“Civil War” movie trailer about Second American Civil War

[wnwnwn]

California would have stayed loyal in that scenario.

[ProudModerate2]

This is apparently the map of aligned states in this civil war story:



That about says it all imo

How the Hell did South Carolina stay as a "Loyalist State" ?

[LabourJersey]

Any "modern civil war" scenario that uses primarily state lines is simply dumb.

*IF* there is ever a conventional civil war in the US, it would be primarily a conflict between the major cities and the rural areas.

That almost certainly won't happen because Americans are too rich and too old relative to the sort of countries with civil wars.

That said, the possibility of having a conflict comparable to the Northern Ireland Troubles of 1969 to 1994 is there, unfortunately. But that's a whole different world than a true civil war.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Any "modern civil war" scenario that uses primarily state lines is simply dumb.

*IF* there is ever a conventional civil war in the US, it would be primarily a conflict between the major cities and the rural areas.

Well, perhaps. It could certainly hold true in larger or more evenly split states. Then again, any U.S. state will still have a majority population with a majority opinion which in turn would determine the political composition of the state government. And the state government still controls institutions like the National Guard and the State Police. I mean there were Unionist loyalists in southern states during the first civil war, but barring places like West Virginia, Missouri, or the enclave of the "Free State of Jones" in Mississippi they couldn't actually do jack sh**t without being in control of the government institutions in their respective state.

[Comrade Funk]

Given the options, I'm a hardcore loyalist. Also, given we're talking about A24 here, I think this movie will surprise people!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So I saw it tonight. It's a really well made film. There's a certain scene that's one of the most tense and disturbing ones I've seen in a major film in quite some time...if you've seen it you know exactly which one I'm referring to.

So a couple things I should point out (no major spoilers but if you're certain to see it you should probably stop reading here):

-The lack of ideological cohesion in the rebellions is intentional. The movie kind of goes out of its way to not be about Republicans vs. Democrats or left-wing vs. right-wing in the civil war. We do know the President is an authoritarian (he's mentioned to be in his third term and there's a reference to him disbanding the FBI, likely to replace with his own secret police) but no party or ideological affiliation is granted.
-The main characters are a team of journalists who are not affiliated any of the sides. None of them ever touch a gun for the entirety of the movie and only one actually kills anyone. There's actually a scene relatively early where they're embedded with some sort of militia fighting uniformed soldiers getting pictures (and who commit war crimes), but it never explicitly says what side those guys are on or which side they're fighting. This is intentional. In fact all of the combatants in the movie up until the ending's side is unclear and not stated. Even one of the main characters is said to have risen to prominence over her coverage of the "Antifa massacre"...was that a massacre carried out by Antifa or of Antifa? It's never clarified.
-The main theme of the movie is actually not about US politics or the sort of thing that us map nerds would think of but rather about how modern day journalism works and its role in conflicts...it's pretty clear.

This is apparently the map of aligned states in this civil war story:



That about says it all imo

That map suggests some sort of cringe #BothSides nonsense

That actually is kind of what happens, but it's not cringe and not in the way that you're thinking of.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't really get how the Loyalists maintain their western states. The logistics are terrible (I don't think there is even a direct rail link between Arizona/Nevada), Hawaii/Alaska are cut off from the Loyalists with no Loyalist continental US coastline/ports on the Pacific, and depending who is who's enemy (are they all fighting each other or is the color shading accurate?), that could be one massive pocket from Nebraska/Kansas-west for the Loyalists, which is extremely vulnerable to being cut off from the east.

Even if you come up with some alt-reality political system that supports that map, there are still basic problems with sustaining the economic and military potential of these regions..

That's what I was thinking too. There is no realistic way for Nevada and Arizona, not to mention the non-contiguous states, to last more than a few months at best before falling to the enemy forces, even if the central government has a huge military/technological advantage (which from what I understand isn't the case at all).

[Red Velvet]

Given the options, I'm a hardcore loyalist. Also, given we're talking about A24 here, I think this movie will surprise people!

Interesting considering the US president in this movie scenario is a violent autocrat who disbands the FBI and is going into his third term and that’s what causes California and Texas to secede and the Western Forces to invade the White House to protest.

[Electric Circus]

Alex Garland has done it again.

It's disorienting by design. Odd alliances are in keeping with that. The map barely appears and doesn't correspond with reality on the ground, so don't let that distract you. It's not the kind of war movie that's about cheering for a side. The incumbent regime is distinguished more by incompetence than brutality. Violence is ubiquitous.

The no man's land in which much of the story takes place resembles a less extreme version of the landscape depicted in The Road. The physical and social destruction isn't nearly as total, but it's unsettling in the same way.

Also, I'm glad that I saw this with a big audience. Lots of gasps.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I heard it was good.

Thankfully, Garland is an excellent director who could probably sell this conflict better than some other current action-based directors.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Glad to see this open at #1, nice to see that for an original movie that's not an adaptation or part of an existing franchise. Doesn't happen that often anymore.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[Red Velvet]

I’m just glad that my Brazilian homie Wagner Moura (loved watching him as the charismatic villain in “Paraíso Tropical” in 2007 when I was a kid) managed to survive all the bloodbath happening in this film while still making Brazil proud with a lead actor role in a big Hollywood movie.

