Civil War - Hollywood's fantasy about the fight against doland drumph?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
So apparently this movie is coming out in less than a month on April 12th (Thanks MovieBob for reminding me this thing exists) so I have gone to look for more info to see if we actually know anything about it and the answer is... yes but actually no. It's just as schizo as we first saw.

The president is mentioned as being on his 3rd term, having a very loose interpretation of the constitution and wanting more power. Ok. But also he has disbanded the FBI? Why? That makes no sense. He has authorized drone strikes against civilians too, which is stupid this has always been allowed and since the introduction of drones the US has been hitting civilians (Obama got around this by just retconning anyone who died to a drone as a enemy combatant) and for some reason Texas and California are the two states who lead the call to take this fucker out, no one seems to be explaining what happened to the Senate and House. There is almost no talk of ideology whatsoever, which again makes no sense because it means that apparently the only issue people have is that this president is killing people inside the country without a reason? Would it have been ok if this guy had just done all this shit but retired at the end of his second term and a new cunt taken over?

The actual plot seem fully focused instead on gargling the ballsack journalists and reporters are God's gift to mankind to a point even the faggot reviewer from The Guardian finds weird and nonsensical ("“Interviewing him is the only story left,” says Joel, which never makes sense."[...]"who’s the audience for these journalists, if there’s no cell service and no one appears to use the internet?") and the movie spends far more time with misery porn than any sort of explanation.

When asked about it, this is what Garland said:

I personally think questions are answered. There’s a lot of things that are clearly answered. There is a fascist president who smashed the Constitution and attacked [American] citizens. And that is a very clear, answered statement. If you want to think about why Texas and California might be allied, and putting aside their political differences, the answer would be implicit in that. So I think answers are there but you have to step to it and not expect to be spoon fed these things. It makes assumptions about the audience.
Click to expand...

This basically boils down to a big fat "I am a enlightened centrist I don't have to justify these things it is all so obvious le both sides have a point le both sides bad" and answers nothing. Presidents have attacked the constitution since the start of the US as a nation, 90% of the time because they figured that they were not attacking it at all but because they were following their "interpretation" of it. This entire thing ignores how many people on both left and right would be glad to twist the meanings and ideas of the constitution to fit their own interpretations to force others into accepting their ideas. It is a weak and spineless non-answer.

The point is made here: Garland is trying to merely do a bunch of war footage in a USA setting and is too much of a pussy to stick his hand into the wood-chipper of modern politics. There is no actual message or ideology or deep thought, it's a bland "war bad m'kay" "journalists good m'kay".

Screenrant - Why Texas & California Are Allies In Civil War Explained By Director Alex Garland

The Guardian - Civil War review – Alex Garland’s immersive yet dispassionate war film
 
General Emílio Médici said:
The actual plot seem fully focused instead on gargling the ballsack journalists and reporters are God's gift to mankind to a point even the faggot reviewer from The Guardian finds weird and nonsensical ("“Interviewing him is the only story left,” says Joel, which never makes sense."[...]"who’s the audience for these journalists, if there’s no cell service and no one appears to use the internet?") and the movie spends far more time with misery porn than any sort of explanation.

When asked about it, this is what Garland said:
Click to expand...
So, it's basically that shitty movie about the Georgian war, which was also sucking off journalist cocks hardcore.

General Emílio Médici said:
The president is mentioned as being on his 3rd term, having a very loose interpretation of the constitution and wanting more power. Ok. But also he has disbanded the FBI? Why? That makes no sense. He has authorized drone strikes against civilians too, which is stupid this has always been allowed and since the introduction of drones the US has been hitting civilians (Obama got around this by just retconning anyone who died to a drone as a enemy combatant) and for some reason Texas and California are the two states who lead the call to take this fucker out, no one seems to be explaining what happened to the Senate and House. There is almost no talk of ideology whatsoever, which again makes no sense because it means that apparently the only issue people have is that this president is killing people inside the country without a reason? Would it have been ok if this guy had just done all this shit but retired at the end of his second term and a new cunt taken over?
Click to expand...
Huh, somehow the DMZ comic felt more realistic when it came to the idea of why a 2nd Civil War might occur.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
The point is made here: Garland is trying to merely do a bunch of war footage in a USA setting and is too much of a pussy to stick his hand into the wood-chipper of modern politics. There is no actual message or ideology or deep thought, it's a bland "war bad m'kay" "journalists good m'kay".
Click to expand...
Sounds like Demolition Man is the better American Civil War movie.
 
I think the most prevalent issue in the film is that, rather than have the American public rise up, which is a big no no because guns are evil, instead two ideologically separete states rise up, which makes the conflict government vs. government despite it being pretty clear the president is fucking over the common man.
General Emílio Médici said:
But also he has disbanded the FBI
Click to expand...
You need to be pretty insane to think of the FBI being better than the government own undergound hit squad, though on the other hand the same movie praises journos as if it's more thana tiny fraction of them that actually risk their life.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
This basically boils down to a big fat "I am a enlightened centrist I don't have to justify these things it is all so obvious le both sides have a point le both sides bad" and answers nothing.
Click to expand...
That looks to be the case as I saw the trailer in full at my GxK showing. Towards its end, you had the shots of troops (likely the Texas/California forces) in the White House and dragging the president out from under his desk. If he is such a despot then that scene should be one audiences want to see. But if the Texas/California side is just as bad then the president being overthrown is not a triumphant moment. It sounds like this will be mediocre "what would another civil war look like in contemporary America?" flick.
 
Dog Fucking enthusiast YourMovieSucks did a little review of it as he saw a early screening on some festival. He gave it a 6/10 for good cinematography and real nice sound design but hit on the same keys as others already have that the movie feels hollow and weak. He mentions how the main characters were actually harming the movie and he feels like it could have been improved by removing the j*urnalists to instead focus more on other secondary characters or maybe do something else. He points out this isn't so much that the journos are bad, but that they are boring as all fuck and add nothing while a bad character or a unlikable one would have at least provided some hook and interesting story.

 
FieldPiece said:
On a scale of DmC: Devil May Cry to Annihilation where do you place it on the Alex Garland retardation scale?
Click to expand...
Not as bad as DmC but not by much, there were a couple of funny moments specifically when it was obvious that the journos were being retarded and everyone else around them said something/looked at them in a way to indicate as much.

Back me up! said:
Is it true the movie is really about weepily journalist as the real hero's and nothing interesting about a civil war in the US?
Click to expand...
More or less

It was pretty obvious that the president was a shoe in for trump and there were barely any actual gunfight scenes. The climax was hilarious because there was a white SOF team working with budget DEI sheniqua and they somehow took the White House :story:
 
mlanguishi said:

Dead Ebert's site still goes on, and it's full of hard leftists. Got 4 stars out of 4.

The comment section reads like a dailykos and Democraticunderground jizzfest, using their 'TFG' terms for Trump.
Click to expand...
There is some fun irony that the film would have gotten far better grade a decade ago, when journalism still existed and it wasn't just wannabe influencers sucking withering corporate tits. It's obviously made to make journos feel like the real heroes who make the real sacrifices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom