So, basically, this entire movie's message is a one-off joke from a Futurama episode? "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say 'I'm against those things that everybody hates!' "
Everyone contains badness in them, has committed bad acts, and will probably commit more. But to essentialize it as "we're all bad" is just so tedious.
The subject matter in and of itself would only be wrong on its face if it appeared to be more in line with power fantasy and glorification of warfare, which it isn't. You can make entertainment about serious issues as long as you approach it carefully.
Yea with so many idiots threatening violence if they don't get their way all the time I'm really uncomfortable about a movie that is going to feel wrong when some group of said idiots decide violence is the answer.
@@TheTaintedWisdom: There's a difference between careful and toothless, and seeing as this movie doesn't seem to have anything to say other than "fighting bad", that puts it pretty square in the latter.
"The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" is frequently mocked for having a similar "Both sides are bad" message but at least they had the guts to make both sides actually stand for something. Moderation isn't commendable unless there's some temptation to be biased towards one side or another.
Falcon and the Winter Soldier wasn't really "both siding" anything. It was more like showing two opposing sides both with ostensibly good goals, but both resorting to bad methods to accomplish those goals. You know, sort, like how Magneto has a relatable reason for being so mistrusting of humans, but protecting mutants by whipping out all ordinary humans is still pretty objectively the wrong way to go about it.
@@louisduarte8763 I don't think they wanted us to hate John tbh. He was an interesting and flawed character who wanted to do good but shouldn't have been given the shield. Although, the entire point was the government wanted someone they could control so of course they were going to select the wrong person to take over. Steve Rogers is legit my fave MCU character but I thought Walker was interesting as well, it was funny seeing people hating on him, meanwhile I enjoyed him for what he was.
I can't help but be reminded of that movie The Hunt from a few years back. You know, that movie where the ostensibly Rich Liberals try to pull a Most Dangerous Game on some MAGA folks, except our main protagonist isn't actually a MAGA type, and the political views she _does_ express are so bland and generic they could come from any party? I mean, I _get_ movies that are inherently political might not want to actually take a political stance out of fear of alienating viewers, but come on. If you're _gonna_ do this stuff, have some actual conviction.
Indeed. If having characters' actions recontextualized based on the circumstances they find themselves in, or doing things you don't agree with, even though they may/may not be in line with your political ideology is too much of a problem for audiences then we've already failed as a society. Media should be willing to *_challenge_* our perceptions, not default to either being impotently neutral or blindly catering to a tribalistic mindset.
This reminds me of the Acolytes of Horro video "Horror That Fears Politics" which criticizes movies and series like The Hunt, Americam Horror Story, etc. gor being spinelessly centrist and both-sides and just afraid to actually engage with politics.
That's how all these kinds of movies go; they pay lip service to the idea that they're gonna be oh so controversial and challenging and "About Things", but they end up just being wishy washy Muh Both Sides copouts since they've got tickets to sell as a mainstream movie. It's the same thing that happened with The Hunt, remember that nonsense, where that movie also revealed itself to be a confused and clumsy premise that couldn't commit to anything. It almost makes me miss all those PureFlix movies, at least they were CONFIDENT in their stupidity, but movies like this are just boring.
John Millius is pretty much a real life cartoon villain, but his films are usually pretty worthwhile artistically because he sticks to his guns and actually presents his worldview, and sometimes even crosses over into the territory of what Civil War seems to be doing. Like with Apocalypse Now where Coppola, an extra lefty, took his The Oddyssey in 'Nam script and cinematically drove the point about american imperialism and Hollywood's complicity in it, or in the case of Red Dawn which is blatantly concieved as "Soviets bad", but got a lot of attention from some american leftists for depicting grassroots rebellion against an oppresive imperialist invader.
Ok. Try Space Runaway Idon. If you want something written by the creator of Gundam BUT even more depressing and was made right before he was committed for Depression 😅
".....the seceding Western forces of Texas and California..." Wait. Texas and California? As in they joined forces? OK, so it's FANTASY then. OK, I gotcha. I gotcha.
yeah, the scenarios I can envision where Texas and California agree to join up against some of the rest of the states involve stuff like, Zombie Stalin takes Control of New York, or Alien baby eating lizardfolk are revealed to be in control of some of the other states.
The fact that the Civil War trailer stated that California and Texas were united made me question this movie. Guess I'll give my money to Love Lies Bleeding. At least it has more going for it than President Ron Swanson.
“Love Lies Bleeding” doesn’t even have a release date in my country yet, but this one does. “The Iron Claw”, meanwhile, is just dropping straight to VOD in my country at the end of this month. At least A24 know how to prioritize…
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
why's that questionable? a million things could have happened in the backstory. and they said in promotional interviews that it's not a willy nilly thing, but rather desperation in order to survive against the loyalists
A friend and I were talking about this after the first trailer came out, and the scenario we came up with was... Oakland and SF go full Detroit, subsequent population collapse renders the tech-bros and Berkeley-leftists electorally irrelevant resulting in a much more rurually and So-Cal focused California governorship/legislature. Said legislature then sides with Texas against the Feds in a dispute over water rights and/or energy exports. The continental US ends up split diagonally between the Southwest (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Et Al) and all of the east coast along with much of the midwest.
@@Suzanne_sf Also from CA, but... Mostly music, food, and technology. But our solutions to everything are so different - CA has a water shortage, so we built the biggest aqueducts in the country. We have an energy island, so we build interlinks to every surrounding state. We have a majority by land Agricultural economy so we limit emissions that would threaten them We had oil spills and explosions so we regulated them into compliance. TX took the opposite approach to each of the challenges... Maybe some economy which threatened our integration with the world trade market? TX and CA are huge exporter states. Heck, economically, if the country lost us it would be seriously broke.
@@Suzanne_sf once you get out of the cities California is basically Texas. It is an illusion we are as progressive as you think. That is city thinking, and the economy of California is driven more my it’s agriculture. Did you know California produces more food than any other state? It’s run by the conservative working class. We just have outspoken gays and feminists that don’t get out much to understand that.
It became obvious that a non-american wrote this. Id believe the premise if it was Texas, Florida and the south vs the rest of the US with flyover states being the battle ground.
I hadn’t read up on the movie and saw something about Texas and Florida and the NE being on the opposite side and I was like “okay, the south rises again kinda jig” Nah clueless writing. I’m not American but you only have to have a passing knowledge of the US to know this was never going to get off the ground.
Saw an early screening the other day. This is a well-acted and well directed movie, and the whole DC battle feels like an impressive CoD level brought to life. But i think my biggest gripe is we never learn much about Civil War’s world. Which feels intentional, but also feels counterintuitive about a film celebrating journalists.
Late, but: I mean, if they, actually, tried to dig into the "how did the US get divided in this way", the movie would fall apart completely. And part of that is a problem of tone. Alex Garland, seemingly, does not want to make comedies, even though the competently constructed version of this premise (which I've laid out) of a four way division of the US is MADE for dark comic exaggerations of petty conflict (New York vs. New Jersey, anyone?), not straight drama. Just...imagine what this premise could have been like with Garland hiring a fellow countryman who is more of an expert on this stuff: John Oliver. Nice, right?
Bob, 2 stars is not 2/10, it's 2/5 (or 2/4 if you were Roger Ebert). I think you need to have a word with your video editor. I mean, the way you described the film didn't sound like a 2/10 piece of absolute rage-inducing filthy trash (like Pixels) anyway.
I like your videos, and I think you missed a lot of the point here. This movie is about the news media and how we only see shallow quick moments in world conflicts, and the majority of context is completely removed from media coverage and completely absent after only a few short weeks. We're stuck in the dark about the US civil war, just as we are with every other world conflict. Missing the major point also caused you to miss the point of California and Texas uniting, with the Florida-led faction also being an ally. These are respectively the #1, #2, #4 state economies in the US. If there's ever another US civil war, this is exactly what would have to happen and it makes perfect sense for these enormous economies to be against a civil war and against the end of the US on the world stage. I completely agree it misses on character development and dialogue - such as not a single non-photo journalist (other than the 2 embeds at the end) ever takes a note, ever writes a single word, ever even talks about writing an article, nor records a video. If they hadn't told us, we'd have had no idea the men were newsmen at all.
Saw a preview of this last night, with Garland there. He called himself a 'centrist' and then later said 'centre left' which, well, i think is a bit of a chickenshit position these days. the idea that we would all be okay if we just had a 'conversation' or something is no longer, IMO, realistic. So for his actual goal of the film, I think the inherent "We're all.." line fails. however... I'm not hung up on the Texas/California alliance or the absence of politicians other than the president, demagogues, etc. There's justifications for or against that stuff that I can take or leave and it doesnt sway my opinion of the film much. I like the movie because more or less i think it showcases both people who get caught up in the moment as well as people who are reveling in the opportunity to start mass killing those they find undesirable. In this sense the "we're all bad" works - if you remove the context of what they're fighting for or against, and all we see is the violence, its more horrifying. When we have an opinion on who is right or wrong, we may start justifying or rooting for one set of people or another. I just think the fact its called "Civil War" and is out at this time puts pressure on it to do more, say more, be more, if not be everything, and it was never going to be able to rise to that level.
Hey Bob, I don't know if you're gonna care, but I did workshop a Civil War story with multiple POVs, some of them being a teenage Afghan American descendant of a translator for the Marines that joins a militia after they save her and her baby brother, a gay Texan mecha pilot who is constantly fighting with his chain of command, a Mexican Expeditionary volunteer who joined for a pardon after a career as a cartel sicario, and a Navajo Speaker of the House who has to step up to the role of unelected president after the previous POTUS and VP were executed by the new regime. Yes, it has mecha suit battles. The Second Battle of Gettysburg is two Mech Divisions squaring off in the middle of town.
If they'd had the balls to have California and Texas each being their OWN seceding quasi-nation that is also at war with each other, that would have made more sense and been more interesting.
Ah yes. Both sides are the same. All sides are equally bad. The fact one side want lots of my friends dead/to not exist doesn't make them worse or anything. Riiiiiiight. Guess I won't watch this one! Great review!
Those kind of 'middle road takes' are hilarious. 'These guys want to kill everyone, these other guys would like to live, can't we just compromise and meet in the middle?'
This COULD have been good if it were an “Apocalypse Now”-style meditation on jingoism, “American exceptionalism”, and how our highly polarized society could spiral out of control and the needless, senseless violence that would result, but it sounds like they totally missed the boat on that one.
Saw the funniest take somewhere else that was "Well Apocalypse Now didn't open with a text crawl about the Vietnam War or have characters explain their ideology either" Which, one it kind of does in the French Plantation scene and two, it didn't need that because it's fucking recent history that viewers would be familiar with! You can't pull that shit with a fictional conflict!
As someone from Texas, I can tell you that this state could definitely secede or turn against the federal government but I don't buy the teaming up with California.
