Well, talk about disappointment. I'd hoped Alex Garland's new thriller would have given us a gripping story filled with interesting characters, but instead what we got was a bland, empty collection of scenes with no strong story to tie them together. What a wasted opportunity.
As a Texan who was born and raised in the Lone Star state, the idea of Texas teaming up with California for any reason is absolutely hilarious. Especially in this day and age.
it is funny hearing about that alliance, when the most probable is the 2 states fighting will be the most probable reason for a civil war
Then, you have clearly missed the entire message of the movie.
God Bless the Lone Star state! 🇨🇱
That’s probably why they made that decision. That way you don’t understand the movie as presenting the democrats or the republicans as the insurgents.
Literally, the only way this would be even remotely possible is if one state conquered the other.
The most unrealistic part about this is the fact that the president isn't 102 years old but instead closer to an actual average American.
Gavin Newsome vibes.
Ron f'king Swanson
Yeah, as realistic as thinking the president would be 102... no exaggeration there...
@@samhavoc1066of course he’s exaggerating, captain obvious over here
So true
Like Kirsten Dunst’s courage in resisting Hollywood plastic surgery pressure. She said “I'm not gonna screw up my face and look like a freak. I'd rather get old and do good roles." 👍🏼
Damn Kirsten is younger than me and she looks old! Shes still pretty hot though
Those all naturale tits tho!?!
Agree
She whined about the fact that she was paid less than Tobey McGuire when they did Spiderman. She doesn't deserve anyone's appreciation.
@@asellandrofacchio7263 bruh
I liked it, personally. I saw it in Imax, and it felt like I was there. I don't think the point was to tell a story on how it realistically could happen, but rather what an actual civil war would look like after a while. Nobody is the good guys, nobody really knows who they're fighting and what they're fighting for anymore. Everybody loses. The people who dislike it are generally quite partisan one way or the other and seem to be annoyed that it doesn't swing overtly left or right.
Except no, that's absolutely not what an actual civil war would look like. I mean, maybe 500 years ago when Duke Whathisname and Baron Whosits had a war over the crown or something, but in modern history, no, people had a very clear idea of why they are fighting, what they are fighting for, etc. Maybe both sides are bad, sure, but they are bad with a purpose.
💯 it’s funny how they complain that cinema is too political yet here they’re crying that it wasn’t political enough.. Feels like the types who thought Dune part 1 was slow and boring.. Some people just aren’t able to enjoy/absorb nuance, atmosphere and the emotional journey of characters they don’t identify with.. I really enjoyed it, although i felt the ending was a bit of an anti climax
@@billjacobs521shhhh, you don’t understand 🥱 💤
@@billjacobs521Yeah you don't really take up arms in the modern day without really knowing why. Like why are they overthrowing? What is they fighting for? How bad was the government for a civil war to even happen.
@@WhyYouMadBoi3rd term president, uses force on Americans to hold office as implied throughout, other stuff probably too
Although I too was shocked and laughed a bit at your observation, I’ll say this for Kirsten Dunst: Good for her for staying away from plastic surgery and just aging like a normal person. There are people who aren’t even in Hollywood that can’t do that, so I find that pretty admirable.
If only she stayed away from those packs of cigarettes.
Her looks would have been wayyyyyy better if she just stayed away from smoking
@@MrClassicmetal Nah. She's a real woman. I for one am glad she doesn't hide it like others do.
@@zubrickadvisors6742 Sure, she's open about smoking her daily does of nicotine.
@@zubrickadvisors6742 Smoking cigarettes makes her a "real woman"?
The most unrealistic thing about Civil War is thinking any state would want to rebel against a Ron Swanson presidency.
I’ve figured it out. Ron Swanson intentionally provoked a civil war to destroy the government
"My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk, and the only thing he's allowed to decide is who to nuke. The man is chosen based on some kind of IQ test, and maybe also a physical tournament, like a decathlon. And women are brought to him, maybe...when he desires them."
Shame Nick Offerman is nothing like his titular character and is in fact a massive left wing nutjob.
@@robthomas2330 "Not today, ya New World Order jackbooted fucks."
Ironically a true Ron Swanson presidency would probably fix the vast majority of the problems facing our country, with the exception of the made up problems of some very vocal minorities.
Unfortunately, I'm not with Critical Drinker on this one. Sometimes a movie is akin to a canvas of painting, that does not need any additional story. Civil war in the USA is the end of the world as we know it. Simple as that. I recall watching Italian film called Gomorra, that has a neutral point of view as well, and it conveyed the ideas without any additional narration perfectly.
Stuff blew up. Yeah, it needs additional story. Even Michael Bay understood that you need a human element.
@@billjacobs521 stuff blew up... let me stimulate your inner Michael Bay with following pointers for the backstory - third presidential term for American president, presidential authorization to bomb American cities or the darling of all conspiracy theories - disbandment of the FBI.
yep, agree
@@billjacobs521 WTF are you on about? The whole film is focussed on humanity. It is not the fault of the filmmaker if the audience are too dumb/desensitised to understand what they are watching.
I also don't agree with him here. In my opinion the film had a really good anti-war massage. It represented real warfare really well.
Usually I agree with you, but I think this film is smarter than you give it credit for. We saw the war through the eyes through apolitical journalists-therefore we saw horror, not politics. Obviously I think you’ve got some good points.
Okay, and?
@@billjacobs521 And what? I stated what I disagreed with. I stated why. But my final point was that I didn't discredit everything he said. I think Will missed the point of the film, but I didn't want to be a troll about it.
A modern Civil War movie, released in an election year. Couldn’t get more opportune timing than that.
What about the pruge Election year?
@@scottbuckley823 that film blows
@@scottbuckley823 Except the Purge was fucking stupid.
@@shawklan27 well that s an opinion but the timing was good.
"orange man bad! Orange man bad!" the movie
And the crowd goes mild.
And the crowd goes.... home.
_"Yaaaaay..."_
Meeeeeh
"meh..."
Tshirt
Who else has noticed that Drinker doesn’t stop his reviews in the middle in order to bring us an advertisement for, say, shaving your balls and making them smell like a rose garden? Thank you Drinker! I appreciate that you have kept your channel free from adverts.
The movie was about journalism and not about a civil war
Generation Kill does a better job portraying journalists covering war.
Theory: The president was, in fact, Ron Swanson. He hated the government so much he continued to climb the ladder until he could be the one to run it into the ground.
Subversion at its finest. What a role model 🫡
If that were the case, hell. We would all be rooting for Ron Swanson! ❤🇺🇸
Ron would have my vote
Ron's Swan Song
That still doesn't explain why California teamed up Texas.
Movie sucked cause there was no Captain America, false advertising
Lol nice
Lmaooooo
That took me too many reads to get the joke. Hats off to you.
