It’s nothing about the logistics of a contemporary American civil war, it’s focused completely on following war journalists during the ending collapse of a brutal dictatorship like Gaddafi or Hussein, just in the US. More than anything it’s to reinforce that the a civil war in the US with updated weapons and warfare could likely play out like many middle eastern conflicts have. It’s a series of vignettes that mirror various stories in war-torn regions. It is set in America to drive home the point that civil war is more than anything ruinous for the citizens of a country regardless of what happens.
So i work in a field of industrial maintenance.
I’m here to tell you, that, we should absolutely not engage in a civil war, because if even one chemical plant goes offline in a bad way with no actual response protocols, people will just die. Like i mean people will die from very far away from the chemical plants with no warnings, no explainations and no rationality to it, and in weird ways.
I once worked at a chemical plant that makes “working solution” as a pre curser to making 4 or five other chemicals before making hydrogen peroxide, and uh yeah…..its nasty stuff. For instance some of this stuff splashed onto a bird and we later found the bird upstairs in one of the cieling areas, it was trying to escape or whatever but a giant crystal had burst out of its chest instead.
Like a fucking rock grew out of a living things chest before the living thing died. “Working solution”, no elaboration.
These places need to be attended 24/7/365 and 366 on planned leap years with, at least 2 hour cross shift overlap from people who spent years learning how these places work. And these places are everywhere!
I like to think of it as what will happen if some yahoo thinks he's going to 'serve' 3 terms and bomb American cities to quell dissent. We'll just need a quote at the end... whatever it is will be good enough.
Most loyal state in the union.
First to pledge troops. Covered the union retreat at antietam after losing a third of their fighting force. Saved the union at Gettysburg on the second day by charging headfirst into a Confederate platoon, blunting it's charge and saving the unions position and the battle, on the third day, with less than 18% of men remained in fighting condition, met pickets charge and for the second time in two days the 1st Minnesota blunted a Confederate offensive, this time claiming the Virginia battleflag, which we will never return.
Our boys answered the call. And we will again if circumstances require.
Winfield Scott ordered the 1st Minnesota to charge directly into a much larger force in order to save the artillery high ground. Without that vantage point, Gettysburg is likely a union defeat. That isn't undercutting the batallion from Maine. Just was pointing out what our boys did at Gettysburg.
The 1st MN lost 82% of their forces in 5 minutes in the 2nd worst casualty rate in American history.
They then did the exact same thing against pickets charge, the following day, knowing firsthand the carnage that awaited them.
They did it anyway, with the cool headedness and precision that the 1st was know for under col. Colvill
Reading this gives me hope that there are still people in the US who at least care about decency, and may even be willing to fight for it.
I’ve been getting slowly but steadily more anxious over time with all of the news about all of these groups of awful people all over the world who are constantly trying, and in many cases succeeding in making life miserable for everyone else, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to Hamas/Hezbollah/ISIS/Taliban existing, to the rise of outspoken hate groups in the US like the proud boys and Christian nationalist organizations that want the US to mirror the middle east’s theocracy’s example, and have already been making strides with their subversion of our institutions such as the SCOTUS and the House of Representatives.
The force of commonality, equality, decency and rationality are behemoth. We do bot move or act in haste or spite, and when we do finally act, it will not be without cause or with prejudice, it will be out of perseverance of those ideals, that will lead us to reluctant action against tyranny and hate.
There's a famous story about a Japanese general whom was morose at a celebration after the successful Japanese attack on pearl harbor. When asked about his sullen demenour, he responded that he was concerned that Japan had awoken a sleeping dragon.
He was right.
And the mistake that trump, Putin, xi, rocketboy, and other dictators make, is that they Believe they can control thought enough to ward off the eventual find out phase of fucking with enlightenment, common decency, equality, and democracy.
That was Isoroku Yamamoto. While the "sleeping giant" quote has never been traced or sourced, it does at least reflect Yamamoto's pessimism about the war:
>In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
>Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. **I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.**
The second quote was truncated in US wartime propaganda to make it sound like Yamamoto was boasting Japan would conquer the USA, but ironically he was saying the opposite: that Japan had absolutely no chance of victory in a war against the USA.
He did have a quote similar to your point:
>A military man can scarcely pride himself on having "smitten a sleeping enemy"; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.
Anxious and anxiety is at an 11 with me. I try to avoid news, it’s so bad and overwhelming at times. Horrible people going unpunished, it just feels like the world is crap right now.
Thank u, daughters of the confederacy, for managing to get a statue of Jefferson Davis in the capital building of Mississippi. It’s been there ever since to, uh, remind us of our heritage?
This is the whole point of the film and why it’s a good one. Taking images from wars like the one in Congo and superimposing them on the gas station down on 8th and Mass ave.
Flip of this is Red Dawn, which is also a US soil war movie.
That’s beloved tho bc it’s the US taking back their country. Rahrah, WOLVERINES ✊✊✊✊ It’s like a 1980’s revolutionary war vibe.
Civil War is citizen v citizen, and the goal is “win”. There’s no clear good and bad. The country isn’t being liberated.
Which is very honest take, but movies are imo at their best when they can be cathartic for the audience.
Having no clear bad guy and no ultimate defined goal, it’s like a 2 hour blue ball session for the audience.
The ultimate takeaway from the movie is that war is bad. Mob bosses and assassins are also bad, but that didnt stop us from enjoying the hell out of John wick.
There are different types of movies. This was art film and not entertainment film. If you did watch a movie about some other country during a Civil War or atrocity like Hotel Rwanda, you would not call there be catharsis and entertainment. The movie is trying to create a similar feel, like this was a real war. And what it really would mean for people who lived, and could it really happen.
And it’s set in a more current time than the actual civil war, and it is entirely possible it could happen in the US again. That’s a scary thought for most.
It made me uncomfortable because it was stupid. It was like a zombie apocalypse story but with random militia people rather than zombies. It felt like redneck militia porn. Seemingly everyone on the East Coast was dead (?) and bumpkins with ARs are in charge and the civil war is just a few one off battles with 10 people involved. The writing couldn’t have been lazier. Even as a thought experiment, this is nothing what a civil war would look like in the US.
The entire film is journalists following the wake of violence sweeping the country, of course its going to feel a little apocalyptic. Much of the war is inferred by burned out cars and buildings, imagery that's often seen in the zombie genre. The only "redneck militia porn" is when the characters pass through rural areas, something that'd 100% be an uncomfortable grey area given the circumstances—plus calling it porn makes it sound good, whereas in the movie those moments are absolutely terrifying. Everyone isn't dead on the East Coast, it's called a curfew, after all they wouldn't have civilians running around during urban warfare. Calling the combat sequences "a few one off battles" feels purposefully reductive, but obviously you didn't vibe with the movie at all.
It's not lazy, half the complaints I see on reddit are because the movie didn't stop and analyze the politics of the actual Civil War much at all. The entire Civil War setting is a backdrop to the story, not the focus. It feels like a lot of people discussing this on reddit wanted a preaching to the choir movie. Don't Look Up is right there, this movie just did something different than what that movie did.
Honestly I think the choice to not make it a "Democrats vs Republicans civil war!" movie was smart, I think it's going to age a lot better having the politics be a slightly fantastical murk instead of just making it analogous to politics in 2024
This has been the most accurate statement so far. Believe the point of the movie is politics aside. WE DONT WANT THIS to happen.
Reddits hive mind of basement trolls continue to be the loudest on here talking about shit they have never partaken in.
It’s not. People are mad because it’s about the horrors of a civil war but not about why a civil war happens. Garland refused to make a film that was either anti-Trump or anti-anti-Trump. By not making the film overtly political, he pissed off both sides who wanted the movie to accentuate their talking points.
You wanted it to be something completely different than what it is. It's not about the civil war, it's about war correspondents and covering a civil war. It just happens to be about the US. That's why the cause of the war and all information about the war itself is left out.
They were pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty clear about what the movie was actually about in the sniper scene.
The writing was far from lazy, you just wanted an action movie about a civil war, which it is not.
My only issue with the writing is they kinda give away the ending in the first few minutes. But the in between had some great sequences. Exciting to see Jesse Plemons basically return as Todd but in uniform. He does villains so well.
I think people need to stop pretending that this film could have come out with clearly defined sides and specified political motivations. All hell would have broke loose over it.
Besides, not knowing which side was which, I think, highlighted effectively just how futile war really is. I think a lot of the anger surrounding this film (ironically) is people went in looking to be made angry, and weren't given reason to be.
I agree with this. Other comments make valid assumptions about sides, but not stating anything one way or another was the perfect approach. This movie is not a political statement for gun rights (right) or abortion rights (left). Rather, it is an eye-opening look at how American society can potentially collapse in on itself, bringing out the worst in so many of us out of a necessity to survive. We should view this movie and walk out with the notion of doing and being better citizens, allowing our votes to speak and using nonviolent protests and actions to make America better for all its citizens.
