Hey dudes, last video was claimed. We've had real bad luck with copyright claims this month jeez. Thanks for all the support guys! Like & Subscribe to catch some of your favorite shows and movies with us! Want more movie reactions? Check out the playlist! 👉th-cam.com/video/UGpnuNng5fk/w-d-xo.html Link to our Instagram - instagram.com/macreact
I think the whole point of making Texas and California the alliance is to prevent the viewer from picking a side based on real-life politics. The movie isn't about who's right and who's wrong, it's a mirror of Lee's goal, to send a message home to not do this here.
Also if you think of CA and TX they also have some of the most and biggest Military bases, equipment,guns, choppers, planes. They also have some of the biggest Reserve and National Guard troops. They are also the biggest GDP’s in the country which means they have the money and infrastructure to wage war. It’s really not far fetched once you think about it. It’s called an “alliance” doesn’t mean they aren’t going to govern themselves after taking out the federal government.
They say in the movie that once they have brought down the President that they’ll just turn on each other. It seems an alliance of temporary convenience.
@laketyson8720 Also, there is no way that troops from virtually every state would fall under a California or Texas banner then go destroy their home states. This movie is just stupid on top of dumb.
I actually love the movie, not for it's brutality or visuals, not because it shows a Civil War in the USA. If you watch a war movie it usually shows a Third World country embroiled in a civil war or it's a movie about a former war like Vietnam or WWII. Showing that a civil war with all it's horrors, like suicide bombers, mass graves, destruction of civil property, hyperinflation and rationing in a western democracy makes it so much more heartbreaking and convincing. Showing it from the war journalist point of view rather than civilians or military is also quite powerful, since journalists usually are able to go where normal civilians wouldn't be allowed, and since they are not military they can easily go between the lines since seen neutral or helpfull for both sides for propaganda reasons. I read and heard a lot of complains were that California and Texas would never align because they are currently on opposing sides of the US political spectrum. It wouldn't be so far catched though ( leaving the obvious, the political side doesn't matter ) first it would mean that whatever the President did enraged both political sides to rather work together then apart and thus forming an alliance. Second, both states have been independent before joing the USA, and third they have quite a big economy on their own, are able to sustain a war and a lot of military bases with a lot of equipment for their own use.
Jesse Plemons steals the movie with just his sequence and he wasn't even supposed to be in it; it was just a case of the role suddenly becoming available and Kirsten Dunst going, "No worries, I'll just ask my husband." (Frankly, given their track record together, them being an acting package deal works just fine.)
Fun fact: Jesse Plemmons was not in the original, he was cast on a whim after the original couldn't shoot for one reason or another. Dunst took the script home and had Jesse read it. Rest is history. His character leaves an impression you don't forget
It was completely improvised. The crew happened to cross paths with Jesse while he was tending to a mass grave, and this is what they caught on camera. The director loved it so much they left it in.
Saw this in the movie theater. I think it was more impactful seeing it through your eyes than the first time. What interested me was the journalist never talk to someone with authority, like a general or civilian leader. It is almost completely from the perspective of people in the thick of it just trying to survive. Very different from a typical war movie.
I hope you guys continued watching through the credits because the end image that is faded starts developing like a photo and then it shows the soldiers posing and smiling with the body of the President. Overall I thought the movie was a decent film for being a smaller budget film from A24 about a $50 million dollar budget which is nothing Compared to these $200 and $300 million dollar budget movies that end up flopping.
Sammy's death with the firey embers falling while Sturgill Simpson's song Breakers Roar was playing, was the most surreal and beautiful filmed scene I've seen in a long, long, time...
I recommend DEVS which is a Alex Garland TV show with Nick Offerman, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson from this. Garland is a savant and needs to make more.
He is remarkably good at playing creepy characters, whether seriously (this or Todd on "Breaking Bad") or for comedy (he is utterly hilarious in "Game Night").
I really hope another civil war doesn’t happen again in America. Yes, it’s had a civil war before a long time ago. I’m stressing really far that it doesn’t happen again. Really good movie 👍🏼 ⭐️ 9 out of 10 ⭐️
It's a good movie but people have to take a step back and recognize that the movie isn't about a civil war, it's a movie about how the media and a certain type of reporters will respond to a civil war. And it's also that we see "war photos" and 1. can't imagine it would happen here (it can) and 2. that these photographers are heroes, but what they're doing is questionable.
