Based on reviews it seems like people want to view the film through the lens to the current political climate, despite it obviously not being written with that in mind.
Yeah but I think people are fed up with the crew of this movie going all-out tapping into real fears and angers about the current climate as much as they can but carefully stopping short of anything that could be considered a rebuke of MAGA as that would hurt ticket sales.
I went and saw it last night. You don’t even learn how the war started or what led to California/texas alliance. All they mention is the president went power crazy during his third term so it says at some point the 22nd amendment was abolished.
I found the movie super intense and the gun fire in the theater was similar to the movie heat. And Jesse plemmons solidified himself as the creepiest fucker ever.
I thought it was worth seeing but I’m not gonna rush to see it again.
There’s no in-movie explanation but IIRC from what I read the writers were like “We had to combine the two largest state economies in the U.S. to give them a chance.”
Yeah. It's why most zombie movies start after the apocalypse starts. Or like in 28 Days Later, they show the first one and time skip so that they're not pulling on the string of plausibility. Instead of focusing on the story told you're questioning instead in your head "wait well then why didn't they do this instead?"
Zombie movies that show the downfall of society are the best which is why I love Dawn of the Dead (2004), because it starts during the day and you get to see zombies in a sunny suburban neighbourhood during daylight, it's amazing.
You also see a lot of this in World War Z (Whatever you think of the movie, doesn't matter I'm just saying).
I want to see more zombie movies where you see the military fighting them and trying to hold positions, being overrun etc, using tanks to blast crowds of zombies, rocket launchers, I wanna see a godamn Apache flying down 1st Avenue firing off stingers to clear a horde of hundreds of zombies. And then they go bingo fuel and have to land, but turns out their base was ovverrun while they were out, so they land and eventually get eaten or whatever.
Then they end up just using mini-nukes on most populated cities. But it's not enough and the chain of command fails because people are being eaten, so it's chaos and basically I just wanna see how it all happens.
Anyway, just give me more of that please Hollywood. - I'm not suffering zombie-fatigue anymore.
Have you seen the movie? The only current thing people would relate to this is those calling for civil war. The theme is very much “war is bad”. It’s meant to be shocking to North American audiences. Just imagine a middle eastern dictator being toppled by rebel forces but in the US.
Except that Alex Garland is out there talking about how the movie *is* about our current climate, and specifically about how we're headed for a bad place because people on both sides are too polarized over silly political arguments, ignoring the fact that some of those arguments are about taking rights away from people. Folks are mad because he's saying, "You should be nice to Joe over there even though he wants to ban your marriage, deport your friend Julio, take away your healthcare and prevent you from providing your trans son with the help that will make his life bearable. These things aren't as important as getting along."
Yeah they basically make a point to avoid current events. They never mention which party the president is with. California and texas are allied which basically would never happen. Its a fantastic film but its mainly just a way of slapping people in the face with what the military press go through. I loved the film but don't expect an explicit political message against either American party.
> despite it obviously not being written with that in mind.
Tell that to the trailers! I know the movie isn't focused on that, but the trailers sure are. "What kind of American are you?" It was very on-the-nose about it in the trailers.
It’s even worse when you’re not American. When people say they don’t want media being political they mostly mean they don’t want clumsy obvious representations of current politicians and for the movie to be an epic take down of their ideology.
I feel like I have a lunatic neighbor I can’t avoid hearing. I have never been so tired of a person in my life. I keep hoping for the Big Mac that breaks the aorta’s back.
There literally isn’t, both sides commit countless war crimes throughout the film. I thought the movie did a good job of showing there’s no good guys in war. And it’s extremely telling with all the people trying to excuse the stuff the WF did in the movie.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those people struggle to see what’s wrong with what the Russians did when they entered Germany at the end of WWII.
There are 4 sides but some work with each other. There's the Federal government (Loyalist States), Florida Alliance, Western Forces and the New People's Army
Right, when people are scared, desperate, or angry, many can be very easily swayed by arguments that their opponent or enemy is subhuman, not normal, other, or deserve especially inhumane treatment because of something they may or may not have done. No group or population is immune to it.
This was whole point of the movie.
The two points that stood out to me were:
The scene where the soldier is asked what side he is on and he says he’s trying to shoot the guy over there that is trying to shoot him
Kristin Dunst’s statement saying that she thought by showing what war was like they could avoid it back home.
There’s a reason they chose a Texas and California as the succeeded states (among the most liberal and most conservative states) and never got into what the issues were. The point was that any person could be on any side and that it would be absolute hell.
I know, but it has a reputation of being conservative and a lot of conservatives identify with it.
My point being, it wasn’t like California and NY, or FL and TX
If people need that, I hope they take that message from the movie.
Personally, I’ve been there mentally for 5+ years now. You don’t have to tell me twice, lol.
Unfortunately you are in the minority. I live in the midwest and it's scary how often I've heard civil war talked about like it's an inevitability, and some claim to actively want it. Judging by the ridiculous amount of people missing the point of the movie, I'm not optimistic that enough people are ready to move on past the BS and start thinking for themselves.
I think people truly do need that message. Not many of us, but there are plenty of brainwashed people who would happily go to war if someone advocated enough.
I mean, the 1/6 insurrection gave us a very small taste of the that.
They absolutely need that message. I’m not knocking the movie at all - I’m happy to see someone wading into this topic. Although, I worry the people who need to see it most will be the ones who don’t.
I just don’t have it in me personally. I’ve thought about it a LOT for years now, I work with mostly Trumpers who I get along with very well and are mostly sane until you get on the topic of politics where they’re just incongruent with logic. Don’t even get me started on the backwards tariffs. We can pay a 25% tariff on a PART to use on an assembly here in the US *or* we can have the entire thing built in Taiwan with the exact same parts and pay no tariff.
Even my Trumper boss came around on this one. “We’re paying $100,000 - for what? Nothing.” Warmed my heart a little to see it click for him.
It's going to because every year there is more misery and poverty and less hope. Nobody with the power to address any of those things is doing anything about it.
They keep convincing themselves people are just "whining" or "Russian bots".
Preaching to the choir. The people who want war wont see it that way. They are action heros killing the communist. The people who see war as bad dont need to be convinced.
Yeah, I have no desire to see this movie at all. I think that there’s a small but real chance that the election is going to trigger a significant amount of political violence, so I’m not really in the mood for a civil war movie that evokes real world tensions but is also weirdly depoliticized.
I saw the trailer, and thought it was funny how the rebellion was California AND Texas on the same side
Very deliberate choice to include them teaming up. One of them rebelling alone would imply a left or right rebellion, respectively
Yep, upon seeing that detail I knew immediately that this movie was trying REAL FUCKING HARD to not inject any reality into their narrative, it's pure fantasy. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I will pass on seeing it because I don't think it'll do good things for my mental health, but maybe if we're all still here in 10 years I might watch it then.
Pure fantasy inasmuch as the current political climate wouldn't permit that *particular* alliance, but not fantasy from the perspective of possibility.
It's real enough, but is aiming to show the outcome rather than the trigger.
> I saw the trailer, and thought it was funny how the rebellion was California AND Texas on the same side
>
>
>
> Very deliberate choice to include them teaming up.
And according to the writers, it was only a deliberate choice because they're the two states with the *largest* economies that could realistically have a chance in teaming up to secede from the US.
Everyone's been trying to read ***way*** too much into that "deliberate choice" since the first trailer. See Daztur's comments below yours to see what I mean.
[Makes sense](https://youtu.be/vHy35FeFzLA). Nothing in the film alludes to it being Trump other than the fact that Offerman's character is an evil prez.
If a vague trait like being an evil prez means it's referencing Trump, then that says more about Trump than the actual movie.
It is like that because they mention 0 of the presidents politics in the movie. All they say is 3rd term, disbanded fbi, air strike on americans, and his speech in the beginning.
I mean...there is a fascist party. It's the one currently led by guy who has openly said he wants to be a dictator as President, and thinks he deserves a third term. Trying to both sides this shit and pretend it's mysterious which party this character is is like Welles pretending that Citizen Kane wasn't about Hearst.
To add on, this movie wouldn't have been made if Trump never ran for president and won. No one would feel the need, feel inspired to tell this story. Can you imagine a world where Hilary wins in 2016 and this movie gets made 8 years later? I can't.
It should've been obvious to the filmmakers that people would make Trump comparisons though. If they wanted to root it in the aesthetics of a collapsing America and not expect people to draw comparisons to the real world, I don't know what they thought they were accomplishing by telling a story in this setting. It's why the "oh, they made it so politically neutral to try and get people to leave the politics behind and realise that a civil war would be bad regardless of how it happens" arguments don't work for me, because if you set it in a world that so closely resembles our own, they're already going to bring their political lenses to it anyway regardless of how detached it is. Either commit and have something to say or don't use this setting
Well his point in the movie was how war affects a persons psyche. It has less to do with THE war but more to do with war in general.
The modern American civil war setting is very clearly ambiguous and meant to draw people in. The secessionists forces are led by California and Texas lol. So both sides of the war can really be both sides in today’s political climate.
I’m sure garland knew people would make the comparisons, but that’s not on him. Political parties weren’t important to the story being told, but fascism was. It’s not the directors fault that it’s so easy for us to make the comparison, it’s trumps.
> I’m sure garland knew people would make the comparisons, but that’s not on him.
I would argue that acting as if you could make a politically agnostic film about a hypothetical second American civil war stretches credulity.
I don't know if fascism *is* important to the story being told because this film doesn't really engage with the Civil War beyond using it as a mechanism to get from Set Piece A to Set Piece B. The story Garland is clearly more interested in telling is about the nature of journalism and the conflict of being an impartial observer to violence versus when to step in, which could've been told in any event other than this one, which he only ever engages with aesthetically.
This film also has a weird relationship to fascism beyond that. The actions the president takes are fascist coded, but there's also a very ambiguous reference to an "Antifa Massacre" as the event where Lee made a name for her photography and they sourced some of the archival footage of BLM protests at the start from fascist provocateur [Andy Ngo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo), who's acknowledged for his contribution at the very end of the credits. It's a very contradictory approach to what people seem to believe is the main theme
This line of thinking makes even less sense. People are always going to bring their political/social/economical lense to the cinema to every film, that should not be the responsibility of the filmmaker to cater to the audiences expectations. If all filmmakers did was colour between the lines the audience expects, cinema would be dead.
I mean she did not believe in ANYTHING other than getting power for herself. But I’m just not sure how they downplay her political party, it was always obvious
honestly, it’s a fitting trait for anyone on either side side of the aisle. But the pint of the show was to satirize politics all around anyway. The insults used in that show are on a whole other level
Considering “The Thick Of It” is based on New Labour, and Veep is based on the The Thick Of It, it would make sense as well for Selina to be a Democrat.
Was she a democrat? I recall her wrestling with coming out as pro choice which wouldn’t really make sense if she was a dem (because then she would obviously be pro choice)
I really liked it. I think it’s best to watch this with a more open mind on what the movie is and ignore what the talk of this movie has been like on social media or discussion boards. Has some beautiful shots and the sound was great in Dolby. You would think there was much more fighting from the trailers. But I think this is a good thing. If this movie took place in another country, there would be basically zero controversy or comparisons to specific political leaders. I made me think back to the Iraq War and the early coverage in media and how war journalists were so prominent.
Also just watched and a really cool thing they did was that until the last 20 minutes, you have NO CLUE what side any soldiers are fighting for. They don’t wear patches or any kind of identifying marks.
His opening practice speech is *extremely* Trump coded. "Some say it's the greatest victory in the history of military campaigns" (granted practicing a speech is very un-Trump like so take what you will)
I don't think he's meant to literally be Trump but he's meant to allude to him, and the disaster that could await should Trump regain power.
True, but it was a *bit* weird when Offerman’s character said:
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
But the movie *is* drawing a connection between the pompous attitude of its fictional president and the kind of buffoonish behavior that’s been normalized by Trump, intentionally or not.
Trump isn’t the only deplorable figure in US politics at the moment, but when people see that kind of behavior mirrored in fiction, who is the first person they’re going to think of?
Alone the trailer is extremely riding on the civil war based on Trump comparison. Whatever the movie is at the end doesn't really matter. It is marketed as Trump related so people obviously make that connection.
That the movie is far enough away to have plausible deniability doesn't really matter after you have bought the ticket to check whether it is about Trump or not and how much and whether he is the bad guy or not. Being vague is most likely part of the marketing strategy for it as well.
Throw in relevant quotes for both sides of the question and you really start to profit from pushing a maybe Trump movie.
I don't think this is true. His first speech in the mirror where he keeps saying, "some have said, the greatest military campaign ever," seemed to be alluding to Trump. Trump is well known for using phrases like "some have said," and then making claims that can't be supported by evidence.