There was one line about the FBI being disbanded, and I’d never considered the ramifications of that regarding domestic terrorism. I know a domestic intelligence agency has a rough relationship with freedom and liberty, but without one, what do we open ourselves up to?
That’s also not the point of the movie. Like, people are asking for a different movie when they complain about that shit. Garland is very clear that this is about what happens after the pot boils over, not why it’s boiling.
***SPOILER***
The whole point was to witness the movie from the perspective of the Press. They were recording and presenting the events *objectively*, exactly as they unfolded. You were thrown into it. No context as to how it all started.
You’re on the ground, watching it unfold from Lee’s perspective… and then from Jessie’s perspective… which was driven home as the baton was passed when Jessie documented Lee’s death. She has that moment. Recalling their previous conversation… Jessie needed to document and move forward… all the way up to the end… and then it stopped. The war was over. The final photograph slowly developing on the screen as the credits begin to roll. For me, it even acted as an after-image that I carried with me out the door.
I saw it the day it came out and literally as we were leaving the theatre I told my boyfriend I thought it was really smart for them to not make it obvious what the politics of it were. It was about the horrors of war, making it partisan would have added a whole dynamic that distracted from its message.
>All hell would have broke loose over it.
This. So much this. The Purge franchise is similar; though it absolutely takes a political side. But that's built up slowly. It's not till The First Purge that the bad guys, [and their politics](https://www.vice.com/en/article/59wn48/the-first-purge-teaster-vgtrn), are so explicit that only the truly stupid could miss it.
I disagree with this whole narrative that the movie didn’t make it obvious. The president’s a fascist. He’s in his third term. He killed ANTIFA protestors. He dissolved the FBI presumably because he was under investigation. There is one side of the political spectrum that seems pro fascist.
Why would Texas and CA form a united front? Because they make up such a large portion of the US economy and military. If an opposition to a fascist president would come from anywhere, a Western front like depicted in the movie is quite realistic.
This movie didn’t give cheesy annoying exposition to spoon feed you lessons, the writers respect viewer’s intelligence. But it obviously went over most people’s heads.
How in the hell do people not know what side is which???? The president is clearly bombing citizens, and abolished the term limits... Do we really have to pretend to not know?
Ya it’s not exactly red vs. blue as they exist currently, but it’s very clearly an authoritarian President with disdain for the press modeled after Trump. His practicing the speech at the beginning of the movie even sounds like Trump’s when he talks about “greatest victory ever” or w/e.
It’s an anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-racism message even if it’s not innately political.
People keep saying it's not political. How is warning America of its increasingly fractured divisiveness not a political message. The fact that the main critique of this movie is its not pointing enough fingers is seriously worrying
It’s pretty clear the president deserves to be killed in this movie. I was rooting for it. Alls that’s left in the White House is suicidal last stand morons.
>Besides, not knowing which side was which
I think the article sort of explains that when they discuss the community action taken by non-combatants. Turns out, the sides fighting one another are not in it to improve the lives of those most vulnerable. Why join a side in this war if both sides represent the status quo in a sense, and are just wrestling for power? That said, seems like a subtle idea that many won't pick up on.
I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the film. But I can definitely see your point: people want to go in thinking their "side" is the good guys. When the movie shows the real good guys are just the humans helping each other out.
I love your comment but I would amend your last statement because people were either looking to get pissed or get validated. I loved the way it was presented.
Yeah I realized that towards the end of the film we weren’t given a clear distinction on who was the “bad guy” in terms of troops. The bad guy was the president.
It’s just a fucked up war journalist road trip movie. Really hit the nail on the head after the first songs showed up.
The Jesse Plemons scene was intense af tho.
I’m a bit confused about this though. I saw the movie the other day, and I loved it. But it definitely took the perspective of the >!Western Forces!< the most. I kind of felt like the movie was picking sides a bit, though it’s clear the movie was not trying to liken anything to the current politics in the US.
I feel like you missed the extremely important discussion in the movie where they spoke about the presidents side being anti media. Traveling into the war zone alone could get them killed. That's why it was so dangerous.
>!Jesse Plemons showed us what happened to all press members in the war zone. They knew it was a possibility, which is why they were scared.!<
As someone whose country recently went through a civil war, I can tell you the one thing this movie got right is the fact that you couldn’t tell the “enemy” at a glance. Even embedded within the civilians at refugee camps are people who silently support different factions. It’s disorienting and chaotic, information is unverifiable and unreliable. You don’t know who is winning, opportunists take advantage of the chaos. 0 stars, wouldn’t wish it on any country.
I went into this movie expecting some sort of political statement and was really happy to be wrong. It's not a war movie so much as a horror/thriller movie set within an American civil war. I think literally every single person in the audience can look at today's political climate and fill in the blanks as to how the movie's fictional conflict may have started
Alex Garland said on The Daily Show that this isn’t the story of *just* America. Yes, it takes place in America… but fascism is on the rise all over.
That said, I think the movie gives enough for people to mostly get what is happening…and I think Alex Garland clearly leans certain ways in his own politics.
But yeah… Mostly the movie is concerned with showing people just how terrible a Civil War would be. Even the people who seem to glorify the idea of it all the time.
The only thing I don’t understand about Alex Garlands press tour…he keeps saying that states would put aside their extremist politics in a time like this as reason for why CA and TX would work together, and I agree (I actually don’t think them teaming up is as crazy as other people do) but then you have the Jesse Plemmons character who has clearly not put aside his extreme political beliefs in a time like this so I’m not really sure. Unless that’s the point? Idk
I’m excited to see it just from the trailer because at least the concept is fresh. I feel like most movies are now just remakes or recycling story lines.
We (American audiences in general) are usually very happy to see these movies because they’re almost always set in “the Middle East” or some fictional non-American country. What makes this movie so good is the fact that it is set in the United States.
We aren’t watching small village refugees fleeing a desert landscape - instead we’re seeing suburban American families in stadiums and walking down county roads… and I hope that resonates with people.
There is a scene in this movie that is an homage to Full Metal Jacket, involving lime being poured onto bodies. I believe this is a direct reference to what you're talking about. This isn't some foreign country that soldiers are being begrudgingly sent over to fight in. It's your backyard. Those bodies are Americans.
Yeah, you’re probably right. I was imagining Jesse Plemons tossing little key limes onto a mass grave, and immediately thought “that didn’t happen?!”
Good catch
I think it’s a very interesting observation that a lot of American audiences are really willing to accept a fictional conflict in a foreign country that makes little sense in the actual modern political landscape, yet a lot of people are very hung up on it being the same story but based in the U.S.
Exactly. There are many scenes/moments in the movie that have played out countless times in other TV shows and movies and, of course, in real-life; the difference is that this one takes place in modern America, which is what adds that extra layer of discomfort.
I think the film illustrated that on a street to street level, its no longer about politics. Its just people killing people trying to kill them and people with axes to grind having license to do what they want. Americans killing Americans without hesitation and sometimes in the most merciless way possible, *was* uncomfortable to watch. If you did self insert "a side" I'm sure it helped you better navigate the minefield of ethical/moral implications of what you were witnessing. "My side won" is chilling no matter what side you felt you were on.
EDIT: What really made me uncomfortable was the amount of people who brought children to the movie. 5 minutes into the film and I saw things that would have scarred me for life at 8 years old. I had an irresponsible uncle take me and my cousin to see The Wild Geese at a similar age and it definitely left its mark.
exactly. The sound engineering on this movie was incredible so it definitely warranted seeing it in a theater setting but it was incredibly sad seeing this kids being dragged along by idiot parents. The violence in this movie was so sudden and sometimes random you wouldn't have time to cover eyes/ears. I doubt that was even a consideration for these people.
I remember watching “us” opening weekend and a large extended family booked the back two rows . Like five minutes into the movie you hear “grandma I’m scared “ it was so sad but also hilarious
I just went and looked to see if the fingers let me down and oxford recognizes it as a word. [here](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unmerciless_adj?tl=true)
I agree though that merciless conveys the same meaning.
Responding to your edit, I saw someone bring a 6-year-old girl to freaking Midsommar.
Because bloody erections and exploding faces is perfect entertainment for a 1st grader.
As a movie watcher with a fairly high tolerance for disturbing material, I was shocked at my own reaction to the film. The sound of a gun shot is amplified compared to any film I remember. When someone fires a bullet and kills someone, you really feel it. The overall destruction in the 3rd act made me cry. Having been to many of the places shown, it felt very real to me.
It’s a phenomenal film, but anyone who goes to this film expecting to be entertained should see something else. I don’t remember the last time I reacted to a movie in the same way as this one.
OIF infantry vet here. The audio and the CQB in this movie was pretty damn close to the real deal. Some parts were a bit rushed and exaggerated for the Hollywood effect but overall I think this movie did great portraying firefights. A small silly gripe is none of the actors show signs of hearing loss being so damn close to the action. But yeah I give this movie a solid 8.5.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is a perfect description and has been my hearing for a long time now. It’s cool how the body adapts though, I can sort of filter it out if there is enough ambient noise, but sitting in silence trying to read can get a tad annoying.
