How out of ideas is the modern movie industry? It’s to the point that they are rehashing ideas from HBO movies of nearly 30 years ago. And not even popular ones. Hardly anybody ever talks about this film. Well, after all, it is a product of the ’90s. Perhaps it is irrelevant to our own era. But all the same, it’s always interesting to see how the zeitgeist evolves.

The Second Civil War is a dark satirical comedy, centered around a fictional cable news network, News Net. When the film begins, the network is covering the arrival of refugees from Pakistan, fleeing a nuclear war, and admitted into the state of Idaho.

Idaho governor James Farley, who is seeking re-election, decides to close the state border, claiming they are already flooded with immigrants. Although publicly he poses as a hardline anti-immigration conservative, in his private life the governor actually enjoys many pleasures from outside of the U.S., most strongly evidenced by the fact he is cheating on his wife with a Mexican-American News Net reporter.

The President, acting on the recommendation of his advisor, Mr. Buchan, issues an ultimatum by which Gov. Farley must open the border. In a bit of a humorous twist, they move the deadline so as not to interfere with the finale of a TV soap opera, showing that their decisions are driven as much by a desire for ratings as anything else.

Meanwhile, News Net continues to cover the evolving situation with increasing fervor, and both the president and the governor–or at least, the governor’s hapless advisor–watch the television coverage closely, their actions driven in response to what is said about them on the news.

Gradually, other states begin to join in on the side of Idaho, pledging their own National Guard units to come to the embattled state’s aid. Soon, it becomes a political football to be kicked around in the increasingly Balkanized U.S. Congress. As one News Net report (played by James Earl Jones) describes the legislature, it’s become a “political bazaar” where different factions brazenly feud with one another.

(I am reminded of a line from another late ’90s movie: “The Republic is not what it once was… there is no interest in the common good.“)

Or, as the News Net reporter muses when talking with a militant Congressman: “I rode the buses back in the ’60s to bring people together. Seems pretty unfashionable nowadays.”

The situation continues to escalate, exposing all the various fault lines of division that exist across the country. Meanwhile, the reporters of News Net continue to both watch and make the news, selling each new flashpoint in the conflict with a gee-whiz graphic and punchy headline.

There are also all sorts of minor characters who add flavor to the story: from the tough-talking Army general and his old rival who leads the militia, to the cynical on-the-ground reporters who constantly threaten to quit only to be dragged back in, to the social activist who quickly brands anyone and everyone who disagrees with her as a fascist.

Maybe the best performance of all is Joanna Cassidy as Helena Newman, the co-anchor for the News Net coverage. She doesn’t have a lot of screen time, but her reaction as matters come to an increasingly serious crisis is one of the most memorable scenes in the whole film.

Ultimately, like most wars, once everything has built to a certain point, a simple accident is enough to light the fuse and create a violent reaction. We don’t see much of this, but we see enough. The film ends with James Earl Jones’s character giving one more melancholy reflection, and then a final, darkly ironic line plays as the end credits roll.

The cast in this is incredibly good: besides Jones and Cassidy, you have Beau Bridges in an Emmy-winning performance as Gov. Farley, the late, great Phil Hartman as the President, and James Coburn as his cynical advisor. Each character adds something; even those with relatively little screen time.

I have two minor criticisms. First, there’s a ridiculous amount of swearing in the dialogue. Now, I’m certainly not averse to profanity when the situation calls for it, and the nation plunging into civil war does call for it, but there is just so much that it feels gratuitous. It should have been reduced by about 30%, so that when people do curse, it carries real impact. But, this was the ’90s, and I think it might have seemed edgy at the time.

The second criticism is that one of the characters gets a basic fact about the first U.S. Civil War wrong. It almost makes me wonder if it’s a deliberate error, but somehow I don’t think so from the context. I can’t say exactly what it is, but let’s just say it’s rather jarring.

Other than these two minor points, I have to say this film holds up remarkably well as a satirical look at U.S. institutions and culture, all while giving us plausible, well-rounded characters, as opposed to mere puppets representing various ideologies. The characters feel real, which makes watching the disaster play out all the more poignant.

Of course, back in 1997, this must have all felt so far-fetched and extreme as to be almost absurd. Hence, why the film was presented as a comedy, albeit a very bleak one that loses any semblance of humor in the final few minutes.

But that was then, and this, moreover, is now. Have things changed? Oh, certainly they have changed! Have they changed in a way that makes this movie feel dated? Do the issues it raises now seem like the provincial ideas of a bygone era? Can we, the citizens of 2024, look back on this and laugh at it as an overwrought fever-dream that even in its time was unduly cynical and paranoid?

Or…?

Well, it would be pointless to suggest various other reactions one might have. You can watch the film yourself, and make up your own mind, if you so choose. I’m just reviewing it so you know it exists; what you do about it is up to you. To paraphrase something another cable news channel (not unlike News Net) used to say: “I report, you decide.”