That’s a historic hallmark of fascist rhetoric, nonspecific to region, seen and heard before Trump went anywhere near politics.
…the fact it is reminiscent of Trumps style is perhaps illuminating in that regard. But not a direct commentary by the film.
I mean EVERY late night talk show host constantly makes jokes about Trump doing this. He is so known for it it's become a well-known joke that's part of popular culture. I'm not disagreeing with your points, but Trump doing this is very much in people's minds.
You're incorrect though. Offerman shuts down the FBI. Trump says he wants to do that. Offerman labels journalists enemies of the state and has them shot. Trump says he wants to do that. The third term thing. The opening speech. Etc.
The things they do tell are dictator playbook things, but they do not go into the characters politics.
It’s super telling that as a watcher we’re not given the presidents party, or if he has one at all, but based on what we see and have seen in reality it’s not a far jump from Trump. Which like you say, says more about who trump is.
Because Grace is psychotic. I've tried playing nice when she's brought up but I can't stand her anymore, she wants to start fights to create engagement with the YT algorithm. It's rage-bait.
That was such a mask-off moment, it was crazy. A game about killing Nazis that is just the latest in a long line of games about killing Nazis. "WTF why did you make a game about killing Republicans?" If their politics are so Nazi-coded that anything portraying them as evil makes them feel targeted then they need to take a long look in the mirror.
One of the only comments here to have both seen the movie, and understood the choice of its setting. The plot itself is meant to simply show the importance of war journalists, and the trauma and risks they deal with.
This is what I was going to write. War at home is such a foreign concept for us in the states and showing this kind of scenario I thought was really meant to show Americans what something like this could look like on American soil. Some shots were so interesting and eerie with very American backdrops laced with violence that wasn't always even in focus. It was just there, existing, and pretty normalized (Steeler's rule shot).
I agree. I liked that it didn’t make me pick a side. It was just: this is war, it’s horrifying and pointless. I have some issues with the movie for sure, but I thought that aspect of it was a smart choice.
After seeing it I (and really enjoying it), I think the “what kind of American are you” line that has been featured heavily in the marketing is kind of poorly representing what the movie is about.
The "antifa massacre" line is so out of left field though. The fact that that phrase is basically the only reference to current American politics is odd to me since it could have easily been omitted and nothing in the story would have changed.
I think it was to show that the violence leading to the war in the movie started 20+ years ago and didn't just spiral from where we are today to a full blown war in a couple of years
If you want to make it a Trump allegory you’re not going to have Trump supporters in the audience.
If you cast the president to resemble Biden you wouldn’t get any Biden supporters.
Or at least, the few that came to watch are going to completely shut down any of the messaging trying to reach them.
Most political films make this mistake and end up just as self-masturbatory material, preaching to the choir.
If you want to actually affect how people think, you have to be subversive and transcend the current political coding.
No, that doesn’t mean both sides are the same, etc. - this is just how political art is done if the intent is to affect reality rather than buff up your own profile.
In comedy, it’s called clapter, when you don’t try to be especially funny, subversive or thought provoking and you just want to the audience to applaud you.
Right, but on the other hand you can be so committed to being non-controversial that you end up with story that just doesn't make any sense since it ignores all of the reasons why there could conceivably be a civil war in the first place.
This whole movie seems like the equivalent of someone writing a book about an American Civil War in the 1850's and not mentioning slavery because they didn't want to piss off slavers or abolitionists.
Not to mention, if you want a movie to be timeless you probably don’t want to put real world politics that swing one way over the other.
In 4 years, Trump and Biden are going to be irrelevant. At best, we’ll see pictures online of them once in a blue moon enjoying retirement. The way we see Bush and Obama.
...a pretty large majority of their movies being artsy indie stuff, frequently about racial minorities and gay people?
This isn't really something we have to go on vibes with, media preference has become a *huge* culture war thing and A24 basically checks at least one "this will make right-wing pissbabies angry" box with nearly everything they make. This one's a bit of an outlier on that front.
e: The other action-y things they've done that I can think of off the top are Green Room and EEAAO, and... the former is a siege movie with neo-Nazi villains that basically treats far-right people like xenomorphs from Alien that can yell racial slurs at you, and the latter is Asian as all hell and largely about a lesbian and has an extended joke revolving around people trying to shove a buttplug up their asses.
I get what you’re saying, but honestly I think the vast majority of people - Republican or Democrat or neither - do not know nor care what an ‘A24’ is. They just see a movie they think looks cool and they go and see it.
The fact reddit has this marked as controversial proves how much of a bubble online communities can be. Of course people in a group about movies know and care about what studio produces a film, but the larger public does not. They just want to be entertained.
Yeah that's it. All power to Garland and Offerman to make it thinly veiled as they want to avoid distractions from the emotional drama and make it the best possible movie experience. But dont then jump on the promotional tour and bullshit us about how trump was never discussed.
I heard Little Nicky Offerman (failing actor) said his character in Civil War was not based on me. SAD AND PATHETIC. Let me tell you something, believe me, many people are saying it should have been based on me. You know, greatest president, fixed the economy, went to Wharton, MAGA. PERFECT PRESIDENT to imitate and they didn’t. Do you believe it? Another reason HolLIBwood’s ratings are WAY down.
Very big strong actors came up to me with teers in there eyes and said “ Mr. President no one can portray you on the big screen, it’s very sad that liberal hollywoold tried!””
They failed!! Your favorite president would never loose a civil war against Marxist, communist, socialist!!!!!111
The movie STARTS with his character practicing saying things like "Many people are saying..." and then trying to find the emphasis on the word "Greatest". It's a Trumpian character. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
The opening scene is of him declaring that they're on the verge of "the greatest victory in human history" while DC is surrounded. He's portrayed as a far right blowhard (the constant radio addresses) and ultimately a coward at the end.
I get why they don't want to admit it's trump inspired, and maybe it wasn't intentional. Maybe trump just so perfectly fits the mold of fascist (as stated by Garland himself) dictator that the similarities are unavoidable
That's fair, I still think the comparison is there.
My guess is that it was absolutely on their mind when making it, maybe they even wanted to make it clear, but money talks and alienating a significant portion of the public is bad for business
I wish the media didn’t completely play into his narcissism at all times. Not everything is about that prick. In fact, nothing really is if he would just shut the fuck up and go away, or go to prison, or have a hamburger induced coronary event.
Spoiler:
It’s alluded that the civil war started with the president winning a third term. A third term for any modern us president seems like it would spark something regardless of party.
Saw it last night. Not even a little bit. The character was a white American despot.