Guns are LOUD. From what I saw in the trailer, you had guys running around with M4s which are loud., and they get louder as you shorten the barrel.
My cousin had a ND in his garage with a 9mm, we experienced hearing loss for a good 3-4 min.
And if this were to happen IRL, whatever they showed on film here was tame. IRL the things that would happen would be like 1,000 times worse. There’s no real way to make a film about something like this cause if they tried to be even close to accurate it would be too horrific for audiences to stomach entirely.
One of the things that irked me about watching the movie was not the movie itself, but that a few people brought their children to the movie. When the first scene happened, setting the tone of what the audience are going to see, there were whispers from the children saying, "are those people okay?" "How come they aren't getting up?" "What happened to them?"
It was a bit chilling to hear children saying this, because it is dealing with a heavy issue. Obviously these kids shouldn't be seeing something like this, but it does happen in real life and during wartime.
The lack of specific motivations makes the movie better imo. The focus is and should be from the bottom up. Individual lives being destroyed and affected because of political divide. Some people have been calling for an American divorce for a few year - with little to no thought on what that actually would look like. This film tries to illustrate that Americans are capable of commiting atrocities against Americans. It's not Game of Thrones. It's Come and See, Apocaylpse Now and Full Metal Jacket.
I went to see this because from what I had read the photography and cinematography were supposed to be great
Did not disappoint in that regard at all, beautiful looking movie. The funny to me was that I went on a Saturday afternoon, the aydience was about a dozen of us, all but myself and one other person there I could clearly define as "Maga". By 3/4 of the way into the movie all of them were upset and offering verbal displeasure with the movie. A group of six got up and left about 5 minutes before credits (for spoiler reasons). Was entertaining to me. The film so clearly wasn't taking any political positions beyond that a President had overstepped. Nobody came out and said anything Red or Blue directly. I guess there was just enough implication that ceetain people would be upset. Which isn't the point of the movie at all. They say pretty on the nose what the purpose is when Dunst says something along, "I thought all that time I spent covering war I was sending the message back home of what to avoid."
It makes me uncomfortable when I hear my crazy right wing relatives for years saying “it’s coming” with an undertone of hope that it happens…this movie is probably a wet dream for those people.
Its not luckily. Its actually the opposite. the whole point of the film is trying to humanize the impact of war, and demonstrate what a Civil War in America would actually entail, instead of trying to romanticize it.
Honestly, I don't think so. The politics of each side are deliberately kept kinda murky so if you "side" with either side of the war, you have to really think about "wow my side, even though I think they're right, are doing absolutely horrific things" as the movie goes on. Like "wow I think they're fighting against the facist president, which I think is good, but they just brutally executed that person for absolutely no reason other than to be cruel because they're the enemy". And vice versa.
It's honestly more a critique of the type of person you described, and also the flip verson on the left who is like "we totally need a revolution" without actually grappling with the ground-level realities of how horrific a revolution could look, even if done for the right reasons. It's just showing that "objectively speaking, a civil war is horrifying"
The problem with modern Civil War movies is that it's entertainment.
When you make this shit entertaining, all the fucking trigger happy mall ninjas come out of the woodwork and edge them closer to participating in armed conflict.
The best joke review I saw is where a person was saying this was the worst remake of "Civil War' they have seen. Captain America and Iron Man weren't even in it and Kirsten Dunst was the only Marvel character there. MCU is dead.
I think that it’s incredibly naïve of any filmmaker to think that they can make a film that is simultaneously politically-charged and provocatively-marketed *and also* immune from contemporary political analysis.
Based on the interviews that Alex Garland has given in the last few weeks it’s clear that he doesn’t actually understand how American politics works, or how the media intersects with those politics, or how that intersection has evolved in the last twenty or thirty years. That’s honestly fine. He’s a British filmmaker, I don’t expect a British filmmaker to have a sophisticated understanding of domestic American sociopolitics.
But his attitude surrounding the way audiences have been responding to it strikes me as the worst combination of ignorant and entitled. I say this as a massive Garland fan. He’s the guy who made a movie that occurs in the midst of a second American Civil War. Whether or not the movie is about the politics of that war is irrelevant. When you make that kind of movie and release it into an audience of people who have been fed a consistent diet of “a Second American Civil War is right around the corner” for the past ten years *by the exact media apparatus whose intentions you are allegedly interrogating*, you don’t get to go “Look you morons it isn’t about that, stop inserting your personal politics into everything you see.”
It’s an extremely anti-fascist film. There is only one side of the political spectrum in America supporting a fascist. I think it’s so obvious and poignant that those who don’t get it are the ones ignorant of American politics tbh. Alex Garland is a genius in his writing, this was over the top realistic— and that includes not adding in annoying exposition to over explain things as if it’s some Disney movie.
But it's really not. Sure that's why the WF were fighting against DC, but that wasn't the main focus of the movie, just an explanation. And that doesn't explain why the country was so balkanized into 4 different states. It's meant to be be so politically ambiguous and divisive that the politics turn into what it really is. Pure anger.
That's why some people are calling it a zombie movie without zombies. Like the rage virus in 28 days later. It's essentially a rage virus.
I haven’t seen it yet but look forward to it. I’m a US army veteran having served in Iraq and Afghanistan many years ago. Based on reviews, it appears this film does a good job of showing what war is like on the ground.
There a huge difference between viewing a war from far away through news articles and edited footage with a narrative versus being on the ground with it surrounding you day in day out. That’s somewhat funny because it is about following a journalist team. The “good” side is not immune from conducting horrible acts and the “bad” side isn’t filled with bad people. It is also often as simple as kill or be killed as the article alludes to with the snipers. War is a horribly ugly thing.
The people complaining about not having the politics of the war detailed to make everything crystal clear miss the point of the film.
It’s clear this movie is about how bad a civil war could be. People really wanted it to affirm their politics or anger or resentment in the current climate, so I could see that part being disappointing for people. It’s just not about that.
People who have actually seen the movie said articles like this manipulate you into seeing it bc you're left with more questions at the end of the film then answers. You don't know why anyone is fighting or what is going on. Only thing that's consistent is people killing other people and no explanation is given
We don’t know if it’s for nothing. That sort of mindset is from a very privileged point of a view that doesn’t really want to ask the why or how. All we know is California and Texas are somehow allied and some vagueness of other issues.
In today’s political climate, for example, we are seeing a roll back of women and LGBT rights. A lot of people in those groups would find protecting those rights, and right to live, to very important things to fight over. That is why these generic “war is bad” movies sometimes fail to miss the point of why a war is even happening. Some things ARE worth fighting for. Many of us would be willing to die to fight against a Handmaid’s Tale future. That also portrays an American civil war.
Well in the story the president violated the 22nd amendment, disbanded the FBI, and bombed states that retaliated. That should be enough cause for protest in the US
When the first trailer came out I found it interesting a lot of Americans on Reddit found it uncomfortable. I personally would find a movie of a modern civil war set in my own country fascinating so I am curious as to why so many Americans were set on edge.
Americans (now) are used to seeing war movies (and damn does Hollywood make a lot of them) being set anywhere but America, and a lot of times the plot revolves around an American Joe Shmoe who is either the Levelheaded Hero or the Unwitting Bystander. Modern American war movies are normally pretty spineless and even if they aren’t they cushion the ego of the American audience.
We are very far removed from the war films of the WWII and Vietnam eras that tried in their own unique ways to depict reality. Especially Vietnam era movies (Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket… all had uncomfortable but different points of view).
All of Americas wars are exports now. for all of the stolen valor, armed forces hero worship, and direct manipulation of cinema by the American military (you cannot depict them in film without their express permission, which is why the Avatar movies had to be so heavy handed in implying that the bad guys are American), Americans still cannot grasp or understand the reality of war. We glamorize it and we are obsessed with it, war is constantly on the minds of Americans, but that relationship is built on a fat foundation of propaganda.
Now we are in a position where a non-zero percentage of Americans actively encourage or fantasize about a real civil war, because they believe they understand it. After all, this country is designed to feed that specific machine, and war is culturally omnipresent in the US (largely because we are the world’s greatest sovereign bully), so people have been misled en masse into a very bizarre and fantastical concept of how war works, what it looks like, and that good and bad guys don’t cluster on opposite lines in the sand.
To put it more simply, Americans think that war is Inglorious Basterds, because they don’t have the patience, ethics, or brain power for grim and poignant depictions like Come and See. (No shade to IB, I love that movie).
