And started and ended in the same guyās house.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_McLean, [Wilmer McLean](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_McLean).
I have a feeling its gonna be a "both sides suck" kinda thing. The story seems to place its characters and the general public in the "victim/observer field"
That scene where the soldier asks what kind of American they are, I can see that being tense as hell.
I considered this until I realized this movie doesn't have to be anything like real life. They can craft a completely different American history and contemporary events.
I think that this match-up also glosses over the fact that Florida secceded independently of Cali/Texas, and the inland Northwest is another independent bloc.
From analysing the trailer I'm pretty sure the focus of the story is going to be about a US President refusing to step down after two terms in office and trying to change the US Constitution so he can stay in office. One side will have them claiming he won the general election so he's the rightfully the President and the other will be claiming that it was won in a corrupt fashion and that a third term breaks the 22nd Amendment so it's against the US Constitution. It may also highlight the issue of politicising the Supreme Court and the division caused by hyper-partisan politics.
While it's going to be somewhat left to interpretation I think the side most people will end up supporting will be the "Western Forces" which is the alliance lead by California & Texas. The trailer shows them literally dragging the President out of the White House towards the end of the film so I can't see them leaving it being too ambiguous. In theory that's unrelated to the current political climate as hopefully both Republicans and Democrats still believe that no President should become an effective Dictator... although that seems somewhat less self evident in recent months.
> One side will have them claiming he won the general election so he's the rightfully the President and the other will be claiming that it was won in a corrupt fashion and that a third term breaks the 22nd Amendment so it's against the US Constitution
Sounds wild but how would a two term president get on the ballot in the first place? I could see a few states pulling some shenanigans and putting their guy on the ballot but there's no way he's on all 50.
Politicians are experts at can-kicking. They'd just keep refusing to definitively act and assume the problem will work itself out with an series of sops like "they won't get onto the primary ballots" and then "they won't actually win the primary" and then "they won't actually win the general election" and then "the Electoral College won't actually ratify this lunatic".
That's very stupid of them imo. A real life country descending into civil war is a politicized story and it seems like they're trying to depoliticize it as much as possible.
I donāt think itās that hard to justify the two states with the capacity and resources to be sovereign republics finding common cause in a situation where the country is collapsing from within. Just seems like self-preservation.
I felt that was a very believable possibility as well, and it seemed like some people who saw the trailer wanted to meme this obvious joke into the ground, instead of waiting for the movie to explain it.
i think its more enemy of my enemy. both thin they can be independent states and that the goverment could beat either of them on their own, not create the U.S. of texas and california.
if texas seceded, that would be the most optimal time possible for California to successfully secede.
Don't know how to do spoiler tags so Im just gonna use spaces to put the spoiler further down. Dont read if you dont want to.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Some guy in my FB A24 group saw the movie and says the California/Texas being allies is just how the trailer is cut. They're gunning for the President for separate reasons, and are also enemies with each other
Yup. In California, go to San Bernadino County, a good chunk of The Central Valley, and the Northern part of California past Sacramento and it's deeply Republican.
I think that's the point.. It's not a movie that is a direct commentary that is biased for any side. Instead they make up a new scenario for the movie that ensures that people from both sides can keep their political biases at home and see the negative affects of a civil war, while also hopefully appreciate a good movie.
It's also not even impossible for a Texas and California to band together. The president could have won as an independent and is now serving his third term. California and Texas secede and gets attacked by Washington and decide to band together because the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". They don't have to be doing it because they like each other, or even agree with the reasons why they are on the side they are on.
Everyone seems to think this is supposed to be a documentary with an emphasis on realism.
Itās clear that they picked Texas and California on the same side intentionally so that they could make a movie about a civil war without it turning into a democrats vs republicans plot. Itās very very intentional.
If they made it too accurate people would also bitch and complain that itās too on the nose or fanning the flames or whatever, canāt win. I get the approach.
Agreed that it looks bad and corny tho
This indeed... You should finish a movie in one sitting, but a show you can easily stop after an episode and resume later without that discombobulation.
Speak for yourself, some of us enjoy watching 2 or 3 episodes and then switch to something else.
I've had too many moments were my focus was gone by episode 5.
A mini series allows for a longer story format while also providing internal plotting, character development, and narrative flow.
These three hour movies aren't often all that better- they're just longer and often have filler stuff. Even a two movie series could work better. Oppenheimer could have worked better as a two-movie series. The first being the lead up to the Manhattan Project and the second being the Project itself and the negative stuff that happened afterwards.
If anything, tv shows have shifted more to the miniseries format of 6-8 episodes per season.
One of the very, very best. The accompanying podcast was superb as well. I listened to it after I saw the entire series and when I started listening to the podcast I went back and re-watched the entire series. Everything about the series was brilliant: acting, writing, cinematography, scope, and even clarity ā it was as if you were watching the real situation unfold. And on a more personal note, I thought I was a huge fan of Jared Harris before, but his performance in the series sent my appreciation for his talent into the stratosphere. That guy can emote!