Sigh. No. (Texan here) The united states has to sign off on our secession just like any other state. And its not in the US constitution so their would need to be a huge majority on both sides of the agreement. Fighting a war which decided the right to secede and losing said war also means ... we can't secede. The only difference with texas that remains is that texas can choose to divide itself into a number of smaller states - again with a huge majority and the authorization of the federal Gov
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
@@RedNymph234 Thank you! (Texan here) I mean, California is the home state of Ronald Regan and Ann Richards was a 2 term Democratic governor of Texas in the 90s. I don't understand why it's so crazy that those states could flip or form a mutual alliance against a totalitarian President. That's like saying "The United States, Great Britain and Russian are allies in a world war? Yeah, right!"
@@Groovebot3k I actually can believe it. Now that the movie business is in a major realignment period, every pretentious project is getting greenlit in the hopes of becoming the new hotness.
@wilberwhateley7569 you're obviously allowed to like Joker, I just didn't care for it, it felt like it was talking a lot and not saying much about anything, class disparity, mental health, gun violence, etc. on a more nitpicky note, the time period it took place in also felt weird insofar as this guy's supposed to be Batman's arch nemesis, but Bruce Wayne was like, 10 years old in the film while this guy is in his late 40's or early 50's? the fuck outta here. I would have been able to overlook something like that if I'd enjoyed the film, but yee
@@pieisgood235 I would be generous and say that there's easily half a good movie in Joker... a collection of excellent scenes thanks to talented performers. Strung together in an overarching narrative however, and the wheels start to come off... and yes, the notion that it's meant to serve as some manner of origin story a DC Elseworlds is the funniest joke of them all.
The Chuck Norris movie is also really messy. The 'enemy' is Cuban-Middle Eastern-Russian-Korean-Anyone and they are landing together in the US. Also, Norris always knows where they are somehow
Jubilee on her worst day would never be as stupid and thoughtless as the young journo in this movie. I could not believe how dumb she was for no reason!
I'd suggest naming it for Ava from Borderlands 3, who's another embodiment of the trope. (Although at least Ava has the slight excuse of being a tween, aka the single most irrational and unpredictable age in most people's lives. Having a 20something act that way is a lot harder to justify.)
Shit, I love the ending to that one. When even the bad guys realize that the new bad guys are full on Chaotic Evil, whereas they're Lawful Evil. I honestly cant wait for the next one.
I mean, who in their right mind would make a movie right now about a civil war in the modern USA and then try their damnest to hide actual real world parallels by making the premise implausible in context of modern US?
Garland did say that he fell out of love with filmmaking. I wouldn't be surprised if something happened during the production of this that sucked all the risk out of it and by the time he noticed the movie was finished and he regretted it.
Actually, there was a interview or review of it in The Atlantic and he seemed to think that the people of America would come together to overthrow a fascist presidency. But…that seems to ignore the fact that given this movie is literally titled Civil War, that there are also Americans who are very committed to keeping the authoritarian president in office. Reading what he was saying it was a very strange double think, and also seems to not grapple with why civil wars are fought. Usually it’s either due to some sort of ideological conflict, or some sort of geographic/material cause for people to fight. I mean, could California and Texas fight together from a geographic perspective? Sure, but right now lacking something more specific and compelling than, well, the president does authoritarian things it’s hard to picture them coming together. Like, ok, I’ll bite, but what authoritarian things is the president doing, and how did he get elected in the first place if his campaign involved drone striking people in the lower 48? You have to at least answer that question if you’re gonna pretend that this movie has a message.
@@kmhanley2 He was more to-the-point on The Daily Show, saying America falling into another Civil war IS a bad thing for this country and the rest of the world. He said "Nobody wants America to collapse like that, except complete psychopaths."
The posterboys for The bluest blue state and the redest red state becoming friends and starting a civil war and fighting the government does sound really stupid. Like what's the movie's justification for them working together? Secondly I hope this doesn't become one of those movies your relative asks you to watch cause it's "saying something" and a "I could totally see this happening"
I actually believed that this could totally happen, but then I saw this review. In what world would Texas & California get together to agree on anything? This reminds me of King of the Hill where they actually did a good job showing state differences. Hank was with his son & made sure to lock the doors of their truck because they had left Texas & entered Arkansas. I have no desire to see this movie now.
@@Suzanne_sf a lot would have to break down for something like that to happen and I do not believe for a moment Texas and California would be on the same side of anything unless money was involved. Like Texas just blew up threatening succession, but that's pretty much all it was. A big loud threat. I honestly don't think they would have and even if they did they would be worse off for it.
@@dekopuma I looked it up, and it's even dumber. The United States has split into four factions. Apparently the south minus Texas is a faction. The lower half of the mid west and the Eastern states(along with Hawaii and Alaska) are a faction and are basically the United states. The upper western states are a faction that aren't and California and Texas are their own factions. Though it still sounds really dumb to be to have it split into four. All that does is add extra complexity to a fake conflict. When all you need is two different ones. Also also, It makes no sense for California and Texas to be their own factions. The only reason the plot synopsis I'm looking at gives for their split is "multi-party political differences". Which if that's all we needed we would be split years ago. Like the sectioning of the states makes no sense whatsoever to me. It doesn't even seem to to fallow actual party lines it just looks like. Welp California and Texas are the extremes and the south and the states completely opposite of the south are enemies and everyone else is just everyone else. The factions don't make sense to me and they don't really give a reason for them to be friends or enemies, they just kinda are. I feel like this should be more blue states vs red states with maybe some more blue states on the map in the western US, but it makes it so much more complicated than that for no reason.
@@darkmyro It's a shame, because with a little bit of research of recent US history, & they really could've done something that mirrors what actually could happen in the coming months.
Good, I'm sticking to the superior Civil War, Captain America Civil War Side note: the we're all bad when you get down to it argument is the premise of the fourth season of Yu-Gi-Oh, seems that's how childish it boils down to this is
Like all absolutist ideologies, that argument is a way to avoid thinking of how messy it is to be human. If all of us are bad, it conveniently absolves us of all responsibility for our action. Fuck. That.
It kills me that this makes $25M and is considered a hit, whereas The Marvels (which rocked) made ten times as much and is widely decried as being a flop.
I was deeply suspicious about this movie from the trailer. My suspicions were mostly confirmed hearing Garland's misguided mealy-mouthed interview about the movie. But this sounds even worse. The Token Millennial/Gen Z who ruins stuff by being naive and dumb is really such a goddam tired trope I can't even. All the actors who signed up for this should have known better.
Yeah, I am BEYOND tired of that trope myself. Reminds me of too many Boomers and Gen Xers I hear talking how GREAT their generation was. Yeah, no, this Gen Xer knows better and so should they. Dissing the kids who are going to outnumber you in a few years is so stupid.
This movie needed a John Carpenter to direct. Heck his two Escape movies could almost function as prequels. He would also not have chosen journalists as protagonists. He would have gone with either an everyman like in They Live forced by circumstance to fight or a jaded soldier a sorta Snake Plissken. We needed better worldbuilding and a more gutsy statement than 'civil war is bad'. Which is the least gutsy thing a war movie can do.
If you told me there was a movie where Texas and California were united in rebellion against President Ron Swanson, I would have assumed it was a satire titled something like "Civil War Movie". The idea of those two states being on the same side of a civil war is so absurd, it's got to be a joke. Also, this is my annual public statement that Texas is welcome to succeed from the Union whenever it wants to.
Love your reviews. Fucking hilarious. The movie felt like it was trying to comment on social media and it’s why the politics might not have mattered, but they never landed any clear statements or questions. The only thing the characters learned was how to stare longer into their own pain. Felt like it could even be a sarcastic take on how deep everyone things they are on social media when in reality it’s a shit show of people fighting each other mindlessly
Another review of this film noted that this film is clearly the product of a non-American filmmaker, for it treats the politics of a hypothetical American civil war with as much concern as your typical modern Hollywood war film cares about the local politics of the international war zones they depict. I can at least appreciate that on a meta level, and if it's intentional, I respect the decision as well.
As a non-american viewer that's how a lot of us saw it. We're so used to both american and british film makers wanking to 'support our troops' horseshit while they vaporize brown people the film read to me as an abject lesson to american viewers as to what it looks like to have your own backyard turn into a bloodbath. After reading some interviews that's not what it was, nor would any studio even A24 put serious money behind a premise like that because no american would go to see it, at least not enough of them to make it worth while to make it.
I had a small role on it and was treated just as the rest of the cast..even being a no named talent. I just hope I made the cut. We’ll see tomorrow night
Commenting to boost engagement… and also maybe request that Bob reupload his review of the movie Transcendence, if he still has it, since the “stupid movie that thinks it’s smart “ description given to this movie reminded me of that review.
Hoo. Glad I caught this review. Thanks, Bob. You saved me $15. I think *maybe* if they explained why the conflict is happening I could see myself seeing this, but yeah, I got real pretentiousness vibes from the onslaught of trailers and the scene they keep showing with Jesse Plemons as the “soldier” with red glasses. Such a shame because I love A24, but I guess they can’t all be winners like Everything Everywhere, Uncut Gems or Love Lies Bleeding
Courier is (or was) the default typeface for newsprint, government docs and screenplays for a long time, and for years it was used as onscreen text in documentaries to convey "This is being quoted from an official source" even if it wasn't necessarily.
"The perfect movie to get our minds off these politically-divided and divisive times." -Nobody Fucking Ever. 1:09 Speaking as a Californian, we're more likely to fight AGAINST Texas than team up with them against the rest of the country. And we HAD a failed secession movement! 1:44 I almost forgot Garland had a hand in DREDD! 10:35 And did it BETTER than the comic miniseries it adapted. Come at me, Mark Millar fans. I figured this was stupid since I 1st saw the trailer. And the timing is just awful.
Some kind of California-Texas militia is one of the more plausible elements of the movie, considering that Silicon Valley techbros and No Steppy Texas types are waaay closer to agreeing with each other than the other people in their own states. This is the sort of thing that would be interesting if the movie cared to actually explore it. I get the feeling that this has the Elysium/ The Creator style thing going on where the ideas and art produced in working the film up will be vastly more interesting than the movie they produced.
I'm really not interested in this movie, and happy to take Bob's word for it that it is dull and hackneyed. But the idea that allegiances in war wouldn't fall along partisan lines or wouldn't have a sympathetic side (esp to an outside audience) really doesn't seem that unrealistic or glib to me. Like, wartime coalitions are always weird and often flip, power vaccuums and the breakdown of trust mean that realpolitik almost immediately overshadows ideology... ESPECIALLY in civil wars, I would think. I have strong opinions about one-sided invasions with huge civilian casualties, e.g. Gaza and Ukraine (in both cases, ceasefires yesterday would be nice) - those would be clear counterexamples. But as for 'good guys' or even prevailing ideologies in say, Syria, the Sudans, the DRC/Rwanda, Cold War proxy wars, or even certain World War theatres (e.g. Finland)... it does in fact get super messy, and I don't really see why American political violence would be immune to that.
