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

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.

A lot of words to say very little but I think his point that "the movie isn't actually about the Civil War" is the main takeaway. And yeah comments are just as hilarious as you said they were gonna be.

And for all his retarded attempts at le enlightened centrism and akshually it's about how journalists are le hecking heroes Garland has already failed and he is being attacked by leftists. Why? He used footage recorded by LITERAL NAZI Andy Ngo.

1712786907185.png

Looking forward to seeing how this stunning and brave director who isn't afraid of pushing art forward and dealing with hard topics deals with the twitter screeching. Looking this up already brings up the usual suspects complaining that Ngo is a liar, a fraud, a doXXXXXXXer and so on.
 
To be fair, he said this would be the last movie he makes. No seriously, I am not kidding he actually said it because he had fallen out of love for filmmaking. And yet, between the positive reviews and negativity of including footage from based Andy Ngo, it just ends up splitting liberalism even more. Also according to that picture that was shown around Twitter it also shown the name Helen Lewis, who liberals hate because she is transphobic.
 
Last edited:
A lot of words to say very little but I think his point that "the movie isn't actually about the Civil War" is the main takeaway. And yeah comments are just as hilarious as you said they were gonna be.

And for all his retarded attempts at le enlightened centrism and akshually it's about how journalists are le hecking heroes Garland has already failed and he is being attacked by leftists. Why? He used footage recorded by LITERAL NAZI Andy Ngo.

View attachment 5895155

Looking forward to seeing how this stunning and brave director who isn't afraid of pushing art forward and dealing with hard topics deals with the twitter screeching. Looking this up already brings up the usual suspects complaining that Ngo is a liar, a fraud, a doXXXXXXXer and so on.
Just goes to show that should never try and appeal to these retards. The same journalist he praised in this film will soon start writing smear articles about how he's giving a platform to evil, racist chuds.
 
I just saw the movie this afternoon, and wow, it's fucking nothing. Overall inoffensive, shedding no more light on the nature of the titular civil war than what the trailer presents as the story follows the four journalistic protagonists on their road trip from NYC to DC, having several tense encounters involving strangers with guns along the way. I wouldn't say that the movie pumps up journalists as "the real heroes", but rather imparts that war correspondence is cool and serious work, focusing especially on photojournalism and its artistic pursuit.

Wikipedia has a plot summary of the movie already, but for those who are curious while not intending on seeing the movie for themselves, here are some more details I can give without having seen any reception outside of this thread.

Main characters Lee and Jessie, the veteran and aspiring photographers accordingly, are introduced first meeting while covering a scene in NYC where a civilian mob is pushing against riot police surrounding a tanker truck, probably with water. The characters take cover as a suicide bomber rushes in and blows everyone up. Jessie photographs Lee photographing the aftermath of corpses.
1712906179496.png

With the full traveling party assembled, including Lee's colleague Joel and their old veteran journalist friend Sammy, they first encounter armed gas station attendants, buying gas from them for 300CAD as 300USD is worth only a sandwich. In the meantime, Jessie's attention is drawn to a pair of bloodied men who are strung up to the side. The attendant escorting her proudly cites them as caught looters and offers to kill them on her command, scaring her. Lee diverts the attendant's attention by offering to take his photo with the hanging looters.
1712906620193.png

In the next encounter, the gang is attached to a squad of shirt-wearing soldiers, covering their engagement with uniformed enemies at a large building complex. Entered as a smash cut, the scene doesn't include how the gang first approached the combatants. Though I don't think it is said for sure, I believe the shirts are Western Forces engaging Loyalists, considering the rest of the movie giving the impression that the WF are journalist-friendly while Loyalists at DC are said to "shoot journalists on sight". During the engagement, the WF squad immediately shoot a wounded Loyalist soldier they find left wailing alone. After the combat ends, the WF squad escort several bagged POWs outside and execute them with a machine gun as Jessie takes pictures.
1712907016313.png

Next, the gang is forced to take cover at a small abandoned fair in the middle of a field when an unseen sniper shoots at them from a large cabin in the distance. There they meet an opposing WF sniper team who begrudgingly tolerates their presence. The spotter calls Joel retarded for asking stupid questions about the situation, unconcerned by the possibility that the cabin sniper could also be WF. The scene immediately ends when the sniper team fires a killshot on the cabin sniper.
1712908655319.png