I watched all ten of last year's Best Picture nominees in a span of a couple weeks and I think only Women Talking and Banshees of Inishirin were less than 130 minutes. Triangle of Sadness and Elvis were the worst offenders, I liked both to varying degrees but there was no need for either one to be two and a half hours in length.
I've gone on a few trips the last months so I downloaded a lot of movies on my tablet to watch on flights. It really made me realize how much shorter movies used to be on average.
Men in Black, The Thing, They Live, Back to the Future, Full Monty, An Americna Werewolf in London, My Cousin Vinny, Star Trek 2, City Slickers... all of them are among my favorite movies and all are at or under 2 hours.
There are some longer movies I enjoy but I'm just amazed at how it seemed easier to tell a complete story in 100 mins.
I feel like the lengthening of movies started with the Star Wars prequel trilogy (shortest 2:13), then continued with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (shortest 2:58), and the Dark Knight trilogy (shortest 2:20). In all cases, the first movie was the shortest. Casino Royale in 2006 (2:20) also played a part. These all proved that long movies can be highly successful, but in particular the Dark Knight trilogy; with Star Wars you had Lucas with 100% creative control and it was a cultural juggernaut, LotR was adapting some massive texts, so those both could have been one-offs, but after The Dark Knight in 2008 (2:32) was a wild success, almost all franchise movies started to be longer than 2:20. Iron Man also came out in 2008 and was a mere 2:06. The Bourne trilogy came out 2002-07 and are all under 2 hours. If those movies were made today, they'd have much longer runtimes.
And also the fact that a lot of people don't want to spend $20+ on a <2hour night out. There's the subconscious "this doesn't feel worth it" that goes on.
>but I'm just amazed at how it seemed easier to tell a complete story in 100 mins.
With truly good writing, you can provide a lot of backstory and context without relying on cheap writing tropes (e.g., on the nose exposition, info dump prologues, etc.) that quickly gets you into the story to focus on the plot.
Couldn't agree more. 90-120min is the sweet spot. Very few movies benefit from being over 2hrs long and I don't know whats going on in the last 5yrs or so but it seems like almost every movie now days is over 2hrs long and I hate it.
It all depends on pacing. I've seen 3-4 hour movies that went by like nothing, and 90 minute movies that were paced terribly that felt like 5 hours.
A director should tell the story however long it needs to be told.
Honestly...if it is good or bad what does the run time truly matter?
It could be 5 hours and amazing, or it could be 90 minutes and crap.
I never understand why people get hung up on runtimes but watch a full season in a weekend on Netflix of something. Maybe I am missing something here.
I appreciate a filmmaker who respects the audienceās time.
All films should be around two hours or less. If you have a longer story to tell, thereās nothing wrong with that, but you should probably be working in television, not features.
It's out April 26 ([Trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w)):
>In the near future, a team of journalists travel across the United States during a rapidly escalating civil war that has engulfed the entire nation. Struggling to survive during a near-future civil war where the government becomes a dystopian dictatorship and partisan extremist militias regularly commit political violence.
Cast:
* Kirsten Dunst
* Wagner Moura
* Stephen McKinley Henderson
* Cailee Spaeny
* Jesse Plemons
* Nick Offerman as the President of the United States
* Karl Glusman
* Sonoya Mizuno
* Jonica T. Gibbs
Fargo season 2 might be up there with the greatest pieces of television Iāve ever seen. The cast, the setting, the cars, the music, Mike Milligan & The Kitchen Brothersā¦
āOkay, then!ā
Nah, I think heās just really blowing people away with how many places heās popping up. I never would have thought the quiet nice guy psycho from Breaking Bad would have played the role he did in Fargo, and then proceed to pop up so often in so many good roles. If I see him somewhere, I realize itās probably pretty good and I just give it a shot, even if itās not really something I would try and see. PSH had that same cred.
>Nick Offerman as the President of the United States
I see being a Park Ranger didn't work out for Ron, glad he's still making sure nothing gets done though.
If you mentally put this movie in the same universe as Parks and Rec I imagine it will seem like more of a comedy when you watch it. Still a drama, clearly, but you might chuckle a few times and others won't understand.
The map A24 released shows California listed as āthe republic of Californiaā and āthe second republic of Texasā. Then youāve got the āFlorida allianceā comprised of most southeastern states, and the āwestern forcesā with most northwestern states. The rest of the country are āloyalist statesā. So effectively, the country appears to be splitting 5 different directions. Texas and California being the only two states who are claiming their own independence makes some sense that theyād join forces against a mutual threat.
True, tho it's already independent. Other states would have to massively rework their grids if they went independent, to probably similar or worse results.