Kind of the opposite, at least from what Bob is saying. Olympus Has Fallen is not afraid to take sides and has lots of action scenes. This one is afraid to take sides and all the action scenes were shown in the trailer.
This is a movie that follows around a group of journalists, and yet, the president of the fucking United States does not have a name in this movie. They never use his name. That's the level of "No, go back and write a second draft, dipshit" worldbuilding failure we're dealing with. It's barely a script at all. It's a degree away from one of those "write a short story without using the letter 'A'" kind of writing challenges.
....because he's just a guy? Like, this is in the dialogue. The huge monster, the powerful men of history, they are all just people. He's not destined to say something epic and meaningful to the journalist, he doesn't get a great epic death.
One could say the same about several David Lynch movies, even the ones I actually like. In both your example and mine, it's a consequence of caring more about the big ideas than actual characters (which can still work as HP Lovecraft proved).
I'm really curious to know what was the process in life of being on the Statue of liberty's torch. I would imagine like snipers saying up there for like days on end.
So I have a stupid question: Texas and Calfornia? What about Arizona and New Mexico? Did someone just forget there are two whole states in between the big two?
"The Western Alliance, led by Texas and California" - from this line, we can deduce several things. One, the big two are not the only states in rebellion, just the most notable. Two, the division is, for whatever reason, along geographic lines. (Maybe the feds started taxing water use in the western states to a punitively heavy degree or something.) Three, those two prior factors being true, AZ, NM, and NV are most likely also part of it.
It’s not suppose to make sense, because it not making sense is the point of the dumb ‘both-sides’ movie. It’s not trying to say something about political reality, and in fact having the two most unlikeliest allies with a large geographic distance between them be a faction further underscores that.
Thanks for saving me the time and money. A 'both sides' argument paired with and obnoxious teenager driven narrative likely would have meant I wouldn't say and finish the film.
Fuck, I was really hoping that I wasn't spot-on about the trailers and the premise. I took one look and clocked this movie, but then I started trying REALLY HARD to think of a way to be less cynical and give them the benefit of the doubt as a form of self-improvement; like "Oh, don't worry, it's a24, they do good stuff. Their movies are ABOUT things and of course they couldn't put it all in the trailer, this is just to get The Lowest Common Denominator butts in seats and then they'll hit us with something profound!". Glad I didn't say anything about it on social media or waste the ticket money. Rightoids won't see this movie because for them it'll be boring; and starring characters they're trained to hate for being liberal photojournalists. They're gonna be disappointed that this movie isn't just 90 minutes of The Turner Diaries as acted out by modern-day military guys teaming up with local militia guys. I LITERALLY saw guys QAnon-posting on the Instagram Ads so I'm not gonna debate anybody on my lived experience. I WATCHED THEM express that opinion, UNPROMPTED. On the other hand, I'm not gonna go see it because it's a bunch of hacks both-sides-ing the concept of conflict itself. It doesn't really have anything to do with political division in the US at all, that's just a spicy aesthetic draped over the empty husk of a film. A little Hot Sauce on your Saltine Crackers. "Wow, stuff really DO be happening sometimes". Yeah. It does. You got any.... thoughts on that? Opinions maybe? Explanations for why stuff happens? Courses of action that might lead to better stuff happening, or less "bad" stuff happening? Any opinion on what things might be "good" or "bad" or a muddy in-between? No? Just "hey here's some hanged people, some F35s flying over abandoned cars, makes you think"? DOES it make YOU think, Mr. Hack Screenwriter? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, MAN!? YOU SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SIT ME HERE AND SHOW ME THIS, SO WHYYYYYYY!? I don't have an opinion on the "Civil War" the movie's showing me because it's not in any way real or believable AND it's not trying to be. It's not our world AND that's on purpose, there's no social or historical connection whatsoever because the filmmakers either don't know how or don't care to make such a connection. So how and why would I ever care what happens in this plot? THE PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE don't even know or care, why should I? I don't, and I'm not going to, and I'm tired of pretending that I give a shit that they even wasted their time. If you're gonna say nothing then just SAY NOTHING and save us all the trouble!
Still feel like this movie is morally irresponsible. Like the nation is divided and there are always rhubarbs that will watch this, lionize the bad guys and then point to it as a blueprint for how they should do things.
EDIT - I have now seen the film, and Bob is so wrong. it's very obvious why the war started (President took a third term) and what it's being fought over (white nationalism). Only an idiot could possibly be confused by the film as presented. I have rarely seen Bob get a movie so wrong. I completely retract my older comment, and advise people to watch the movie, s it is not at all as Bob describes here. OLD COMMENT - Sounds like they should have just made a Day Zero prequel movie for The Handmaid's Tale, since it seems like that's what people really wanted this to be. At least that would have a point. I can't see the purpose of removing all the viewpoints and taking no sides with a movie like this. The Hunt had the balls to say something, while not catering too far either way. It can be done.
@@nerag7459 The Purge didn't pick politics but it had clear sides, rich and poor. They could say the new party pisses off both old ones for different reasons, maybe they're pro gun and property but fiercely anti abortion, you could give us some ground to go on rather than nothing. Especially if it's a talking movie. I thought it would be more action and drama, you can maybe get away with it in a film like Cloverfield, but I can't see this working
@@fusionspace175 Well it did pick politics because the white supremacist ex/current military guys were going around in certain neighborhoods cleaning up. I remember seeing their tattoos. It did have sides but it wasn't afraid to say 'yeah these people would love this sort of thing.'
@@nerag7459 here's the thing though, people are nuts. I just saw a video on an article written by a white supremacist who moved to the midwest and was disappointed in the people there, but the weird thing is the guy was a coastal elite liberal. They don't have a monopoly in racism, as much as that would make things simpler.
Cailee Spaeny is one of those deeply unfortunate actors who keeps stepping on rakes over and over. "I get to be in Pacific Rim 2, this'll be awesome!" THWACK! "Bad Times at the El Royale? Sure, Drew Goddard made that really great horror movie." THWACK! "I get to be in Vice AND On the Basis of Sex. Two surefire Oscar darlings in one year!" THWACK! THWACK! Her entire IMDB page is loaded with misfires that must have looked like good ideas on paper at the time. Her only two legitimately solid breaks were getting the lead in "Priscilla" and losing the lead for the Disney+ "Willow" series. We'll see how "Alien: Romulus" turns out -- it looks solid, but I wouldn't trust her luck.
Her career proves the William Goldman thesis of how no one in the movie industry knows anything and that, if you're lucky, you can make an educated guess on what will work. And that's a real shame for talented folks like her.
This doesn't come out here until next week, next to the Nicolas Cage movie where he's a guy that shows up in everyone's dreams and one about people locked in a house with a vampire and the vampire is a little girl. I think mt decision of what to watch has been made for me.
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
A movie called Civil War coming out in this American political environment already had huge shoes to fill to not be considered a shameless attempt to cash in on division. The only lesson such a movie could teach everyone is that Civil War would be absolutely devastating.
I actually found it's message to be frankly quite beautiful. Yes, we know war is bad. We've seen it before, but come on man. How many times have you seen such horrors of war depected with Americans against Americans in the modern day and shown more as a matter of fact than a glorification of violence. It's a pretty clear cut call for peace and to put aside our differences because as neighbors we all need to test each other well regardless of race or beliefs. Not doing so we see the consequences of what that would actually look like and how we clearly DON'T WANT THAT. So even if you don't like the movie or don't agree with that message, I'll still love ya Bob and hope you are doing well. Because in the end, Nujabes said perfectly over a decade ago, "We're the same and we're not, you know what I'm saying? Listen, I ain't better than you, I just think different." ❤
Texas and California? Wouldn't those be the two sides of the war? I guess they don't want to offend anyone politically. But why make a movie about Civil War II then?
This review is so similar to Bob’s take on The Menu which was another “bad on both sides” piece of self important filmmaker naval gazing. It’s right there in the red on Bob’s strike zone tracker: the “political” film that isn’t actually being political. Cheers to Bob for calling out artistic cowardice especially in the times we live in.
I don't get the Courier font reference. I know it's a traditional newspaper font, but why would using it be an eye-rolling moment for Bob in the movie?
all newsprint font, yes, but it is also how all film scripts are formatted and so the parallel is being drawn between film making and journalism. It is also a very tired cliché of films presented from the view of a journalist.
It's not a newspaper font: that's Times you're thinking of. Where it actually stems from is typewriters, and it used to be a cliché in a lot of thrillers, spy movies, and war movies that they'd use Courier to flash up messages like the time and location along with the sound of it being typed. It's a tired trope in movies like this.
@@talideon Hi there. Regarding newsprint it was most definitely the font used in the before times by journalists and writers although it was published, put to print if you will, in a different font to distinguish between the finished product. It might be a regional thing but where I am from several publications do use it in their final typeset for whatever reason. As someone who works as a writer it is also the font used in screenplays and other professional works (manuscripts, editorials, etc.) as it does originate from the fact that typewriters use that font for the most part. Myself I saw an inferred parallel being drawn between storytelling and journalism; that we, as writers, have a responsibility to tell the stories that matter... then they chickened out and forgot to include the courage of their convictions in the piece which makes the whole film fall well short of landing it's own point. Overall a disappointing showing from a director who knows he is better than this and you can see it in his interviews. Personally, I suspect he was reigned in by the studio and we are seeing some confused echoes of the work intended shining through in the work presented.
Times New Roman - Newspaper Courier - the unedited typing of the man on the ground, or the output of the teletype giving objective information to grim faced people in dimly lit war rooms.
