Civil War:
The movie probably isn't about what you think it might be. It's trying to be an honest portrayal of what the violence you see on the news in Ukraine and Israel or anywhere would like like here.
This is a road trip movie that bears a ton of similarity to Apocalypse now and Heart of Darkness. A group of combat/war journalists are racing to get to DC so that they can interview and photograph the President before the Western Alliance kills him. Along the way they encounter people and places that show us how badly the nation has unraveled, while it's clear that other parts are trying to pretend that nothing is happening. The violence and dysfunction that they encounter is contrasted by the mentality of this group of "pure" reporters. They take pictures of what is happening and then let other people decide what it all means and what is right and wrong. For them it is all about getting the shot. This is the subtle cleverness in this film. Because people going into it expected one thing, but instead got an examination of Journalism Ethics and a somewhat questionable statement that journalists are now the only sane people left.
The writer smartly shuffled things up. Floriduh, Texas and California seceded. The split doesn't seem to happen on the lines that would make sense through the lense of our current politics, its not Red or Blue, left or right. In fact, since both sides seem to be wearing the same uniforms (with one exception) they went out of their way to make things seem as ambiguous as possible. Both sides are not above committing what most people would agree are war crimes.
To give another really specific example, there is gun battle scene between one group of troops and another group of Bros wearing Hawaiian shirts. If you don't know, Hawaiian shirts have become de riguer among groups of white supremacist militias. But in this movie the Bros are led by an Asian and has some African Americans in it.
I think the purpose behind the shirts was twofold. It's meant to jumble things up and to be stick in the eye to the wackjobs.
The President is clearly a Totalitarian who abolished the FBI and bombed American Citizens and we don't know why and we do now he's on his third consecutive term. He resembles most of the Totalitarian Dictators that you know of. The opposition takes no prisoners and they are fabulously equipped. Texas is one of the main players. And I thought one really brilliant touch of authenticity was that many of their helicopters had 1st Cavalry Division markings all over. And yes that's exactly what it sounds like to be under a bunch of CH-47s doing their thing. But all of the helos were CGI so the effects were pretty amazing.
I liked it for the most part. I didn't get as annoyed by the journalist focus as some reviews have. Making the journalists the focus avoids the perspective problem of a traditional war movie, where the audience only sees one side's viewpoint.
The movie is about the horrors of war, and uses a war in the U.S. to make it feel more visceral for American audiences. While reviewers, and Zoo, focus on which side in the movie represents which side in modern America, I don't think it matters. The movie is a cautionary tale about a modern society unraveling, and does not want viewers cheering for either side. America is not immune to a society getting so unstable that it turns on itself.
I do think the movie is too optimistic about what an America fighting a Civil War would look like. America has such a complicated and urbanized economy that deindustrialization would result in mass starvation and rapid fragmentation of our society.
The movie itself is OK. It has some slow spots, and the slow motion shots would be more effective if the director didn't do one every 5 minutes. The acting was decent. I like Wagner Maura and Caelee Spaeny, Dunst was OK and Henderson plays the same character in everything he does. I didn't love the ending for Dunst's character, and thought it undermined the movie a bit.
The movie was decent, and it makes an important point. I would give a mild recommendation.