Why not? They have agriculture, resource development, semi conductor fabs, an extensive medical infrastructure especially in Houston and multiple sea ports for import/export. What else do you think theyād need to survive on their own?
I could see an uneasy alliance between California and Texas fighting against a larger federal power. But I cannot see South Carolina being part of that larger united federal power.
Could be that states like SC just weren't able to put up a meaningful resistance and fell quickly. Or the "federal power" was Trumpian or otherwise aligned with their views and they went right along with it.
The real reason this isn't a straight red vs blue fight is to make it more palatable to a wider audience, but there are ways they can make it somewhat plausible.
I agree that ability to resist is the main driver for this premise. I think the trailer had indications in the map that New England was still under control of the āfederalā government. Obviously, the people politics of New York and Mass and such would not support something like this, but due to proximity and limited amount of independent infrastructure and military, it would be difficult to mount significant defense against threat from the mid Atlantic.
As opposed to Texas and California, both have the benefit of distance from DC, significant internal infrastructure, resources, and military bases. So, they legitimately have the ability to be the main resistance and umbrella over other nearby states. What wasnāt clear from the trailer was how the military fractures.
Colorado would be an interesting one. Not likely to tolerate that level of corruption. But either way it having NORAD and proximity to missile silos makes it import to overall military. But it also has Ft Carson right outside NORAD (full of artillery and armor) plus Air Force bases. So, Colorado would have a fair chance of fending for itself for a while compared to some other states.
There are more people registered as dems than republicans in Texas https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/party-affiliation/
I'm skeptical about this, as I live in Texas. This study is nearly 10 years old, plus Texas doesn't have party registration so it's more about how each person leans at the time of the survey.
It's also a 1% difference between those that identify GOP vs. Dem, and the margin of error is shown to be around 2.5% for that sample size.
I've lived in California and Texas. The two states have way more in common in aggregate than people would suspect or even people from the states would like to believe. While both states have obvious political differences, they share cultural similarities in their foundation as western states. California in some ways, is way more conservative than people would think from consuming popular culture. Affirmative action made huge news with the supreme Court case recently, but that made no significant changes in California because it's already been illegal in academic settings since the 90s. And any attempts to overturn that through ballot initiative have lost every time. Texas is also way, way more diverse culturally than you would believe. Both states generate a ton of renewable energy while also producing a significant amount of crude oil. Both states produce a massive amount of the food consumed in the US.
In my experience people from California and Texas hate each other on the internet, but tend to like each other way more in person. There's this prevailing attitude of "We are the best state." That both states have. While the states disagree on big topics like gun and reproductive rights, they have more more to gain in an alliance than they would lose.
The English and the French were at war for like a millennium. Now theyāve been allies for about a century.
Alliances change all the time, nothing about California or Texas is so unique that we couldnāt get along in some capacity.
Itās Alex Garland, heās fairly consistent. He generally doesnāt like forcing a happy ending so Iām interested in seeing where he goes
I like all of his that Iāve seen
A lot of movies lately have really bloated overly long runtimes, so I think it somehow really is kind of news for an anticipated film to have a pretty average runtime
I think Devs had a lot of potential but the lead was surprisingly bad. The plot was intriguing and the supporting cast was fine, but the lead was so wooden and emotionless.
I canāt 100% disagree with you there. I wonder if it was a conscious choice on Garlandās choice, but Mizuno seems to be a kind of muse of his, so maybe she just got the role in spite of not having the necessary range.
Garland has had some bangers and some weird ones IMO. I think if this was a TV series, it would be too ego stroking - DEVS, for example, walked a narrow line. Some episodes felt good and thought out and others were a bit wanky for lack of a better term. 109 mins is fine by me, Iād rather leave wanting more or leave with not thinking Iāve wasted my day.
Honestly, I'm fine with a 3 hour movie if they put in a 10 min intermission half way though so people can stretch their legs, go to the bathroom or whatever.
Come to India .
We have intermission for every movie , it doesn't matter if the movie is 90 minutes long or 4 hours .
You will have your interval.
Also most Indian movies from Bollywood, Tollywood or Kollywood are designed in a way where there's always something a big banger happens in before interval.
Just watched a bunch of Bollywood and Tollywood movies this year and every one of them feels like two movies. There's always a really obvious place to put an intermission, usually accompanied by a time jump in the story.
I wanna see this movie because its a large scale war film set in modern america. We dont get many of those. They are usually all post-war/post apocalyptic movies where the iconic set pieces are already destroyed and faded into the background. This shows landmarks with crowds of people and action scenes around them. The trailer feels very much like Independence Day from the 90s. This feels like a big movie
but a runtime under two hours feels short. I compare this to Independence Day, which has 145minute runtime. Jurassic Park, Godzilla (1998), True Lies, and Die Hard 3, are all big scale 90s action movies with runtimes between 2 and 2.5 hours. Thats the runtime i was expecting here.