😂
What about Captain CSA?
I think the director purposely didn't give information about why the sides were fighting, because that was the point. A civil war is a defeat for everyone. I agree with the drinker about the characters, they needed more depth and they certainly could have added 10-15 minutes to the runtime to achieve that.
100%. I like that you don’t know why they’re fighting, it was an exploration of the horrors of war. We don’t need to know why, we need to understand that we never want anything in the realm of what was happening. And from a visual and auditory standpoint (especially in IMAX) it worked. However, I just truly didn’t care about any characters because I knew almost nothing about their backstories. Mid writing.
“There are no victors in a civil war” is the same kind of tripe as “violence never solved anything.” Ask Franco, or Lenin, or Lincoln who won their civil wars. Whether it was worth the cost is a valid question. Ask a black American if the Civil War was worth the cost and see what kind of answer you get.
@@Mrhalligan39 sure except this is fiction and in this case, it seems possible the war is being fought over lower stakes. If there were a civil war in the USA today, I’d be hard-pressed to find something as “worth it” as it was to liberate slaves or end genocides. As the video creator referred to, there are constantly pundits on television telling us we’re headed for Civil War. You’ll also see all sorts of silly people on the Internet clamoring for it to happen. I think this film, despite its several flaws, highlights why we shouldn’t want that. Of course, if we were dealing with something like a genocide or slavery, surely it would be a different case. 2024 America has no need to a civil war for arguing about cultural issues and whose presidential candidate is more decrepit.
But if we don't know why people are fighting, then we should at least understand the affect it has on the people. They had 3 generations of people and no character development on how the war affected them.
@@LucianDevine I agree with the lack of character development, I would argue it’s less about how the war affected them and more about who they are as people. Obviously, those things can be linked, but they don’t *have* to be. Take the main character Lee. She’s been documenting wars since long before the USA Civil War. Clearly, there’s something deeper for her rather than just the politics of the country she lives in. Why is she drawn to those things? What’s missing in her life? We sort of get that when she tries on the dress. We as the audience would get more from knowing who SHE is.
According to the director, he wanted to have Texas and California team up as he believes in an actual situation where a dictator took control of the white house, the two sides would abandon their differences to tackle the greater threat. That may be true, but it needed fleshing out more. We needed more exposition. I will say that for the small amount of character arc there is, it is well done. I thought Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny had great chemistry together.
We needed no exposition about any such stuff. It has nothing at all to do with what the film is about. Can't you just watch a film without thinking about some other film that you would like to be made (for whatever reason?) The story combines California and Texas in alliance to deliberately underscore that the film is NOT about what may happen, politically, in likely, future reality. That is simply, not the subject of the film. Why are people struggling to understand that? It's depressing.
@@Dionysos640because they need good world building because messaging doesn’t make a movie good characters and good writing makes a movie mid wit.
@@Jaco059 A film needs good 'world building?' 😂 What are you on about? It's a film, not a computer game empire. There is literallly zero requirement in any film for 'world building.' The characterisation was more than adequate to set the scene, better than adequate in fact. When did everyone become so *g stupid?
@@Dionysos640 Of course it needs good world building. Drinker compares this movie to Apocalypse Now. We didn't need world building for that film. Its our world. We all know the Vietnam War and what it was about. Zero exposition required. This movie is set in a fictional war we know nothing about. We need something in order to have any kind of empathy with the characters. They could have had a two minute prologue explaining the situation, or slowly revealed the setting throughout the story. I get what the movie was trying to do. It was supposed to be about the characters and their journey, not the war. But it even failed in that. What journey did these people have from a character development standpoint? Once I finished the film, I didn't feel like I knew anything more about Lee, Joel or Sammy that I didn't learn in the first 10 minutes. Jessie is the only one with any kind of story arc, and even that is bare bones. Girl is young and naive, sees some sh*t, is not naive any more. I thought the battle scenes were very well done. Really showed the gritty side of war, from both sides. I also thought that Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny had good chemistry together. Other than that, the film was pretty weak.
@@deadlee0b1 I guess it isn't any individiual person's fault if they are a bit thick but it is tiresome when you find yourself engaging with them. Memo to self: Stop doing it.
Ron Swanson finally made it. He took down the government from the inside. Absolute mad lad.
tbqh, we always had faith he could get it done
This is plausible 😆
😂👍
Maybe Tammy convinced California and Texas to go all crazy???
@@Amsfootboy79This absolutely makes sense. She could never get over him marrying Xena, and getting two states this different to team up sounds like something she'd pull off.
As a Torontonian, everyone died laughing in my theatre when Dunst offered $300 CAD and the guy immediately agreed to give them gas.
why?
@@nnnnnn3647 CAD are worth way less than US, & gas (for civvies) would be absurdly expensive in the middle of a civil war.
Filled up my car today in small-town Ontario and it cost exactly that. Carbon pricing is fun!
@@kingnull2697 I see. I thought there was some Canadian hidden joke and context.
@@robspadre5519 This is just the beginning.
Pretty impressive film, combat wise. It's been a minute since I've seen such close violence, often accompanied by no music. Gunfights actually sound accurate and it doesn't shy away from showing the obvious tragedy of war and needless killing.
Its strong side is defined by its avoidance of taking sides in the clown theater. It shows the reality of war, which is pure and unabated horror, dehumanizing agony, horrible chaos, permanent distrust, backyard torture, leftover body parts, men running into flying metal, felt in every bone and perhaps not being portrayed in such a masterful, terrifying manner since Joseph Vilsmaier's "Stalingrad". It is also quite meta in that it shows journalists trying to show the horrors of war to their audience while it uses this plot to show its audience the horrors of war. And how desensitized, partisan or Marvel-brainwashed does one have to be to not get that? You're supposed to be invested in - beings! "Sound and Fury, signifying the fury of this signification of nothingness" - there, I fixed your quote from Shakespeare for you.
Well said, I couldn’t agree more. It makes me a bit dejected and irritated to see some people have received the film the way Drinker did, but it would be a tragedy to let that take away from the incredible piece of art that Garland created. What a disturbing and phenomenal movie.
@@notonate69 You might enjoy "The Iron Triangle" (1989) with Beau Bridges
The only thing I could think of when I saw Ron Swanson as the president was “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
yep Ron Swanson brought it all crumbling down
To Kirsten's credit, Drinker, she's recently said that she doesn't want (or plan) to have a plastic surgery and prefers to age naturally. This is somewhat refreshing actually when most actors (both men & women) have been abusing the cosmetic procedures to the point that they can't even mimic properly when playing their characters, which imho affects their performance. Also, it could've been a makeup contributing to her weary look, in line with her character.