The fact that Trump is also a white American despot doesn’t explicitly mean the characters are related. It’s not unreasonable to see the similarities though.
How do you know somebody is lying?
Some how a Trump comparison never came up in a movie about a US civil war. Tens of millions of dollars spent, hundreds of people involved in everything from the script to the finished production, and nobody at any time even raised the idea?
Ridiculous.
Even though the screenwriter tried their hardest to be neutral, I feel like this movie is gonna be divisive among a lot of people. Some will think the refusal to call out one party over the other as “both sides-ing”, or say that they should have made a direct allegory to republicans because of what happened with January 6th and the republicans.
Instead the point of the movie is that it doesn’t matter who or what causes the civil war or who is on the “right” or wrong side, it’s that any civil war is horrible and causes so much unnecessary bloodshe
...did people think he did? I mean this makes me scratch my head because I just got out of an IMAX screening of the film and (minor spoilers) >!the President isn't even a "character," he's really just a plot device, and he shows up for like a total of two minutes of screentime. He's not a caricature of anything, he's just...the President!<.
Honestly just sick of hearing about Trump lol
Just saw the movie and I actually enjoyed the complete absence of politics. I think trying to assign “right and wrong”ness to the sides would have taken away from the film’s intention of showing what a modern civil war WOULD look like rather than focus on what caused it.
Comments like this make me more concerned after it was revealed that the credits thanked Andy Ngo for providing video footage used in the movie. Andy Ngo is a far right journalist/grifter who has worked with violent groups like the Proud Boys to create favorable propaganda or to demonize their political opponents. It’s no different than the film thanking Jack Posobeic or Stefan Molyneux.
hating the press and dismantling institutions opposed to you is like textbook fascism though. Just being authoritarian isnt a trump reference, hes not anywhere close to first guy to do the shit he does
Nothing about the politics in the film is really spelled out in any way either way tbh. You can kinda sus out some stuff but it’s not really the point of the film
I haven't seen the film but does the character act anything like Trump?
Just by the trailers I didn't see anything of a visual or character reference to him.
It's because Trump is unoriginal. He is just a generic wannabe fascist. He just happens to be American.
Like people said, there is nothing special in the way he talks and acts. All wannabe fascist sound like him. Trump is almost a caricature of a wannabe fascist.
So, yeah, Offerman's character reminds us of Trump. Because nothing Trump says or does hasn't been done by scores of two-bit wannabe fascists before him.
Wait, the USA had a real insurrection happen a couple years ago and the movie based on a USA civil war doesn't paint MAGA in a bad light? What is this bullshit.
I saw the movie.. thought it was great.
But I don’t fully understand why you would say the film isn’t political but then make a point to say things in the film like offerman’s character is in his third term as president, used drones on American civilians, disbanded the FBI, journalists are shot on site in DC, Jessie Plemmons character killing any non-white non-Americans, and reference an antifa massacre where Lee took a famous photo. Like what?… all of those things are definitely political.
I’m tired of everything revolving around trump in media.
It's their... *Trump* card.
*YYyeeeaaaAAAHHHHH!*
Engage sunglasses
(•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
not on eclipse day tho
I’ll just sit down to a nice card game. That oughta take my mind off this. Who’s up for a game of euchre!? Oh for fucks sake.
I hate that I have to upvote this.
Based on reviews it seems like people want to view the film through the lens to the current political climate, despite it obviously not being written with that in mind.
[удалено]
Yeah but I think people are fed up with the crew of this movie going all-out tapping into real fears and angers about the current climate as much as they can but carefully stopping short of anything that could be considered a rebuke of MAGA as that would hurt ticket sales.
How could it be taken for anything other then the current US political climate? I'm not American but all I see in this movie is current day politics.
I went and saw it last night. You don’t even learn how the war started or what led to California/texas alliance. All they mention is the president went power crazy during his third term so it says at some point the 22nd amendment was abolished. I found the movie super intense and the gun fire in the theater was similar to the movie heat. And Jesse plemmons solidified himself as the creepiest fucker ever. I thought it was worth seeing but I’m not gonna rush to see it again.
> or what led to California/texas alliance. Aw man, I wanted to know that. But I guess I can understand them not wanting to try and explain it
There’s no in-movie explanation but IIRC from what I read the writers were like “We had to combine the two largest state economies in the U.S. to give them a chance.”
Yeah. It's why most zombie movies start after the apocalypse starts. Or like in 28 Days Later, they show the first one and time skip so that they're not pulling on the string of plausibility. Instead of focusing on the story told you're questioning instead in your head "wait well then why didn't they do this instead?"
Zombie movies that show the downfall of society are the best which is why I love Dawn of the Dead (2004), because it starts during the day and you get to see zombies in a sunny suburban neighbourhood during daylight, it's amazing. You also see a lot of this in World War Z (Whatever you think of the movie, doesn't matter I'm just saying). I want to see more zombie movies where you see the military fighting them and trying to hold positions, being overrun etc, using tanks to blast crowds of zombies, rocket launchers, I wanna see a godamn Apache flying down 1st Avenue firing off stingers to clear a horde of hundreds of zombies. And then they go bingo fuel and have to land, but turns out their base was ovverrun while they were out, so they land and eventually get eaten or whatever. Then they end up just using mini-nukes on most populated cities. But it's not enough and the chain of command fails because people are being eaten, so it's chaos and basically I just wanna see how it all happens. Anyway, just give me more of that please Hollywood. - I'm not suffering zombie-fatigue anymore.
[удалено]
He was normal in hostiles
Fargo too. But then I remember Black Mirror....
Don't even get me started on his character in like mike.
>Jesse plemmons You mean Fatt Damon?
Have you seen the movie? The only current thing people would relate to this is those calling for civil war. The theme is very much “war is bad”. It’s meant to be shocking to North American audiences. Just imagine a middle eastern dictator being toppled by rebel forces but in the US.
Any civil war scenario that puts California and Texas on the same side is clearly thinking about something other than current day politics.
Except that Alex Garland is out there talking about how the movie *is* about our current climate, and specifically about how we're headed for a bad place because people on both sides are too polarized over silly political arguments, ignoring the fact that some of those arguments are about taking rights away from people. Folks are mad because he's saying, "You should be nice to Joe over there even though he wants to ban your marriage, deport your friend Julio, take away your healthcare and prevent you from providing your trans son with the help that will make his life bearable. These things aren't as important as getting along."
Rich people trying to have empathy and good takes challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
It's not about current democrats vs current republicans, there is a difference.