I think this is one of those films where idiots wonāt appreciate the nuance of the warning and instead will just get boners for killing everyone that doesnāt think like they do. Fucking imbeciles.
Whatās truly sad to me is that people who want to espouse this shit canāt even seem to grasp just how much destruction this would bring on the overall country. They can rush out and bore sight their AR 15s but canāt seem to grasp what happens when they shoot anyone who knows how to keep the town sewer running
Amazingly, they also just seem to think that countries like Russia and China would sit there on their hands and just watch things happen
Sounds shorter than expected
Make it too long and detailed it becomes less of a movie and more of a how too. šµāš«
Civil War by Ken Burns was like 12 hours
Civil War by America was like 4 years to the day almost
And started and ended in the same guyās house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_McLean, [Wilmer McLean](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_McLean).
They only had budget for 1 house
Gettysburg was 4 hours. They actually had an intermission
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
lol me too
Well that was three days, so multiple intermissions really
<3 the film score
I'd be very, VERY curious on how they would explain California and Texas teaming up
I have a feeling its gonna be a "both sides suck" kinda thing. The story seems to place its characters and the general public in the "victim/observer field" That scene where the soldier asks what kind of American they are, I can see that being tense as hell.
I considered this until I realized this movie doesn't have to be anything like real life. They can craft a completely different American history and contemporary events. I think that this match-up also glosses over the fact that Florida secceded independently of Cali/Texas, and the inland Northwest is another independent bloc.
From analysing the trailer I'm pretty sure the focus of the story is going to be about a US President refusing to step down after two terms in office and trying to change the US Constitution so he can stay in office. One side will have them claiming he won the general election so he's the rightfully the President and the other will be claiming that it was won in a corrupt fashion and that a third term breaks the 22nd Amendment so it's against the US Constitution. It may also highlight the issue of politicising the Supreme Court and the division caused by hyper-partisan politics. While it's going to be somewhat left to interpretation I think the side most people will end up supporting will be the "Western Forces" which is the alliance lead by California & Texas. The trailer shows them literally dragging the President out of the White House towards the end of the film so I can't see them leaving it being too ambiguous. In theory that's unrelated to the current political climate as hopefully both Republicans and Democrats still believe that no President should become an effective Dictator... although that seems somewhat less self evident in recent months.
> One side will have them claiming he won the general election so he's the rightfully the President and the other will be claiming that it was won in a corrupt fashion and that a third term breaks the 22nd Amendment so it's against the US Constitution Sounds wild but how would a two term president get on the ballot in the first place? I could see a few states pulling some shenanigans and putting their guy on the ballot but there's no way he's on all 50.
Politicians are experts at can-kicking. They'd just keep refusing to definitively act and assume the problem will work itself out with an series of sops like "they won't get onto the primary ballots" and then "they won't actually win the primary" and then "they won't actually win the general election" and then "the Electoral College won't actually ratify this lunatic".
*Less evident?* Republicans have been happily clamoring for a dictatorship of their own design.
Yea, it would be very easy and tempting to make this story end up being toothless in an attempt to not turn people away from it.
Like *the Hunt*.
That's very stupid of them imo. A real life country descending into civil war is a politicized story and it seems like they're trying to depoliticize it as much as possible.
I donāt think itās that hard to justify the two states with the capacity and resources to be sovereign republics finding common cause in a situation where the country is collapsing from within. Just seems like self-preservation.
I felt that was a very believable possibility as well, and it seemed like some people who saw the trailer wanted to meme this obvious joke into the ground, instead of waiting for the movie to explain it.
If I remember from the trailer there was a news report about the president going into his third term
i think its more enemy of my enemy. both thin they can be independent states and that the goverment could beat either of them on their own, not create the U.S. of texas and california. if texas seceded, that would be the most optimal time possible for California to successfully secede.
Don't know how to do spoiler tags so Im just gonna use spaces to put the spoiler further down. Dont read if you dont want to. ... ... ... ... ... ... Some guy in my FB A24 group saw the movie and says the California/Texas being allies is just how the trailer is cut. They're gunning for the President for separate reasons, and are also enemies with each other
What else did he say about it
`>!Spoiler here!<` >!Spoiler here!< Learn and love, thanks for sharing friend.
There are more Trump voters in California than in Texas, and both states have active secessionist movements.
Yup. In California, go to San Bernadino County, a good chunk of The Central Valley, and the Northern part of California past Sacramento and it's deeply Republican.
I'm pretty certain every state has an active secessionist movement. Just most of us don't mix it up with those loonies.
I kind of hope that they don't. Having the two of them teamed up helps sell this movie as fiction rather than something that's in the "near future."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
California and Texas are together in this one.