I'm bummed. I was really looking forward to this movie and hoping that it would have some insightful/philosophically interesting things to say, thinking back to Ex Machina, Devs, Dredd, Sunshine, the Beach, etc... The premise of a civil war is such a great opportunity to showcase challenging dilemmas where there is no clear right answer, so hearing that they never give a reason for the conflict is very disappointing. Set the movie a few years in the future, claim there have been some technological advancements and open the door to plenty of difficult philosophical discussions. Use the first 20 minutes to establish the cause of the conflict, then carry-on following journalists or soldiers or whomever. Here's a few ideas that I had for the root of the conflict: 1) Complete border wall & closure with Mexico, at first Texas and California advocated for it but after a few years it's really hurt them economically so the border states open the border against Federal commands, the Feds come in to shut it down, there's a skirmish, and the border states decide to secede but Feds attack. How much authority should states have over their own borders versus how much authority DC should have over the borders that are thousands of miles away. 2) A massive earthquake hits from Montana to Texas making a giant canyon and cutting off cross country transport, a day or two later a hurricane hits the east coast. All the military and aid workers leave to go help the East coast while there is still massive damage to the south and west, one of the governors seizes the opportunity to lead a revolution because the Feds left their injured and crushed to go secure DC and NYC. People argue about which part of the country is more important, the west or the east. 3) Genetic engineering in an east coast Ivy League lab lab leads to making a human without self awareness, like a robot made of skin and bone, they lack the ability to make decisions but follow orders well ("slaves"). Arguments about what a human is, what god would think of this, how people are exploited economically follow. They're put into production to make "ethical sweatshops". Some radicals from Texas and California break into a factory, free the "slaves", and blow up the factory which accidentally kills some security guards. The radicals are deemed terrorists and get the electric chair or lethal injection, two of the radicals are related to rich powerful people. President enlists "slaves" into the military. 4) The President institutes a "don't make fun of me" executive order, similar to other dictators (china, north korea, russia, etc..), enforced by police. News and media companies are the biggest targets. DC outlets fall in line, everywhere else resists including police who enforce the law. One newscaster in NYC says something bad about the president, the president is in NYC and confronts the chief of police, the chief of police bows down, NYC police crackdown on journalists. The rest of the east coast falls in line, but states Texas west resist, their police forces become their civil military against the Feds. Include a police raiding a streamer who is talking shit about the president and some stuff about censorship, does an unflattering but real photo of the president count against the policy? What about satire, stand up comedians, etc..? Show some examples and make people mad about 1st amendment rights. 5) A California based space company (headed by a wacky billionaire) with a launch base in Texas makes a base on the moon, drills into the moon, finds oil/diamonds/alien life. The company claims ownership of their findings when brought back to Earth, Feds step in to confiscate them to study/claim moon resources. Texas and western states step in to block federal agents and stand with the private company, other massive companies see the Feds crossing lines and trying to get more money from companies, so the companies head West. East coast collapsing economically, so the Feds try to make an example out of the space company by arresting Billionaire, bring him to DC to stand trial for treason or some overhyped thing, feds seize assets in California & Texas, employees and locals riot/fight the feds. Wacky billionaire threatens to crash a rocket into DC, a riot breaks out in the trial because protesters broke in, billionaire encourages the rioters to harm government officials, the riot is cleared, billionaire jailed awaiting sentencing for probably life in prison, uses his one phone call to call for a rocket to actually crash into DC.
It would comically easy to write plausible reasons for a civil war: the president suspends habeas corpus and tries to justify it by by claiming it has be done to fight crime, or the president 'suspends the constitution' because of ongoing protests. Hell you could have the fictional president quote verbatim a certain former president and enact policies based on those quotes. Thanks for the review Bob, this will save me time and money.
When I saw the trailer, I did not get angry. Instead, I LOLed, and it was for all the reasons mentioned why the premise is so stupid. I am not kidding when I say that I did a nearly pitch-perfect recreation of the J Jonah Jameson laugh, complete with the "You're serious?" closing. By the time it all had passed, I still did not feel anger - or at the very least, it was not enough to notice. Rather, I felt frustration and disappointment. Yes, I agree, you can make a movie that is at least entertaining out of a dumb premise. Even just with the idea of Texas and California fighting the US, I could think of a much better way to go about it (anyone curious, ask, and I'll reply with some of my ideas for it - I will not claim that I would have done a better job with making the movie, just that I can think of better ways to make it work). I want to think that the studio heads or the producers were demanding that certain things be done in the movie, that these things are what made the movie so bad, and that the director did not see how he could make it work otherwise in the midst of those demands, but unless it is verified that this was what happened, I am not going to make any claims towards that. Just remember this: have you ever seen any of the sequels to _Starship Troopers_ be praised by anyone? No? That is because they took that movie and basically said, "Let's make a straight-faced serious version of this." I can tell that this movie is just yet another one of those sh^tty _Starship Troopers_ sequels.
I saw the trailer for this in the theatre the other day... I think they're going to get away with it. I think people are going to eat this up and it's going to make big money and everyone is going to say "woah, really makes ya think" :(
What’s the point of having a “all sides are bad” narrative if none of the sides have distinguished motives or ideologies? Besides the fact that having various factions fighting for specific and opposing things is generally more interesting, it also gives the viewer a reason to connect with one group or another, which would make the idea of “Oh no, the guys I identify with most closely are ALSO taking it to a dystopian extreme” more impactful.
According to what people elsewhere in the comments have written, Courier is the font that was used in old-fashioned type-writers, so in a lot of older movies when the journalist is writing up their HARDHITTING TRUTHTELLING EXPOSE OF THE CORRUPT, or the clearheaded and fact-obsessed big brain adults in a war-meeting are reviewing the objective facts on the ground from their clear-headed intelligence, or even more pertinent- when a writer id making a movie / book script, they will throw in a lot of courier format reports or have a typewriter writing out bold headlines in courier. In other words- courier font in a movie is essentially them saying "WE'RE SAYING IMPORTANT FACTUAL STUFF THAT YOU CAN DEFINITELY TRUST", or that the person writing the courier text works in movies. It's a kind of conflation between "telling truth" and making movies that got real common for pretentious writers, and I think Bob sees it as short-hand for how self-important this movie feels to him.
If you think about it, it's a coming-of-age movie that centers to Jesse. But on a serious note, i kinda like the movie. It just tells you two things, 1. War is hell 2. Sic semper tyranny
i was going to ask if this movie was irresponsible ... like, say, "American Sniper" was an irresponsible movie. but it seems the answer is "its too stupid to be irresponsible" 😂
That Chuck Norris movie looks way more watchable than this milquetoast bs movie. I literally cheered when that dude fired the rpg into the house with the after school special monologue. That's REAL dumb shit!
Invasion USA 😆. Chuck Norris and Cannon films made cheaper knockoff versions of popular action movies of the time. It wasn’t good, but it didn’t shy away from having a point. It had discernible motivations and stakes.
And here I was hoping this would be a higher concept version of The Crazies or a finally really nasty, apocalyptic road-trip movie like a modern day Apocalypse Now. Oh well. Thank you for your service, Bob!
So, basically, this entire movie's message is a one-off joke from a Futurama episode?
"It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say 'I'm against those things that everybody hates!' "
"We know only this about our enemies: they stand for everything we DON'T stand for! Also, they said you guys look like dorks."
@@louisduarte8763 THEY look like dorks!
@@louisduarte8763 THEY LOOK LIKE DORKS
Now, I respect my opponent. I think he’s a good man. But quite frankly, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE JUST SAID!
I'm just imagining a bunch of weapons dealers in the audience booing these anti war takes.
I'm so glad to hear somebody say that "We're all bad" is not something they agree with. You go Bob!
Define "bad" as "willing to no longer put up with evil shit" and yeah, I'm as bad as they come.
Everyone contains badness in them, has committed bad acts, and will probably commit more. But to essentialize it as "we're all bad" is just so tedious.
I am bad.
You mean South Park DIDN'T solve politics 3 decades ago?!
@@nerag7459 I am Groot.
Considering the growing number well armed folks that think “Civil War II” is fantastic idea, I was already on team “This movie can go fuck itself”.
The subject matter in and of itself would only be wrong on its face if it appeared to be more in line with power fantasy and glorification of warfare, which it isn't. You can make entertainment about serious issues as long as you approach it carefully.
Yea with so many idiots threatening violence if they don't get their way all the time I'm really uncomfortable about a movie that is going to feel wrong when some group of said idiots decide violence is the answer.
@@TheTaintedWisdom: There's a difference between careful and toothless, and seeing as this movie doesn't seem to have anything to say other than "fighting bad", that puts it pretty square in the latter.
like moviebob, for example
The whole point of the movie is to say "please believe me-- a civil war is really bad".
"The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" is frequently mocked for having a similar "Both sides are bad" message but at least they had the guts to make both sides actually stand for something. Moderation isn't commendable unless there's some temptation to be biased towards one side or another.
I think that show intended to make me hate John Walker and sympathize with Karli Morgenthau, but failed at both.
TF&TWS probably would have been better if they'd left the virus subplot in.
They at least tried to give people some character, albeit it was pretty naïve about politics. But it is a comics, they are here to entertain.
Falcon and the Winter Soldier wasn't really "both siding" anything. It was more like showing two opposing sides both with ostensibly good goals, but both resorting to bad methods to accomplish those goals.
You know, sort, like how Magneto has a relatable reason for being so mistrusting of humans, but protecting mutants by whipping out all ordinary humans is still pretty objectively the wrong way to go about it.
@@louisduarte8763 I don't think they wanted us to hate John tbh. He was an interesting and flawed character who wanted to do good but shouldn't have been given the shield. Although, the entire point was the government wanted someone they could control so of course they were going to select the wrong person to take over. Steve Rogers is legit my fave MCU character but I thought Walker was interesting as well, it was funny seeing people hating on him, meanwhile I enjoyed him for what he was.
I can't help but be reminded of that movie The Hunt from a few years back. You know, that movie where the ostensibly Rich Liberals try to pull a Most Dangerous Game on some MAGA folks, except our main protagonist isn't actually a MAGA type, and the political views she _does_ express are so bland and generic they could come from any party?
I mean, I _get_ movies that are inherently political might not want to actually take a political stance out of fear of alienating viewers, but come on. If you're _gonna_ do this stuff, have some actual conviction.
Indeed.
If having characters' actions recontextualized based on the circumstances they find themselves in, or doing things you don't agree with, even though they may/may not be in line with your political ideology is too much of a problem for audiences then we've already failed as a society. Media should be willing to *_challenge_* our perceptions, not default to either being impotently neutral or blindly catering to a tribalistic mindset.
This reminds me of the Acolytes of Horro video "Horror That Fears Politics" which criticizes movies and series like The Hunt, Americam Horror Story, etc. gor being spinelessly centrist and both-sides and just afraid to actually engage with politics.
civil war was extremely leftie. "reuters" lol
and it panders to all the bernie "rebels"
Was Epstein a liberal or a maga type?
Doesn’t that mean The Hunt does take a stance though?
Who knew writers sometimes use subtext because they are actually cowards? couldn't be me
You are Garth Marenghi and I claim my five pounds!
Cool it Sanchez, or you'll be getting a knuckle supper!
From the sound of it, there isn't even subtext here.
@@Carabas72 Yep, as our Mr. Chipman would say, that's the text.
Well someone has to say it *clears throat* "I know writers who use subtext, and they're all cowards!"
"I understood that reference!"
I give no credit to no risks taken.
You can’t try to be edgy and yet be too afraid to take to be specific.
the movie was very specific and very left leaning
That's how all these kinds of movies go; they pay lip service to the idea that they're gonna be oh so controversial and challenging and "About Things", but they end up just being wishy washy Muh Both Sides copouts since they've got tickets to sell as a mainstream movie.
It's the same thing that happened with The Hunt, remember that nonsense, where that movie also revealed itself to be a confused and clumsy premise that couldn't commit to anything. It almost makes me miss all those PureFlix movies, at least they were CONFIDENT in their stupidity, but movies like this are just boring.
So it's a Ubisoft movie. Aggressively toothless but wants to be iconic.
"That's proper iconic, not Ubisoft iconic."
Gives me Far Cry 5 flashbacks.