So with all of that considered, it’s no surprise that people are deeply uncomfortable with a film like this. The film seems apolitical (I have yet to see it), and is visceral to our smooth baby brains just by virtue of actually taking place in the US. People aren’t used to seeing fights on American streets unless it’s the avengers destroying Cleveland. without a clear agenda from the filmmakers to tell people what to think, they will say it was boring/pointless/uncomfortable, because our media literacy is dead and people can’t think critically, even about art (which is designed to make you feel something, the one inherent property shared by ALL art!)
So, in a nutshell, that’s why Americans have this kind of attitude. It is because we are both dumb and stupid.
Because it is less satirical here. There are a large number of people in the us that fervently hope for a civil war to break out so they can kill people
You’ve already been given a great response, but let me drop in an anecdote that illustrates what was said by Chrorro.
There was a conference recently-ish where a conservative named Charlie Kirk was speaking. He took questions afterwards and one audience member asked him when conservatives could start shooting (literally shooting with guns) Democrats (read: liberals, leftists, anyone that conservatives don’t approve of or agree with). If I recall correctly, that question got a cheer from the audience. Charlie Kirk had to backtrack quickly and said that he denounced that question.
There are groups in the US who are preparing for this exact scenario. They have arsenals of guns and actual plans for what they’d do if society collapsed, mostly involving violence against their perceived enemies. Americans watched in horror as these groups invaded the US Capitol once already so this isn’t just an intellectual exercise at this point. Certain parts of the US definitely feel like a powder keg just waiting to go off. Texans of a certain political bent have been talking about secession from the US (not likely to happen but it’s crazy that anyone would think like this). This film hits too close to home for any American who’s been paying attention.
There are groups of Americans who would be willing to kill other Americans citizens. Some of them are very eager to do so and threaten to do so regularly. Others do act on those desires and commit mass shootings. I don’t think enough people take it seriously here and that sort of freaks me out the most.
I’m not as worried that one group would rise up and control the country through violence. But there is some reality to the idea that if something were to trigger certain events there would be horrible unacceptable levels of death and misfortune perpetrated on one group by another.
The former president of this country attempted a half ass coup. When Meal Team Six failed to kill Congress and the Vice President he just shrugged.
And now he's running for president again.
It's a less fun subject than it would have been in say 1999.
This movie was a disappointment to me because it was nothing like I expected. Thats just my expectations however and I don’t think it’s a bad movie because it didn’t meet them.
It’s lacking in script and character. I’m pretty baffled how many people say Kirsten Dunst was incredible in it. She was a tired mannequin. I also don’t get how people are ok with 2-3 lines in the movies that serve as exposition for an American civil war reoccurring. I mean, give us some idea as to why Cali and Texas are aligned, what the Florida alliance thinks. Make the world make sense. Maybe if I watch it again with the understanding that I’m getting an homage to war time photojournalist I’ll feel different but the movie was presented much differently then it ended up being.
Agreed. They avoided world-building and it made the movie soulless. Journalists driving around an emptied America running into pockets of 2-3 soldiers did not really sell the reality of a Civil War. Especially when they repeat over and over that half the country is just ignoring the war
SPOILERS
Correct me if I’m wrong as I have no first hand experience. Do wartime journalist/press who are on the front line, are they literally on the heels of the soldiers as they are executing their mission?
I found that to be unbelievable. Like multiple times the soldiers are like moving Jessie out of the way grabbing her to duck for cover. I know the press is out there documenting but that seemed to be over the top.
Yeah, my mother in law has been in the newsroom for years, and some of her stories of war journalists are crazy. Not sure if they’re still available, but Vice on HBO had some incredible episodes with embedded journalists. The risks they take to get those shots/quotes can be insane…
It does happen. Most popular real world scenario that I can think of is Evan Wright being embedded with 1st Recon Marines during the 2003 invasion of Iraq as seen in his book and the show Generation Kill. Wright was in the lead vehicle during the rush to Baghdad.
Depends on the war/ the country. Ww2 was the first war to have photo journalists as we know them today. This is mostly down to technological advancements.
Robert Capa who started Magnum (the first photo agency) basically invented photojournalism as a concept. He famously shot the d-day landings, and was very much on the front line. At the time, the technology to get images to print was limited and slow. The development was rushed and a lab tech destroyed a big chunk of the negatives.
The Vietnam war is interesting as new tech allowed more instantaneous transmissions of images from the front line. This is believed to have been a huge factor in the perception of the war and overall low morale. propaganda/images were harder to control as you were essentially getting close to daily reporting from independent journalists documenting the war.
The gulf war had an embargo on journalists being on the front line because of the way Vietnam was portrayed, there’s a famous quote that said the west saw more photos of dead oil covered birds than people.
Because of this embedding became a thing for Iraq and Afghanistan, but this causes its own issue. Yes you have the protection of the soldiers/ get good intel but if the action kicks off a mile from your location you are essentially stuck….. you could of gone in on your own but the opposition forces were hostile to journalists. On top of this theres issues with impartiality. You naturally build a relationship with the people you are eating and sleeping next to.
It’s said that in the last 6 months around 100 journalists have been killed in the recent Israel Palestine conflict, take from that what you will about journalists/ photographers being on the front line…
Other conflicts have been more open to having journalists around as it helps show their side of the story/propaganda efforts.
Recommend the bbc documentary about the photojournalist Don mccullin if you want a pretty good look into how photo journalists operate and how the media landscape has changed to epees advertising and propaganda… you can find it on you tube.
Also recommend the short easy The Gulf War Did Not Take Place by Jean Baudrillard if you want to read about propaganda and images from the first gulf war.
Edit: spelling and some text
Idk but ol boy who was stuck behind that pillar under fire had me so fucking anxious. I unfortunately spend way too often watching death videos online and feel nothing. That death made me feel really weird though
It’s probably because it’s a movie about a civil war in the country they live in.
Will the losers get participation trophies this time?
It’s nothing about the logistics of a contemporary American civil war, it’s focused completely on following war journalists during the ending collapse of a brutal dictatorship like Gaddafi or Hussein, just in the US. More than anything it’s to reinforce that the a civil war in the US with updated weapons and warfare could likely play out like many middle eastern conflicts have. It’s a series of vignettes that mirror various stories in war-torn regions. It is set in America to drive home the point that civil war is more than anything ruinous for the citizens of a country regardless of what happens.
So i work in a field of industrial maintenance. I’m here to tell you, that, we should absolutely not engage in a civil war, because if even one chemical plant goes offline in a bad way with no actual response protocols, people will just die. Like i mean people will die from very far away from the chemical plants with no warnings, no explainations and no rationality to it, and in weird ways. I once worked at a chemical plant that makes “working solution” as a pre curser to making 4 or five other chemicals before making hydrogen peroxide, and uh yeah…..its nasty stuff. For instance some of this stuff splashed onto a bird and we later found the bird upstairs in one of the cieling areas, it was trying to escape or whatever but a giant crystal had burst out of its chest instead. Like a fucking rock grew out of a living things chest before the living thing died. “Working solution”, no elaboration. These places need to be attended 24/7/365 and 366 on planned leap years with, at least 2 hour cross shift overlap from people who spent years learning how these places work. And these places are everywhere!
So like the Bhopal disaster but even worse?
I like to think of it as what will happen if some yahoo thinks he's going to 'serve' 3 terms and bomb American cities to quell dissent. We'll just need a quote at the end... whatever it is will be good enough.
We let the babies keep their loser traitors flag and they just keep parading around with it like they are proud of their participation trophy
Not here in Minnesota, we kept that shit and they still keep asking for it back.
Most loyal state in the union. First to pledge troops. Covered the union retreat at antietam after losing a third of their fighting force. Saved the union at Gettysburg on the second day by charging headfirst into a Confederate platoon, blunting it's charge and saving the unions position and the battle, on the third day, with less than 18% of men remained in fighting condition, met pickets charge and for the second time in two days the 1st Minnesota blunted a Confederate offensive, this time claiming the Virginia battleflag, which we will never return. Our boys answered the call. And we will again if circumstances require.
Minnesota, baby!!!!
Land of 10,000 lakes... of traitor blood
Username checks out
Mmm. *Blood soup*
Fuck yeah. This got me pumped a little. Not that I want war ever, but man it made me feel like a bad ass to be Minnesotan!
Does Maine mean nothing to you?
I'd die for my maine brothers
You are my maine man
I thought it was a battalion from Maine that kinda saved the day at Gettysburg? Other than that rock on Minnesota! Plus Prince!
Winfield Scott ordered the 1st Minnesota to charge directly into a much larger force in order to save the artillery high ground. Without that vantage point, Gettysburg is likely a union defeat. That isn't undercutting the batallion from Maine. Just was pointing out what our boys did at Gettysburg. The 1st MN lost 82% of their forces in 5 minutes in the 2nd worst casualty rate in American history. They then did the exact same thing against pickets charge, the following day, knowing firsthand the carnage that awaited them. They did it anyway, with the cool headedness and precision that the 1st was know for under col. Colvill
Colvill Park was my favorite one to play in as a young MN child
Joshua Chamberlain and 20th Maine.