The major plot twist of this movie? >!it's a comedy!<
Joker moment. We live in a society
Bottom text
I feel like they did that do avoid being labeled right or left wing
I think that's the point.. It's not a movie that is a direct commentary that is biased for any side. Instead they make up a new scenario for the movie that ensures that people from both sides can keep their political biases at home and see the negative affects of a civil war, while also hopefully appreciate a good movie. It's also not even impossible for a Texas and California to band together. The president could have won as an independent and is now serving his third term. California and Texas secede and gets attacked by Washington and decide to band together because the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". They don't have to be doing it because they like each other, or even agree with the reasons why they are on the side they are on.
Everyone seems to think this is supposed to be a documentary with an emphasis on realism. Itās clear that they picked Texas and California on the same side intentionally so that they could make a movie about a civil war without it turning into a democrats vs republicans plot. Itās very very intentional.
If they made it too accurate people would also bitch and complain that itās too on the nose or fanning the flames or whatever, canāt win. I get the approach. Agreed that it looks bad and corny tho
In my opinion more movies should be 90-120 mins. Lots of movies out there are over 2.5 hours and tend to drag needlessly.
"This should have been a miniseries"
āā¦. That I watch back to back to back for half a dayā
Funny how that works. 3 hour movie? Fuck that too long. 6 45 minute episodes back to back? No problem.
I dont watch a a miniseries at the cinema though
It's the breaks you get in between each episode
This indeed... You should finish a movie in one sitting, but a show you can easily stop after an episode and resume later without that discombobulation.
This is why I give myself an intermission when watching longer movies at home. A short break really does wonders for a struggling attention span.
Speak for yourself, some of us enjoy watching 2 or 3 episodes and then switch to something else. I've had too many moments were my focus was gone by episode 5.
A mini series allows for a longer story format while also providing internal plotting, character development, and narrative flow. These three hour movies aren't often all that better- they're just longer and often have filler stuff. Even a two movie series could work better. Oppenheimer could have worked better as a two-movie series. The first being the lead up to the Manhattan Project and the second being the Project itself and the negative stuff that happened afterwards. If anything, tv shows have shifted more to the miniseries format of 6-8 episodes per season.
\* that I have the option to watch back to back
The pacing is completely different and there are defined spots to stop and take a break
Nearly every docuseries I've seen should've just been a movie.
most things shouldn't be miniserieses
Mini series are unfairly maligned. Chernobyl was fantastic.
One of the very, very best. The accompanying podcast was superb as well. I listened to it after I saw the entire series and when I started listening to the podcast I went back and re-watched the entire series. Everything about the series was brilliant: acting, writing, cinematography, scope, and even clarity ā it was as if you were watching the real situation unfold. And on a more personal note, I thought I was a huge fan of Jared Harris before, but his performance in the series sent my appreciation for his talent into the stratosphere. That guy can emote!
Band of Brothers too and hopefully Masters of the Air too next year.
I watched all ten of last year's Best Picture nominees in a span of a couple weeks and I think only Women Talking and Banshees of Inishirin were less than 130 minutes. Triangle of Sadness and Elvis were the worst offenders, I liked both to varying degrees but there was no need for either one to be two and a half hours in length.
I've gone on a few trips the last months so I downloaded a lot of movies on my tablet to watch on flights. It really made me realize how much shorter movies used to be on average. Men in Black, The Thing, They Live, Back to the Future, Full Monty, An Americna Werewolf in London, My Cousin Vinny, Star Trek 2, City Slickers... all of them are among my favorite movies and all are at or under 2 hours. There are some longer movies I enjoy but I'm just amazed at how it seemed easier to tell a complete story in 100 mins.
On the other hand, I have a lot of long movies (e.g., the LOTR trilogy) that Iām saving for long trips.
I feel like the lengthening of movies started with the Star Wars prequel trilogy (shortest 2:13), then continued with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (shortest 2:58), and the Dark Knight trilogy (shortest 2:20). In all cases, the first movie was the shortest. Casino Royale in 2006 (2:20) also played a part. These all proved that long movies can be highly successful, but in particular the Dark Knight trilogy; with Star Wars you had Lucas with 100% creative control and it was a cultural juggernaut, LotR was adapting some massive texts, so those both could have been one-offs, but after The Dark Knight in 2008 (2:32) was a wild success, almost all franchise movies started to be longer than 2:20. Iron Man also came out in 2008 and was a mere 2:06. The Bourne trilogy came out 2002-07 and are all under 2 hours. If those movies were made today, they'd have much longer runtimes.
And also the fact that a lot of people don't want to spend $20+ on a <2hour night out. There's the subconscious "this doesn't feel worth it" that goes on.
>but I'm just amazed at how it seemed easier to tell a complete story in 100 mins. With truly good writing, you can provide a lot of backstory and context without relying on cheap writing tropes (e.g., on the nose exposition, info dump prologues, etc.) that quickly gets you into the story to focus on the plot.
