Very Frustrating Movie – Spoilers

So, I watched this movie since it's on HBO Max now. I remember hearing about it earlier this year but beyond the trailer I really didn't read much about it. I thought that it was a movie about a hypothetical future civil war in America, and as much as I'm tired of overly politicized content, I decided to finally give it a watch since it had decent ratings (81% on metacritic).

Unfortunately I was really disappointed in the film. First off, there's very little exposition of the civil war itself, the thing that the movie gets it's title from. In reality, the movie is not about a civil war, it is about a few photojournalists who are documenting the civil war and trying to advance their careers.

For the entire movie, I was eagerly waiting to find out what precipitated this civil war, and what the various factions were. From the little that I could tell, there were at least 3 factions: the existing federal government of the USA based out of DC, a Southern Alliance led by or mainly comprised of Florida, and the Western Forces which were led by a union of California and Texas and presumably other states. The fact that California and Texas teamed up to fight the federal government is a very interesting plot point, and yet there is basically no explanation for why this happened. Presumably, there are also many neutral states, or at least many parts of America that are not affected by the civil war, since both Jessie and Lee said their respective family members, in Missouri and Colorado, are just pretending the war isn't happening. Same thing when they stop in the peaceful small town in West Virginia where everything seems normal, but then they see snipers on the rooftops. Who are these snipers? Are they federal troops? Or part of the rebel factions?

That was another point in the movie that was annoying, you never really knew who was part of which faction until the very end of the movie in the DC scene. At one point I thought perhaps all 3 factions were fighting each other at various points, but I don't think this actually happened.

There are only the vaguest of reasons given for this large revolutionary force. Presumably, the president is somewhat authoritarian and anti-orthodox given that he is in his 3rd term, which is currently prohibited by the Constitution, and that he disbanded the FBI. But beyond those 2 statements, we pretty much know nothing about the president, the federal government, or what happened that was so awful it led to states formally seceding from the Union. It didn't seem like there was any extreme economic distress besides a water shortage hinted at during the bombing in the opening scene of the movie. I mean, the cadre of photojournalists are able to drive their gas-guzzling Ford Excursion hundreds of miles and even refuel on the way. Clearly, fuel trucks are still delivering to gas stations even in remote areas during this civil war. So, it's obviously not that disruptive to normal life.

Regarding the political events that led up to the civil war, the film clearly referenced some modern political factions. When the group was staying at the football stadium in Charlottesville, there was reference to the "Antifa Massacre" and Lee's documenting of that event, which apparently took place 20 years before the time period in the film. And of course, Charlottesville featured prominently in contemporary politics with the infamous rally there back in 2017. So, since an "antifa massacre" hasn't happened irl, then we are led to believe that itself is a future event, and so the movie takes place in the 2040s as an earliest possible date. Just to put that in perspective, Ford stopped making the Excursion in 2005, and while it is a durable and reliable vehicle, it would be at least a 35 year old or 40 year old car in the film. That would be like driving around today in a car from the late 1970s or early 1980s. The one guy works for Reuters, a world-class news agency, and the best they can get him is a 40 year old vehicle that gets awful gas mileage? Furthermore, the movie never explains what the "antifa massacre" was. Was it a bunch of crazy right wingers massacring Antifa protesters? Or was it a bunch of antifa massacring people? We don't know. I assume this is intentionally vague to make the movie not seem tied in to current political trends, but it is so vague that it strains credulity. Why even mention it at all at that point?

Lastly, what made this is a very frustrating and downright disturbing film to watch was the actions of the rebel soldiers especially in regards to prisoners. At multiple times in the movie, the Western Forces/rebels have the opportunity to take an enemy combatant as a prisoner, but then they just murder them in cold blood instead. While I understand that this unfortunately has happened in various wars, it's not right, and I didn't know how to feel while watching it. I was disgusted of course, but I couldn't tell if that's how the director wanted the audience to feel, or if he wanted the audience to share in the gleeful bloodlust of the combatants. First there's the wounder soldier/sniper that they kill. Then there is the group of hooded prisoners at the Christmas town/golf course. Then at the end of the movie, the soldiers kill the secret service members in the fleeing automobiles, even when they step out of the cars with their hands up. They kill the secret service agent attempting to negotiate the surrender of the president. And then finally, they kill the president himself right after he gives a quote to Joel in which he says "don't kill me". It was just grotesque and I don't see how any normal person could enjoy watching that.

TLDR: The journalist protagonists of the film are clearly aligned with the rebel factions, given how they talk about the president and the fact that towards the end they are officially embedded with the revolutionary faction as they make their final push on DC. The rebel factions are grotesquely violent towards the existing federal government forces and their supporters, clearly not following geneva conventions or any kind of normal rules of war. Basically, this bothers me because we don't know what the President and feds did that was so bad beyond a 3rd term and disbanding of the FBI. While that does make the president in the movie seem like an authoritarian, that's not enough for me to excuse such wanton bloodlust.

The movie would've been a lot better if there was a 10 minute or even 5 minute flashback that explained the initial events that caused states to secede and the civil war to officially begin. Maybe the President/feds did something bad enough that warranted a take no prisoners approach, but since this is never explained in the movie, it's hard to excuse it.

Overall, I thought that showing the war through the eyes of photojournalists would be a great perspective, but it really just seemed like it was more about the journalists and their careers and their amorality that took center stage. And I didn't understand the rationality of it. These journalists are getting photos of the soldiers killing the president and prisoners….are we to believe that this new government will allow them to publish such images?

Overall, I thought the cinematography and production value was great, but the lack of any serious exposition of major plot points just raises more questions than answers, and left me a frustrated audience member. I was hoping there was a book or graphic novel or something where I could learn more about this fictional world, but nope, it's just this movie, and it really doesn't explain anything. There wasn't even a denouement after the climax of storming the white house, it just ended abruptly.