Civil War

[YGIFS 19458]

Well obviously, but look at the way fronts drop down through the Great Plains.  You can't get rid of Oklahoma without harming a lot of the Panhandle and Metroplex.  

The way the jetstream and coastal currents work around most of the parts of Florida that are just the worst---you can really do this easily.  Yeah, you fuck up a lot of the Bahamas and some Gulf sealife but again, it's a risk I'm willing to take.  You can't really work much with Oklahoma just given its geolocation and the way the wind works around there.  Unless.  Oh wait?  Are you talking about the secret device?  SHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BabaYaga 15623]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

You can't get rid of Oklahoma without harming a lot of the Panhandle and Metroplex.  

[Herpa Derpa 6343]

On 12/26/2023 at 12:47 PM, MrBig said:

California is not as liberal as you think.

And Texas has their own liberal faction. I would follow General Willie through the Gates of Hell.

 

 

On 12/26/2023 at 3:19 PM, YGIFS said:

You can't get rid of Oklahoma without harming a lot of the Panhandle and Metroplex.  

Some sacrifices have to be made during wartime.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Herpa Derpa

[Parliament 14593]

Getting good reviews and they're saying the movie is intentionally non-partisan.  (The Texas/Cali alliance being an example.)  They don't go into how/why the war started, just follow some people around during it.  Kinda like that "The Day After" movie did back in the 80's.  That said, I'm sure the usual suspects are gonna totally miss the movie's intent and use it as an excuse to throw poop.

[bolverk 30313]

24 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Getting good reviews and they're saying the movie is intentionally non-partisan.  (The Texas/Cali alliance being an example.)  They don't go into how/why the war started, just follow some people around during it.  Kinda like that "The Day After" movie did back in the 80's.  That said, I'm sure the usual suspects are gonna totally miss the movie's intent and use it as an excuse to throw poop.

Yeah, I've read a couple of articles on it, and the writers argue the point of the movie isn't the partisan politics. It seems that its intent is to scare the shit out of the viewer and disabuse anyone's notions of a modern-day romanticized civil war that many like to speculate about or yearn for. Basically, it would suck tremendously.

 

From a guest essay by Stephen Marche, the author of “The Next Civil War”:

“Not one man in America wanted the Civil War, or expected or intended it,” Henry Adams, grandson of John Quincy Adams, declared at the beginning of the 20th century. What may seem inevitable to us in hindsight — the horrifying consequences of a country in political turmoil, given to violence and rived by slavery — came as a shock to many of the people living through it. Even those who anticipated it hardly seemed prepared for its violent magnitude. In this respect at least, the current division that afflicts the United States seems different from the Civil War. If there ever is a second civil war, it won’t be for lack of imagining it.

The most prominent example arrives this week in the form of an action blockbuster titled “Civil War.” The film, written and directed by Alex Garland, presents a scenario in which the government is at war with breakaway states and the president has been, in the eyes of part of the country, delegitimized. Some critics have denounced the project, arguing that releasing the film in this particular election year is downright dangerous. They assume that even just talking about a future national conflict could make it a reality, and that the film risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is wrong.

Not only does this criticism vastly overrate the power of the written word or the moving image, but it looks past the real forces sending the United States toward ever-deeper division: inequality; a hyperpartisan duopoly; and an antiquated and increasingly dysfunctional Constitution. Mere stories are not powerful enough to change those realities. But these stories can wake us up to the threats we are facing. The greatest political danger in America isn’t fascism, and it isn’t wokeness. It’s inertia. America needs a warning.

 

From a NYTimes critic:

Despite some much-needed lulls (for you, for the narrative rhythm), “Civil War” is unremittingly brutal or at least it feels that way. Many contemporary thrillers are far more overtly gruesome than this one, partly because violence is one way unimaginative directors can put a distinctive spin on otherwise interchangeable material: Cue the artful fountains of arterial spray. Part of what makes the carnage here feel incessant and palpably realistic is that Garland, whose visual approach is generally unfussy, doesn’t embellish the violence, turning it into an ornament of his virtuosity. Instead, the violence is direct, at times shockingly casual and unsettling, so much so that its unpleasantness almost comes as a surprise.