Those of you who keep saying the last guy should have said any state missed the part where he shot and killed the first one unprompted. Pretty obvious what he's doing...
Some very tense moments but overall a tad slow and maybe a bit more action would be nice. Its left fairly ambiguous about whats going on but there are clues that the president is tyrannical
The guy was the problem this whole time. He and his friends being wreck less on the road. Not to mention he met her while he was drunk thought she was cute and invited her a long with no experience. He got all his colleagues killed and the only one who lived was him and the random girl he invited to come along. I’m so upset.
My take on the idea of California and Texas making an alliance is that they hope to overthrow current government and then create two new nations. Part of the country annexed by California, the other by Texas.
this movie looks like it might actually happen in real life but on a much higher level especially when the military and civilians are at war, plus the military killing people that are not Americans was horrible on all levels
I think the whole point of that sniper scene with the guy pink nails and blue hair maybe he was playing dress up with his daughter and had to drop everything all of a sudden and go handle business
Also if you think of CA and TX they also have some of the most and biggest Military bases, equipment,guns, choppers, planes. They also have some of the biggest Reserve and National Guard troops. They are also the biggest GDP’s in the country which means they have the money and infrastructure to wage war. It’s really not far fetched once you think about it. It’s called an “alliance” doesn’t mean they aren’t going to govern themselves after taking out the federal government. Plus Florida was against the government too so they were basically screwed.
I like the cinematography but it was a baffling and bizarre choice to try and make a US civil war story apolitical. Alex Garland had an extremely interesting premise, very relevant to current events and he chose to make a generic "war is bad" message the highlight. Obviously war is bad, most people already know war is bad. So you have this awesome concept and he chose not to explore alternative history, not make a statement about the state of the US today and just kinda chickens out on the premise of his own movie. In making the movie apolitical and fairly uncontroversial he made it generic and forgettable. Just my opinion. Love you your reaction as always.
Because the main story is not about the war which is the backdrop of the movie the main story of the movie is the journey of the journalists covering the war.
@@ray24051 Yeah, i got that. What i was saying was that choosing to focus on them was a baffling choice. The plot would have been virtually the same if it were set in South Africa or Iraq. Why create a movie set during a hypothetical 2nd US civil war if you aren't going to explore it or use it to make a point about current politics?
@@FreyaofCerberusThere’s a reason no year is given. Current politics are nowhere close to fostering a real Civil War. The real world isn’t Twitter. Tying that to current politics creates a very narrow film with an underlying message that will forever be stuck to the late 2010s-early 2020s.
@EmperorSanz Whether or not a civil war would or could happen is irrelevant. It's in the zeitgeist, people are talking about it, it's topical. Which is exactly why the director chose it as a setting. As I said you can set a "war is bad" film basically during any conflict. But he chose this because of the current political climate. And I get not wanting to inevitably piss off one side or the other but by saying nothing except war is bad the movie is going to fade from memory real fast. In a few years basically no-one will remember this movie existed.
I actually didn’t get “war is bad” at all. More like “war happens”. It’s traumatic and disturbing but it’s life sometimes. This movie was an artistic thriller first and foremost. War movie second.
Hey dudes, last video was claimed. We've had real bad luck with copyright claims this month jeez.
Thanks for all the support guys!
Like & Subscribe to catch some of your favorite shows and movies with us!
Want more movie reactions? Check out the playlist! 👉th-cam.com/video/UGpnuNng5fk/w-d-xo.html
Link to our Instagram - instagram.com/macreact
react Internal affairs 1990
I think the whole point of making Texas and California the alliance is to prevent the viewer from picking a side based on real-life politics. The movie isn't about who's right and who's wrong, it's a mirror of Lee's goal, to send a message home to not do this here.
Good take. The one I was going for back then was: "If CA and TX formed an alliance, then stuff really had to be *_that_* bad.
Also if you think of CA and TX they also have some of the most and biggest Military bases, equipment,guns, choppers, planes. They also have some of the biggest Reserve and National Guard troops. They are also the biggest GDP’s in the country which means they have the money and infrastructure to wage war. It’s really not far fetched once you think about it. It’s called an “alliance” doesn’t mean they aren’t going to govern themselves after taking out the federal government.
