Civil War was terrible. A liberal exploitation blockbuster for no one, deeply divorced from reality, too afraid of its own premise to even tease it out. This must be what it’s like to see America through the eyes of a New York Times journalist. Never make this movie again unless in deep collaboration with Alex Jones.
Experts agree.
Bloated and bleeding
The system works
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @dungus's post:
That Marvel civil war movie came out like a decade ago your so late to the train bro lol.
I haven't seen it, yet (not sure if I will), but yeah the second I saw that Texas and California were united against the rest of the US it was obvious they were going to "both sides" the hell out of its political context.
Even worse it’s like the sides don’t exist. We’re just impartial observers in a disaster film depicting America’s collapse at the hand of very bad no good polarized politics.
The movie is so dumb that President Swanson is hiding under his desk like George Costanza by the end. They didn’t think to show us the satanic pedophile bunker under the White House? No, because that would have at least been an inspired choice, where this movie makes none.
Imagining them breaching into the White House, and in the basement they find an Annihilation-style video of politicians with reptile eyes tearing open an child and sucking the adrenochrome out of its bones.
See now that sounds sick. Get Batista in there as a Qpilled Capitol rioter on a mission to kill the sickos and you have yourself a film that meets the moment. Maybe throw in some of those ethereal Portland Maoists for him to shred through.
Hi. Saw it opening weekend. There isn't a "both sides" of anything. It's a film about war journalism.
The impossible task of being "impartial" as a journalist in war time, how depictions of war are so casually consumed by audiences, the psychology (and arguably sociopathy) that is required to do the work of war journalism.
If you're able to leave your own political baggage at the door, it's something you'll be able to appreciate. If you can't, you won't.
Exploitation film as in a cheap schlocky movie that cashes in on contemporary cultural anxieties. This is like one of those on a high budget, aimed at 59 year olds who read The Atlantic and cried on January 6th.
Oh I know what film exploitation is. What I'm curious about is what specifically makes this film liberal exploitation. I don't plan on ever watching it, but most reviews read very differently from your perspective of the film. So color me curious.
too afraid of its own premise to even tease it out.
Its premise seemed pretty explicit. Is there something they're not showing in the trailers that's a 180 or a twist?
I lost my respect for movie critics when they seemed to collectively say that "Cuties" was a good movie. So, this doesn't surprise me.
The something they are not showing is everything, this is speculative fiction that fails to speculate. A completely vapid Call of Duty Campaign B-movie wearing plainly obvious pretensions on its sleeve. It wants nothing more than for you to squirm at imagery of violence on US soil, and I'm sure any one of those tomatometer dipshits would revel in response by saying That's The Point. Hollow, empty, stupid -- “the stuff that IMAX was made for.”
It is! Because the substance is nowhere in the film, it only exists in your head. No amount of hero worship for the absolute bores wearing helmets that read Please Be Patient, I’m Doing Serious Journalism could ever save it.