Next, the gang happens across a pair of journalist friends from Hong Kong, who thought it would be a funny joke to pretend to be malicious pursuers and also hop cars mid-driving, a very bizarre scene. Immediately after, Jessie and one of the Hongkongers are caught up the road by an armed trio of men of unknown affiliation who are in the process of dumping corpses into a mass grave. At a loss for options, Lee and Joel approach the men to talk their way through a rescue. After suddenly shooting dead the captive besides Jessie, the head armed man asks "what kind of American" everyone is, seemingly appeased by any place in the (former) United States. The situation escalates when he asks the remaining panicked Hongkonger last, immediately shooting him upon the blubbering answer that he's from Hong Kong, therefore "Chinese" rather than American. While everyone is now shouting, Sammy, who was left in hiding, comes in driving over a couple of the armed men with the car, quickly gathering everyone else before fleeing from the last remaining armed man. It turns out that Sammy got shot during this daring rescue, and he's dead from the wound by the time the gang reach the main WF staging ground in Charlottesville for the invasion of DC, stirring the most grief from Joel.
1712910445084.png

Finally, the gang is attached to WF forces as they battle around the National Mall of DC, heading towards the walled-off White House explicitly to kill the president, not capture. As the gate is being penetrated, the usually-stoic Lee has a panic attack, showing how Jessie has exceeded her. The presidential motorcade makes a break for it and quickly crashes outside of the wall, drawing the attention of almost all the WF soldiers even though it's obviously a diversion. With the White House lawn suddenly empty, the gang is simply able to walk into the White House, followed by a single WF squad who quickly take the lead. The squad encounters the press secretary who requests negotiations for the president to surrender, including passage to Greenland or Alaska. The squad simply shoots her and then proceeds to engage with the secret service. During the firefight, Jessie stands out in the open to take a photo, prompting Lee to rush out and take a bullet for her, dying immediately as Jessie instinctively takes pictures of the moment, a callback to the beginning of the movie when Jessie questions if Lee would coldly photograph her dead body. As the WF squad has the president at gunpoint in the Oval Office, Joel, enraged by the death of Lee, asks for just a final quote from the president instead of the interview he originally wanted. The president whimpers "Don't let them kill me," to which Joel coldly responds "That'll do," before the WF soldiers shoot the president while Jessie takes pictures. Cut to credits, overlaid over a developing photo of the WF squad posing with smiles over the dead president.
1712912472672.png

Some notes besides:
  • Lee and Joel supposedly work for Reuters while Sammy works for the New York TImes, or at least what's left of it according to Joel.
  • Of the unnamed president, who we only see at the very beginning and end, we're only told via exposition from Sammy that he's on a third term, dissolved the FBI, and is culpable for "the use of air strikes against American citizens," the circumstances behind any of these left unclear.
  • Though we have a vague notion of the Loyalists being the antagonists in this narrative, the Western Forces are shown to be remarkably bloodthirsty towards their opposition, apparently taking no prisoners on the regular. With the fall of DC being assumed as a foregone conclusion by characters at the beginning of the film, Sammy theorizes that the secessionist factions will just turn on each other after that. It seems that rather than taking a side in its war, the movie is mainly concerned with broad vibes of "war is hell" and societal breakdown for the independent main characters to traverse through.
  • I think Joel offhandedly mentions "Portland Maoists" near the beginning.
  • Lee is said to have famously covered some event known as the "Antifa Massacre" but there's not elaboration on it, like who's massacring who.
  • It seems that the credit to Andy Ngo has to do with random video footage of civil unrest shown at the very beginning of the movie.
 
Last edited:
It seems that rather than taking a side in its war, the movie is mainly concerned with broad vibes of "war is hell" and societal breakdown for the independent main characters to traverse through.
Just seen the movie, and this was clearly the best part of it. They could have cut the last 30 minutes and do more of "roadtripping through a wartorn country"-stuff instead, showing the participants from a more neutral angle. But we can't have nice things and the ORANGE MAN (BAD)-dictator has to be murdered in his office.
 
You know what? It's fine. It refrains from being a mouthpiece for much of anything. There's a bare minimum amount of self-aggrandizing to be expected from people behind cameras telling a story about people behind cameras, but even that isn't too heavy handed. For a film about a modern day American civil war released in an election year, it goes to great lengths to say nothing, and if anything it's a fucking indictment of the entertainment industry that that's enough to qualify as "okay" in my book.