Or she spends too much time at the beach, drinking high calorie alcomoholic beverages.
Exactly. It's like homeboy forgot actors intentionally alter their weight and face (like intentionally under sleep to look naturally weary or apathetic) to craft a character's description.
@@Polemicist_ like makeup to look older? whaaaa never heard of such a thing. Not like she just made another movie a few years back where she was smoking hot
These people have also abused medicines to reach their cosmetic goals, screwing patients in need of them. Personal case in point is Ozempic. It's an amazingly effective insulin for me and many diabetics out there, but it also has a side effect of weight loss due it changing your eating habits. Unfortunately a couple years ago, my normal dose was suddenly unavailable and it took some finagling from my pharmacist (independent pharmacies ftw) to find me some. It turns out that a lot of actors and elites found out about the weight loss thing and ended up buying so much of it (via unofficial routes) that actual diabetics suddenly couldn't get the insulin that they needed. Deprived the people of their necessary medicines, using their fortunes and connections, to lose weight. Douchebags.
I think she looks Gorgeous. I like Middle age Women. That's what happens when you get older fellas..
2:50 “None of these characters have actual character.” I, for one, am glad Civil War shows not tells. It’s a shame you didn’t notice for some reason.
I didn't see the movie cuz "Texas joins California" I knew right away its woke out of touch crap.....but if those personalities were simply never shown or given any depth that isn't necessarily a good thing. There is a gray area between show don't tell and exposition dumps my guy.
I thought the character development was great. You see how the young female protagonist goes from terrified, to viewing this war in the same way that Dunst and Wagner's characters viewed the old wars abroad - she's detached, this isn't HER conflict anymore - this is a story. In contrast, you see how Dunst's character slowly breaks realizing that her life's work has been effectively meaningless, and Wagner's character goes from gleefully jaunting along on militia trips and point blank executions, to completely breaking down when the violence actually affects someone he knows, and then getting giddy once he's back in the action - showing just how shallow and sick his pursuit of the career is, treating it as adventure and style, rather than serious inquiry - even his demand for a last quote from the pres, and the pithy heart of darkness-esque one liner that ends the film - a shallow plea from a broken man.
@@beloved-child Make an informed comment after you’ve seen the movie, my bro.
That’s not what “show don’t tell” means. It has no relation to characters actually exhibiting a sense of character or not, it’s a narrative approach that allows actions, scene direction and aesthetics to tell the story rather than exposition. The characters lacked depth and interesting features. Period. It has literally nothing to do with a show don’t tell approach and everything to do with paper-thin writing.
@@rattlethecages TFW characters don't explicitly state what their desires are so you're unable to process their development or shifting goals. Did Lee's tacit acknowledgement that she would photograph the young girl when she inevitably died at the beginning of the movie, and later choice to save her seriously not indicate a shift in character to you? Did her gradual breakdown do nothing? People gripe all the time about movies that treat the audience like idiots, and then when a movie finally presumes its audience can read between the lines the idiots come out of the woodworks and complain that the characters had "no personality" without being able to point to any legitimate indication of the lack thereof.
The Critical Drinker missed the mark on this one. Big time. Civil War is a profoundly deep look at media. How journalists have failed to both remain unbiased and retain their humanity. The movie also explicitly says in the first 15 minutes that the western forces will turn on each other as soon as they win. The only side that exists for ANY of the warring factions is destroying what's left of the Republic. But that's not the point of the movie. There's a camera seen in nearly every single second of the movie. The movie also blatantly says, "Oh, I get it now. You're a [pejorative term for a low IQ person]." When a journalist tries to figure out why some people are fighting.
California and Texas joining together is like those movies where a crew in a street gang has one of every color.
That must have been the Benetton Gang.
A heist movie. Hate those...
Can you dig it…? Can you dig it ?
For some reason, you dum dums think California is this vast liberal shithole. Yet you don’t understand (unless you are from Here) California is a massively rural state, full of mostly conservative counties with patriotic legal immigrants, working class, farmers. and hillbilly desert types, all Armed, and surrounding its large mostly liberal cities that are all cut off by mountains, plains and vast deserts in every direction. We may have a dumb progressive government, but it’s only due to population clusters. The truth is, Cali is a massive place with a lot of patriotic people.
There are always some catchall groups even if most break down along very strict ethnic lines.
The biggest problem was having Jesse Plemons for ONE. SINGLE. SCENE
His scene was the only good scene in the movie.
I know. Todd should have been in more scenes, just to creep things up more.
Hollywood needs to charge people to not see him in movies
I'd planned to see the movie, but was he really only there for that line? I'm gonna not pay for it if that's honestly the case.
Todd and Kirsten Dunst were in Fargo together
'Like an interview with Hitler in 1945 with uncle Joe's finest knocking at the door ' - loved this analogy!
Im just disappointed that Florida wasn't brought in as a meth infused special forces team. Opportunity missed IMHO.
Oh god their entire forces would just be composed of Floridamans with pet alligators.🤣🤣
That actually would have been a great idea.
"Like Mauler and Moviebob teaming up to take on Nerdrotic" 😂😂
🙌😆
MovieBob, the P3 d0.
The Long-Wide Alliance.
Woah Moviebob is still a thing? I thought he dropped off content production after Escapist of all places didn't want him.
I'd watch that movie lol
Kudos for Kirsten Dunst for not having a bunch of cosmetic surgeries.
Idk how the ski slope nose and lips with so much filler they serve as an awning for your chin became popular or if any man finds that attractive.
True, and I dont agree with Drinker, she does not look 50.
I'm sure a lot of how se looked in the movie makeup to make her look harried because she's literally IN a war. Not to mention the way she was chugging that vodka I think her character is alcoholic, so, again, the makeup would make her look that way. I honestly doubt KD looks like that in real life. Especially at her age.
and maybe she just let them make her up to look tired and middle aged. Oh, the horror.
Tf lol. You know that's not a compliment right? That's far worse than just not saying anything. Lol Jesus
Am I the only one who finds the irony that they’ll insert culture war bs in every Hollywood movie EXCEPT the movie about an actual war?
I mean other than the supposed trans snipers and such
@@polderricanthis guy hasn’t actually seen the movie
@@SSshalashaska neither have I actually.
@@polderricanbruh
@@williewilson2250 what do you need buddy
I was laughing out loud as soon as you said the words "Fine upstanding journalists".
Film: "I'm a movie." Drinker looking through his red sunglasses, to the Film: "What kind of movie are you?"
LOL🤣
"I'm a drinker, okay." "Okay. What kind of a drinker are you?" "........." "You don't know? Go away now!"
Movie: "I have an important message to give." Drinker: "Okay, let's hear it." Movie: ................. Drinker: "Well worded message, son. Go away now."
Underrated comment right here. Kudos
Almost exact same review I gave it Saturday. I'm not sure who is influencing who. X @sockratiz
as a nevadan, i love how 70% of these comments are californians and texans saying they would never team up🤣 edit: holy woah wtf have i started, it is literally a civil war here
I'm not even american, and even i know that wouldn't happen in a million years
Honestly the biggest problem with it is the fact that they're geographically separated. You'd need Arizona and New Mexico to play ball as well in order to make that happen effectively. But it would be a pretty formidable alliance in a civil war if you did capture that whole area; CA, TX, and AZ are (or used to be) some of the biggest contributors to the military, both in terms of people and material. Most civil wars ARE NOT fought like the American Civil War of the 1860s. That was essentially (from a military standpoint), a war between two sovereign nations. A real civil war is street by street, house by house. I could see a political alliance, perhaps, but you'd spark off an underground resistance movement immediately in both California and Texas. You wouldn't have discreet territories, not unless Texas and California both found common cause to secede, which in the current political climate is not likely to happen. That would actually be a really interesting story. Too bad the writer turned in a first draft and they decided to film it.
Hello neighbor! I’m in Elko… where you? Even in the literal middle of nowhere… I find that teamup is funny as well .
@2012sonora I want to watch your idea. Seriously, 100 percent not sarcasm.
@@2012sonora If you want a preview into what America's future will look like, look at the collapse of the USSR and the Yugoslavian Collapse (especially the Bosnian War).
What I like about the CD is that he is still growing, essays keep getting better and "mature", the style keeps evolving. Good job.
A movie that isn't trying to explain the world to you like you can't think for yourself - what a concept. I loved it.
Exactly. I think that’s what they were going for, and they did it great.
I wish that concept was applied to most other movies. This one was completely lacking substance because of it. A civil war movie about journalism that never answers any questions. It was pointless.
2:11 For those of you who don’t know, “ Uncle Joe” was a nickname given to Jospeh Stalin by the press.
And most of them were unironic Communists who even when Kruschev talked about Stalin's crimes, went... "Wwwwhhhhaaaatttt? Nooooo waaaayyyyyy? We had no idea! Tee hee hee!!!"
@@TheMaleRei And they still are, the lot of them.
@@TheMaleReiNope, the Western powers called him uncle Joe because they wanted the population to view the Soviets as new allies, having previously positioned them as a threat. Very little to do with journalists.
Wow, I can't believe I'm just now thinking of this, but that makes Biden's Creepy Uncle Joe moniker take on new levels of significance seeing as how he's such a tool for the commies.
What a coincidence that our current president is called the same thing….totally not a Freudian slip…..
“Half of these kids thought that the civil war was about a fight between Batman and Superman”- Fist Fight(2017)
I've met medical school students who don't about Operation Barbarossa (aka Germany invading the USSR in 1941). I was tempted to get drunker than the drinker but realized it was a futile quest.
@@Lonovavir Or that Japan's surrender was about the atom bomb. Japan lost 80% of it's forces fighting the Soviets and was about to get it's mainland invaded. US wanted to stop Soviets from conquering Japan.
@@cattysplat Heey you got it.
@@cattysplat When did Japan fight the Soviets in WWII again? I remember the lack of action in the Japanese theater allowing the Soviets to move forces towards the German front.
@@kingnull2697last two weeks of the war
Having Ron Swanson as President during a dystopian civil war is actually the best casting since John Candy as Uncle Buck
I figured the Cali and Texas alliance was supposed to show a “red” and “blue” state joining to fight tyranny and save democracy or something. But the lack of world building and one liner hints at what led up to the events of the war really let it down. Tbh, the war was more of a backdrop to the young photographer’s journey
"World building" is utterly irrelevant to the purpose of this great film. Yet another comment criticising the film because you wanted to watch a different film with a different story and purpose. It is truly bizarre how many people are completely missing the point with this one.
@@Dionysos640 yeah, no one could possibly comprend the brilliant and original point of this garbage, that is "war bad" and "every faction suck"
@@Dionysos640 For a film titled Civil War, you’d think the focus would be on, you know, the war and its causes?
Why do you need that for the movie to work though?? It's both states are very individualistic, and if they're fighting a tyrannical regime, then they'd logically split up. You don't have to break your head with a big complex reason.
As an Australian who has never even visited, much less lived in the US, I can confirm that Texas and California are best buds, and would absolutely team up in the event of a civil war.
As someone from California I agree, Texas loves us
@@Remy-je3go as a Texan I say you both can go to hell ant no way we would ever team up with a blue state for any reason other then America being invaded by a foreign power
As a US citizen who has never been to Australia, I heard everybody there loves the Brits!
@@Cinibonswirl26They keep voting the puppets in .
@@Cinibonswirl26we do for the most part. Astute observation on your part.
"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell, 1984
So the American revolution was bad then
@@travishylton6976was there a dictator from the American Revolution??
Rebellion and revolution are two different things, at least in practice. The movie would be based on a rebellion and the “American Revolution” was a rebellion. They rejected the authority imposed on them. Their goal wasn’t to overthrow the government and replace it with a new system. In the colonies’ case, the average fighter didn’t even want to leave Britain.
It could have been, had George Washington wanted to be the new King, but like Cincinnatus before him, he didn't lust for power and refused the position because he was a good, freedom loving Christian man, like most of the founders. Before anyone says "Oh, they owned slaves, derrr!" Slavery was always a thing in antiquity and the founders were *themselves* subjects (slaves) to the crown! They threw off their chains and eventually set their slaves free.
@@travishylton6976 It could have been, had Washington wanted to be the next king, but like Cincinnatus before him, he didn't lust for power and refused the position because he was a good, freedom loving Christian man, like most of the founders. P.S- Before anyone says "Oh, they owned slaves derrr!" Slavery was always a thing in antiquity and the founders were *themselves* subjects (property) of the crown! They threw off their chains and eventually set their slaves free, which was *unprecedented* .
It wasn't a political film (intentionally) it was about the dehumanization that comes from viewing everything through a lens/screen, basically an inversion of what we're all currently doing on social media in the modern era observing and pontificating on other's conflicts in the comfort of the first world. Thought that was a pretty obvious theme throughout. The lack of a clear parallel to current American left/right dynamic (or as people are saying, the unrealistic team-up of Texas and California) was on purpose because that's not the point of the story. Extremely well done and well written.
It's fine that it doesn't relate to current politics, and he said that, but the fact that the war has no cause, no ideology, no factions, no motivation, no purpose, is to make it pointless.