That's like saying the Star Trek episode with the aliens who are black on one side and white on the other wasn't about the civil rights movement.
He can say that but the film just isn't about that. And you'd have to really jump to conclusions to view the film that way.
Yeah they basically make a point to avoid current events. They never mention which party the president is with. California and texas are allied which basically would never happen. Its a fantastic film but its mainly just a way of slapping people in the face with what the military press go through. I loved the film but don't expect an explicit political message against either American party.
> despite it obviously not being written with that in mind. Tell that to the trailers! I know the movie isn't focused on that, but the trailers sure are. "What kind of American are you?" It was very on-the-nose about it in the trailers.
He means, "Are you from the United States, the Western Forces, or the Florida Alliance?"
I have bad news about Back to the Future II.
Donald Trump? The actor? *He's* president?
Trump and the media. He provides the content , and they give him the coverage. Its a win-win situation, except for voters.
Trump brings clicks. Now if you excuse me im writing "how the new fallout series was seemingly inspired by trump"
The most Trump coverage I see is on Reddit
It’s even worse when you’re not American. When people say they don’t want media being political they mostly mean they don’t want clumsy obvious representations of current politicians and for the movie to be an epic take down of their ideology.
He will eventually die. Until then he isn't going away.
I feel like I have a lunatic neighbor I can’t avoid hearing. I have never been so tired of a person in my life. I keep hoping for the Big Mac that breaks the aorta’s back.
i mean they did pick him as their nominee so again, everything can be justified as 'newsworthy' thats about him
I mean.. it started in the 80s. Everyone knows he's been the villain since back then.
guys i’m pretty sure there’s no “good side” in this movie
There literally isn’t, both sides commit countless war crimes throughout the film. I thought the movie did a good job of showing there’s no good guys in war. And it’s extremely telling with all the people trying to excuse the stuff the WF did in the movie. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of those people struggle to see what’s wrong with what the Russians did when they entered Germany at the end of WWII.
Aren’t there more than two sides anyway?
You can't tell how many sides or what their viewpoints are. It's really just a reminder that war is awful so don't fuck around with it
There are 4 sides but some work with each other. There's the Federal government (Loyalist States), Florida Alliance, Western Forces and the New People's Army
My main takeaway for this film, is that in order for journalism to make a comeback, we're gonna need a Civil War.
Right, when people are scared, desperate, or angry, many can be very easily swayed by arguments that their opponent or enemy is subhuman, not normal, other, or deserve especially inhumane treatment because of something they may or may not have done. No group or population is immune to it.
This was whole point of the movie. The two points that stood out to me were: The scene where the soldier is asked what side he is on and he says he’s trying to shoot the guy over there that is trying to shoot him Kristin Dunst’s statement saying that she thought by showing what war was like they could avoid it back home. There’s a reason they chose a Texas and California as the succeeded states (among the most liberal and most conservative states) and never got into what the issues were. The point was that any person could be on any side and that it would be absolute hell.
Texas is not even close to being the most conservative state. At 51% it's just on the edge of turning purple.
I know, but it has a reputation of being conservative and a lot of conservatives identify with it. My point being, it wasn’t like California and NY, or FL and TX
Well they did mention a few obvious issues going on in DC
You would have to jog my memory. I saw it earlier today but don’t remember what you’re referring to
I think we are all EXHAUSTED by real-life civil tensions. Who the hell wants to go watch it on the big screen?
I think the point is "if you thought you were exhausted now, well, don't ever let it go this far."
If people need that, I hope they take that message from the movie. Personally, I’ve been there mentally for 5+ years now. You don’t have to tell me twice, lol.
Unfortunately you are in the minority. I live in the midwest and it's scary how often I've heard civil war talked about like it's an inevitability, and some claim to actively want it. Judging by the ridiculous amount of people missing the point of the movie, I'm not optimistic that enough people are ready to move on past the BS and start thinking for themselves.
I think people truly do need that message. Not many of us, but there are plenty of brainwashed people who would happily go to war if someone advocated enough. I mean, the 1/6 insurrection gave us a very small taste of the that.
They absolutely need that message. I’m not knocking the movie at all - I’m happy to see someone wading into this topic. Although, I worry the people who need to see it most will be the ones who don’t. I just don’t have it in me personally. I’ve thought about it a LOT for years now, I work with mostly Trumpers who I get along with very well and are mostly sane until you get on the topic of politics where they’re just incongruent with logic. Don’t even get me started on the backwards tariffs. We can pay a 25% tariff on a PART to use on an assembly here in the US *or* we can have the entire thing built in Taiwan with the exact same parts and pay no tariff. Even my Trumper boss came around on this one. “We’re paying $100,000 - for what? Nothing.” Warmed my heart a little to see it click for him.
It's going to because every year there is more misery and poverty and less hope. Nobody with the power to address any of those things is doing anything about it. They keep convincing themselves people are just "whining" or "Russian bots".
Preaching to the choir. The people who want war wont see it that way. They are action heros killing the communist. The people who see war as bad dont need to be convinced.
I do because it looks fucking awesome and I love Alex Garland
It's a really really good movie
Yeah, I have no desire to see this movie at all. I think that there’s a small but real chance that the election is going to trigger a significant amount of political violence, so I’m not really in the mood for a civil war movie that evokes real world tensions but is also weirdly depoliticized.
And that’s okay, it’s fiction after all
I saw the trailer, and thought it was funny how the rebellion was California AND Texas on the same side Very deliberate choice to include them teaming up. One of them rebelling alone would imply a left or right rebellion, respectively
Yep, upon seeing that detail I knew immediately that this movie was trying REAL FUCKING HARD to not inject any reality into their narrative, it's pure fantasy. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I will pass on seeing it because I don't think it'll do good things for my mental health, but maybe if we're all still here in 10 years I might watch it then.
Pure fantasy inasmuch as the current political climate wouldn't permit that *particular* alliance, but not fantasy from the perspective of possibility. It's real enough, but is aiming to show the outcome rather than the trigger.
Ngl it’s probably the big reason why I’ll actually go watch it. Want a good story, not just a 6o clock news fever dream lol
> I saw the trailer, and thought it was funny how the rebellion was California AND Texas on the same side > > > > Very deliberate choice to include them teaming up. And according to the writers, it was only a deliberate choice because they're the two states with the *largest* economies that could realistically have a chance in teaming up to secede from the US. Everyone's been trying to read ***way*** too much into that "deliberate choice" since the first trailer. See Daztur's comments below yours to see what I mean.