But we can't have nice things and the ORANGE MAN (BAD)-dictator has to be murdered in his office.
I think it's a stretch to imply it was a Trump standy. They clearly wanted to leave both sides both morally and politically ambiguous so any audience could project their identity onto whoever they want.
 
Last edited:
I still think the movie fails just on the premise that California and Texas would ever join forces.
 
I still think the movie fails just on the premise that California and Texas would ever join forces.
The only way I can see those two states working together is if all the Latinos agree to a Reconquista of the American Southwest. Which hints to the basic problem this movie commits; it didn't do its homework and spent no effort into making its premises make sense. People today don't care about the Constitution, so to wage war in the name of it doesn't make sense and it certainly wouldn't unify these two particular states. America itself is like 6 different dialect regions that vaguely have common interstate commerce to unify them.

Alex Garland is just baffling to me. He did make Ex Machina, which is very much a Natalie Portman kind of film without her in it, then he gets her in Annihilation and that movie was boring, but not terrible-looking. It's not like he's untalented, but a Civil War movie is an inherently political movie to begin with, so to pitch it in a way that isn't political is as much of a studio fail as it is Garland himself.
 
Last edited:
The movie with the weird bear?
Yeah. That was like, one of the two cool scenes in that movie.

It was a decent slow burn cosmic horror flick, and not too girlbossy despite the all female cast. Natalie Portman was way too waifish for me to buy her as an ex-soldier, though.

Just once, I'd like to see a right-wing take at an apocalypse. All of the soy-filled bugman laying down in the street and shitting themselves as blacks and hispanics kickstomp them, then turn on each other and start behaving like African warlords. White people forced to flee into the hills where they set up secret enclaves because they're the only groups on earth who remember what a functional society is like and every other group wants to kill them and take everything they have. Women charging into danger thinking they can girlboss their way out of every dangerous situation only to find the men in real life not as accommodating as the stuntmen who help female actors sell their attacks in fictional battles. The only fictional apocalypse I ever found to feel remotely accurate was the one in the movie "Threads" which had a post-nuke Britain turning into a police state run by feckless, powerless bureaucrats who couldn't even save themselves in the end.
 
Yeah. That was like, one of the two cool scenes in that movie.

It was a decent slow burn cosmic horror flick, and not too girlbossy despite the all female cast. Natalie Portman was way too waifish for me to buy her as an ex-soldier, though.

Just once, I'd like to see a right-wing take at an apocalypse. All of the soy-filled bugman laying down in the street and shitting themselves as blacks and hispanics kickstomp them, then turn on each other and start behaving like African warlords. White people forced to flee into the hills where they set up secret enclaves because they're the only groups on earth who remember what a functional society is like and every other group wants to kill them and take everything they have. Women charging into danger thinking they can girlboss their way out of every dangerous situation only to find the men in real life not as accommodating as the stuntmen who help female actors sell their attacks in fictional battles. The only fictional apocalypse I ever found to feel remotely accurate was the one in the movie "Threads" which had a post-nuke Britain turning into a police state run by feckless, powerless bureaucrats who couldn't even save themselves in the end.
I’m going to guess your best bet is to find non-Hollywood affiliated films. Independent stuff and all that buried on some random streaming service.
 
Yeah. That was like, one of the two cool scenes in that movie.

It was a decent slow burn cosmic horror flick, and not too girlbossy despite the all female cast. Natalie Portman was way too waifish for me to buy her as an ex-soldier, though.

Just once, I'd like to see a right-wing take at an apocalypse. All of the soy-filled bugman laying down in the street and shitting themselves as blacks and hispanics kickstomp them, then turn on each other and start behaving like African warlords. White people forced to flee into the hills where they set up secret enclaves because they're the only groups on earth who remember what a functional society is like and every other group wants to kill them and take everything they have. Women charging into danger thinking they can girlboss their way out of every dangerous situation only to find the men in real life not as accommodating as the stuntmen who help female actors sell their attacks in fictional battles. The only fictional apocalypse I ever found to feel remotely accurate was the one in the movie "Threads" which had a post-nuke Britain turning into a police state run by feckless, powerless bureaucrats who couldn't even save themselves in the end.
The thing is, White people have White Liberals living among them and they are natural traitors. I don't just mean Karens and Bugmen either as your NIMBY is often a liberal too. Asians in general are going to have the law and order enclaves... which will be COVID law enclaves, but the ones that resemble a first world country the best.
 