I don't mind the vagueness to be honest. It was clear in my mind that there was a civil war because the president was in his third term. I enjoyed it but not rewatch material
@@billjacobs521or you mean it didn’t satisfy your neediness for factional identity. I thought it was a brilliant journey, with only kirsten’s (poorly executed) death and the other characters lack of reaction to it, being the only failure in my eyes
@@phantasticmrphasma9874 The horrors of war are heavily tied in to the motivations of the sides involved, the factional identities that caused it and their shifts because of it, how that affects the people caught in the middle of it. War is nothing without the people and their psychology. This movie provides none of that conflict and ends up being a meaningless mess talking about the "horrors of war" without straying into what makes most of that horror. It doesn't need real world politics, it's better off without them, but it desperately needs it's own internal politics to make the story work.
@@thefrostedforest no it doesn’t… what you’re saying is you need it… these are war photographers and war photography does not show the politics of war, it just shows the spectacle and the impact on the ground.. how is that so hard to get?? This is a movie about war photographers
All these people saying Texas and California would never unite. Take away the politics and rhetoric of people extreme on either side. And Texas and California are very similar. I am a born and raised Texan 8th generation and a son of the republic. I’ve lived in Oregon the past 13 years and I know many Californians and I’ve been there several times. They are wayyy more similar than you think when you actually get down to it. California isn’t all San Francisco and La and Hollywood. It’s very conservative in a lot of the state and the number one agriculture state for years now. Both have giant economies and a large Hispanic population and were both owned by Mexico before becoming their own replubics.
"This movie will be the most controversial movie in modern cinema history." *Proceeds to say absolutely nothing*
Yes it does. Maybe it could have used a better title but its far more about the importance of journalism in war and the fall of the american empire as a whole instead of who is correct the right or left.
@grantconnolly4628 except journalists are propagandists for media outlets. They lie and distort events to suit their own ends and denigrate the people who do record events honestly.
Just watched Civil War... Before I watched it I thought: "The movie will end with a diverse female character killing the president in the Oval Office" The events played out almost exactly as I predicted 😂
@@subifyouhatetiktokandreddit234 and i bet you have a good case of brain rot where you look at 75% of things and just call it woke too lmao. Clearly you missed 99% of the movie and are focused on the wrong things.
Yes. Form your own opinion. STOP waiting for someone to tell you what to think.
In an actual civil war today, there would be no need for "real" journalists. Streamers on the scene would provide all the coverage and grab all the eyeballs.
Every news reporter would be broadcasting it everywhere and all the youtubers would be getting the highlights and funny moments
for some reason, sheeple morons don't understand that the msm needs to compete with all these people and therefore "enhances" the news
Streaming over what? If an actual civil war breaks out, do you really think the internet, cell service, or land line phones will be left operational? Most power will be cut off.
No, no, no. That's fake news don't you know?
Funny thing is controversial IRL streamer is currently covering events in Israel and has been nearly arrested for harassing a female IDF soldier
So in conclusion, if it had more big explosions and Tatiana in a bathing suit it would be the equivalent of every Michael Bay movie made in the last 20 years or so
Wow... You truely need to have no knowledge of movies to state something like that...
I want to bleach my hair, put on red sunglasses, scratch my face, and win an Oscar.
"We're going to DC to interview the President!" "They kill every journalist they find." "Nah...it'll be fine!" "Take me with you." FFS
Worst motivation for characters in a screenplay I have ever seen. What Drama!
“What’s your experience with combat journalism?” “None.” “What’s your experience of any kind of journalism.” “None.” “Swell. You’re in!”
@@mixelplik don’t war journalists get huge amounts of money for getting the money shots? Thats a perfect motivation 😭
@@Jdn__0001 But who's money? I'm sure the economy is destroyed in the movie.
Not to mention the story of the reluctant traveler on a road trip has been done about 500 million times before this movie lol
I love how the director said in an interview that his message was "Journalists are going to save us from tyranny as the 4th estate" or some shit and I fell over laughing. It was on the daily show with whoever it is now.
and you know sh*t cause you are on site everywhere in the world, right? You really think without journalist you'd know anything what is going on? LOL
@@schmiggidy If he actually said that then I have no interest in watching this film as he is clearly a moron.
What did he say?
@@schmiggidy fake news. The movie is about journalism but it also criticizes them
he should talk to Julian Assange about that
Civil War: Stop being divided. War bad. Audience: Cool, you got a reason to be together other than war bad? Civil War: ... Audience: Thought so. Anyway, about that thing happening in November...
Audience: "Yeah..... I didn't like that." MIND CRUSH
You are not serious about that comment, are you? The horrors of war, depicted as gruesome as in this movie, are not a good enough reason for you? What does that tell about you?
@@smaug660 "horrors of war" Lol. Lmao, even. So long as the "horrors of war" are inflicted solely on my ideological enemies, idc. We've reached an impasse in History where ideological differences cannot be resolved through anything less than violence. And I know who can inflict violence better (and it's not the, "our precious democracy!" crowd)
@@notapuma"and i know who can inflict violence better". hahahahahahah wtf is wrong with people like you? get a fucking grip, seriously.
@notapuma go outside Holy shit
A flashy premium package but when you open it it's empty. Pretty much sums up where we're at today.
"California and Texas have teamed up"--- Aaaaaand, suspension of disbelief *obliterated.* If anything, California and Texas will be the biggest factions fighting against each other.
To be fair, during real civil wars the factions can get a bit crazy and confusing. Unlikely allies and all that. But since the movie doesn't actually explain why the civil war is even happening then what's the point??
And you'll see Oklahoma right away backing up Texas and Oregon will back up California
Youre living in the past. Texas is just as blue as Cali these days
I thought the same thing, unless enough people were to leave the west coast for Texas but vote the same way they did before they left and turn Texas blue or something like that.
I’m assuming that was a choice to keep the reason the war started ambiguous.
The movie was about the importance of independent, honest, and raw journalism that the mainstream media has absolutely failed to provide...
I like your take on it
I doubt it, this movie painted the journalists as absolutely awful people, by the end of the film the main woman who bought into be stone cold sacrifices herself while the other girl takes her photo as she dies, there all horrible and they're job makes them disgusting and immoral
@coletrainhetrick thats journos for ya.
Don’t agree with anything you say.
I agree with you. I don't understand the Friday Night Tights crowd hating the movie because they feel journalists in real life are shitty people. The movie actually proposed a more noble journalistic ethic that we'd all like to see.
I agree with everything the drinker said but I have a question, more akin to the pitch meeting sketches: guy #1: the white house is known to have a bunker, capable of withstanding a lot of damage. So why Ron decided not to use it? guy #2: Because. guy #1 That works.
As a Canadian who listens to Infowars when I heard the movie had Texas and California teaming up I was like wtf and found it kind of funny, think I even laughed a bit.