@@jimballard1186 Ubisoft iconic... Copyright, Trademark, etc.
Similar to The Hunt(2020)
Yes. Good analogy.
John Millius is pretty much a real life cartoon villain, but his films are usually pretty worthwhile artistically because he sticks to his guns and actually presents his worldview, and sometimes even crosses over into the territory of what Civil War seems to be doing. Like with Apocalypse Now where Coppola, an extra lefty, took his The Oddyssey in 'Nam script and cinematically drove the point about american imperialism and Hollywood's complicity in it, or in the case of Red Dawn which is blatantly concieved as "Soviets bad", but got a lot of attention from some american leftists for depicting grassroots rebellion against an oppresive imperialist invader.
So basically, just watch/rewatch Gundam (take your pick of shows or movies) or Code Geass instead.
Ok. Try Space Runaway Idon.
If you want something written by the creator of Gundam BUT even more depressing and was made right before he was committed for Depression 😅
Makes sense. Code Geass was about as subtle as a shotgun, but it was at least philosophically consistent.
This is just generally good advice on most days. Those are epic series(es).
I wonder what rich and thought provoking commentary on war I will find in Gundam build fighters.
@@DigeeTheGenie I was just joking around a bit by mentioning one of two series in the Gundam franchise that isn't about the horrors of war.
Okay, Mr. Chipman, you HAVE to do a This Movie Exists episode for Invasion USA.
Please and thanks
Yes, please
Invasion USA is on my yearly Christmastime action movie rotation!
Makes me think of a line from Hot Shots Part Deux:
“WAR… it’s FAN-TASTIC!”
".....the seceding Western forces of Texas and California..." Wait. Texas and California? As in they joined forces? OK, so it's FANTASY then. OK, I gotcha. I gotcha.
yeah, the scenarios I can envision where Texas and California agree to join up against some of the rest of the states involve stuff like, Zombie Stalin takes Control of New York, or Alien baby eating lizardfolk are revealed to be in control of some of the other states.
The fact that the Civil War trailer stated that California and Texas were united made me question this movie. Guess I'll give my money to Love Lies Bleeding. At least it has more going for it than President Ron Swanson.
“Love Lies Bleeding” doesn’t even have a release date in my country yet, but this one does.
“The Iron Claw”, meanwhile, is just dropping straight to VOD in my country at the end of this month.
At least A24 know how to prioritize…
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
I think you could have a reason for California and Texas leaving based on water rights due to climate change or something like that.
why's that questionable? a million things could have happened in the backstory. and they said in promotional interviews that it's not a willy nilly thing, but rather desperation in order to survive against the loyalists
A friend and I were talking about this after the first trailer came out, and the scenario we came up with was...
Oakland and SF go full Detroit, subsequent population collapse renders the tech-bros and Berkeley-leftists electorally irrelevant resulting in a much more rurually and So-Cal focused California governorship/legislature. Said legislature then sides with Texas against the Feds in a dispute over water rights and/or energy exports. The continental US ends up split diagonally between the Southwest (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Et Al) and all of the east coast along with much of the midwest.
You know a movie fucks up big time when even Bob has hard time finding anything worth praising in it.
As a Californian, Texas aligns with us a lot more than you think it’s pretty plausible.
I'm a Californian & I disagree, so I'm curious.
@@Suzanne_sf Also from CA, but... Mostly music, food, and technology. But our solutions to everything are so different - CA has a water shortage, so we built the biggest aqueducts in the country. We have an energy island, so we build interlinks to every surrounding state. We have a majority by land Agricultural economy so we limit emissions that would threaten them We had oil spills and explosions so we regulated them into compliance. TX took the opposite approach to each of the challenges...
Maybe some economy which threatened our integration with the world trade market? TX and CA are huge exporter states. Heck, economically, if the country lost us it would be seriously broke.
@@Suzanne_sf once you get out of the cities California is basically Texas. It is an illusion we are as progressive as you think. That is city thinking, and the economy of California is driven more my it’s agriculture. Did you know California produces more food than any other state? It’s run by the conservative working class. We just have outspoken gays and feminists that don’t get out much to understand that.
I lost interest in this movie when Garland said that “both sides are wrong” in an interview.
The way you describe this film makes it sound like a poor man's Roland Emmerich. A shame because I really liked Dredd.
It became obvious that a non-american wrote this. Id believe the premise if it was Texas, Florida and the south vs the rest of the US with flyover states being the battle ground.
I hadn’t read up on the movie and saw something about Texas and Florida and the NE being on the opposite side and I was like “okay, the south rises again kinda jig”
Nah clueless writing. I’m not American but you only have to have a passing knowledge of the US to know this was never going to get off the ground.
Saw an early screening the other day. This is a well-acted and well directed movie, and the whole DC battle feels like an impressive CoD level brought to life. But i think my biggest gripe is we never learn much about Civil War’s world. Which feels intentional, but also feels counterintuitive about a film celebrating journalists.
Late, but: I mean, if they, actually, tried to dig into the "how did the US get divided in this way", the movie would fall apart completely. And part of that is a problem of tone. Alex Garland, seemingly, does not want to make comedies, even though the competently constructed version of this premise (which I've laid out) of a four way division of the US is MADE for dark comic exaggerations of petty conflict (New York vs. New Jersey, anyone?), not straight drama. Just...imagine what this premise could have been like with Garland hiring a fellow countryman who is more of an expert on this stuff: John Oliver. Nice, right?
This just in: WAR IS BAD APPRENTLY
Really? Damn....
Makes ya think.
@@DozyBinsh Is it though?
Big if true
Wow. You know?
Heavily suspected that they would not stick the landing on this one. Thanks for the warning, Bob, I really appreciate you
I thought the same when I saw the trailer for it before Dune pt2
Bob, 2 stars is not 2/10, it's 2/5 (or 2/4 if you were Roger Ebert). I think you need to have a word with your video editor. I mean, the way you described the film didn't sound like a 2/10 piece of absolute rage-inducing filthy trash (like Pixels) anyway.
I like your videos, and I think you missed a lot of the point here.
This movie is about the news media and how we only see shallow quick moments in world conflicts, and the majority of context is completely removed from media coverage and completely absent after only a few short weeks. We're stuck in the dark about the US civil war, just as we are with every other world conflict.
Missing the major point also caused you to miss the point of California and Texas uniting, with the Florida-led faction also being an ally. These are respectively the #1, #2, #4 state economies in the US. If there's ever another US civil war, this is exactly what would have to happen and it makes perfect sense for these enormous economies to be against a civil war and against the end of the US on the world stage.
I completely agree it misses on character development and dialogue - such as not a single non-photo journalist (other than the 2 embeds at the end) ever takes a note, ever writes a single word, ever even talks about writing an article, nor records a video. If they hadn't told us, we'd have had no idea the men were newsmen at all.
Saw a preview of this last night, with Garland there. He called himself a 'centrist' and then later said 'centre left' which, well, i think is a bit of a chickenshit position these days. the idea that we would all be okay if we just had a 'conversation' or something is no longer, IMO, realistic. So for his actual goal of the film, I think the inherent "We're all.." line fails.
however...
I'm not hung up on the Texas/California alliance or the absence of politicians other than the president, demagogues, etc. There's justifications for or against that stuff that I can take or leave and it doesnt sway my opinion of the film much. I like the movie because more or less i think it showcases both people who get caught up in the moment as well as people who are reveling in the opportunity to start mass killing those they find undesirable. In this sense the "we're all bad" works - if you remove the context of what they're fighting for or against, and all we see is the violence, its more horrifying. When we have an opinion on who is right or wrong, we may start justifying or rooting for one set of people or another.
I just think the fact its called "Civil War" and is out at this time puts pressure on it to do more, say more, be more, if not be everything, and it was never going to be able to rise to that level.
Hey Bob, I don't know if you're gonna care, but I did workshop a Civil War story with multiple POVs, some of them being a teenage Afghan American descendant of a translator for the Marines that joins a militia after they save her and her baby brother, a gay Texan mecha pilot who is constantly fighting with his chain of command, a Mexican Expeditionary volunteer who joined for a pardon after a career as a cartel sicario, and a Navajo Speaker of the House who has to step up to the role of unelected president after the previous POTUS and VP were executed by the new regime.
Yes, it has mecha suit battles. The Second Battle of Gettysburg is two Mech Divisions squaring off in the middle of town.
If they'd had the balls to have California and Texas each being their OWN seceding quasi-nation that is also at war with each other, that would have made more sense and been more interesting.
WAY more sense...but why add believable complexity when cliche strawmen are handy?
They do state in the movie that California and Texas are allies of convenience and will likely turn on each other afterwards.
Ah yes. Both sides are the same. All sides are equally bad.
The fact one side want lots of my friends dead/to not exist doesn't make them worse or anything.
Riiiiiiight.
Guess I won't watch this one! Great review!
Those kind of 'middle road takes' are hilarious. 'These guys want to kill everyone, these other guys would like to live, can't we just compromise and meet in the middle?'
This COULD have been good if it were an “Apocalypse Now”-style meditation on jingoism, “American exceptionalism”, and how our highly polarized society could spiral out of control and the needless, senseless violence that would result, but it sounds like they totally missed the boat on that one.
Saw the funniest take somewhere else that was "Well Apocalypse Now didn't open with a text crawl about the Vietnam War or have characters explain their ideology either"
Which, one it kind of does in the French Plantation scene and two, it didn't need that because it's fucking recent history that viewers would be familiar with! You can't pull that shit with a fictional conflict!
As someone from Texas, I can tell you that this state could definitely secede or turn against the federal government but I don't buy the teaming up with California.
Sigh. No. (Texan here) The united states has to sign off on our secession just like any other state. And its not in the US constitution so their would need to be a huge majority on both sides of the agreement. Fighting a war which decided the right to secede and losing said war also means ... we can't secede.
The only difference with texas that remains is that texas can choose to divide itself into a number of smaller states - again with a huge majority and the authorization of the federal
Gov
rural california is very conservative
but the movie was very leftie "the press" is the hero lol
@@thomashauer6804what's your alternative to the press, UA-cam commentators who "report" the news while never leaving their home studio lol
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
@@RedNymph234 Thank you! (Texan here) I mean, California is the home state of Ronald Regan and Ann Richards was a 2 term Democratic governor of Texas in the 90s. I don't understand why it's so crazy that those states could flip or form a mutual alliance against a totalitarian President. That's like saying "The United States, Great Britain and Russian are allies in a world war? Yeah, right!"
the stupidest movie that thinks it's a smart movie since Joker.
I can't believe we're getting another one of those... I thoroughly mapped the inside of my eye sockets thanks to that new trailer.
@@Groovebot3k I actually can believe it. Now that the movie business is in a major realignment period, every pretentious project is getting greenlit in the hopes of becoming the new hotness.