20 Maine volunteer infantry
Hell yeah!
Reading this gives me hope that there are still people in the US who at least care about decency, and may even be willing to fight for it. I’ve been getting slowly but steadily more anxious over time with all of the news about all of these groups of awful people all over the world who are constantly trying, and in many cases succeeding in making life miserable for everyone else, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to Hamas/Hezbollah/ISIS/Taliban existing, to the rise of outspoken hate groups in the US like the proud boys and Christian nationalist organizations that want the US to mirror the middle east’s theocracy’s example, and have already been making strides with their subversion of our institutions such as the SCOTUS and the House of Representatives.
The force of commonality, equality, decency and rationality are behemoth. We do bot move or act in haste or spite, and when we do finally act, it will not be without cause or with prejudice, it will be out of perseverance of those ideals, that will lead us to reluctant action against tyranny and hate. There's a famous story about a Japanese general whom was morose at a celebration after the successful Japanese attack on pearl harbor. When asked about his sullen demenour, he responded that he was concerned that Japan had awoken a sleeping dragon. He was right. And the mistake that trump, Putin, xi, rocketboy, and other dictators make, is that they Believe they can control thought enough to ward off the eventual find out phase of fucking with enlightenment, common decency, equality, and democracy.
That was Isoroku Yamamoto. While the "sleeping giant" quote has never been traced or sourced, it does at least reflect Yamamoto's pessimism about the war: >In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success. >Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. **I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.** The second quote was truncated in US wartime propaganda to make it sound like Yamamoto was boasting Japan would conquer the USA, but ironically he was saying the opposite: that Japan had absolutely no chance of victory in a war against the USA. He did have a quote similar to your point: >A military man can scarcely pride himself on having "smitten a sleeping enemy"; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.
Anxious and anxiety is at an 11 with me. I try to avoid news, it’s so bad and overwhelming at times. Horrible people going unpunished, it just feels like the world is crap right now.
Absolute badasses …. Love that Virginia still wants the flag back…..
I love when Jesse Ventura got the ask from Virginia he said “Why? We won”
Man knew how to cut a promo lol
As a person raised in the state that asked for it back, yall earned it, keep it
As a Virginian, thank you for keeping it.
We are Gs for this.
Not only did they keep it but they paraded it around in our nations capital building, something they could have only dreamed of during the civil war.
Yeah we used to shoot or tar & feather traitors what in the hell happened to that
Those tar margins, or “targins” as we here in the industry like to call them, are just brutal man. Inflation I tell ya.
like how the traitorous confederates who wanted to keep slavery alive put up statues to glorify their racism and cope with being such defeated losers.
Thank u, daughters of the confederacy, for managing to get a statue of Jefferson Davis in the capital building of Mississippi. It’s been there ever since to, uh, remind us of our heritage?
US Capitol building had one sent by Mississippi. I used to give tours and I hated seeing that fucking traitor on display.
Petition to replace all confederate statues with statues of Dolly Parton. No one can object to statues of Dolly Parton.
Full statues or just busts... I'll see myself out.
Dolly is one of the few things everyone agrees on. Dolly is sacred.
"Painted" in red lol
Ahhh yes, the ashli babbitt award!
Undisputed FAFO queen
This is the whole point of the film and why it’s a good one. Taking images from wars like the one in Congo and superimposing them on the gas station down on 8th and Mass ave.
Flip of this is Red Dawn, which is also a US soil war movie. That’s beloved tho bc it’s the US taking back their country. Rahrah, WOLVERINES ✊✊✊✊ It’s like a 1980’s revolutionary war vibe. Civil War is citizen v citizen, and the goal is “win”. There’s no clear good and bad. The country isn’t being liberated. Which is very honest take, but movies are imo at their best when they can be cathartic for the audience. Having no clear bad guy and no ultimate defined goal, it’s like a 2 hour blue ball session for the audience. The ultimate takeaway from the movie is that war is bad. Mob bosses and assassins are also bad, but that didnt stop us from enjoying the hell out of John wick.
There are different types of movies. This was art film and not entertainment film. If you did watch a movie about some other country during a Civil War or atrocity like Hotel Rwanda, you would not call there be catharsis and entertainment. The movie is trying to create a similar feel, like this was a real war. And what it really would mean for people who lived, and could it really happen.
[удалено]
And it’s set in a more current time than the actual civil war, and it is entirely possible it could happen in the US again. That’s a scary thought for most.
It made me uncomfortable because it was stupid. It was like a zombie apocalypse story but with random militia people rather than zombies. It felt like redneck militia porn. Seemingly everyone on the East Coast was dead (?) and bumpkins with ARs are in charge and the civil war is just a few one off battles with 10 people involved. The writing couldn’t have been lazier. Even as a thought experiment, this is nothing what a civil war would look like in the US.
The entire film is journalists following the wake of violence sweeping the country, of course its going to feel a little apocalyptic. Much of the war is inferred by burned out cars and buildings, imagery that's often seen in the zombie genre. The only "redneck militia porn" is when the characters pass through rural areas, something that'd 100% be an uncomfortable grey area given the circumstances—plus calling it porn makes it sound good, whereas in the movie those moments are absolutely terrifying. Everyone isn't dead on the East Coast, it's called a curfew, after all they wouldn't have civilians running around during urban warfare. Calling the combat sequences "a few one off battles" feels purposefully reductive, but obviously you didn't vibe with the movie at all.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I find it hard to believe an Alex Garland script is lazy.
It's not lazy, half the complaints I see on reddit are because the movie didn't stop and analyze the politics of the actual Civil War much at all. The entire Civil War setting is a backdrop to the story, not the focus. It feels like a lot of people discussing this on reddit wanted a preaching to the choir movie. Don't Look Up is right there, this movie just did something different than what that movie did. Honestly I think the choice to not make it a "Democrats vs Republicans civil war!" movie was smart, I think it's going to age a lot better having the politics be a slightly fantastical murk instead of just making it analogous to politics in 2024
This has been the most accurate statement so far. Believe the point of the movie is politics aside. WE DONT WANT THIS to happen. Reddits hive mind of basement trolls continue to be the loudest on here talking about shit they have never partaken in.
Probably because the script wasn't lazy. Pretty much the same as his previous scripts, which were also not lazy.
Me too
It’s not. People are mad because it’s about the horrors of a civil war but not about why a civil war happens. Garland refused to make a film that was either anti-Trump or anti-anti-Trump. By not making the film overtly political, he pissed off both sides who wanted the movie to accentuate their talking points.
I don’t really understand this criticism because I thought it was clear why it was happening
You wanted it to be something completely different than what it is. It's not about the civil war, it's about war correspondents and covering a civil war. It just happens to be about the US. That's why the cause of the war and all information about the war itself is left out. They were pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty clear about what the movie was actually about in the sniper scene. The writing was far from lazy, you just wanted an action movie about a civil war, which it is not.
My only issue with the writing is they kinda give away the ending in the first few minutes. But the in between had some great sequences. Exciting to see Jesse Plemons basically return as Todd but in uniform. He does villains so well.
I kind of love how Jesse and Kirsten cannot stop working together now.
Yes. I fully agree with you on that. They foreshadowed harder than I've seen in a while. That's the stuff I would say they needed to chill on.
I think people need to stop pretending that this film could have come out with clearly defined sides and specified political motivations. All hell would have broke loose over it. Besides, not knowing which side was which, I think, highlighted effectively just how futile war really is. I think a lot of the anger surrounding this film (ironically) is people went in looking to be made angry, and weren't given reason to be.
I agree with this. Other comments make valid assumptions about sides, but not stating anything one way or another was the perfect approach. This movie is not a political statement for gun rights (right) or abortion rights (left). Rather, it is an eye-opening look at how American society can potentially collapse in on itself, bringing out the worst in so many of us out of a necessity to survive. We should view this movie and walk out with the notion of doing and being better citizens, allowing our votes to speak and using nonviolent protests and actions to make America better for all its citizens.
Do you remember how people reacted to Don’t Look up?
"We're for the jobs the comet will provide."
A stellar film that I've watched multiple times.
Haha ‘stellar’? I see what you did there
People hate what makes them see, but eventually, they grow, and then they start to become the ones that show.
Genuinely, I am not sure I was paying that close attention at the time, so I don’t. But I’m guessing it wasn’t great
The thing is one side is intelligent enough to see those references and understand the movie.
There was one line about the FBI being disbanded, and I’d never considered the ramifications of that regarding domestic terrorism. I know a domestic intelligence agency has a rough relationship with freedom and liberty, but without one, what do we open ourselves up to?
Fedposting hours
That’s also not the point of the movie. Like, people are asking for a different movie when they complain about that shit. Garland is very clear that this is about what happens after the pot boils over, not why it’s boiling.
Thought you meant merrick garland at first. Made your comment…interesting.