IDK, I grew up in a po dunk Texas town and have traveled most of my life. Upstate NY and Rural California are not that far off in ideology from Texas as some might lead us to think. It's just their big cities are big enough to sway state gov and laws. Let the people in the cities do away with each other and the rural and semi rural people would probably side with Texas.
Stop listening to Infowars. That's one of the absolute worst sources for literally anything.
To be totally fair to Kirsten Dunst, shes always looked a bit older than what she was, she was only 18-19 in SM1 but I wouldve thought she was 25 or so. James Franco was about 23 and they look the same age. Plus she looks like someone who is ACTUALLY a 41 year old woman, not someone who dumped her face full of Botox, fillers and injections so its kind of nice to see in Hollywood
If she really was a journalist in war-torn America, she fits the role well. It would make sense that she would have a hard look.
It's refreshing to see someone in movies who hasn't destroyed their looks with plastic surgery by age 30.
Well not her fault, i prefer a woman aging naturally than.. People like Madonna
@EZ-IZZY1995 no. My wife is 46 and looks younger than Dunst
yeah, low blow from the drinker, expected better
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. " - Voltaire.
WE MUST RISE UP AGAINST KIDS WITH LEUKAEMIA!
That's not allowed! It's anti-Semitic, didn't you know?!?
@@allergy5634 Are there laws against criticizing "KiDs WiTh LeUkAeMiA" that could get you in trouble like there are for ACTUAL protected groups? Just curious. 🤔
@@NucleaRaptor Hey y'all, your friendly Illinois congressman here! I'm actually co-sponsoring a bill that does just that. It's called the Freedom From Leukaemia Persecution Act, making it a hate crime to harass cancer-diagnosed individuals on the internet while also transferring seven trillion dollars to an offshore bank account split 60-40 between the legislative branch and its staffers.
@@NucleaRaptor I think @allergy5634 is being sarcastic. Don't read into it.
One good thing about this movie - it was decent product placement for the Abrams tank. How often do you see this impressive bit of military hardware getting to really do it's stuff? Usually it's just cannon fodder (so to speak) for superheroes and monsters to fling around and stomp upon.
Great review. It was quite an astonishing lack of character building and storyline. But I guess that is what they wanted. Also decided last night it won't stop me watching films at the cinema. I always have a good experience even if it's crap. Was at the late night The First Omen last night and walked home around 1am. Brilliant.
“When a government controls both the economic power of individuals and the coercive power of the state ... this violates a fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people.” - P.J. O’Rourke
Great to see someone quoting PJ. My favourite of his 'Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys?'
Facts. It’s about to get way worse than that movie.
That sounds way too similar to the caste system.
but the elite hate guns and let their security detail handle them......too bad for them there are WAY more of us than them.
Good old P.J. Might be time for my annual reread of All The Trouble In The World.
I don’t mind there not being a lot of reasoning behind the war itself. It works for us to be neutral about the war because the characters are supposed to be neutral. I think the movie was more trying to go after a character story, but the characters needed more fleshing out. My biggest issue was the fact the White House was under siege and the president is just chilling in the Oval Office, not tucked down in the bunker. My other issue was the stupidity of the characters.
Maybe he was trying to be brave or something. But yeah, you have a point. For me the silly moment was when KD character jumps to push the girl away and stays standing in the hail of bullets, instead of dropping to the ground like any weathered war reporter would.
I disagree. I understand the whole point of the movie being about showing the effects of the war on the country and how these journalist characters navigate that world, but some backstory and world building would've gone a long way.
@@Peterski yeah that and then the scene where they hit the murderer with the truck and instead of grabbing the dropped rifle to defend themselves, they just get in the car to get shot.
Yeah I thought the movie would end with them just finding out he's in Cheyanna Mountain and nothing would change, or something. No president could ever just stay there like that, even if he wanted to.
Did you happen to catch the fact that the entire White House was essentially a bunker, fortified with a gigantic concrete wall and multiple barricades? There's a lot of symbolic power in staying in the White House, so it made perfect sense to me.
You are dead on. Dunst shocked me when I saw her on screen for the first time. I thought she must be 52 years old! I also expected the MESSAGE. The movie did a decent job of making sure to make no statement and offend nobody.
One thing that really impressed me about this review is that the Drinker pronounced Wagner Moura’s first name like a German speaker.
California and Texas teaming up? Upstanding Journalists? This movie should win a best science fiction award somewhere!
No, sorry, there's no science in this whatsoever. It should definitely take home the Best Fantasy Film award though! CA & TX together... yep, pure fantasy.
The only Scientific evidence there is that Rural Texas and Rural California are both very conservative. And both have some of the largest military bases in the country.
The journalists are shown to be pretty terrible people, devoid of emotion or caring of others, they simply want fame even at the cost of their friends lives. And it shows the true character of someone who cares more about state lines than the reason why Texas and Cali teamed up is because they seceded after the president used air strikes on US citizens
I mean texas and california is the only choice so that you dont associate your movie with real life politics
@widejeff8993 THEORY: The new POTUS came into power and severely pissed off both states. Like, he told Texas to surrender their guns and open up the borders, but told California all the migrants would be going there and that they'd have to pay for it.
The idea of a state that has all the guns ever, allying with a state that’s afraid to have more than 3 bullets in the gun, is the funniest thing I’ve seen this year
they talk about it right at the beginning of the movie
Yes.. but for me the movie was so frustrating because you had no idea how the country ended up in Civil War. What the politics was, ideology, feelings of the people etc. And there were no technical details about how each side acquired the weapons they had. The Western Forces had F22s... how did they get them? Air power is decisive in most wars.. so what did Feds have? If the WF had air superiority, then why didn't they just bombard DC and the White House from the air? AND WHAT ABOUT THE NUKES!?!? The movie just had me asking so many questions that I simply couldn't enjoy it. I also thought it was gratuitous in showing sickening violence in a "sexy cinematic" way.. like the director was getting off on how he could artistically shock the audience from one scene to the next. If he'd put as much effort into the story it would have been a MUCH better movie.
@@zx7-rr486the planes could have come from National Guard or from the rebel forces capturing federal bases. TX has two US Army armored divisions based in the state. We also have a wing of B-2s and the Fort Worth plant where F-35s are built. CA has plenty of bases too. A nuclear exchange would probably never happen except as a last resort.
I don't think it's actually that unrealistic. California has the most active military members as well as the most military bases. They also both have a strong independent streak outside of the U.S. They're also demographically getting more similar as the years pass and they were also both their own republic for some time before joining the U.S. (although that last one is a bit of a stretch). They both have strong agricultural and tech industries. They both have had two conservative presidents from there (Reagan and Nixon from California and the Bushes from Texas). They both have (or will have) water issues with Climate Change. There are a lot of differences in terms of laws and politics but when it comes down to it I bet your average Californian is pretty similar to your average Texan.