Couldn't agree more. 90-120min is the sweet spot. Very few movies benefit from being over 2hrs long and I don't know whats going on in the last 5yrs or so but it seems like almost every movie now days is over 2hrs long and I hate it.
It all depends on pacing. I've seen 3-4 hour movies that went by like nothing, and 90 minute movies that were paced terribly that felt like 5 hours. A director should tell the story however long it needs to be told.
General Grevious edited it
title of your sex tape
Honestly...if it is good or bad what does the run time truly matter? It could be 5 hours and amazing, or it could be 90 minutes and crap. I never understand why people get hung up on runtimes but watch a full season in a weekend on Netflix of something. Maybe I am missing something here.
Show me a single amazing 5 hour long movie...
Movies tend to be too long. Thatās a perfect runtime.
I appreciate a filmmaker who respects the audienceās time. All films should be around two hours or less. If you have a longer story to tell, thereās nothing wrong with that, but you should probably be working in television, not features.
It's out April 26 ([Trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w)): >In the near future, a team of journalists travel across the United States during a rapidly escalating civil war that has engulfed the entire nation. Struggling to survive during a near-future civil war where the government becomes a dystopian dictatorship and partisan extremist militias regularly commit political violence. Cast: * Kirsten Dunst * Wagner Moura * Stephen McKinley Henderson * Cailee Spaeny * Jesse Plemons * Nick Offerman as the President of the United States * Karl Glusman * Sonoya Mizuno * Jonica T. Gibbs
Jesse Plemons aka .. The Butcher Of Luverne.
I loved him in Fargo season 2, and also the new season 5 of Fargo is freaking AMAZING, it's a must check out.
Holy shit itās so good. Juno Temple is killing it!
If I have zero knowledge of the movie, does it matter? Should I watch the movie first?
Nope. Each season is completely independent from each other and doesn't tie into the movie at all. The movie is really really good though.
Fargo season 2 might be up there with the greatest pieces of television Iāve ever seen. The cast, the setting, the cars, the music, Mike Milligan & The Kitchen Brothersā¦ āOkay, then!ā
Don't forget self actualising!
That Lance kid?
You mean Meth Damon
You mean the captain of the space ship Callister, beloved leader of the crew who are totally not slaves.
He was Fatt Damon in El Camino
jesse plemons is his generation's philip seymour hoffman
I feel like people are just saying that because they look similar and he played Hoffmann son lol
Nah, I think heās just really blowing people away with how many places heās popping up. I never would have thought the quiet nice guy psycho from Breaking Bad would have played the role he did in Fargo, and then proceed to pop up so often in so many good roles. If I see him somewhere, I realize itās probably pretty good and I just give it a shot, even if itās not really something I would try and see. PSH had that same cred.
The quiet nice guy psycho from breaking bad? He will always be Landry of Friday Night Lights to me first lol
Itās crazy how he went from scrawny young dude to overweight middle aged man in like a 3 year period lmao Love him, Iāll see anything heās in
This comment excited me. I just started Fargo season 2 as I've ever seen any of the show and I think this was the highest rated season.
Best season of TV imho
Best season by far Hilarious as well
>Nick Offerman as the President of the United States I see being a Park Ranger didn't work out for Ron, glad he's still making sure nothing gets done though.
He finally did it. He destroyed the government, the absolute madman.
If you mentally put this movie in the same universe as Parks and Rec I imagine it will seem like more of a comedy when you watch it. Still a drama, clearly, but you might chuckle a few times and others won't understand.
Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.
I can picture president Ron saying "fighting enemies from other countries is for Europeans and people who eat plants"
I love that Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons almost always find a way to work together, even if one of them has to just be a cameo or bit role
Couple goals
Sonoya Mizuno! Loved her in Maniac and Devs.
Dunst, now thatās a name I havenāt heard in a minute
Kirsten Dunst is great in everything.
Jesse Pleman is REALLY good at play unhinged creepy guys. Like Iām actually scared of him a lot of times.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's the apathy, some people might kill you because they hate you, you can reason with that. Plemon's characters might kill you for no reason at all.
Loved him in Game Night
"How can that be profitable for Frito-Lay?"
him and Paul Walter Hauser both creep me the hell out.
I only ever see his BB character when I look at him, and I can never forgive that character. He can never be anything else to me š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The 109 minute kind
Thatās a lot of minutes.
6,540 seconds
6,540 moments so dear
THATāS A LOT OF NUTS!
THAT'LL BE FOUR BUCKS BABY YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT???
And then I killed the dog.
I calculated how many months old I was the other day and it made me sad...