*****

There are no lofty or reassuring speeches in “Civil War,” and the movie doesn’t speak to the better angels of our nature the way so many films try to. Hollywood’s longstanding, deeply American imperative for happy endings maintains an iron grip on movies, even in ostensibly independent productions. There’s no such possibility for that in “Civil War.” The very premise of Garland’s movie means that — no matter what happens when or if Lee and the rest reach Washington — a happy ending is impossible, which makes this very tough going. Rarely have I seen a movie that made me so acutely uncomfortable or watched an actor’s face that, like Dunst’s, expressed a nation’s soul-sickness so vividly that it felt like an X-ray.

[safe sex 11980]

Seeing it tomorrow afternoon. I hated the trailer but the reviews and my general appreciation of most of Garland's ouevre got me in the end

[mr. sunshine 2859]

Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before

Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before

 

My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights

And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands, time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars

 

D'you wear a black armband when they shot the man
Who said, "Peace could last forever"?
And in my first memories, they shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam

We got the wall in D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin' for their promised land and

I don't need your civil war

It feeds the rich, while it buries the poor
You're power-hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh? 
I don't need your civil war

Ooh, no, no, no, no, no, no

Look at the shoes you're filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing

The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed

And I don't want to hear no more

My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still, the wars go on, as the years go by

With no love of God or human rights
And all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide

And history bears the scars of our civil wars

I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich, while it buries the poor
You're power-hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh? 

I don't need your civil war
No no no no no no no no no no no no
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
You're power-hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh? 

I don't need your civil war
No no no no no no no no no no no no
I don't need one more war

Ooh, I don't need one more war
No no no, no whoa, no whoa

 

What's so civil 'bout war anyway?

[mr. sunshine 2859]

Also I can could do the Strother Martin soliloquy way before this song came out. Creeps most folks out which is OK by me

[Red Five 41703]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, I've read a couple of articles on it, and the writers argue the point of the movie isn't the partisan politics.

To paraphrase Michael Jordan, republicans buy movie tickets too.

[CooterBrown 18287]

This was excellent. If you expect to see motivations in the movie, you will be disappointed. All you know is that there’s 3 sides (that we know of)…US, Western Forces (CA, TX) and Florida Man. That’s it. We are not given anything about any side’s politics. They talk about some bad things the President did but there’s no context given so you don’t really form an opinion about him either.

I can see Dunst getting an Oscar nod. Everyone was excellent in their roles.

The ending is MAGA’s wet dream.

[notre dame joe 205]

On 4/11/2024 at 5:13 PM, mr. sunshine said:

Also I can could do the Strother Martin soliloquy way before this song came out. Creeps most folks out which is OK by me

A young girl north of town fell into a well, I wondered if it was you.

[Horn of Gabriel 1885]

It was good: war really sucks, especially when it's us on us regardless of the politics.  Bad people (Plimpton) tend to pop up during war doing bad stuff.  War is innocence lost.  Mostly I found it as a love poem to war reporters.

[safe sex 11980]

I would disagree about calling it a love poem. But it does have a lot of feelings about war reporters.

If this is indeed Garland's last film, he went out with one of his best. In many ways dramatically different from the rest of his filmography, but in the ways that really count, it's all too terrifying. Last third of the film was masterful directing.

[Michael Knight 13217]

This movie didn't have alot to say but it certainly said it pretty well

[mdleast 8521]

I thought it was tremendous - one of the more visceral movie experiences I have had in a while yet also takes the same, somewhat detached perspective as do its war journalist protagonists.  As others have noted, it is clearly and intentionally non-partisan as you can't figure out what exactly are the "sides" that the warring groups have taken (or even, during some encounters, who are on which side).  Especially after having seen it, I extra role my eyes at those criticizing it as being "divisive".  I don't see how anyone but the snowiest of snowflakes sees it as somehow "attacking" their side.