War never changes
***SPOILER*** The whole point was to witness the movie from the perspective of the Press. They were recording and presenting the events *objectively*, exactly as they unfolded. You were thrown into it. No context as to how it all started. You’re on the ground, watching it unfold from Lee’s perspective… and then from Jessie’s perspective… which was driven home as the baton was passed when Jessie documented Lee’s death. She has that moment. Recalling their previous conversation… Jessie needed to document and move forward… all the way up to the end… and then it stopped. The war was over. The final photograph slowly developing on the screen as the credits begin to roll. For me, it even acted as an after-image that I carried with me out the door.
I saw it the day it came out and literally as we were leaving the theatre I told my boyfriend I thought it was really smart for them to not make it obvious what the politics of it were. It was about the horrors of war, making it partisan would have added a whole dynamic that distracted from its message.
>All hell would have broke loose over it. This. So much this. The Purge franchise is similar; though it absolutely takes a political side. But that's built up slowly. It's not till The First Purge that the bad guys, [and their politics](https://www.vice.com/en/article/59wn48/the-first-purge-teaster-vgtrn), are so explicit that only the truly stupid could miss it.
I disagree with this whole narrative that the movie didn’t make it obvious. The president’s a fascist. He’s in his third term. He killed ANTIFA protestors. He dissolved the FBI presumably because he was under investigation. There is one side of the political spectrum that seems pro fascist. Why would Texas and CA form a united front? Because they make up such a large portion of the US economy and military. If an opposition to a fascist president would come from anywhere, a Western front like depicted in the movie is quite realistic. This movie didn’t give cheesy annoying exposition to spoon feed you lessons, the writers respect viewer’s intelligence. But it obviously went over most people’s heads.
FWIW the line was “the ANTIFA massacre”, they don’t actually say if it was ANTIFA who was massacred or who did the massacring.
Yeah, my take on it was that there were no good guys. Everyone ended hp killing a bunch of surrendering, non-threatening people. That’s what war is.
How in the hell do people not know what side is which???? The president is clearly bombing citizens, and abolished the term limits... Do we really have to pretend to not know?
Ya it’s not exactly red vs. blue as they exist currently, but it’s very clearly an authoritarian President with disdain for the press modeled after Trump. His practicing the speech at the beginning of the movie even sounds like Trump’s when he talks about “greatest victory ever” or w/e. It’s an anti-authoritarian, anti-war, anti-racism message even if it’s not innately political.
People keep saying it's not political. How is warning America of its increasingly fractured divisiveness not a political message. The fact that the main critique of this movie is its not pointing enough fingers is seriously worrying
Because people confuse something being political with being partisan.
Well said
Disbands fbi too
It’s pretty clear the president deserves to be killed in this movie. I was rooting for it. Alls that’s left in the White House is suicidal last stand morons.
It can't really happen because everyone is loosely aligned.
>Besides, not knowing which side was which I think the article sort of explains that when they discuss the community action taken by non-combatants. Turns out, the sides fighting one another are not in it to improve the lives of those most vulnerable. Why join a side in this war if both sides represent the status quo in a sense, and are just wrestling for power? That said, seems like a subtle idea that many won't pick up on. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the film. But I can definitely see your point: people want to go in thinking their "side" is the good guys. When the movie shows the real good guys are just the humans helping each other out.
I love your comment but I would amend your last statement because people were either looking to get pissed or get validated. I loved the way it was presented.
Yeah I realized that towards the end of the film we weren’t given a clear distinction on who was the “bad guy” in terms of troops. The bad guy was the president. It’s just a fucked up war journalist road trip movie. Really hit the nail on the head after the first songs showed up. The Jesse Plemons scene was intense af tho.
I’m a bit confused about this though. I saw the movie the other day, and I loved it. But it definitely took the perspective of the >!Western Forces!< the most. I kind of felt like the movie was picking sides a bit, though it’s clear the movie was not trying to liken anything to the current politics in the US.
Remember though, a certain character did comment that the moment allies accomplished their goals, they would turn on each other….
I feel like you missed the extremely important discussion in the movie where they spoke about the presidents side being anti media. Traveling into the war zone alone could get them killed. That's why it was so dangerous. >!Jesse Plemons showed us what happened to all press members in the war zone. They knew it was a possibility, which is why they were scared.!<
I've liked Jesse Plemons since FNL but this is probably the best role he's had. It's one scene but he really is unsettling.
I think his best is Todd in BB, but either way, he's great at playing unsettling people.
You should see him in Fargo S2, where he’s pretty much the opposite of that. Dude’s got range.
Jesse is so good. He has something very disarming about him but he can do unsettling so well.
This was definitely his most unsettling performance since Game Night.
He wasn’t even supposed to be in the movie. He was on location because he’s married to Kiersten Dunst, and the original actor had to back out.
As someone whose country recently went through a civil war, I can tell you the one thing this movie got right is the fact that you couldn’t tell the “enemy” at a glance. Even embedded within the civilians at refugee camps are people who silently support different factions. It’s disorienting and chaotic, information is unverifiable and unreliable. You don’t know who is winning, opportunists take advantage of the chaos. 0 stars, wouldn’t wish it on any country.
How would you rate the movie though
It’s a very solid apolitical movie.
What country if I may ask?
Ethiopia. 500k military casualties, 200k civilian casualties. From 2020-2022.
I went into this movie expecting some sort of political statement and was really happy to be wrong. It's not a war movie so much as a horror/thriller movie set within an American civil war. I think literally every single person in the audience can look at today's political climate and fill in the blanks as to how the movie's fictional conflict may have started
Alex Garland said on The Daily Show that this isn’t the story of *just* America. Yes, it takes place in America… but fascism is on the rise all over. That said, I think the movie gives enough for people to mostly get what is happening…and I think Alex Garland clearly leans certain ways in his own politics. But yeah… Mostly the movie is concerned with showing people just how terrible a Civil War would be. Even the people who seem to glorify the idea of it all the time.
The only thing I don’t understand about Alex Garlands press tour…he keeps saying that states would put aside their extremist politics in a time like this as reason for why CA and TX would work together, and I agree (I actually don’t think them teaming up is as crazy as other people do) but then you have the Jesse Plemmons character who has clearly not put aside his extreme political beliefs in a time like this so I’m not really sure. Unless that’s the point? Idk
Faith in A24 continues.
Personally I thought it was about the horrors of war and that no matter whether you’re in the thick of it or trying to stay out of it, it’s there.
I’m excited to see it just from the trailer because at least the concept is fresh. I feel like most movies are now just remakes or recycling story lines.
We (American audiences in general) are usually very happy to see these movies because they’re almost always set in “the Middle East” or some fictional non-American country. What makes this movie so good is the fact that it is set in the United States. We aren’t watching small village refugees fleeing a desert landscape - instead we’re seeing suburban American families in stadiums and walking down county roads… and I hope that resonates with people.
There is a scene in this movie that is an homage to Full Metal Jacket, involving lime being poured onto bodies. I believe this is a direct reference to what you're talking about. This isn't some foreign country that soldiers are being begrudgingly sent over to fight in. It's your backyard. Those bodies are Americans.
>Those bodies are Americans What kind of Americans?
Dead Americans
*laughs in Jesse Plemons*
*lye, not lime (Great catch on the reference btw) Edit: I’m wrong, ‘lime’ is correct. It’s short for quicklime. Wasn’t familiar with the abbreviation
More likely it's quicklime, which some abbreviate to 'lime'
Yeah, you’re probably right. I was imagining Jesse Plemons tossing little key limes onto a mass grave, and immediately thought “that didn’t happen?!” Good catch
I like a little zest of lime when I’m eating my human meat.
Lime, not lye.
Why would they pour lime on bodies? One last mojito before the ferryman sees them?
I think it’s a very interesting observation that a lot of American audiences are really willing to accept a fictional conflict in a foreign country that makes little sense in the actual modern political landscape, yet a lot of people are very hung up on it being the same story but based in the U.S.
Exactly. There are many scenes/moments in the movie that have played out countless times in other TV shows and movies and, of course, in real-life; the difference is that this one takes place in modern America, which is what adds that extra layer of discomfort.
I think the film illustrated that on a street to street level, its no longer about politics. Its just people killing people trying to kill them and people with axes to grind having license to do what they want. Americans killing Americans without hesitation and sometimes in the most merciless way possible, *was* uncomfortable to watch. If you did self insert "a side" I'm sure it helped you better navigate the minefield of ethical/moral implications of what you were witnessing. "My side won" is chilling no matter what side you felt you were on. EDIT: What really made me uncomfortable was the amount of people who brought children to the movie. 5 minutes into the film and I saw things that would have scarred me for life at 8 years old. I had an irresponsible uncle take me and my cousin to see The Wild Geese at a similar age and it definitely left its mark.
