Civil War (#541)

Because I have been expounding my theory about the upcoming presidential election to anyone crazy enough to listen to me, (my theory being that no matter who wins the election, there is going to be a civil war in this country), I was profoundly interested in the movie I saw today.  Its premise and point of view are cloudy because there is no explanation for the "war," what it's about, why it started and who are the players.  Initially, the president speaking to the nation talks about the resurrectionists (is that a valid word?) in Texas and California, and the ones in Florida trying to persuade the Carolinas to join the rebellion, but later a newscaster reports on the Russians invading Washington, DC, and demanding total surrender at the White House. That is, if I was hearing things correctly.  Perhaps it was the rebels in the White House.  The movie, well directed and remarkably well and realistically filmed, does not appear to have any political bent or motivation.  CIVIL WAR follows a trek of journalists following the actions of the war. in a press van and includes two extra and basically unwanted people —an old-time journalist and a young girl rescued by one of the journalists, played by Kirsten Dunst, on the streets of what I think is New York or Washington.  They are headed south on mostly deserted roads or those littered by abandoned and war-damaged cars.  They encounter several groups and I'm not certain which side those groups were on.  There is much violence  and use of a variety of weapons and a never-ending supply of ammunition and an almost endless siege of the White House by the military with the journalists right there with them dodging countless fusillades aimed at what appeared to be a non-existent enemy force (at least I don't remember seeing any).  It was a vividly interesting film, dark and draggy at times, and I honestly can't say if I liked it or not, but it certainly kept my attention throughout.  98% of audiences gave it a thumbs up, along with 78% of critics.