If you believe that California is super-blue, and Texas is super-red, you haven't experienced much from those states. I know many areas of CA that make the average Texas area look left-leaning by contrast, and there are also parts of Texas(some cities) that are so blue you'd scratch your head and wonder if Texas is really so red. By the same standard, if you were to isolate the big cities of CA, and remove their voting power, CA would be a very red state. lol
i was born and raised in Baytown, TX. but i lived in Lake Forest, CA for about a year after high school. you couldn't pay me enough to go back there, unless i were a 13 Bravo.
Great video…and even better title! Love the Macbeth reference🤟
I'm guessing that an actual civil war in the US wouldn't be state vs. state but rural, suburban, and small city vs. urban metropolises. It would be truly horrendous. Nothing that I would ever want to live through.
Nov 6, if they cheat and cheeseball Joe 'wins' again.
It would be horrendous but just because you don't want it don't assume it won't happen in your lifetime. Prepare now in case it does. Some think we are already in a civil war with our justice system being destroyed and our DAs and judges letting crime run rampant.
@@TeddyRumblehe will. The republicans haven’t done anything to reform voting.
@@TeddyRumbleI think it's just as likely even if that doesn't happen. Neither victory will be accepted by the other side.
You mean racial
I'm rewatching "Firefly", and it really shows how to do this right: We never really understand the "big picture" (since it only got one season), but the characters, their relationships, and their aims are all understood from the very beginning.
Aim to miss behave. A shame we lost Joss, I was hoping we’d get a couple more great tv shows out of him.😢
Wasn't there a movie acting as a sequel? Haven't watched the show yet.
@@JoakimOtamaaThe movie “sequel/second season” is called Serenity.
@@JoakimOtamaa Yes, the "Serenity" movie got to the end, and tied things up (of course rushed). The single season was a masterclass on establishing roles, and if you like the movie, you'll love the series.
California is liberal and Texas is redneck so that choice is very weird
Thank you TCD, you saved me from suffering through a 2hr waste of time, ticket and snacks expense. A friend of mine wanted to see this badly, pressing me to go on a very dark day for me. A sh*tty movie would have sent me spiraling.
Look guys we have someone who can’t form their own opinion
@po801_4 As an American who was born and raised in the Land of the Free, the idea of the USA teaming up with the USSR for any reason is absolutely hilarious. Especially in this day and age of 1939.
TL;DW "Some journalists liked a movie that valorizes journalists."
It does the exact opposite . It shows them as opportunistic leeches . Like papparazzi. Watching people burn to death, reaching out for them as they snap pictures . The whole movie is an exploration of PTSD and violence . If you don’t know what you’re talking about , why speak
@@Crybaby-Media Right back at ya, pal. Go read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
@@Crybaby-Media ahh yes it totally explored those themes. Oh wait, it didn't do that at all because the writing was shit.
They’re war photographers, not journalists.
@Crybaby-Media I’ve never seen a more apt username before
What a title. I didn't expect Shakespeare to be referenced in relation to Civil War, but there you go.
UK education in full display. we are hammered with that cvnt in our education over here :P
the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves
@@kanedNunable I don't understand what you mean.
the sound and fury line is one of the most overquoted in shakespeare. only the mildly familiar would find it surprising
@@lamhamzzzzzz Mildly?
In all fairness, the portrayal of the second American civil war as a natural disaster with neither side really having a goal to actually fight for is probably the most accurate you could get. Our political climate these days basically boils down to, "fuck those guys, they don't wear our colors". Everyone is caught up in identity politics and nobody seems to care about the real problems that created our mess in the first place.
I liked the movie. I wanted a gritty adventure and that’s what I got. I had a lot of fun watching it and was never bored.
This movie just feels like another 2012: a product of something people are talking about way too much so someone said, "fuck it I'll turn that into a movie". Then magically no one cares anymore, just like the 2012 end of the world prediction.
this doesn't really add up when literally last inauguration there were barbed wire fences and a notable amount of occupying national guard or whatev oversaw DC with highly suspect "riot" and "protest" events
2012 atleast had cool disasters
I used to jokingly say “did ya ever think the reasons the Mayan’s never finished the calendar was cause they got conquered?”
apples and oranges comparison
To be fair, a civil war is a lot more plausible of an event than a misinterpreted ancient Mayan calendar's apparent doomsday date
"A movie that says nothing, does nothing, and ultimately accomplishes nothing." That pretty much sums up all of Hollywood.
Well it’s pushing this romantic nonsense that war journalists are worth listening too
a glass half empty remark. MAGA much?
@@morizenfoche - LOL - a vague criticism and left wing labeling. WOKE much?
I fail to understand why anyone who really has no point to make has to resort to the tired and well treaded trope of MAGA? Is that the extent of your argument? "Ok I really don't have a point to make so just shout MAGA and I'm cool!" This is exactly why people are so tired of the left. They make NO sense, offer NO counter point, and honestly? Don't even care about the topic, and just tearing into anyone who doesn't align with their views.
@@TodaysDante I think it's an *anti* war movie. Showing us how meaningless it would be
I can see Texas and Florida. "Half a tank of gas , $300 , Canadian"😂😂
I didn't even watch your review. I can just tell from your title and the comments that you don't like the movie. Thanks, Critical Drinker. Now I know I SHOULD watch the movie.
It's like the movie tried to make a point but then politely stopped short, trying to get the audience to get said point by sheer proximity to it.
Nah, just Hollyweird trying to be "serious"
They tried to "throw" the audience
The lesson is pretty clear: regardless of sides, no one really wins in a civil war.
Anyone with half a brain knows what the point is and doesn't need it to be spelled out, but a movie is only lessened by empty characters.
@@Jay-jb2vrI don’t think that’s the insult you guys want it to be. Hollywood has always been openly, and proudly strange.
I think people missed the point. It was a PR for journalists. Journalism is dead people hate them. It's well known they are not dependent upon. So this is a PR for them Just like detective shows are pr for cops. Military movies pr for military. College scenes are pr for college.
This is true.
the people who hate journalism are the people who think that fake crap like IS journalism.
But... how? None of the protagonists are really that likeable. A soulless war photographer, an old journo looking for his one last story, and a washed out journalist looking to get famous with a quote from the president. If it's PR, then it's really not good PR.
Since everyone knows that "journalists" would be 100% responsible for that Civil War, it would not go well for them to go anywhere near the freedom loving.
Great point.