But the “Joker” movie was actually pretty good - this film just seems confused about what it wants to do or why…
@wilberwhateley7569 you're obviously allowed to like Joker, I just didn't care for it, it felt like it was talking a lot and not saying much about anything, class disparity, mental health, gun violence, etc.
on a more nitpicky note, the time period it took place in also felt weird insofar as this guy's supposed to be Batman's arch nemesis, but Bruce Wayne was like, 10 years old in the film while this guy is in his late 40's or early 50's? the fuck outta here. I would have been able to overlook something like that if I'd enjoyed the film, but yee
@@pieisgood235 I would be generous and say that there's easily half a good movie in Joker... a collection of excellent scenes thanks to talented performers.
Strung together in an overarching narrative however, and the wheels start to come off... and yes, the notion that it's meant to serve as some manner of origin story a DC Elseworlds is the funniest joke of them all.
The Chuck Norris movie is also really messy. The 'enemy' is Cuban-Middle Eastern-Russian-Korean-Anyone and they are landing together in the US. Also, Norris always knows where they are somehow
Without question are you right here. However, as Mr. Chipman noted, its edge over THIS pretentious piece is that it commits to its stupidity.
So, the young female character is either reckless and headstrong or breaks down crying . . .
Okay, so they gave her "Jubilee Syndrome".
That actually feels like an insult to Jubilation Lee
@@johnathonhaney8291 Yeah. Shit, I need to watch this weeks episode!
Jubilee on her worst day would never be as stupid and thoughtless as the young journo in this movie. I could not believe how dumb she was for no reason!
I'd suggest naming it for Ava from Borderlands 3, who's another embodiment of the trope.
(Although at least Ava has the slight excuse of being a tween, aka the single most irrational and unpredictable age in most people's lives. Having a 20something act that way is a lot harder to justify.)
@@JnEricsonx Fair warning if you haven't seen it yet...as the tagline for the fourth season of Luther put it, "This will hurt."
So the Civil War that occurred in the Forever Purge is somehow more realistic than this one?
Shit, I love the ending to that one. When even the bad guys realize that the new bad guys are full on Chaotic Evil, whereas they're Lawful Evil. I honestly cant wait for the next one.
I mean, who in their right mind would make a movie right now about a civil war in the modern USA and then try their damnest to hide actual real world parallels by making the premise implausible in context of modern US?
People who are trying to appeal to all sides of the political divide. It rarely works out.
"plausible deniability as to what we think..." Disappointing, I was hoping this film might actually have the courage of its convictions.
Garland did say that he fell out of love with filmmaking.
I wouldn't be surprised if something happened during the production of this that sucked all the risk out of it and by the time he noticed the movie was finished and he regretted it.
Quite possible...may he rediscover that love at a later date.
Actually, there was a interview or review of it in The Atlantic and he seemed to think that the people of America would come together to overthrow a fascist presidency. But…that seems to ignore the fact that given this movie is literally titled Civil War, that there are also Americans who are very committed to keeping the authoritarian president in office. Reading what he was saying it was a very strange double think, and also seems to not grapple with why civil wars are fought. Usually it’s either due to some sort of ideological conflict, or some sort of geographic/material cause for people to fight. I mean, could California and Texas fight together from a geographic perspective? Sure, but right now lacking something more specific and compelling than, well, the president does authoritarian things it’s hard to picture them coming together. Like, ok, I’ll bite, but what authoritarian things is the president doing, and how did he get elected in the first place if his campaign involved drone striking people in the lower 48? You have to at least answer that question if you’re gonna pretend that this movie has a message.
@@kmhanley2 He was more to-the-point on The Daily Show, saying America falling into another Civil war IS a bad thing for this country and the rest of the world. He said "Nobody wants America to collapse like that, except complete psychopaths."
His Netflix show "Devs" is amazing though. Also with Nick Offerman (in a dramatic role)
Where did Garland say this?
The posterboys for The bluest blue state and the redest red state becoming friends and starting a civil war and fighting the government does sound really stupid. Like what's the movie's justification for them working together? Secondly I hope this doesn't become one of those movies your relative asks you to watch cause it's "saying something" and a "I could totally see this happening"
I actually believed that this could totally happen, but then I saw this review. In what world would Texas & California get together to agree on anything? This reminds me of King of the Hill where they actually did a good job showing state differences. Hank was with his son & made sure to lock the doors of their truck because they had left Texas & entered Arkansas. I have no desire to see this movie now.
@@Suzanne_sf a lot would have to break down for something like that to happen and I do not believe for a moment Texas and California would be on the same side of anything unless money was involved. Like Texas just blew up threatening succession, but that's pretty much all it was. A big loud threat. I honestly don't think they would have and even if they did they would be worse off for it.
It sounds like the movie has no justification, they don't even try to explain it.
@@dekopuma I looked it up, and it's even dumber. The United States has split into four factions. Apparently the south minus Texas is a faction. The lower half of the mid west and the Eastern states(along with Hawaii and Alaska) are a faction and are basically the United states. The upper western states are a faction that aren't and California and Texas are their own factions. Though it still sounds really dumb to be to have it split into four. All that does is add extra complexity to a fake conflict. When all you need is two different ones. Also also, It makes no sense for California and Texas to be their own factions. The only reason the plot synopsis I'm looking at gives for their split is "multi-party political differences". Which if that's all we needed we would be split years ago. Like the sectioning of the states makes no sense whatsoever to me. It doesn't even seem to to fallow actual party lines it just looks like. Welp California and Texas are the extremes and the south and the states completely opposite of the south are enemies and everyone else is just everyone else.
The factions don't make sense to me and they don't really give a reason for them to be friends or enemies, they just kinda are. I feel like this should be more blue states vs red states with maybe some more blue states on the map in the western US, but it makes it so much more complicated than that for no reason.
@@darkmyro It's a shame, because with a little bit of research of recent US history, & they really could've done something that mirrors what actually could happen in the coming months.
Good, I'm sticking to the superior Civil War, Captain America Civil War
Side note: the we're all bad when you get down to it argument is the premise of the fourth season of Yu-Gi-Oh, seems that's how childish it boils down to this is
Like all absolutist ideologies, that argument is a way to avoid thinking of how messy it is to be human. If all of us are bad, it conveniently absolves us of all responsibility for our action. Fuck. That.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Nothing matters let's all be like the joker yayyy!
Or we could not be insane morons lol.
As I saw the trailers at the back of my mind I was thinking, “you know, Kaiserreich American civil war would be a way better premise than this.”
It kills me that this makes $25M and is considered a hit, whereas The Marvels (which rocked) made ten times as much and is widely decried as being a flop.
I was deeply suspicious about this movie from the trailer. My suspicions were mostly confirmed hearing Garland's misguided mealy-mouthed interview about the movie. But this sounds even worse. The Token Millennial/Gen Z who ruins stuff by being naive and dumb is really such a goddam tired trope I can't even.
All the actors who signed up for this should have known better.
Yeah, I am BEYOND tired of that trope myself. Reminds me of too many Boomers and Gen Xers I hear talking how GREAT their generation was. Yeah, no, this Gen Xer knows better and so should they. Dissing the kids who are going to outnumber you in a few years is so stupid.
This movie needed a John Carpenter to direct. Heck his two Escape movies could almost function as prequels. He would also not have chosen journalists as protagonists. He would have gone with either an everyman like in They Live forced by circumstance to fight or a jaded soldier a sorta Snake Plissken. We needed better worldbuilding and a more gutsy statement than 'civil war is bad'. Which is the least gutsy thing a war movie can do.
If you told me there was a movie where Texas and California were united in rebellion against President Ron Swanson, I would have assumed it was a satire titled something like "Civil War Movie". The idea of those two states being on the same side of a civil war is so absurd, it's got to be a joke.
Also, this is my annual public statement that Texas is welcome to succeed from the Union whenever it wants to.
Love your reviews. Fucking hilarious. The movie felt like it was trying to comment on social media and it’s why the politics might not have mattered, but they never landed any clear statements or questions. The only thing the characters learned was how to stare longer into their own pain. Felt like it could even be a sarcastic take on how deep everyone things they are on social media when in reality it’s a shit show of people fighting each other mindlessly
"Adding war stuff to traditional Americana iconography" - isn't that like 30% of Call of Duty maps?
And about every post-apocalyptic movie set in America for the last 40 years.
Another review of this film noted that this film is clearly the product of a non-American filmmaker, for it treats the politics of a hypothetical American civil war with as much concern as your typical modern Hollywood war film cares about the local politics of the international war zones they depict. I can at least appreciate that on a meta level, and if it's intentional, I respect the decision as well.
"No! You used all of the cinema of an Abroad Movie! You were supposed to make it an At Home Movie!"
yes the rest of the world doesn't care about your red state vs blue state bs
As a non-american viewer that's how a lot of us saw it. We're so used to both american and british film makers wanking to 'support our troops' horseshit while they vaporize brown people the film read to me as an abject lesson to american viewers as to what it looks like to have your own backyard turn into a bloodbath.
After reading some interviews that's not what it was, nor would any studio even A24 put serious money behind a premise like that because no american would go to see it, at least not enough of them to make it worth while to make it.
So you got a Ubisoft game when it needed to be Inglorious Basterds USA
I had a small role on it and was treated just as the rest of the cast..even being a no named talent. I just hope I made the cut. We’ll see tomorrow night
Commenting to boost engagement… and also maybe request that Bob reupload his review of the movie Transcendence, if he still has it, since the “stupid movie that thinks it’s smart “ description given to this movie reminded me of that review.
Hoo. Glad I caught this review. Thanks, Bob. You saved me $15. I think *maybe* if they explained why the conflict is happening I could see myself seeing this, but yeah, I got real pretentiousness vibes from the onslaught of trailers and the scene they keep showing with Jesse Plemons as the “soldier” with red glasses. Such a shame because I love A24, but I guess they can’t all be winners like Everything Everywhere, Uncut Gems or Love Lies Bleeding
Can someone explain the Courier joke?
Courier is (or was) the default typeface for newsprint, government docs and screenplays for a long time, and for years it was used as onscreen text in documentaries to convey "This is being quoted from an official source" even if it wasn't necessarily.
"The perfect movie to get our minds off these politically-divided and divisive times." -Nobody Fucking Ever.
1:09 Speaking as a Californian, we're more likely to fight AGAINST Texas than team up with them against the rest of the country. And we HAD a failed secession movement! 1:44 I almost forgot Garland had a hand in DREDD!
10:35 And did it BETTER than the comic miniseries it adapted. Come at me, Mark Millar fans.
I figured this was stupid since I 1st saw the trailer. And the timing is just awful.
I loved Dredd.
This really sounds like it was written by AI. The movie, not the review.
I feel like the AI would try to come up with a reason. A dumb one to be sure. But it would try.
Some kind of California-Texas militia is one of the more plausible elements of the movie, considering that Silicon Valley techbros and No Steppy Texas types are waaay closer to agreeing with each other than the other people in their own states. This is the sort of thing that would be interesting if the movie cared to actually explore it.