Wished they made him Brazilian instead of US Latino from Florida but you can’t have everything. And if he was a foreigner he would’ve been quickly shot by Jesse Plemons white supremacist character like the Chinese guy also was.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I heard that despite being a movie about a civil war on US soil it's somehow devoid of any kind of substantive political commentary (beyond "war sucks" if you want to be generous I guess) and immediately knew it wasn't worth my time. If you're going to tackle a subject as serious and fraught you'd better have something meaningful to say about it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I heard that despite being a movie about a civil war on US soil it's somehow devoid of any kind of substantive political commentary (beyond "war sucks" if you want to be generous I guess) and immediately knew it wasn't worth my time. If you're going to tackle a subject as serious and fraught you'd better have something meaningful to say about it.

It does. The movie is more about modern journalism than politics but it's definitely meaningful in what it says.

[AtorBoltox]

The twitter criticism of this movie seems to be 'why is it anti-war and not validating my specific brand of political violence'

[Farmlands]

I heard that despite being a movie about a civil war on US soil it's somehow devoid of any kind of substantive political commentary (beyond "war sucks" if you want to be generous I guess) and immediately knew it wasn't worth my time. If you're going to tackle a subject as serious and fraught you'd better have something meaningful to say about it.

That's just not what the movie is about. There are other ideas beyond current political situation to explore within the setting of a US civil war, and the movie does that well, in my opinion. Plenty of media out there exploring those alternate themes, many more than pieces similar to Civil War.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I heard that despite being a movie about a civil war on US soil it's somehow devoid of any kind of substantive political commentary (beyond "war sucks" if you want to be generous I guess) and immediately knew it wasn't worth my time. If you're going to tackle a subject as serious and fraught you'd better have something meaningful to say about it.

That's just not what the movie is about. There are other ideas beyond current political situation to explore within the setting of a US civil war, and the movie does that well, in my opinion. Plenty of media out there exploring those alternate themes, many more than pieces similar to Civil War.

Also there's a scene in it that makes a statement that is way more profound than any political one could be but because it's the last scene in the entire movie I can't describe it without massive spoilers.

[Electric Circus]

I heard that despite being a movie about a civil war on US soil it's somehow devoid of any kind of substantive political commentary (beyond "war sucks" if you want to be generous I guess) and immediately knew it wasn't worth my time. If you're going to tackle a subject as serious and fraught you'd better have something meaningful to say about it.

The politics are understated but it's not as if they are absent. Political obsessives won't miss them, nor will anyone familiar with Garland.

First, there is no mistaking who Nick Offerman's president is meant to resemble. A lot of reviewers are missing this, but the movie makes it as clear as it possibly can amidst the fog of war that he bears responsibility for instigating the conflict, but has since lost control.

The most brutal scene in the movie involves what appears to be

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

an Einsatzgruppen-style death squad with politics to match.

BRTD is correct about where the emphasis lies, although I think it's less about journalism specifically than what it means to be an observer of war. (The seemingly anachronistic focus on photography isn't just an affectation.) There are even harsh comments about people living in comfort in safe areas "who prefer to pretend that this isn't happening."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I appreciate the feedback. Obviously my opinion was by necessity uninformed since I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really engage beyond that. I'm still not sure if it's worth my time, but I might check it out if the occasion arises.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'll also note the civil war in the movie is very clearly based primarily on Syria and Libya so trying to fit contemporary US politics into it would very much miss the point.

[emailking]

I'm leaning towards pre-ordering the UHD physical. I haven't seen it.

[buritobr]

I watched Civil War in the movie theater few yours ago.

It's a good entertainment movie to watch eating popcorn (or MM). Good action scenes, good photography. No more than this.

The only serious issue was showing the relevance of the work of journalists.

Someone who expected a great social criticism would be dissapointed. Although war, president of the USA are political topics, the movie made a clear decision to be not political. The distopic USA portrayed in the movie is not a caricature of the USA of the real life. It's totally different. No paralell possible. I think that the decision to show Texas and California leading a riot against the federal government, states which vote opposite in the real life, had the intent to be distant to the reality and to avoid to support an ideological view.

[Joe Republic]

Overall I really enjoyed it.

It would have been better to leave the map out completely, even as briefly shown as it was, and give the rebel factions more generic names; 'Western Forces' on its own would be fine, so forget that they originated in some kind of bizarre marriage between California and Texas.  It just makes for an unnecessary distraction from the point of the movie's premise.

There was a handful of implications about what the President had done thus far to become an autocrat, but perhaps a few more of those could have made it abundantly clear why the war had erupted.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

The final battle in the streets of DC was some incredible cinematography.  I think my jaw was open the entire time between the Lincoln Memorial being blown up to the incursion into the White House.

[buritobr]

Overall I really enjoyed it.

It would have been better to leave the map out completely, even as briefly shown as it was, and give the rebel factions more generic names; 'Western Forces' on its own would be fine, so forget that they originated in some kind of bizarre marriage between California and Texas.  It just makes for an unnecessary distraction from the point of the movie's premise.

There was a handful of implications about what the President had done thus far to become an autocrat, but perhaps a few more of those could have made it abundantly clear why the war had erupted.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

The final battle in the streets of DC was some incredible cinematography.  I think my jaw was open the entire time between the Lincoln Memorial being blown up to the incursion into the White House.

I agree that the mention of the states belonging to the Western Forces was not relevant to the plot. But I believe that the author really wanted to demonstrate that the story was NOT about liberal America vs conservative America, that's why the choice of Texas (symbol of the conservative America) and California (symbol of the liberal America) in the same side.