You hit the nail on the head I went and seen this in theaters and I was really disappointed. It was a movie that said nothing. It had no teeth I was really hoping it was gonna be a blockbuster, but I really felt like if you just watch the trailer you’ve seen the whole movie. No need to watch the movie unfortunately
Yeah if someone is emotionally deaf and lacks the ability to produce any deeper thought on his own, then yeah watching this probably feels exactly like watching the trailer. Sorry for you bud
Thank you for a thoughtful and nuanced review.
The movie couldn't be more on the nose with its message: "Every time I survived a war abroad, I thought I was sending a message home: 'Don't do this.' But here we are."
thats because the same people fueling the forever wars are sowing the chaos here.
Yet people still miss it... It's like when pure satire like Helldivers is released and people don't get it.
@@thurin84care to explain this😊
Yeah, people keep comparing the movie's "story" to Apocalypse Now. Except the reason why that movie worked so well was because Willard and the characters he meets where very root-able people that you want to see find some peace, and complete their mission, only for them to even question what it is they're fighting for exactly.
@@chickensteez2906 Naah, he doesn't have to. It'll be fine.
"Mauler and MovieBob teaming up to overthrow Nerdrotic." 😂😂😂
I never thought a war movie would be boring, but this movie managed it. The characters were paper thin and had no backstory. Most of the movie was spent riding in a car, or walking around. With such one dimensional characters, even the fighting scenes seemed purposeless shock value.
I thought it was incredible. But I was also an active duty US Marine/war correspondent during OIF/OEF, so it’s only natural I’d appreciate it more. This is about as close as one can get to seeing what it’s like to be a photographer in combat.
My favorite part was when Thufir Hawat stood up and shouted "3 guild navigators; a total of 1.46 million and 62 Solaris, round trip." Not a dry eye in the cinema that day.
Truly a Muad'Dib Mentat moment
This fucking comment made me laugh more than it should
"fine, upstanding journalists?" Drinker, that may qualify as the oxymoron of the year! 😂🤣
The aren't journalists...
Well they are morons on oxy ...
Comments section is closer to real journalism today than anything remotely associated with a press pass
hating journalists just for being journalists is extremely problematic. (in the voice of jeff foxworthy) if the word journalist sounds like a dirty word to you, youuuu might be a fascist. there are good journalists and bad journalists and it takes a level of intelligence to discern between them that the average american simply no longer has. but having a free press is vitally important to having a free society.
The movie doesn't glorify these people, they show them as numb to violence and hardly caring about human life as longa s they can get their snap of the brutality of war.
0:23 - Obligatory scene of all apocalyptic-style movies - the “scattered cars along the interstate” shot
I think the purpose of this film was to simply confront viewers with the fact that this is a possibility and, more importantly, not one that would be good for anyone in any way. The costs of letting angry discourse spill over into actual warfare are unfathomable and too many on both sides of the political divide are starting to delude themselves into thinking that a shootout would make their lives better. Our stability and comfort are largely based on US power which would be so damaged by this nonsense that everyone's lives would be worse post-war. The journalists in this film are the vehicle to show us a snapshot of what this might look like and, hopefully, help us to realize that even if one side is righteous in its cause, the costs of this approach can never be paid. Hence, who these characters are is irrelevant. With that said, the young journalist going from being too scared to snap the two hanging guys at the gas station to photographing Dunst's character literally being shot was pretty efficient character development. The film leaves room for us to fill in the blanks and find meaning for ourselves. It respects us enough to let us think about this without telling us the meaning. Did it feel a bit unsatisfying as a result? Perhaps. But it was better for it. Finally, for anyone who thinks Texas and California could never team up, what about the US and the Soviets in WW2? Or France and Britain after centuries of fighting? Or China and Russia's quasi alliance today? Politics and the world changes. Enemies and crisis makes convenient friends. Have a little imagination. Texas and California both have a lot going for them and a lot of challenges and neither is monolithic. Im glad we have both, and the world is better off with both in the same country.
Alex Garland says he's fallen out of love with film making, and it shows. Maybe he just needs a long break
he won't be missed it's fine to have one good movie in you, that's more than most
I think he's a better writer than director. His directing comes across as if he's trying to have that Danny Boyle style but not quite understand why Boyle does the things he does.
@@ynotwalk7391 and here's mine: Once there was a lovely sausage named Baldrick and it lived happily ever after.
Ex Machina?@@ynotwalk7391
@@ynotwalk7391Which one was the good one?
California and Texas actually getting together now there is fantasy writing.
What happened? Did California all of a sudden become a Texan protectorate?
@@JLAvey no cali fell off the face of the earth and nobody gave a shit
two states that want to break away from the united states teaming up despite being enemies because of their common goal. that's like saying Russia an united states getting together in ww2 was fantasy writing
Granted Texas used to be blue a long time ago. Also we don't know about the politics in this universe, it could be very different from our own.
@@toasterowens8916 this
Wow, I must have watched a different movie to the Critical Drinker. I pretty much disagree with every comment, except how well all aspects of the film making were. For me it wasn't about a specific War, whether Civil or otherwise... which is why it didn't need politics or definition, except it was there as the foil to the revealing of our casts personal and interpersonal stories, and as a subtler telling of war in general. Very humanising and gorgeously told. And that's without throwing extra credit for a budget so we'll used that it never felt lacking.
I'd like to also point out that the combo of TX and CA is absolutely not unthinkable. What is politics, leadership, power driven by? Money. What are the two biggest economies in the country? TX and CA. If you think that governors from TX and CA are "too different on social issues" to not partner up, you vastly misunderstand the power of money on our society. The movie is based on a president who refuses to leave office, attacks US cities, kills journalists, disbands the FBI, etc. These institutions this now-dictator is doing is destabilizing for the country. And what do markets reject more than any other single thing? Instability. It's the money.
If clickbait was a movie, it would be this movie
u poor lil thing...
@@stephaniedaniels5506It definitely was bait and switch. First the Movie does a poor job world building. If you don't get the world building right, it will be hard to suspend disbelief especially if you actually know people that went through a real Civil War such as the Rwandan Civil War of the 90s.
Agreed
"California and Texas have teamed up" Oh, so this is a Fantasy movie then.
One that makes Star Wars look like a documentary, no doubt.
Let's get weightlifters and marathoners together to form a volleyball team...
CA and TX have teamed up, ID has gone over to Sauron's side, and the two Blue Wizards are nowhere to be found.
Only if you have no idea about the political situation in california. It's basically like texas : big cities blue, rednecks red.
Just as fantastical as the US and German armies fighting alongside each other in WW2 huh? Do use your brain.
This wasn't about the reasons for war, who's wrong, who's right, this is about witnessing that and chasing it, and i loved it for that, i feel The Hurt Locker is a similar movie where it's more about being in the middle of conflict and craving it to an extreme.
Critical Drinker you missed the main focus: PRESS. War journalists. The details of the pointless war are secondary