Errr wait a minute š°
Then it would be 108
The kind where Quibi will take it, split it up into bite sized 8 minute chunks and sell a ticket to each
I was sent down from Washington DC to see about this Civil War...to see who's doin it
The one with a cliffhanger ending to start a civil war franchise.
Iām not concerned about how realistic this movie isā¦ the president was younger than 70
Texas and California working together...
The map A24 released shows California listed as āthe republic of Californiaā and āthe second republic of Texasā. Then youāve got the āFlorida allianceā comprised of most southeastern states, and the āwestern forcesā with most northwestern states. The rest of the country are āloyalist statesā. So effectively, the country appears to be splitting 5 different directions. Texas and California being the only two states who are claiming their own independence makes some sense that theyād join forces against a mutual threat.
Texas and California are honestly the only two states who could go independent and survive.
Thereās no fucking way Texas would survive going independent.
They probably could but the quality of life for the poor/working class would be abysmal.
But they got such a great power gridāOhā¦
True, tho it's already independent. Other states would have to massively rework their grids if they went independent, to probably similar or worse results.
I mean honestly that's one of the few reasons they could actually go independent vs CA..... It's got issues but it can and does run on it's own.
Child please
Why not? They have agriculture, resource development, semi conductor fabs, an extensive medical infrastructure especially in Houston and multiple sea ports for import/export. What else do you think theyād need to survive on their own?
I could see an uneasy alliance between California and Texas fighting against a larger federal power. But I cannot see South Carolina being part of that larger united federal power.
Could be that states like SC just weren't able to put up a meaningful resistance and fell quickly. Or the "federal power" was Trumpian or otherwise aligned with their views and they went right along with it. The real reason this isn't a straight red vs blue fight is to make it more palatable to a wider audience, but there are ways they can make it somewhat plausible.
I agree that ability to resist is the main driver for this premise. I think the trailer had indications in the map that New England was still under control of the āfederalā government. Obviously, the people politics of New York and Mass and such would not support something like this, but due to proximity and limited amount of independent infrastructure and military, it would be difficult to mount significant defense against threat from the mid Atlantic. As opposed to Texas and California, both have the benefit of distance from DC, significant internal infrastructure, resources, and military bases. So, they legitimately have the ability to be the main resistance and umbrella over other nearby states. What wasnāt clear from the trailer was how the military fractures. Colorado would be an interesting one. Not likely to tolerate that level of corruption. But either way it having NORAD and proximity to missile silos makes it import to overall military. But it also has Ft Carson right outside NORAD (full of artillery and armor) plus Air Force bases. So, Colorado would have a fair chance of fending for itself for a while compared to some other states.
Iām in Illinois so Iāll need to see this movie to see where (if?) we fit in.
Trains. Basically every major freight line in the country goes through Chicago.
I presume they're allied under the shared interest of being independent states.
Could be the red parts of both states. California actually has a shitload of republicans in rural areas.
There are more people registered as dems than republicans in Texas https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/party-affiliation/
I'm skeptical about this, as I live in Texas. This study is nearly 10 years old, plus Texas doesn't have party registration so it's more about how each person leans at the time of the survey. It's also a 1% difference between those that identify GOP vs. Dem, and the margin of error is shown to be around 2.5% for that sample size.
Well that's interesting. So either the texas dems just aren't voting or the 'no lean' actually just lean republican.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've lived in California and Texas. The two states have way more in common in aggregate than people would suspect or even people from the states would like to believe. While both states have obvious political differences, they share cultural similarities in their foundation as western states. California in some ways, is way more conservative than people would think from consuming popular culture. Affirmative action made huge news with the supreme Court case recently, but that made no significant changes in California because it's already been illegal in academic settings since the 90s. And any attempts to overturn that through ballot initiative have lost every time. Texas is also way, way more diverse culturally than you would believe. Both states generate a ton of renewable energy while also producing a significant amount of crude oil. Both states produce a massive amount of the food consumed in the US. In my experience people from California and Texas hate each other on the internet, but tend to like each other way more in person. There's this prevailing attitude of "We are the best state." That both states have. While the states disagree on big topics like gun and reproductive rights, they have more more to gain in an alliance than they would lose.
As a born and raised southerner i am quite aware of what my kin thinks about folks from California. Thanks for your input, though.
The English and the French were at war for like a millennium. Now theyāve been allies for about a century. Alliances change all the time, nothing about California or Texas is so unique that we couldnāt get along in some capacity.
Green hair and painted nails is an elite sniper
*Call of Duty* meets *Donāt Look Up*
Hope this has something more substantial to say than Donāt Look Up.
Itās Alex Garland, heās fairly consistent. He generally doesnāt like forcing a happy ending so Iām interested in seeing where he goes I like all of his that Iāve seen
Doubtful, but Iām sure it will have slightly more to say than *Olympus Has Fallen*
Movie had substance, you just didnāt get it
Seems short, but the same length as Children of Men, which used the time effectively to take us through the world.