I get the feeling that this has the Elysium/ The Creator style thing going on where the ideas and art produced in working the film up will be vastly more interesting than the movie they produced.
I'm really not interested in this movie, and happy to take Bob's word for it that it is dull and hackneyed. But the idea that allegiances in war wouldn't fall along partisan lines or wouldn't have a sympathetic side (esp to an outside audience) really doesn't seem that unrealistic or glib to me. Like, wartime coalitions are always weird and often flip, power vaccuums and the breakdown of trust mean that realpolitik almost immediately overshadows ideology... ESPECIALLY in civil wars, I would think.
I have strong opinions about one-sided invasions with huge civilian casualties, e.g. Gaza and Ukraine (in both cases, ceasefires yesterday would be nice) - those would be clear counterexamples. But as for 'good guys' or even prevailing ideologies in say, Syria, the Sudans, the DRC/Rwanda, Cold War proxy wars, or even certain World War theatres (e.g. Finland)... it does in fact get super messy, and I don't really see why American political violence would be immune to that.
So basically its like Olympus has Fallen but takes itself way too seriously
Weren't the bad guys the Communist North Koreans? I seem to remember that pretty clearly, if nothing else.
Kind of the opposite, at least from what Bob is saying. Olympus Has Fallen is not afraid to take sides and has lots of action scenes. This one is afraid to take sides and all the action scenes were shown in the trailer.
I’m seeing it tonight, I’m really more bummed about how this is going to be Garland’s last directorial vehicle.
If it's as bad an experience to watch as Mr. Chipman implied, we may well understand why he's quitting.
This is a movie that follows around a group of journalists, and yet, the president of the fucking United States does not have a name in this movie. They never use his name. That's the level of "No, go back and write a second draft, dipshit" worldbuilding failure we're dealing with. It's barely a script at all. It's a degree away from one of those "write a short story without using the letter 'A'" kind of writing challenges.
....because he's just a guy? Like, this is in the dialogue. The huge monster, the powerful men of history, they are all just people. He's not destined to say something epic and meaningful to the journalist, he doesn't get a great epic death.
Also, let's never forget that Annihilation, while being a gorgeous movie, had some absolutely garbage dialogue throughout.
One could say the same about several David Lynch movies, even the ones I actually like. In both your example and mine, it's a consequence of caring more about the big ideas than actual characters (which can still work as HP Lovecraft proved).
I'm really curious to know what was the process in life of being on the Statue of liberty's torch. I would imagine like snipers saying up there for like days on end.
So I have a stupid question: Texas and Calfornia? What about Arizona and New Mexico? Did someone just forget there are two whole states in between the big two?
It's not ALL they forgot.
Also Nevada. So three whole states actually. And Arizona & New Mexico are not politically aligned at all.
There's basically nobody there.
"The Western Alliance, led by Texas and California" - from this line, we can deduce several things. One, the big two are not the only states in rebellion, just the most notable. Two, the division is, for whatever reason, along geographic lines. (Maybe the feds started taxing water use in the western states to a punitively heavy degree or something.) Three, those two prior factors being true, AZ, NM, and NV are most likely also part of it.
It’s not suppose to make sense, because it not making sense is the point of the dumb ‘both-sides’ movie. It’s not trying to say something about political reality, and in fact having the two most unlikeliest allies with a large geographic distance between them be a faction further underscores that.
Thanks for saving me the time and money. A 'both sides' argument paired with and obnoxious teenager driven narrative likely would have meant I wouldn't say and finish the film.
Nick Offerman was great in Garlands "Devs"
It's basically a 6 hour Sci-fi movie. Highly recommended it and think it's his best work
Fuck, I was really hoping that I wasn't spot-on about the trailers and the premise. I took one look and clocked this movie, but then I started trying REALLY HARD to think of a way to be less cynical and give them the benefit of the doubt as a form of self-improvement; like "Oh, don't worry, it's a24, they do good stuff. Their movies are ABOUT things and of course they couldn't put it all in the trailer, this is just to get The Lowest Common Denominator butts in seats and then they'll hit us with something profound!". Glad I didn't say anything about it on social media or waste the ticket money. Rightoids won't see this movie because for them it'll be boring; and starring characters they're trained to hate for being liberal photojournalists. They're gonna be disappointed that this movie isn't just 90 minutes of The Turner Diaries as acted out by modern-day military guys teaming up with local militia guys. I LITERALLY saw guys QAnon-posting on the Instagram Ads so I'm not gonna debate anybody on my lived experience. I WATCHED THEM express that opinion, UNPROMPTED. On the other hand, I'm not gonna go see it because it's a bunch of hacks both-sides-ing the concept of conflict itself. It doesn't really have anything to do with political division in the US at all, that's just a spicy aesthetic draped over the empty husk of a film. A little Hot Sauce on your Saltine Crackers. "Wow, stuff really DO be happening sometimes". Yeah. It does. You got any.... thoughts on that? Opinions maybe? Explanations for why stuff happens? Courses of action that might lead to better stuff happening, or less "bad" stuff happening? Any opinion on what things might be "good" or "bad" or a muddy in-between? No? Just "hey here's some hanged people, some F35s flying over abandoned cars, makes you think"? DOES it make YOU think, Mr. Hack Screenwriter? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, MAN!? YOU SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SIT ME HERE AND SHOW ME THIS, SO WHYYYYYYY!? I don't have an opinion on the "Civil War" the movie's showing me because it's not in any way real or believable AND it's not trying to be. It's not our world AND that's on purpose, there's no social or historical connection whatsoever because the filmmakers either don't know how or don't care to make such a connection. So how and why would I ever care what happens in this plot? THE PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE don't even know or care, why should I? I don't, and I'm not going to, and I'm tired of pretending that I give a shit that they even wasted their time. If you're gonna say nothing then just SAY NOTHING and save us all the trouble!
Far Cry 5 The Movie, except no Nuclear Holocaust.... I hope.
Still feel like this movie is morally irresponsible. Like the nation is divided and there are always rhubarbs that will watch this, lionize the bad guys and then point to it as a blueprint for how they should do things.
And mess the execution up so badly because, like the Bible, they thought they were drawing their numbskull strategy from fact rather than allegory.
You lost me at "Texas and California agreed politically"
EDIT - I have now seen the film, and Bob is so wrong. it's very obvious why the war started (President took a third term) and what it's being fought over (white nationalism). Only an idiot could possibly be confused by the film as presented. I have rarely seen Bob get a movie so wrong. I completely retract my older comment, and advise people to watch the movie, s it is not at all as Bob describes here.
OLD COMMENT - Sounds like they should have just made a Day Zero prequel movie for The Handmaid's Tale, since it seems like that's what people really wanted this to be. At least that would have a point. I can't see the purpose of removing all the viewpoints and taking no sides with a movie like this. The Hunt had the balls to say something, while not catering too far either way. It can be done.
They can do what the Purge movies did: "Its not about red versus blue, a new party came in and did all this."
@@nerag7459 The Purge didn't pick politics but it had clear sides, rich and poor. They could say the new party pisses off both old ones for different reasons, maybe they're pro gun and property but fiercely anti abortion, you could give us some ground to go on rather than nothing. Especially if it's a talking movie. I thought it would be more action and drama, you can maybe get away with it in a film like Cloverfield, but I can't see this working
@@fusionspace175 Well it did pick politics because the white supremacist ex/current military guys were going around in certain neighborhoods cleaning up. I remember seeing their tattoos. It did have sides but it wasn't afraid to say 'yeah these people would love this sort of thing.'
@@nerag7459 And then at the end of the latest film, the bad guys had to fight the CRAZY GUYS. I've seen worse.
@@nerag7459 here's the thing though, people are nuts. I just saw a video on an article written by a white supremacist who moved to the midwest and was disappointed in the people there, but the weird thing is the guy was a coastal elite liberal. They don't have a monopoly in racism, as much as that would make things simpler.
Being deliberately apolitical is still a political alignment.
A very cowardly one, usually, trying to justify why the holder of such a view chooses to do nothing.
Valid points to a degree, but couldnt disagree more, thought it was a blast
Cailee Spaeny is one of those deeply unfortunate actors who keeps stepping on rakes over and over.
"I get to be in Pacific Rim 2, this'll be awesome!" THWACK!
"Bad Times at the El Royale? Sure, Drew Goddard made that really great horror movie." THWACK!
"I get to be in Vice AND On the Basis of Sex. Two surefire Oscar darlings in one year!" THWACK! THWACK!
Her entire IMDB page is loaded with misfires that must have looked like good ideas on paper at the time. Her only two legitimately solid breaks were getting the lead in "Priscilla" and losing the lead for the Disney+ "Willow" series. We'll see how "Alien: Romulus" turns out -- it looks solid, but I wouldn't trust her luck.
Her career proves the William Goldman thesis of how no one in the movie industry knows anything and that, if you're lucky, you can make an educated guess on what will work. And that's a real shame for talented folks like her.
This doesn't come out here until next week, next to the Nicolas Cage movie where he's a guy that shows up in everyone's dreams and one about people locked in a house with a vampire and the vampire is a little girl.
I think mt decision of what to watch has been made for me.
Im seeing Abigail myself next week.
When i first saw the trailer for this and heard "Texas and California" i immediately said this was going to be bad.
California is actually really red, so many conservative ideas originally came from California first, for example, the homeless crisis by shuttering mental health services. LA is one of the most racially segregated cities in America. If the cities purged the liberals, I could see California and Texas teaming up. Also Texas is more blue than we think. Gerrymandering and cities being blue but crippled politically equates to a red state. Those two states are more similar than you think
California and Texas are very conservative states. It's one of the only things it gets right
@@RedNymph234don't matter. On the map that state is blue as shit
@@RedNymph234 I saw a republican walking around in cali once!
Is literally your argument lololol. Stop copy and pasting this trash dawg.
A movie called Civil War coming out in this American political environment already had huge shoes to fill to not be considered a shameless attempt to cash in on division.
The only lesson such a movie could teach everyone is that Civil War would be absolutely devastating.
The description of the young woman's part alone is enough to make me say "fuck this movie".
You know what I love? That a trailer for this movie played right before I could actually watch your video 😅
I actually found it's message to be frankly quite beautiful. Yes, we know war is bad. We've seen it before, but come on man. How many times have you seen such horrors of war depected with Americans against Americans in the modern day and shown more as a matter of fact than a glorification of violence. It's a pretty clear cut call for peace and to put aside our differences because as neighbors we all need to test each other well regardless of race or beliefs. Not doing so we see the consequences of what that would actually look like and how we clearly DON'T WANT THAT. So even if you don't like the movie or don't agree with that message, I'll still love ya Bob and hope you are doing well. Because in the end, Nujabes said perfectly over a decade ago, "We're the same and we're not, you know what I'm saying? Listen, I ain't better than you, I just think different." ❤
'Politics is when people are mean to me on twitter' the movie then.