[NeverMarryAStripper 22274]

3 hours ago, mdleast said:

I thought it was tremendous - one of the more visceral movie experiences I have had in a while yet also takes the same, somewhat detached perspective as do its war journalist protagonists.  As others have noted, it is clearly and intentionally non-partisan as you can't figure out what exactly are the "sides" that the warring groups have taken (or even, during some encounters, who are on which side).  Especially after having seen it, I extra role my eyes at those criticizing it as being "divisive".  I don't see how anyone but the snowiest of snowflakes sees it as somehow "attacking" their side.

Because snowiest of snowflakes describes about 90% of the U.S. population

[zman13 184]

Definitely a movie to see in the theater. The sound is important and the war scenes benefit from the theater experience. 

[GreenspointTexas 9953]

This is one of the best movies ive ever seen that straddles the feelings/politics/themes of a subject. Totally leaves the interpretation up to the viewer. 
 

Every actor/actress in this film was money. The war/gunfight scenes were some of the best put on film. Def a must see in theaters because of the sound. For example, the part where the CH-47s are leaving as Dunst is working on the car is incredible. Garland pulls no punches on how loud and imposing that sound is/was. 
 

 

Also, the young chick was hot. Like a young Winona Ryder imo. 
 

 

Best movie ive seen thus far in 2024. 8.5/10

Edited April 16 by GreenspointTexas

[Damor 1246]

I thought this was an outstanding film.  I didn't go in knowing a lot about it, and had been unenthusiastic about seeing it in theaters because politics, but my assumptions were wrong and it absolutely needs to be experienced (especially heard) in a theater.

I was relieved and impressed with the way that they used the journalistic angle to free them to tell the story perfectly without any need to go into the backstory or who was right/wrong.  I suppose it was a blank enough canvas that anyone could project their own views on it, but the point to me was that it doesn't matter -- the situation devolves into chaos, destruction, and misery regardless.  The flashbacks to third-world shitholes and references to all dictators going out like cowards did a great job of disabusing anyone of any noble or romantic notions that war is anything other than hell and suffering, whatever ideological veneers we think we can apply to it. 

It's definitely a film that has stayed with me and kept me thinking long after leaving the theater.  The more I think about it, the more I like it and feel like this is an important thing that more people need to go see and experience.

The "Breakers Roar" scene was one of the most absolutely stunning things I have seen in a long time.

[mdleast 8521]

There is a great (and long) episode of The Big Picture podcast (that I am actually finishing up right now as I type this) in which they discuss, debate and breakdown the film and includes a postscript interview with Garland.  Highly recommended if you have had this film on the brain since seeing.  

[Parliament 14593]

Got a link?

[mdleast 8521]

4 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Got a link?

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/civil-war-with-alex-garland-plus-the-10-most/id1439252196?i=1000652241422

[Herpa Derpa 6343]

Best of the year so far.

If you're looking for a side, you're missing the point.

[Buzzrock 15136]

Better than Dune 2?

[semitired 83]

On 4/16/2024 at 2:45 PM, GreenspointTexas said:

This is one of the best movies ive ever seen that straddles the feelings/politics/themes of a subject. Totally leaves the interpretation up to the viewer. 
 

Every actor/actress in this film was money. The war/gunfight scenes were some of the best put on film. Def a must see in theaters because of the sound. For example, the part where the CH-47s are leaving as Dunst is working on the car is incredible. Garland pulls no punches on how loud and imposing that sound is/was. 
 

 

Also, the young chick was hot. Like a young Winona Ryder imo. 
 

 

Best movie ive seen thus far in 2024. 8.5/10

This is what I loved about it, but my wife hated it. Nothing new here... It was driving me crazy, but it took me a little while to recognize Pablo Escobar.  

[GreenspointTexas 9953]

4 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Better than Dune 2?

Neck and neck

[mchookem 16765]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:37 PM, Buzzrock said:

Better than Dune 2?

NO.

but it was really really good. i'm kind of surprised at how unique it came across for a 'war movie'. so intense! felt very...economically shot? like nothing was wasted. the "Breakers Roar" fire ride was something else, wow 🔥 that whole sequence was beautifully and tragically shot.

the soundtrack was outstanding.

and less than two hours so nobody can bitch about that 😄

On 4/12/2024 at 8:18 PM, CooterBrown said:

I can see Dunst getting an Oscar nod. Everyone was excellent in their roles.

100% agree on Dunst. Plemmons continues to nail small but critical roles, especially psycho-Matt Damon roles.

to repeat everybody else...no politics, no idea who the 'good guys' are, everybody loses their head in war.

 

Edited April 19 by mchookem

[safe sex 11980]

I don't really think there's any qualitative comparison to be made between either Dune film and Civil War. Dramatically different in almost every single way, philosophically and aesthetically.

If you're a fan of movies, you should see both.

[CTC2 2865]

I really enjoyed it although at times it was hard to look at which I guess it should be. 
I disagree with some of the comments above about not really knowing much about the sides. 
We know that the President was in his third term, he turned the military on its citizens, and his rhetoric in the beginning where he builds up to something being the “greatest military victory of all time” sounded familiar as well and conveyed a President who was lying to his people.  If you contrast his dialogue with what unfolds, it is a fair assumption he is not telling the truth.  The brutality at the end is certainly analogous to the fates of brutal dictators mentioned earlier in the film. 
The other side is more ambiguous. Clearly, all guys in uniform were not created equal and some of the other war scenes involved people in civilian clothes.  
It did leave some things for the viewer to fill in the blanks but not in an unfulfilling way like say a series that has an ambiguous ending. 
Movie was really well done and the scary part is that it looked at the idea of a civil war in a way that was absolutely believable. 
Definitely a thought provoking way to spend a couple of hours. 

Edited April 21 by CTC2

[Parliament 14593]

It isn’t an action movie of course, but the action sure is good.  Especially the end part.

Just a well made movie in general.  Writing, characters, cinematography, sound.  

Its message reminds me of “The Day After” from the 1980’s. It says, gratuitously, “Don’t do this.”

When is Jesse Plemons gonna get his own movie?

And is there any role Nick Offerman hasn’t killed?  He had 90 seconds in this movie and you know exactly what his character is about.

I’m surprised there isn’t a CR thread on this movie.  Guess Garland managed to split the middle perfectly.

Edited April 21 by Parliament

[Buzzrock 15136]

It’s interesting because a couple of reviewers I like had the same complaint which was that it was well done but didn’t have much to say. But I’ve heard a ton of praise from movie goers so I want to check it out.

I haven’t heard / read any complaints that it was too political / not political enough.

[Parliament 14593]

I think those critics were hoping for more of a backstory, and maybe some politics.

[Jerry Callo 8958]

Saw it this evening in IMax.  I really like it.

[CooterBrown 18287]

I think those critics were hoping for more of a backstory, and maybe some politics.

It had a ton to say about war photographers. I think most viewers may not realize it’s a movie about that and not war.

[ROFL BOX 6655]

Same it last night l.

 

Box score: 8½ ~ 9 ☆'s.

 

PS: why does Jesse Plemons always seem to play an asshole part?

[Jerry Callo 8958]

7 hours ago, ROFL BOX said:

PS: why does Jesse Plemons always seem to play an asshole part?

Because he's good at it.

[safe sex 11980]

On 4/16/2024 at 4:12 PM, mdleast said:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/civil-war-with-alex-garland-plus-the-10-most/id1439252196?i=1000652241422

Thanks for this. Hadn't listened to any of their stuff before and really enjoyed the episode.

[mdleast 8521]

6 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Thanks for this. Hadn't listened to any of their stuff before and really enjoyed the episode.

They are also on The Rewatchables with Bill Simmons...another great movie podcast 

[ROFL BOX 6655]

For those who know movie production, does this seem like a quick turnaround? 

Quote

Principal photography began in Atlanta on March 15, 2022

 

[Jerry Callo 8958]

12 hours ago, ROFL BOX said:

For those who know movie production, does this seem like a quick turnaround? 

 

I don't know any thing about movie production, but I do have some experience answering random questions on the internet.  Seems like a quick turnaround to me.

