can't fight back. We see that with the dude in red glasses and how he treats the others who were unarmed.

U know what movie sadly reminds me of what’s going on now. Denzel Washington says “ what if what they really want is for us to heard our children in the stadiums like we’re doing, having American’s looking over their shoulders, bend the law, shred the constitution just a little bit! If we do that then everything that we fought n bled and died for is over and they’ve won! They’ve already won..” Osama bin Laden said that he will destroy your America from the inside out and it might’ve taken him 25 years and him dying to do it. That’s exactly what’s happening. We are slowly being destroyed everything we hold sacred in this country, it’s been shredded a little at a time every day. It’s breaking it peace off of us very little every day those little things you could only chip a teacup for so long it shatters in your hand.

Thanks Mike! Good Job!

So happy to see that Michael Knowles could be objective enough to give this movie a good review. So tired of the critics on the Right missing the boat and distracted with surface politics or, trapped in the implausible details to notice: it's actually a "don't do this" movie. Regardless of what side you're on the moral of the story is don't do this.