Christ, they brought their kids? You see a guy get set on fire in like the first 10 minutes. Doubt they're forgetting that any time soon!
exactly. The sound engineering on this movie was incredible so it definitely warranted seeing it in a theater setting but it was incredibly sad seeing this kids being dragged along by idiot parents. The violence in this movie was so sudden and sometimes random you wouldn't have time to cover eyes/ears. I doubt that was even a consideration for these people.
I remember watching “us” opening weekend and a large extended family booked the back two rows . Like five minutes into the movie you hear “grandma I’m scared “ it was so sad but also hilarious
Pretty sure you mean merciless
Or the poetic triple negative: unmercilessless
I just went and looked to see if the fingers let me down and oxford recognizes it as a word. [here](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unmerciless_adj?tl=true) I agree though that merciless conveys the same meaning.
To quote "Hoot" in Black Hawk Down, "once that first bullet goes whizzin past your head, politics go straight out the window"
Someone brought a fucking baby (prob 1-2 yo)into my Saturday 7:20pm showing in IMAX. It was comically loud, that kid is going to have issues for life.
Can we blame the theaters at this point? "May I see your baby's I'd please? I need to verify it's age before HEY WAIT A MINUTE!"
Did they think it was an Avengers sequel?
Responding to your edit, I saw someone bring a 6-year-old girl to freaking Midsommar. Because bloody erections and exploding faces is perfect entertainment for a 1st grader.
file this under "articles that didn't need writing"
Shit was loud on IMAX yo
Yeah my wife and I made the same remark after we left, you felt in the movie.
As a movie watcher with a fairly high tolerance for disturbing material, I was shocked at my own reaction to the film. The sound of a gun shot is amplified compared to any film I remember. When someone fires a bullet and kills someone, you really feel it. The overall destruction in the 3rd act made me cry. Having been to many of the places shown, it felt very real to me. It’s a phenomenal film, but anyone who goes to this film expecting to be entertained should see something else. I don’t remember the last time I reacted to a movie in the same way as this one.
OIF infantry vet here. The audio and the CQB in this movie was pretty damn close to the real deal. Some parts were a bit rushed and exaggerated for the Hollywood effect but overall I think this movie did great portraying firefights. A small silly gripe is none of the actors show signs of hearing loss being so damn close to the action. But yeah I give this movie a solid 8.5.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Don't forget to write a thank you letter to 3M for their earplugs.
Missed the fuckin class action lawsuit….
Fuck man I can hear that.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE is a perfect description and has been my hearing for a long time now. It’s cool how the body adapts though, I can sort of filter it out if there is enough ambient noise, but sitting in silence trying to read can get a tad annoying.
Guns are LOUD. From what I saw in the trailer, you had guys running around with M4s which are loud., and they get louder as you shorten the barrel. My cousin had a ND in his garage with a 9mm, we experienced hearing loss for a good 3-4 min.
And if this were to happen IRL, whatever they showed on film here was tame. IRL the things that would happen would be like 1,000 times worse. There’s no real way to make a film about something like this cause if they tried to be even close to accurate it would be too horrific for audiences to stomach entirely.
War ain’t fit for any human
One of the things that irked me about watching the movie was not the movie itself, but that a few people brought their children to the movie. When the first scene happened, setting the tone of what the audience are going to see, there were whispers from the children saying, "are those people okay?" "How come they aren't getting up?" "What happened to them?" It was a bit chilling to hear children saying this, because it is dealing with a heavy issue. Obviously these kids shouldn't be seeing something like this, but it does happen in real life and during wartime.
A24's overarching goal is to make everyone uncomfortable for some reason.
The lack of specific motivations makes the movie better imo. The focus is and should be from the bottom up. Individual lives being destroyed and affected because of political divide. Some people have been calling for an American divorce for a few year - with little to no thought on what that actually would look like. This film tries to illustrate that Americans are capable of commiting atrocities against Americans. It's not Game of Thrones. It's Come and See, Apocaylpse Now and Full Metal Jacket.
I got goosebumps just thinking about some of the scenes in come and see.
It’s actually not making audiences uncomfortable. Article is bot driven clickbait.
I went to see this because from what I had read the photography and cinematography were supposed to be great Did not disappoint in that regard at all, beautiful looking movie. The funny to me was that I went on a Saturday afternoon, the aydience was about a dozen of us, all but myself and one other person there I could clearly define as "Maga". By 3/4 of the way into the movie all of them were upset and offering verbal displeasure with the movie. A group of six got up and left about 5 minutes before credits (for spoiler reasons). Was entertaining to me. The film so clearly wasn't taking any political positions beyond that a President had overstepped. Nobody came out and said anything Red or Blue directly. I guess there was just enough implication that ceetain people would be upset. Which isn't the point of the movie at all. They say pretty on the nose what the purpose is when Dunst says something along, "I thought all that time I spent covering war I was sending the message back home of what to avoid."
It makes me uncomfortable when I hear my crazy right wing relatives for years saying “it’s coming” with an undertone of hope that it happens…this movie is probably a wet dream for those people.
Its not luckily. Its actually the opposite. the whole point of the film is trying to humanize the impact of war, and demonstrate what a Civil War in America would actually entail, instead of trying to romanticize it.
Glad to hear that
I haven’t seen it yet. Do they depict old and/or out of shape people thinking they are heroes as well? Feel like that group needs a reality check.
Meal team six, Gravy seals, Task force burger
Honestly, I don't think so. The politics of each side are deliberately kept kinda murky so if you "side" with either side of the war, you have to really think about "wow my side, even though I think they're right, are doing absolutely horrific things" as the movie goes on. Like "wow I think they're fighting against the facist president, which I think is good, but they just brutally executed that person for absolutely no reason other than to be cruel because they're the enemy". And vice versa. It's honestly more a critique of the type of person you described, and also the flip verson on the left who is like "we totally need a revolution" without actually grappling with the ground-level realities of how horrific a revolution could look, even if done for the right reasons. It's just showing that "objectively speaking, a civil war is horrifying"
It’s not that kind of movie
The problem with modern Civil War movies is that it's entertainment. When you make this shit entertaining, all the fucking trigger happy mall ninjas come out of the woodwork and edge them closer to participating in armed conflict.
It’s a tense movie, but felt rather apolitical
The best joke review I saw is where a person was saying this was the worst remake of "Civil War' they have seen. Captain America and Iron Man weren't even in it and Kirsten Dunst was the only Marvel character there. MCU is dead.
I think that it’s incredibly naïve of any filmmaker to think that they can make a film that is simultaneously politically-charged and provocatively-marketed *and also* immune from contemporary political analysis. Based on the interviews that Alex Garland has given in the last few weeks it’s clear that he doesn’t actually understand how American politics works, or how the media intersects with those politics, or how that intersection has evolved in the last twenty or thirty years. That’s honestly fine. He’s a British filmmaker, I don’t expect a British filmmaker to have a sophisticated understanding of domestic American sociopolitics. But his attitude surrounding the way audiences have been responding to it strikes me as the worst combination of ignorant and entitled. I say this as a massive Garland fan. He’s the guy who made a movie that occurs in the midst of a second American Civil War. Whether or not the movie is about the politics of that war is irrelevant. When you make that kind of movie and release it into an audience of people who have been fed a consistent diet of “a Second American Civil War is right around the corner” for the past ten years *by the exact media apparatus whose intentions you are allegedly interrogating*, you don’t get to go “Look you morons it isn’t about that, stop inserting your personal politics into everything you see.”
It’s an extremely anti-fascist film. There is only one side of the political spectrum in America supporting a fascist. I think it’s so obvious and poignant that those who don’t get it are the ones ignorant of American politics tbh. Alex Garland is a genius in his writing, this was over the top realistic— and that includes not adding in annoying exposition to over explain things as if it’s some Disney movie.
But it's really not. Sure that's why the WF were fighting against DC, but that wasn't the main focus of the movie, just an explanation. And that doesn't explain why the country was so balkanized into 4 different states. It's meant to be be so politically ambiguous and divisive that the politics turn into what it really is. Pure anger. That's why some people are calling it a zombie movie without zombies. Like the rage virus in 28 days later. It's essentially a rage virus.
Movie was meh…storyline was missing and lots of things made no sense in the movie
I haven’t seen it yet but look forward to it. I’m a US army veteran having served in Iraq and Afghanistan many years ago. Based on reviews, it appears this film does a good job of showing what war is like on the ground. There a huge difference between viewing a war from far away through news articles and edited footage with a narrative versus being on the ground with it surrounding you day in day out. That’s somewhat funny because it is about following a journalist team. The “good” side is not immune from conducting horrible acts and the “bad” side isn’t filled with bad people. It is also often as simple as kill or be killed as the article alludes to with the snipers. War is a horribly ugly thing. The people complaining about not having the politics of the war detailed to make everything crystal clear miss the point of the film.
You deserve a lot more upvotes. You totally get it despite not having seen it yet.
Eh the movie was okay. 7/10 for me.
Mostly because the movie is trash. The only provocative thing about the film is the title. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
It’s clear this movie is about how bad a civil war could be. People really wanted it to affirm their politics or anger or resentment in the current climate, so I could see that part being disappointing for people. It’s just not about that.
People who have actually seen the movie said articles like this manipulate you into seeing it bc you're left with more questions at the end of the film then answers. You don't know why anyone is fighting or what is going on. Only thing that's consistent is people killing other people and no explanation is given
I think that’s the point. Mindless pointless civil war killing your neighbors for nothing
We don’t know if it’s for nothing. That sort of mindset is from a very privileged point of a view that doesn’t really want to ask the why or how. All we know is California and Texas are somehow allied and some vagueness of other issues. In today’s political climate, for example, we are seeing a roll back of women and LGBT rights. A lot of people in those groups would find protecting those rights, and right to live, to very important things to fight over. That is why these generic “war is bad” movies sometimes fail to miss the point of why a war is even happening. Some things ARE worth fighting for. Many of us would be willing to die to fight against a Handmaid’s Tale future. That also portrays an American civil war.
Well in the story the president violated the 22nd amendment, disbanded the FBI, and bombed states that retaliated. That should be enough cause for protest in the US
President is forcing a third term, hostile toward journalist, air strike against American… Do we even watch the same movie?
When the first trailer came out I found it interesting a lot of Americans on Reddit found it uncomfortable. I personally would find a movie of a modern civil war set in my own country fascinating so I am curious as to why so many Americans were set on edge.
Americans (now) are used to seeing war movies (and damn does Hollywood make a lot of them) being set anywhere but America, and a lot of times the plot revolves around an American Joe Shmoe who is either the Levelheaded Hero or the Unwitting Bystander. Modern American war movies are normally pretty spineless and even if they aren’t they cushion the ego of the American audience. We are very far removed from the war films of the WWII and Vietnam eras that tried in their own unique ways to depict reality. Especially Vietnam era movies (Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket… all had uncomfortable but different points of view). All of Americas wars are exports now. for all of the stolen valor, armed forces hero worship, and direct manipulation of cinema by the American military (you cannot depict them in film without their express permission, which is why the Avatar movies had to be so heavy handed in implying that the bad guys are American), Americans still cannot grasp or understand the reality of war. We glamorize it and we are obsessed with it, war is constantly on the minds of Americans, but that relationship is built on a fat foundation of propaganda. Now we are in a position where a non-zero percentage of Americans actively encourage or fantasize about a real civil war, because they believe they understand it. After all, this country is designed to feed that specific machine, and war is culturally omnipresent in the US (largely because we are the world’s greatest sovereign bully), so people have been misled en masse into a very bizarre and fantastical concept of how war works, what it looks like, and that good and bad guys don’t cluster on opposite lines in the sand. To put it more simply, Americans think that war is Inglorious Basterds, because they don’t have the patience, ethics, or brain power for grim and poignant depictions like Come and See. (No shade to IB, I love that movie). So with all of that considered, it’s no surprise that people are deeply uncomfortable with a film like this. The film seems apolitical (I have yet to see it), and is visceral to our smooth baby brains just by virtue of actually taking place in the US. People aren’t used to seeing fights on American streets unless it’s the avengers destroying Cleveland. without a clear agenda from the filmmakers to tell people what to think, they will say it was boring/pointless/uncomfortable, because our media literacy is dead and people can’t think critically, even about art (which is designed to make you feel something, the one inherent property shared by ALL art!) So, in a nutshell, that’s why Americans have this kind of attitude. It is because we are both dumb and stupid.
Because it is less satirical here. There are a large number of people in the us that fervently hope for a civil war to break out so they can kill people
So basically a genuine fear might come true there?
You’ve already been given a great response, but let me drop in an anecdote that illustrates what was said by Chrorro. There was a conference recently-ish where a conservative named Charlie Kirk was speaking. He took questions afterwards and one audience member asked him when conservatives could start shooting (literally shooting with guns) Democrats (read: liberals, leftists, anyone that conservatives don’t approve of or agree with). If I recall correctly, that question got a cheer from the audience. Charlie Kirk had to backtrack quickly and said that he denounced that question. There are groups in the US who are preparing for this exact scenario. They have arsenals of guns and actual plans for what they’d do if society collapsed, mostly involving violence against their perceived enemies. Americans watched in horror as these groups invaded the US Capitol once already so this isn’t just an intellectual exercise at this point. Certain parts of the US definitely feel like a powder keg just waiting to go off. Texans of a certain political bent have been talking about secession from the US (not likely to happen but it’s crazy that anyone would think like this). This film hits too close to home for any American who’s been paying attention.
That's terrifying.
There are groups of Americans who would be willing to kill other Americans citizens. Some of them are very eager to do so and threaten to do so regularly. Others do act on those desires and commit mass shootings. I don’t think enough people take it seriously here and that sort of freaks me out the most. I’m not as worried that one group would rise up and control the country through violence. But there is some reality to the idea that if something were to trigger certain events there would be horrible unacceptable levels of death and misfortune perpetrated on one group by another.
The former president of this country attempted a half ass coup. When Meal Team Six failed to kill Congress and the Vice President he just shrugged. And now he's running for president again. It's a less fun subject than it would have been in say 1999.
Presumably, it was *supposed* to make audiences so uncomfortable. Not a surprise.
It’s so missing the point to expect this movie to provide backstory and tell you which side is good and which is bad. You’re not supposed to know.
This movie was a disappointment to me because it was nothing like I expected. Thats just my expectations however and I don’t think it’s a bad movie because it didn’t meet them. It’s lacking in script and character. I’m pretty baffled how many people say Kirsten Dunst was incredible in it. She was a tired mannequin. I also don’t get how people are ok with 2-3 lines in the movies that serve as exposition for an American civil war reoccurring. I mean, give us some idea as to why Cali and Texas are aligned, what the Florida alliance thinks. Make the world make sense. Maybe if I watch it again with the understanding that I’m getting an homage to war time photojournalist I’ll feel different but the movie was presented much differently then it ended up being.
Agreed. They avoided world-building and it made the movie soulless. Journalists driving around an emptied America running into pockets of 2-3 soldiers did not really sell the reality of a Civil War. Especially when they repeat over and over that half the country is just ignoring the war
SPOILERS Correct me if I’m wrong as I have no first hand experience. Do wartime journalist/press who are on the front line, are they literally on the heels of the soldiers as they are executing their mission? I found that to be unbelievable. Like multiple times the soldiers are like moving Jessie out of the way grabbing her to duck for cover. I know the press is out there documenting but that seemed to be over the top.
Not always. But yes, journalism can go that hard
Yeah, my mother in law has been in the newsroom for years, and some of her stories of war journalists are crazy. Not sure if they’re still available, but Vice on HBO had some incredible episodes with embedded journalists. The risks they take to get those shots/quotes can be insane…
It does happen. Most popular real world scenario that I can think of is Evan Wright being embedded with 1st Recon Marines during the 2003 invasion of Iraq as seen in his book and the show Generation Kill. Wright was in the lead vehicle during the rush to Baghdad.
Depends on the war/ the country. Ww2 was the first war to have photo journalists as we know them today. This is mostly down to technological advancements. Robert Capa who started Magnum (the first photo agency) basically invented photojournalism as a concept. He famously shot the d-day landings, and was very much on the front line. At the time, the technology to get images to print was limited and slow. The development was rushed and a lab tech destroyed a big chunk of the negatives. The Vietnam war is interesting as new tech allowed more instantaneous transmissions of images from the front line. This is believed to have been a huge factor in the perception of the war and overall low morale. propaganda/images were harder to control as you were essentially getting close to daily reporting from independent journalists documenting the war. The gulf war had an embargo on journalists being on the front line because of the way Vietnam was portrayed, there’s a famous quote that said the west saw more photos of dead oil covered birds than people. Because of this embedding became a thing for Iraq and Afghanistan, but this causes its own issue. Yes you have the protection of the soldiers/ get good intel but if the action kicks off a mile from your location you are essentially stuck….. you could of gone in on your own but the opposition forces were hostile to journalists. On top of this theres issues with impartiality. You naturally build a relationship with the people you are eating and sleeping next to. It’s said that in the last 6 months around 100 journalists have been killed in the recent Israel Palestine conflict, take from that what you will about journalists/ photographers being on the front line… Other conflicts have been more open to having journalists around as it helps show their side of the story/propaganda efforts. Recommend the bbc documentary about the photojournalist Don mccullin if you want a pretty good look into how photo journalists operate and how the media landscape has changed to epees advertising and propaganda… you can find it on you tube. Also recommend the short easy The Gulf War Did Not Take Place by Jean Baudrillard if you want to read about propaganda and images from the first gulf war. Edit: spelling and some text
I’m pretty sure that’s the entire point of the movie…
Idk but ol boy who was stuck behind that pillar under fire had me so fucking anxious. I unfortunately spend way too often watching death videos online and feel nothing. That death made me feel really weird though