[TrashMaster G 18070]

On 4/20/2024 at 10:17 PM, CTC2 said:

I really enjoyed it although at times it was hard to look at which I guess it should be. 
I disagree with some of the comments above about not really knowing much about the sides. 
We know that the President was in his third term, he turned the military on its citizens, and his rhetoric in the beginning where he builds up to something being the “greatest military victory of all time” sounded familiar as well and conveyed a President who was lying to his people.  If you contrast his dialogue with what unfolds, it is a fair assumption he is not telling the truth.  The brutality at the end is certainly analogous to the fates of brutal dictators mentioned earlier in the film. 
The other side is more ambiguous. Clearly, all guys in uniform were not created equal and some of the other war scenes involved people in civilian clothes.  
It did leave some things for the viewer to fill in the blanks but not in an unfulfilling way like say a series that has an ambiguous ending. 
Movie was really well done and the scary part is that it looked at the idea of a civil war in a way that was absolutely believable. 
Definitely a thought provoking way to spend a couple of hours. 

I disagree with your take here.

What we DON'T know is the timing of things. What happened before the President turned the military on the citizens? What happened before a third term became an option?

The war-time rhetoric, claiming victory, propogandizing - none of that is indicative of a political lean of a side, or the right/wrong position. It's just part of war.  That was the point.

The viewer doesn't know what side is in the right or part of a particular political view.  That was the point of the way the film was made.

[Parliament 14593]

  

 

[Helobious 9817]

14 hours ago, ROFL BOX said:

For those who know movie production, does this seem like a quick turnaround? 

 

Pretty standard, especially for lower budget a movie without a ton of vfx 

[CurlyDumps 4650]

46 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

I disagree with your take here.

What we DON'T know is the timing of things. What happened before the President turned the military on the citizens? What happened before a third term became an option?

The war-time rhetoric, claiming victory, propogandizing - none of that is indicative of a political lean of a side, or the right/wrong position. It's just part of war.  That was the point.

The viewer doesn't know what side is in the right or part of a particular political view.  That was the point of the way the film was made.

I don't see where CTC mentioned anything about political sides in his post. The president was very clearly conveyed as a dictator who had usurped too much power.  Sammy (the older reporter) literally compares the president to other overthrown dictators.

The portrayal of the president as a despot at the end of his reign is one of the ways the film avoids politicizing why the country is at war. 

 

[Teebox 90]

For those who have seen it, it was a little unclear to me which "side" Jesse Plemon's character was on.  I believe it was the "United States" and not the Western Forces.  That right? Effectively blurring the lines among which side was in the "right"? 

[mdleast 8521]

41 minutes ago, Teebox said:

For those who have seen it, it was a little unclear to me which "side" Jesse Plemon's character was on.  I believe it was the "United States" and not the Western Forces.  That right? Effectively blurring the lines among which side was in the "right"? 

I think it's possible he wasn't on anyone's specific side but rather took the utter lawlessness of the situation to target and take out those they deemed (literally) "Unamerican"

[TrashMaster G 18070]

59 minutes ago, Teebox said:

For those who have seen it, it was a little unclear to me which "side" Jesse Plemon's character was on.  I believe it was the "United States" and not the Western Forces.  That right? Effectively blurring the lines among which side was in the "right"? 

I think he was definitely not with the WF, so on the side of the President.

[Parliament 14593]

10 hours ago, Teebox said:

For those who have seen it, it was a little unclear to me which "side" Jesse Plemon's character was on.  I believe it was the "United States" and not the Western Forces.  That right? Effectively blurring the lines among which side was in the "right"? 

I think everyone they meet up to and including Plemmons is a partisan.

[utxmike05 1833]

Movie was meh.  Dunst and Plemmons were good. Filming was gritty and cool, but  I didn't know what to expect when going in from story line.  Ear drums blown out by overly loud gun fire sound effects.  Cringe ending. But the young chic had a nice booty. 

Edited April 25 by utxmike05

[NeverMarryAStripper 22274]

I think I'll just wait on the real-life version in November