They say in the movie that once they have brought down the President that they’ll just turn on each other. It seems an alliance of temporary convenience.
plus it was supposed to be that the man in the office had transcended politics with his illegal acts.
@laketyson8720 Also, there is no way that troops from virtually every state would fall under a California or Texas banner then go destroy their home states. This movie is just stupid on top of dumb.
Kirsten Dunst is such an underrated actress. Loved her in this.
I actually love the movie, not for it's brutality or visuals, not because it shows a Civil War in the USA. If you watch a war movie it usually shows a Third World country embroiled in a civil war or it's a movie about a former war like Vietnam or WWII. Showing that a civil war with all it's horrors, like suicide bombers, mass graves, destruction of civil property, hyperinflation and rationing in a western democracy makes it so much more heartbreaking and convincing. Showing it from the war journalist point of view rather than civilians or military is also quite powerful, since journalists usually are able to go where normal civilians wouldn't be allowed, and since they are not military they can easily go between the lines since seen neutral or helpfull for both sides for propaganda reasons.
I read and heard a lot of complains were that California and Texas would never align because they are currently on opposing sides of the US political spectrum. It wouldn't be so far catched though ( leaving the obvious, the political side doesn't matter ) first it would mean that whatever the President did enraged both political sides to rather work together then apart and thus forming an alliance. Second, both states have been independent before joing the USA, and third they have quite a big economy on their own, are able to sustain a war and a lot of military bases with a lot of equipment for their own use.
Jesse Plemons steals the movie with just his sequence and he wasn't even supposed to be in it; it was just a case of the role suddenly becoming available and Kirsten Dunst going, "No worries, I'll just ask my husband." (Frankly, given their track record together, them being an acting package deal works just fine.)
Fun fact: Jesse Plemmons was not in the original, he was cast on a whim after the original couldn't shoot for one reason or another. Dunst took the script home and had Jesse read it. Rest is history. His character leaves an impression you don't forget
Also he picked the sunglasses.
It was completely improvised. The crew happened to cross paths with Jesse while he was tending to a mass grave, and this is what they caught on camera. The director loved it so much they left it in.
I bought a set of the sunglasses, in case of future need. His character talked too much, if you are going to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
Saw this in the movie theater. I think it was more impactful seeing it through your eyes than the first time.
What interested me was the journalist never talk to someone with authority, like a general or civilian leader. It is almost completely from the perspective of people in the thick of it just trying to survive. Very different from a typical war movie.
I hope you guys continued watching through the credits because the end image that is faded starts developing like a photo and then it shows the soldiers posing and smiling with the body of the President. Overall I thought the movie was a decent film for being a smaller budget film from A24 about a $50 million dollar budget which is nothing Compared to these $200 and $300 million dollar budget movies that end up flopping.
Sammy's death with the firey embers falling while Sturgill Simpson's song Breakers Roar was playing, was the most surreal and beautiful filmed scene I've seen in a long, long, time...
I recommend DEVS which is a Alex Garland TV show with Nick Offerman, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson from this.
Garland is a savant and needs to make more.
Don’t forget Sonoya Mizuno. She played the independent reporter with her cameraman, and the main character in Devs.
Jesse Plemons was perfect in that role!
chilling
He is remarkably good at playing creepy characters, whether seriously (this or Todd on "Breaking Bad") or for comedy (he is utterly hilarious in "Game Night").
I went to this movie completely blind and i gotta say its one of my fav this year
I really hope another civil war doesn’t happen again in America. Yes, it’s had a civil war before a long time ago. I’m stressing really far that it doesn’t happen again. Really good movie 👍🏼
⭐️ 9 out of 10 ⭐️
It's a good movie but people have to take a step back and recognize that the movie isn't about a civil war, it's a movie about how the media and a certain type of reporters will respond to a civil war. And it's also that we see "war photos" and 1. can't imagine it would happen here (it can) and 2. that these photographers are heroes, but what they're doing is questionable.
I remember this movie came out on my birthday and finding out later, the real civil war started on April 12 1861
ps- the press vests are able to stop a 9mm round but 5.56....different story
One of the best movies of the year so far, such an intense experience in the theater
Texas and California not just their military, but they have import shipping and have a way to be self-sustaining, food, fuel, electricity...
Hey Jessie, we need you to play a psychopath for the 2547th time. "Okeydokey"
Those of you who keep saying the last guy should have said any state missed the part where he shot and killed the first one unprompted. Pretty obvious what he's doing...
29:00 That girl wearing the glasses is Mysaria from House Of The Dragon! I'm surprised you guys didn't catch that😆
Great Cinematography & visual works especailly the drive through the woods on fire😢
Some very tense moments but overall a tad slow and maybe a bit more action would be nice. Its left fairly ambiguous about whats going on but there are clues that the president is tyrannical
The guy was the problem this whole time. He and his friends being wreck less on the road. Not to mention he met her while he was drunk thought she was cute and invited her a long with no experience. He got all his colleagues killed and the only one who lived was him and the random girl he invited to come along. I’m so upset.
My take on the idea of California and Texas making an alliance is that they hope to overthrow current government and then create two new nations. Part of the country annexed by California, the other by Texas.
LoL, "...most J.C. Penney's look like that anyway."
You have a JC Penney where you live? I thought they all went the way of the dodo.
Am I bad dude if I was rooting for the Western Forces just because I'm from California?
this movie looks like it might actually happen in real life but on a much higher level especially when the military and civilians are at war, plus the military killing people that are not Americans was horrible on all levels
Best movie of 2024 bar none...
I think the whole point of that sniper scene with the guy pink nails and blue hair maybe he was playing dress up with his daughter and had to drop everything all of a sudden and go handle business
I love this film.
Thought this was a pretty good and interesting movie over all. The ending wasn't the greatest for me with how it played out.
Please react to Rush hour 1,2 and 3 starring Jackie Chan and Chris tucker. Great Great movies
Also if you think of CA and TX they also have some of the most and biggest Military bases, equipment,guns, choppers, planes. They also have some of the biggest Reserve and National Guard troops. They are also the biggest GDP’s in the country which means they have the money and infrastructure to wage war. It’s really not far fetched once you think about it. It’s called an “alliance” doesn’t mean they aren’t going to govern themselves after taking out the federal government. Plus Florida was against the government too so they were basically screwed.
Did not like this movie, did not make sense.
25:20
😂 ...this is you that's why! lol
You must quite challenged intellectually.
I like the cinematography but it was a baffling and bizarre choice to try and make a US civil war story apolitical. Alex Garland had an extremely interesting premise, very relevant to current events and he chose to make a generic "war is bad" message the highlight. Obviously war is bad, most people already know war is bad. So you have this awesome concept and he chose not to explore alternative history, not make a statement about the state of the US today and just kinda chickens out on the premise of his own movie. In making the movie apolitical and fairly uncontroversial he made it generic and forgettable. Just my opinion. Love you your reaction as always.
Because the main story is not about the war which is the backdrop of the movie the main story of the movie is the journey of the journalists covering the war.
@@ray24051 Yeah, i got that. What i was saying was that choosing to focus on them was a baffling choice. The plot would have been virtually the same if it were set in South Africa or Iraq. Why create a movie set during a hypothetical 2nd US civil war if you aren't going to explore it or use it to make a point about current politics?
@@FreyaofCerberusThere’s a reason no year is given. Current politics are nowhere close to fostering a real Civil War. The real world isn’t Twitter. Tying that to current politics creates a very narrow film with an underlying message that will forever be stuck to the late 2010s-early 2020s.
@EmperorSanz Whether or not a civil war would or could happen is irrelevant. It's in the zeitgeist, people are talking about it, it's topical. Which is exactly why the director chose it as a setting. As I said you can set a "war is bad" film basically during any conflict. But he chose this because of the current political climate. And I get not wanting to inevitably piss off one side or the other but by saying nothing except war is bad the movie is going to fade from memory real fast. In a few years basically no-one will remember this movie existed.
I actually didn’t get “war is bad” at all. More like “war happens”. It’s traumatic and disturbing but it’s life sometimes. This movie was an artistic thriller first and foremost. War movie second.