I still think the movie fails just on the premise that California and Texas would ever join forces.
The only way I can see those two states working together is if all the Latinos agree to a Reconquista of the American Southwest. Which hints to the basic problem this movie commits; it didn't do its homework and spent no effort into making its premises make sense. People today don't care about the Constitution, so to wage war in the name of it doesn't make sense and it certainly wouldn't unify these two particular states. America itself is like 6 different dialect regions that vaguely have common interstate commerce to unify them.

Alex Garland is just baffling to me. He did make Ex Machina, which is very much a Natalie Portman kind of film without her in it, then he gets her in Annihilation and that movie was boring, but not terrible-looking. It's not like he's untalented, but a Civil War movie is an inherently political movie to begin with, so to pitch it in a way that isn't political is as much of a studio fail as it is Garland himself.
You misunderstand what the movie is even about. The titular civil war of contemporary America is just a provocative backdrop (good for marketing) to the actual story about the opposite trajectories of a pair of war photojournalists, the veteran mentor cracking under pressure and the novice student becoming hardened and desensitized. I think it's even pretty clear from the initial trailer that the focus is on the hijinks of a small traveling band of journalists, so I wasn't surprised when I saw the movie.

I'm certain that Garland (a Brit) chose to unify California and Texas as the main secessionist faction specifically to avoid common Left-Right political mapping to the forces at play, and he's able to get away with not describing how this union came to be because it's irrelevant to the two main characters' story. The sides are so unimportant that it's not even clear who the belligerents are in the first firefight at the building complex. If you really want to draw a societal message from the movie, it's a pretty generic moderate one that hostile division is bad for America and should be avoided.
 
I had the displeasure of watching this earlier today because my cousin really wanted to try out a 4DX movie for the first time and he was too late to see Godzilla in 4DX so had to settle for this.

Not gonna lie, it was really strange that this movie even had a 4DX option but it did make it a lot more watchable.

The scenes with the intense gun battles were legit thrilling and the destruction of D.C. (Dear Feeder would be proud) was really fun with all the muzzle flash and explosions simulated via the ambiance lights. I could do without the weird fragrances though. Personally the main highlight was when the Western Forces break into the White House and have a Ready or Not style gun battle with a bunch of Agent Smiths.

But that's all the good things I can say about this film and it's mostly on merits that don't even belong to it cuz y'know 4DX. Even a turd an be made 10% more watchable with 4DX.

The movie was a total piece of nothingness. I was legitimately expecting at least some politics mentioned even if it's cringe libtard strawman shit but its just nothing. It doesn't really say anything besides "Wow, a Second American Civil War sure would be pretty bad and bloody huh?" like wow huh who would've guessed! War is le Bad. The closest thing there ever was to any sort of like ideology in the film is whenever Meth Damon shows up and says the line while wearing some multicam drip.

In that scene he gets a little racist against a bunch of r/aznidentity users who literally just show up just to get killed off by him and then gets ran over by lightskin Lawrence Fishburrne.

I mean I guess there's more subtle hints. A few Gadsen flags are shown and there's the Boogaloo Boys (wow, so topical, it's like I'm back in early 2020!) but it just kinda feels toothless and bland.

We don't know anything about the Western Forces other than they have an ugly flag and they don't like the United States government. The president lacks any sort of character besides just being corrupt and dictatorial in an apolitical way with vague as fuck implications. Like he dissolved the FBI; that could literally mean anything. For all we know he could just rename and replace them with a new organization or actually did dissolve them.

I guess it's done on purpose since the director didn't want anyone to self-insert into one side or the other but like; this is literally a film cashing into current culture war shit. You own it, otherwise it's just boring. Fucking Brit.

It feels less like a war film and more like a girlboss version of Nightcrawler (2014) with the backdrop being a generically vague civil war scenario. Which BTW, Nightcrawler is a way better film and can't believe this film ripped off its ending. Nightcrawler > Civil War any day of the week.
 
I just watched it. It was meh. The biggest fantastical notion in the movie was that Texas and California are working together.

What I liked:
Journos getting killed (eventually and too few of them)
Some nice cinematography
It was 90 minutes long, not some retarded 3 hour monstrosity
Sound design was crispy

What I didn't like:
Journos being alive for around 90% of the movie, wish they died way before and more viscerally
Main characters being boring as fuck
Failing to make me care about the MCs
Too few gunfights

Overall I felt very little and I feel like I wasted my money a bit. Godzilla was better.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk
 
Back
Top Bottom