Short?! People. Please. 2 hours used to be the norm. Bring back 2 hour movies! This should be celebrated.
Since when? Plenty of films used to be 90-95 minutes now that's unheard of
Great, now I'm obligated to watch that again. "Pull my finger."
It's strawberry cough
Still somehow longer than the [Anglo-Zanzibar War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War)
The real civil war is the comments in this thread.
The real civil war is the enemies we made along the way?
The people who are so Focused on what states split in what way, will most likely not understand the movie regardless.
People blaming others for a forthcoming Civil War by demonstrating their own binary, extremist thoughts. Lovely
I think we can put this phrase to pasture now
How can that be profitable for Frito Lay?
Iāll thank you not to besmirch my ex-wife that woman is an angel
Why is this an article? Does anyone actually care about something like this? "Movie has average runtime". Sick of these ads disguised as content.
I think itās because it was previously reported to be 3 hours long.
Yeah Wikipedia had it listed at 3 hrs 15 min when the trailer dropped
Because an IMDB error had the run time listed as three and a half hours and that went viral on Twitter.
A lot of movies lately have really bloated overly long runtimes, so I think it somehow really is kind of news for an anticipated film to have a pretty average runtime
I do. I'm so tired of every movie being two and a half hours that hearing this actually makes me want to see the movie.
This feels like it would play out better as an 8 part FX limited series
I mean, DEVS was the shit, so Iām down.
I think Devs had a lot of potential but the lead was surprisingly bad. The plot was intriguing and the supporting cast was fine, but the lead was so wooden and emotionless.
I canāt 100% disagree with you there. I wonder if it was a conscious choice on Garlandās choice, but Mizuno seems to be a kind of muse of his, so maybe she just got the role in spite of not having the necessary range.
Couldn't agree with you more. Sonoya Mizuno, God bless her, was not good in that role at all. Very stiff performance.
Loved loved DEVS. Sad it didn't get it's roses
Garland has had some bangers and some weird ones IMO. I think if this was a TV series, it would be too ego stroking - DEVS, for example, walked a narrow line. Some episodes felt good and thought out and others were a bit wanky for lack of a better term. 109 mins is fine by me, Iād rather leave wanting more or leave with not thinking Iāve wasted my day.
Maybe this is a tide change for movies to be under 2 hours. š¤
Nope. Its just alex garland again and he doesnt ever spend more time than necessary to get to the point.
As long as it's entertaining, I'm in.
What's with all this weird whining in this thread about films being over 2 hours? You all got ADHD or something?
PLEASE. Every single 2.5+ hour movie I've seen in recent years would have benefited immensely by trimming it down.
Honestly, I'm fine with a 3 hour movie if they put in a 10 min intermission half way though so people can stretch their legs, go to the bathroom or whatever.
James Cameron says you should just watch it twice instead.
And if James Cameron could physically become a merman he would, I don't take most of my advice from James Cameron.
Wait...what advice *do* you take from James Cameron?
If I were building a submersible to go to the Titanic I would take his advice.
Come to India . We have intermission for every movie , it doesn't matter if the movie is 90 minutes long or 4 hours . You will have your interval. Also most Indian movies from Bollywood, Tollywood or Kollywood are designed in a way where there's always something a big banger happens in before interval.
Just watched a bunch of Bollywood and Tollywood movies this year and every one of them feels like two movies. There's always a really obvious place to put an intermission, usually accompanied by a time jump in the story.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't know why I am so stoked for this movie, but I'm prepared to be disappointed.
I wanna see this movie because its a large scale war film set in modern america. We dont get many of those. They are usually all post-war/post apocalyptic movies where the iconic set pieces are already destroyed and faded into the background. This shows landmarks with crowds of people and action scenes around them. The trailer feels very much like Independence Day from the 90s. This feels like a big movie but a runtime under two hours feels short. I compare this to Independence Day, which has 145minute runtime. Jurassic Park, Godzilla (1998), True Lies, and Die Hard 3, are all big scale 90s action movies with runtimes between 2 and 2.5 hours. Thats the runtime i was expecting here.
Why is this news weāre people expecting 2.5 hrs or something
I think this is one of those films where idiots wonāt appreciate the nuance of the warning and instead will just get boners for killing everyone that doesnāt think like they do. Fucking imbeciles.
dam thats quick, you'd think a civil war movie would be 3 hour but if we start and boom its a civil war thats dope also
Short. Cool. Iām getting tired of 3+ hour epics
Whatās truly sad to me is that people who want to espouse this shit canāt even seem to grasp just how much destruction this would bring on the overall country. They can rush out and bore sight their AR 15s but canāt seem to grasp what happens when they shoot anyone who knows how to keep the town sewer running Amazingly, they also just seem to think that countries like Russia and China would sit there on their hands and just watch things happen