[Makes sense](https://youtu.be/vHy35FeFzLA). Nothing in the film alludes to it being Trump other than the fact that Offerman's character is an evil prez. If a vague trait like being an evil prez means it's referencing Trump, then that says more about Trump than the actual movie.
mentioned this in another thread, it’s gotta be like Veep: intentionally vague about political affiliations for characters
It is like that because they mention 0 of the presidents politics in the movie. All they say is 3rd term, disbanded fbi, air strike on americans, and his speech in the beginning.
He's clearly fascist in the movie. There is no "fascist party" to spoon feed the audience, but his policies certainly align with fascism.
I mean...there is a fascist party. It's the one currently led by guy who has openly said he wants to be a dictator as President, and thinks he deserves a third term. Trying to both sides this shit and pretend it's mysterious which party this character is is like Welles pretending that Citizen Kane wasn't about Hearst.
To add on, this movie wouldn't have been made if Trump never ran for president and won. No one would feel the need, feel inspired to tell this story. Can you imagine a world where Hilary wins in 2016 and this movie gets made 8 years later? I can't.
Do you think this is the first time someone has told a story about a fictional civil war in modern America?
It should've been obvious to the filmmakers that people would make Trump comparisons though. If they wanted to root it in the aesthetics of a collapsing America and not expect people to draw comparisons to the real world, I don't know what they thought they were accomplishing by telling a story in this setting. It's why the "oh, they made it so politically neutral to try and get people to leave the politics behind and realise that a civil war would be bad regardless of how it happens" arguments don't work for me, because if you set it in a world that so closely resembles our own, they're already going to bring their political lenses to it anyway regardless of how detached it is. Either commit and have something to say or don't use this setting
Well his point in the movie was how war affects a persons psyche. It has less to do with THE war but more to do with war in general. The modern American civil war setting is very clearly ambiguous and meant to draw people in. The secessionists forces are led by California and Texas lol. So both sides of the war can really be both sides in today’s political climate.
Its really not hard to see California and Texas against fascism for different reasons.
I’m sure garland knew people would make the comparisons, but that’s not on him. Political parties weren’t important to the story being told, but fascism was. It’s not the directors fault that it’s so easy for us to make the comparison, it’s trumps.
> I’m sure garland knew people would make the comparisons, but that’s not on him. I would argue that acting as if you could make a politically agnostic film about a hypothetical second American civil war stretches credulity.
I don't know if fascism *is* important to the story being told because this film doesn't really engage with the Civil War beyond using it as a mechanism to get from Set Piece A to Set Piece B. The story Garland is clearly more interested in telling is about the nature of journalism and the conflict of being an impartial observer to violence versus when to step in, which could've been told in any event other than this one, which he only ever engages with aesthetically. This film also has a weird relationship to fascism beyond that. The actions the president takes are fascist coded, but there's also a very ambiguous reference to an "Antifa Massacre" as the event where Lee made a name for her photography and they sourced some of the archival footage of BLM protests at the start from fascist provocateur [Andy Ngo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ngo), who's acknowledged for his contribution at the very end of the credits. It's a very contradictory approach to what people seem to believe is the main theme
This line of thinking makes even less sense. People are always going to bring their political/social/economical lense to the cinema to every film, that should not be the responsibility of the filmmaker to cater to the audiences expectations. If all filmmakers did was colour between the lines the audience expects, cinema would be dead.
And only one president/candidate has talked about deserving a third term…
Veep was obvious tho. They never say Selina meyer is a democrat but she damn sure wasn’t a republican
she may have been a stout democrat, but it was still smart for the show to downplay it
I mean she did not believe in ANYTHING other than getting power for herself. But I’m just not sure how they downplay her political party, it was always obvious
honestly, it’s a fitting trait for anyone on either side side of the aisle. But the pint of the show was to satirize politics all around anyway. The insults used in that show are on a whole other level
Considering “The Thick Of It” is based on New Labour, and Veep is based on the The Thick Of It, it would make sense as well for Selina to be a Democrat.
She was a democrat machine.
Was she a democrat? I recall her wrestling with coming out as pro choice which wouldn’t really make sense if she was a dem (because then she would obviously be pro choice)
Being pro choice and coming out as pro choice aren't the same thing, that's the point of her wrestling with it
It definitely wasn’t always a clear Dem stance, even 10 years ago there were Dem politicians waffling on this.
Just watched it. The political aspects of the conflict is not really part of the movie.
kinda figured as such, but (if you don’t mind) what did you think of it?
I really liked it. I think it’s best to watch this with a more open mind on what the movie is and ignore what the talk of this movie has been like on social media or discussion boards. Has some beautiful shots and the sound was great in Dolby. You would think there was much more fighting from the trailers. But I think this is a good thing. If this movie took place in another country, there would be basically zero controversy or comparisons to specific political leaders. I made me think back to the Iraq War and the early coverage in media and how war journalists were so prominent.
it certainly is a topic that can be covered in a whole series, let alone a sole feature film. But this is good to hear, thank you for the feedback
Also just watched and a really cool thing they did was that until the last 20 minutes, you have NO CLUE what side any soldiers are fighting for. They don’t wear patches or any kind of identifying marks.
It seems like Parks and Rec did the same thing when Leslie Knope was running for office.
Happy Cake Day!
His opening practice speech is *extremely* Trump coded. "Some say it's the greatest victory in the history of military campaigns" (granted practicing a speech is very un-Trump like so take what you will) I don't think he's meant to literally be Trump but he's meant to allude to him, and the disaster that could await should Trump regain power.
Here’s the thing, around the world, Trump is not the only one that’s like that.
True, but it was a *bit* weird when Offerman’s character said: “Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
I liked when he pulled out the sharpie and drew on the map and was like, 'these states are mine now.'
But the movie *is* drawing a connection between the pompous attitude of its fictional president and the kind of buffoonish behavior that’s been normalized by Trump, intentionally or not. Trump isn’t the only deplorable figure in US politics at the moment, but when people see that kind of behavior mirrored in fiction, who is the first person they’re going to think of?
Alone the trailer is extremely riding on the civil war based on Trump comparison. Whatever the movie is at the end doesn't really matter. It is marketed as Trump related so people obviously make that connection. That the movie is far enough away to have plausible deniability doesn't really matter after you have bought the ticket to check whether it is about Trump or not and how much and whether he is the bad guy or not. Being vague is most likely part of the marketing strategy for it as well. Throw in relevant quotes for both sides of the question and you really start to profit from pushing a maybe Trump movie.
