Civil War was OK.

I had the creeping suspicion that it had been heavily edited. Perhaps they didn't want theater riots (but more likely didn't want to deter ticket sale$). The 'Western Forces' consisted of Texas and not someplace logical like Louisiana but... California(?). But there was a reference to Antifas being slaughtered...

I know where this thread is gonna go.

In other words, a big loud movie with a story that goes NOWHERE and says NOTHING.

You got duped, OP. What a waste of money.

No it wasn't a waste. It did raise some interesting questions but they weren't the questions I expected to be asked. I went in expecting a film about the dangers of social media fueled political polarization and instead I got a film about the myth of journalistic neutrality.

I don’t think the goal of the film was to incite an actual civil war.

Based on reviews, it seems it is about journalism and the brutal reality of civil war in coverage . The details of the causes of the civil war don't matter that much. The American setting is just to make it feel more real. It's not as disturbing if set in Africa or whetever. This is one of those films that Is going to be good, but trashed for not being whatever political statement some people wanted it to be sounds like.

I was going to see it, but advance reviews said it doesn't take a position on any of the issues it brings up, which feels like a waste. It also sanctifies journalists, which is laughable.

Thanks for your two kopeks, Boris ^

I was bored shitless and it didn't make me feel anything, which is worse than if I outright hated it. Zero commentary on anything except that war sucks, which... okay? Lots of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

I think Garland is aware it was a miss, given the butthurt nature of his recent comments.

Catharsis or inflammatory, I'm sure the US intelligence community is listening.

See Kevin Smith's "Red State" for a better take on Deplorables.

[quote]But there was a reference to Antifas being slaughtered...

R1, no, it was "the Antifa massacre." It could have been antifas being massacred or doing the massacring . The film leaves the question open deliberately, which was one of the great things about it.

R11, did you see the movie? It's not meant to be a "take on Deplorables" or any particular faction.

It seems that some people wanted a political screed or a moral statement or something that would allow them to wallow in the us-vs.-them climate in America today. The filmmakers avoided that on purpose. No doubt their motive was partly to avoid alienating half the potential audience, but I hope it was also because they wanted to make an entertaining non-partisan movie. If you don't think that's possible, then you won't enjoy Civil War.

I thought the first 4/5th of Civil were more than just okay - well-made and watchable. I liked the two main characters, and time went by quickly. It was fun to watch and try to figure out who was who. (Florida is mentioned in passing; we have no idea whether FL is on the side of the government or the Western Forces or a totally separate rebellion. I thought that made the movie more interesting.)

The last 25 minutes or so are absolutely great! It's one long, exciting, perfectly filmed and realistic battle scene. The scene is all the more powerful for being set in DC. If there's a message in the movie at all, it's "look what's happening to our country."

If you want an inflammatory movie that caters to your political biases, Civil War is not it. If you just want a well-made action movie with good acting and an exciting ending (and a very sexy star in Wagner Moura), then you should try it.

[quote]Civil War was OK

No. I don't think it's ever 'OK'.

Nick Offerman is hardly in it, and isn't 'Presidential' at all. He seems like a bartender in a comedy club.

Alex Garland completely pussed out in this movie. Total cowardice.

I saw the director/creator - Alex Garland, interviewed the other day and he said he wrote the movie so that it left the audience to fill in their own blanks - whatever they may be. He said it was most definitely a political statement. I haven't seen it yet but I really like most of his other films and Kirsten Dunst.

What do you mean R15?

Head-scratching teaming of the states aside, it’s pretty clear which side is which.

The last 20 minutes is amazing. The audience in my theater was dead silent when it ended.

Just ONE “antifa massacre”? Doesn’t sound like a very ambitious movie.

Sounds like disaster porn for those people who get off on imagining the breakdown of society and thinking they'd be the hero in a warzone.

I want a version of the film where, instead of following around these meh photojournalists, we follow Jesse Plemon's character across Civil War Land in bad decline. He was the most interesting part of the film

Both sides-ism. Groundbreaking.

It's not an op-ed piece or work of non-fiction, R22. It's a fictional story. The filmmakers are not required to turn their movie into a polemic. They're allowed to make a film just for entertainment.