Texas and California? Wouldn't those be the two sides of the war? I guess they don't want to offend anyone politically. But why make a movie about Civil War II then?
This review is so similar to Bob’s take on The Menu which was another “bad on both sides” piece of self important filmmaker naval gazing.
It’s right there in the red on Bob’s strike zone tracker: the “political” film that isn’t actually being political.
Cheers to Bob for calling out artistic cowardice especially in the times we live in.
The Hunt(2020) as well.
The Menu is a parody of Message Movies, whether it was intended to be or not. Watching it as a comedy is the only way to enjoy it.
Um, The Menu is explicitly a comedy.
@@stevejakab274 watch Bob’s review.
You're right He was wrong and tone def in his criticism of that one too.
I don't get the Courier font reference. I know it's a traditional newspaper font, but why would using it be an eye-rolling moment for Bob in the movie?
all newsprint font, yes, but it is also how all film scripts are formatted and so the parallel is being drawn between film making and journalism. It is also a very tired cliché of films presented from the view of a journalist.
It's not a newspaper font: that's Times you're thinking of. Where it actually stems from is typewriters, and it used to be a cliché in a lot of thrillers, spy movies, and war movies that they'd use Courier to flash up messages like the time and location along with the sound of it being typed. It's a tired trope in movies like this.
@@talideon Hi there. Regarding newsprint it was most definitely the font used in the before times by journalists and writers although it was published, put to print if you will, in a different font to distinguish between the finished product. It might be a regional thing but where I am from several publications do use it in their final typeset for whatever reason.
As someone who works as a writer it is also the font used in screenplays and other professional works (manuscripts, editorials, etc.) as it does originate from the fact that typewriters use that font for the most part. Myself I saw an inferred parallel being drawn between storytelling and journalism; that we, as writers, have a responsibility to tell the stories that matter... then they chickened out and forgot to include the courage of their convictions in the piece which makes the whole film fall well short of landing it's own point.
Overall a disappointing showing from a director who knows he is better than this and you can see it in his interviews. Personally, I suspect he was reigned in by the studio and we are seeing some confused echoes of the work intended shining through in the work presented.
Times New Roman - Newspaper
Courier - the unedited typing of the man on the ground, or the output of the teletype giving objective information to grim faced people in dimly lit war rooms.
Thank you to everyone in this thread for the useful context, I'll carry on this info in my life.
I'm bummed. I was really looking forward to this movie and hoping that it would have some insightful/philosophically interesting things to say, thinking back to Ex Machina, Devs, Dredd, Sunshine, the Beach, etc... The premise of a civil war is such a great opportunity to showcase challenging dilemmas where there is no clear right answer, so hearing that they never give a reason for the conflict is very disappointing. Set the movie a few years in the future, claim there have been some technological advancements and open the door to plenty of difficult philosophical discussions. Use the first 20 minutes to establish the cause of the conflict, then carry-on following journalists or soldiers or whomever.
Here's a few ideas that I had for the root of the conflict:
1) Complete border wall & closure with Mexico, at first Texas and California advocated for it but after a few years it's really hurt them economically so the border states open the border against Federal commands, the Feds come in to shut it down, there's a skirmish, and the border states decide to secede but Feds attack. How much authority should states have over their own borders versus how much authority DC should have over the borders that are thousands of miles away.
2) A massive earthquake hits from Montana to Texas making a giant canyon and cutting off cross country transport, a day or two later a hurricane hits the east coast. All the military and aid workers leave to go help the East coast while there is still massive damage to the south and west, one of the governors seizes the opportunity to lead a revolution because the Feds left their injured and crushed to go secure DC and NYC. People argue about which part of the country is more important, the west or the east.
3) Genetic engineering in an east coast Ivy League lab lab leads to making a human without self awareness, like a robot made of skin and bone, they lack the ability to make decisions but follow orders well ("slaves"). Arguments about what a human is, what god would think of this, how people are exploited economically follow. They're put into production to make "ethical sweatshops". Some radicals from Texas and California break into a factory, free the "slaves", and blow up the factory which accidentally kills some security guards. The radicals are deemed terrorists and get the electric chair or lethal injection, two of the radicals are related to rich powerful people. President enlists "slaves" into the military.
4) The President institutes a "don't make fun of me" executive order, similar to other dictators (china, north korea, russia, etc..), enforced by police. News and media companies are the biggest targets. DC outlets fall in line, everywhere else resists including police who enforce the law. One newscaster in NYC says something bad about the president, the president is in NYC and confronts the chief of police, the chief of police bows down, NYC police crackdown on journalists. The rest of the east coast falls in line, but states Texas west resist, their police forces become their civil military against the Feds. Include a police raiding a streamer who is talking shit about the president and some stuff about censorship, does an unflattering but real photo of the president count against the policy? What about satire, stand up comedians, etc..? Show some examples and make people mad about 1st amendment rights.
5) A California based space company (headed by a wacky billionaire) with a launch base in Texas makes a base on the moon, drills into the moon, finds oil/diamonds/alien life. The company claims ownership of their findings when brought back to Earth, Feds step in to confiscate them to study/claim moon resources. Texas and western states step in to block federal agents and stand with the private company, other massive companies see the Feds crossing lines and trying to get more money from companies, so the companies head West. East coast collapsing economically, so the Feds try to make an example out of the space company by arresting Billionaire, bring him to DC to stand trial for treason or some overhyped thing, feds seize assets in California & Texas, employees and locals riot/fight the feds. Wacky billionaire threatens to crash a rocket into DC, a riot breaks out in the trial because protesters broke in, billionaire encourages the rioters to harm government officials, the riot is cleared, billionaire jailed awaiting sentencing for probably life in prison, uses his one phone call to call for a rocket to actually crash into DC.
you should publish, even self publish.
As always I appreciate Bob's honesty. This does sound like a missed opportunity. Maybe I'll just go watch Monsters directed by Gareth Edwards again.
I was not expecting the film's worst review to come from Bob. But, also, Texas and California on the same side? Fucking kidding me?
Yeah, see...I know they say show, don't tell, but in this movie, I needed some fucking telling.
It would comically easy to write plausible reasons for a civil war: the president suspends habeas corpus and tries to justify it by by claiming it has be done to fight crime, or the president 'suspends the constitution' because of ongoing protests. Hell you could have the fictional president quote verbatim a certain former president and enact policies based on those quotes.
Thanks for the review Bob, this will save me time and money.
or even the president enacting martial law during an unrelated national emergency far long then necessary
So pretty much the Republican playbook we saw during the 2000s...yeah, The Crazies remake of the time covered that territory already.
When I saw the trailer, I did not get angry. Instead, I LOLed, and it was for all the reasons mentioned why the premise is so stupid. I am not kidding when I say that I did a nearly pitch-perfect recreation of the J Jonah Jameson laugh, complete with the "You're serious?" closing.
By the time it all had passed, I still did not feel anger - or at the very least, it was not enough to notice. Rather, I felt frustration and disappointment. Yes, I agree, you can make a movie that is at least entertaining out of a dumb premise. Even just with the idea of Texas and California fighting the US, I could think of a much better way to go about it (anyone curious, ask, and I'll reply with some of my ideas for it - I will not claim that I would have done a better job with making the movie, just that I can think of better ways to make it work).
I want to think that the studio heads or the producers were demanding that certain things be done in the movie, that these things are what made the movie so bad, and that the director did not see how he could make it work otherwise in the midst of those demands, but unless it is verified that this was what happened, I am not going to make any claims towards that.
Just remember this: have you ever seen any of the sequels to _Starship Troopers_ be praised by anyone? No? That is because they took that movie and basically said, "Let's make a straight-faced serious version of this." I can tell that this movie is just yet another one of those sh^tty _Starship Troopers_ sequels.
Thanks Bob. Good to know they weren’t burying the lead in the trailers to prevent spoilers, but instead because there was nothing to spoil.
I saw the trailer for this in the theatre the other day... I think they're going to get away with it. I think people are going to eat this up and it's going to make big money and everyone is going to say "woah, really makes ya think" :(
Or not...let's wait for actual box office receipts and how the movie is remembered after its theatrical run before assuming anything.
@@johnathonhaney8291 I didn't assume anything, hence the words "I think..." at the beginning of my statement.
@@linforcer Fair...in both our own ways are we saying nothing has been decided.
I actually want to watch Invasion USA now.
What’s the point of having a “all sides are bad” narrative if none of the sides have distinguished motives or ideologies? Besides the fact that having various factions fighting for specific and opposing things is generally more interesting, it also gives the viewer a reason to connect with one group or another, which would make the idea of “Oh no, the guys I identify with most closely are ALSO taking it to a dystopian extreme” more impactful.
2:14 Can someone explain why Courier font has Bob so mad?
What does the font even look like?
According to what people elsewhere in the comments have written, Courier is the font that was used in old-fashioned type-writers, so in a lot of older movies when the journalist is writing up their HARDHITTING TRUTHTELLING EXPOSE OF THE CORRUPT, or the clearheaded and fact-obsessed big brain adults in a war-meeting are reviewing the objective facts on the ground from their clear-headed intelligence, or even more pertinent- when a writer id making a movie / book script, they will throw in a lot of courier format reports or have a typewriter writing out bold headlines in courier. In other words- courier font in a movie is essentially them saying "WE'RE SAYING IMPORTANT FACTUAL STUFF THAT YOU CAN DEFINITELY TRUST", or that the person writing the courier text works in movies. It's a kind of conflation between "telling truth" and making movies that got real common for pretentious writers, and I think Bob sees it as short-hand for how self-important this movie feels to him.
If you think about it, it's a coming-of-age movie that centers to Jesse.
But on a serious note, i kinda like the movie. It just tells you two things,
1. War is hell
2. Sic semper tyranny
i was going to ask if this movie was irresponsible ... like, say, "American Sniper" was an irresponsible movie. but it seems the answer is "its too stupid to be irresponsible" 😂
Maybe "mentally incompetent"?
Does your wife's boyfriend know you are using his internet?
@@omegabit my wife's boyfriend uses MY internet, not the other way around.
The Civil War debate is about the question, “Is water wet?”
That Chuck Norris movie looks way more watchable than this milquetoast bs movie. I literally cheered when that dude fired the rpg into the house with the after school special monologue. That's REAL dumb shit!
"See you in hell" / "I'll send you a postcard" is also a pretty good exchange for a movie like this.
Invasion USA is one of the movies in an episode of RedLetterMedia's Best of the Worst.
Invasion USA 😆. Chuck Norris and Cannon films made cheaper knockoff versions of popular action movies of the time. It wasn’t good, but it didn’t shy away from having a point. It had discernible motivations and stakes.
Thank you for your well thought out reviews. You provide an articulate summary of what I thought after I left this film.
And here I was hoping this would be a higher concept version of The Crazies or a finally really nasty, apocalyptic road-trip movie like a modern day Apocalypse Now. Oh well. Thank you for your service, Bob!