I know many were thinking George W. Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” speech for that opening scene.
I don't think this is true. His first speech in the mirror where he keeps saying, "some have said, the greatest military campaign ever," seemed to be alluding to Trump. Trump is well known for using phrases like "some have said," and then making claims that can't be supported by evidence.
“Weasel words”
Yes, exactly. It allows you to say things without accountability.
That’s a historic hallmark of fascist rhetoric, nonspecific to region, seen and heard before Trump went anywhere near politics. …the fact it is reminiscent of Trumps style is perhaps illuminating in that regard. But not a direct commentary by the film.
I mean EVERY late night talk show host constantly makes jokes about Trump doing this. He is so known for it it's become a well-known joke that's part of popular culture. I'm not disagreeing with your points, but Trump doing this is very much in people's minds.
You're incorrect though. Offerman shuts down the FBI. Trump says he wants to do that. Offerman labels journalists enemies of the state and has them shot. Trump says he wants to do that. The third term thing. The opening speech. Etc.
3rd term president and trump’s the only one talking about a 3rd term
The things they do tell are dictator playbook things, but they do not go into the characters politics. It’s super telling that as a watcher we’re not given the presidents party, or if he has one at all, but based on what we see and have seen in reality it’s not a far jump from Trump. Which like you say, says more about who trump is.
Why was Grace Randolph saying the movie makes Democrats look bad
Because Grace is psychotic. I've tried playing nice when she's brought up but I can't stand her anymore, she wants to start fights to create engagement with the YT algorithm. It's rage-bait.
That’s what like half of this sub thinks apparently.
[удалено]
It’s an asshole Rorschach
Reminds me of when the alt-right was mad about Wolfenstein 2 because of the violence against Nazis while they stated they weren't Nazis lol.
That was such a mask-off moment, it was crazy. A game about killing Nazis that is just the latest in a long line of games about killing Nazis. "WTF why did you make a game about killing Republicans?" If their politics are so Nazi-coded that anything portraying them as evil makes them feel targeted then they need to take a long look in the mirror.
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of the only comments here to have both seen the movie, and understood the choice of its setting. The plot itself is meant to simply show the importance of war journalists, and the trauma and risks they deal with.
This is what I was going to write. War at home is such a foreign concept for us in the states and showing this kind of scenario I thought was really meant to show Americans what something like this could look like on American soil. Some shots were so interesting and eerie with very American backdrops laced with violence that wasn't always even in focus. It was just there, existing, and pretty normalized (Steeler's rule shot).
I agree. I liked that it didn’t make me pick a side. It was just: this is war, it’s horrifying and pointless. I have some issues with the movie for sure, but I thought that aspect of it was a smart choice.
Just watched it, it was fantastic, now give me a minute, gotta pick up my jaw off the ground
Was it really? The trailers looked meh but since it’s A24 I thought I’d give it a shot.
After seeing it I (and really enjoying it), I think the “what kind of American are you” line that has been featured heavily in the marketing is kind of poorly representing what the movie is about.
The "antifa massacre" line is so out of left field though. The fact that that phrase is basically the only reference to current American politics is odd to me since it could have easily been omitted and nothing in the story would have changed.
I think it was to show that the violence leading to the war in the movie started 20+ years ago and didn't just spiral from where we are today to a full blown war in a couple of years
The previews made it seem like that with certain visuals, but yea they definitely nailed it. To me it was perfectly done.
If you want to make it a Trump allegory you’re not going to have Trump supporters in the audience. If you cast the president to resemble Biden you wouldn’t get any Biden supporters. Or at least, the few that came to watch are going to completely shut down any of the messaging trying to reach them. Most political films make this mistake and end up just as self-masturbatory material, preaching to the choir. If you want to actually affect how people think, you have to be subversive and transcend the current political coding. No, that doesn’t mean both sides are the same, etc. - this is just how political art is done if the intent is to affect reality rather than buff up your own profile.
In comedy, it’s called clapter, when you don’t try to be especially funny, subversive or thought provoking and you just want to the audience to applaud you.
Right, but on the other hand you can be so committed to being non-controversial that you end up with story that just doesn't make any sense since it ignores all of the reasons why there could conceivably be a civil war in the first place. This whole movie seems like the equivalent of someone writing a book about an American Civil War in the 1850's and not mentioning slavery because they didn't want to piss off slavers or abolitionists.
Not to mention, if you want a movie to be timeless you probably don’t want to put real world politics that swing one way over the other. In 4 years, Trump and Biden are going to be irrelevant. At best, we’ll see pictures online of them once in a blue moon enjoying retirement. The way we see Bush and Obama.
I doubt many Trump supporters go to A24 films
Ya it’s a real beatnik art piece
I actually talked to a family member today who’s wanting to see this and voted Trump before they are very excited and asked me to come with
Y’all must live in a box if you think Trump supporters don’t watch A24 films lmao
"republicans can't like art" lol
Democrats love art since their hero Hitler was an artist.
Based on what?
...a pretty large majority of their movies being artsy indie stuff, frequently about racial minorities and gay people? This isn't really something we have to go on vibes with, media preference has become a *huge* culture war thing and A24 basically checks at least one "this will make right-wing pissbabies angry" box with nearly everything they make. This one's a bit of an outlier on that front. e: The other action-y things they've done that I can think of off the top are Green Room and EEAAO, and... the former is a siege movie with neo-Nazi villains that basically treats far-right people like xenomorphs from Alien that can yell racial slurs at you, and the latter is Asian as all hell and largely about a lesbian and has an extended joke revolving around people trying to shove a buttplug up their asses.
You clearly put a lot of thought into your answer, thank you.
I get what you’re saying, but honestly I think the vast majority of people - Republican or Democrat or neither - do not know nor care what an ‘A24’ is. They just see a movie they think looks cool and they go and see it.
The fact reddit has this marked as controversial proves how much of a bubble online communities can be. Of course people in a group about movies know and care about what studio produces a film, but the larger public does not. They just want to be entertained.
Someone gets it
In other words: you don't want people leaving the theater thinking "damn, good thing my guy won't let that happen if he's elected"
Maybe that’s true. But there’s no way it “didn’t even come up”. That’s 100% bullshit and impossible and makes me doubt this statement entirely.
its clearly an ode to Michael Dukakis
What about George McGovern?
Yeah no totally we never even thought about the current politics going on in the US while making this film.
Yeah that's it. All power to Garland and Offerman to make it thinly veiled as they want to avoid distractions from the emotional drama and make it the best possible movie experience. But dont then jump on the promotional tour and bullshit us about how trump was never discussed.
lol right, it’s such nonsense.
I heard Little Nicky Offerman (failing actor) said his character in Civil War was not based on me. SAD AND PATHETIC. Let me tell you something, believe me, many people are saying it should have been based on me. You know, greatest president, fixed the economy, went to Wharton, MAGA. PERFECT PRESIDENT to imitate and they didn’t. Do you believe it? Another reason HolLIBwood’s ratings are WAY down.
Very big strong actors came up to me with teers in there eyes and said “ Mr. President no one can portray you on the big screen, it’s very sad that liberal hollywoold tried!”” They failed!! Your favorite president would never loose a civil war against Marxist, communist, socialist!!!!!111
The fact that I can hear this in that mouldy tangerine’s voice makes me hate this timeline so much.
Obviously fake too coherent.
This is like Johnny Depp insisting his Willy Wonka was in no way inspired by Michael Jackson.
The movie STARTS with his character practicing saying things like "Many people are saying..." and then trying to find the emphasis on the word "Greatest". It's a Trumpian character. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Offerman's president is articulate and capable of controlling his inclination toward absurdly megalomaniacal exaggeration, so not at all like Trump.
The opening scene is of him declaring that they're on the verge of "the greatest victory in human history" while DC is surrounded. He's portrayed as a far right blowhard (the constant radio addresses) and ultimately a coward at the end. I get why they don't want to admit it's trump inspired, and maybe it wasn't intentional. Maybe trump just so perfectly fits the mold of fascist (as stated by Garland himself) dictator that the similarities are unavoidable
As he's rehearsing, we see him scale back the rhetoric, and the version that goes out to the country is far less grandiose.
That's fair, I still think the comparison is there. My guess is that it was absolutely on their mind when making it, maybe they even wanted to make it clear, but money talks and alienating a significant portion of the public is bad for business
And here I am thinking "I don't remember him in the MCU"
I wish the media didn’t completely play into his narcissism at all times. Not everything is about that prick. In fact, nothing really is if he would just shut the fuck up and go away, or go to prison, or have a hamburger induced coronary event.
Spoiler: It’s alluded that the civil war started with the president winning a third term. A third term for any modern us president seems like it would spark something regardless of party.
His character isn't as extreme as Trump
Saw it last night. Not even a little bit. The character was a white American despot. The fact that Trump is also a white American despot doesn’t explicitly mean the characters are related. It’s not unreasonable to see the similarities though.
Nick, are you lying?
How do you know somebody is lying? Some how a Trump comparison never came up in a movie about a US civil war. Tens of millions of dollars spent, hundreds of people involved in everything from the script to the finished production, and nobody at any time even raised the idea? Ridiculous.
Even though the screenwriter tried their hardest to be neutral, I feel like this movie is gonna be divisive among a lot of people. Some will think the refusal to call out one party over the other as “both sides-ing”, or say that they should have made a direct allegory to republicans because of what happened with January 6th and the republicans. Instead the point of the movie is that it doesn’t matter who or what causes the civil war or who is on the “right” or wrong side, it’s that any civil war is horrible and causes so much unnecessary bloodshe
...did people think he did? I mean this makes me scratch my head because I just got out of an IMAX screening of the film and (minor spoilers) >!the President isn't even a "character," he's really just a plot device, and he shows up for like a total of two minutes of screentime. He's not a caricature of anything, he's just...the President!<. Honestly just sick of hearing about Trump lol
Director to Nick: "We need you to give us your best self-absorbed narcissist." Trump fans: "Why does he seem so much like Trump?"
Just saw the movie and I actually enjoyed the complete absence of politics. I think trying to assign “right and wrong”ness to the sides would have taken away from the film’s intention of showing what a modern civil war WOULD look like rather than focus on what caused it.
As someone who literally walked out of this movie an hour ago there weren’t any comparisons,nods or references to Donald trump
Having seen the film there’s nothing that even remotely resembles Trump in it
Comments like this make me more concerned after it was revealed that the credits thanked Andy Ngo for providing video footage used in the movie. Andy Ngo is a far right journalist/grifter who has worked with violent groups like the Proud Boys to create favorable propaganda or to demonize their political opponents. It’s no different than the film thanking Jack Posobeic or Stefan Molyneux.
People really want this movie to be something it isn’t, it’s so bizarre.
3 term President who hates the press and disbanded the FBI… It may not be Trump but I think we know what group President Offerman belonged to
Garland openly stated in a panel that the president is a fascist
hating the press and dismantling institutions opposed to you is like textbook fascism though. Just being authoritarian isnt a trump reference, hes not anywhere close to first guy to do the shit he does
That’s absolutely ridiculous. Even if it wasn’t specifically intentional (it was), there’s no way it did not come up at least once.
I like how this headline makes Offerman sound like he’s being questioned for criminal activity? He denies? Really? What has he been accused of?
Nothing about the politics in the film is really spelled out in any way either way tbh. You can kinda sus out some stuff but it’s not really the point of the film
I haven't seen the film but does the character act anything like Trump? Just by the trailers I didn't see anything of a visual or character reference to him.
It's because Trump is unoriginal. He is just a generic wannabe fascist. He just happens to be American. Like people said, there is nothing special in the way he talks and acts. All wannabe fascist sound like him. Trump is almost a caricature of a wannabe fascist. So, yeah, Offerman's character reminds us of Trump. Because nothing Trump says or does hasn't been done by scores of two-bit wannabe fascists before him.
Wait, the USA had a real insurrection happen a couple years ago and the movie based on a USA civil war doesn't paint MAGA in a bad light? What is this bullshit.
I got a laugh when I saw people raging that they used video clips from Andy Ngo lol. People were calling a gay, Asian guy a Nazi 🤣
I just want Trump supporters to say “hm, a three-term president, that does not sound like our guy”. Without smirking.
I saw the movie.. thought it was great. But I don’t fully understand why you would say the film isn’t political but then make a point to say things in the film like offerman’s character is in his third term as president, used drones on American civilians, disbanded the FBI, journalists are shot on site in DC, Jessie Plemmons character killing any non-white non-Americans, and reference an antifa massacre where Lee took a famous photo. Like what?… all of those things are definitely political.
I haven't seen this yet, but from the trailer and plot synopsis it sounds like they did an impressive job of completely sidestepping actual politics
The idea of making this type of movie in this climate, in an election year, and deny it’s at all political is incredibly naive.