I gotta say, I found this trailer kind of disturbing. I've always said that US military troops wouldn't fire on their neighbors.... but what if they really, REALLY hated the President? In this, California and fucking TEXAS teamed up against him. Goddam. How bad he must have been. And if he was that bad, maybe the militry would fire on their neighbors.
Maybe someone is worried about Trump 2.
Be warned, this trailer seems to give a lot away.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
I guess having Texas + California team up was a way to make the movie not be perceived as a Left-Right kinda of civil war.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Not sure how I feel about that trailer, and I'm definitely not excited about the writer.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Thought it was good. This is a war journalism ethics movie. A strong ANTI-civil war movie. Nobody sane watches this movie and goes 'yeah, I want that."
I had read/thought they tried to stay out of current politics, but they show the third term president talking EXACTLY like Trump does at the very beginning. "We just had the greatest military victory, of ALL TIME" (they didn't)
I had read/thought they tried to stay out of current politics, but they show the third term president talking EXACTLY like Trump does at the very beginning. "We just had the greatest military victory, of ALL TIME" (they didn't)
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
I did not enjoy it overall. I thought pieces were fine, but as a whole it was predictable, shockingly boring, an absolute mess politically, and tried way too hard. I blame the writing and direction, which is one person, Alex Garland.
I really wonder if the A24 reputation sabotaged Mr. Garland. Being an A24 film comes with certain expectations and this film did not hit them.
Troy is right that it's very anti-civil war. Nobody sane would want it. It shows how chaotic the country becomes, but does so poorly because the film is so chaotically shot. I don't mean that the action is chaotic. I mean, the shots they chose to show are chaotic. The audience is never shown proper scale or good angles to truly understand positioning.
Additionally, we're never told what is going on. NEVER. There's no explanation for why two complete polar opposite states would team up. Why Florida is also fighting, but as a third entity. Why the president is in his third term. Where any of the other states stand. How Texas and California got so much military hardware. How the "government forces" are so apparently easy to defeat. And so on. I'm sure the writers would claim they didn't want that stuff explained, and that's a legit thing to do. However, I don't think I'd buy it. Ultimately, this is a war movie written by the guy that also wrote Annihilation and 28 Days Later. To say he knows nothing about the military or basic strategy is underselling it. He probably loses every time he plays Tic Tac Toe.
But hey, he also knows nothing of presidential security, so he's consistent there. Added bonus, he also doesn't understand automobile physics. (You'll know it when you see it.)
Alex also directed this film. There are some really good scenes, but also a lot of garbage. Again, he knows NOTHING about the military, and I'm not just ripping him for the lack of reality, tension, or drama in the very few action scenes. I'm ripping him because everything is just such bullshit. There's a sniper scene that starts off really promising, but quickly becomes so stupid that it's almost a comedic skit. The constant overlays of music so we hear nothing but while we see shots he was trying really hard to make more emotionally gripping than they really are, were mostly annoying and pretentious.
Credit where it's due, the actors tried. Aside from Offerman who was honestly not great in his final scene, I cannot think of a single bad performance. Everyone was great.
To show how amateur hour this film is though, the absolute best performance in the film was by Jesse Plemons, the soldier wearing the red sun glasses. He's fucking UNCREDITED. In fact, a shitton of people were uncredited. WTF? Could A24 not cut checks for extras or something? And yeah, that scene "What kind of American?" is easily the best in the film. It's legit riveting, filled with tension, and off the charts acting.
BTW, I think Troy might be onto something with Offerman doing a kinda, sorta Trump impression. I'd even add that his line at the end is also in that character. BUT, did you happen to notice that the VP was a light skinned black woman. (also uncredited) Was that supposed to be Kamala Harris?
Great acting throughout and one truly memorable scene aren't enough to save this boring road trip movie for me.
I really wonder if the A24 reputation sabotaged Mr. Garland. Being an A24 film comes with certain expectations and this film did not hit them.
Troy is right that it's very anti-civil war. Nobody sane would want it. It shows how chaotic the country becomes, but does so poorly because the film is so chaotically shot. I don't mean that the action is chaotic. I mean, the shots they chose to show are chaotic. The audience is never shown proper scale or good angles to truly understand positioning.
Additionally, we're never told what is going on. NEVER. There's no explanation for why two complete polar opposite states would team up. Why Florida is also fighting, but as a third entity. Why the president is in his third term. Where any of the other states stand. How Texas and California got so much military hardware. How the "government forces" are so apparently easy to defeat. And so on. I'm sure the writers would claim they didn't want that stuff explained, and that's a legit thing to do. However, I don't think I'd buy it. Ultimately, this is a war movie written by the guy that also wrote Annihilation and 28 Days Later. To say he knows nothing about the military or basic strategy is underselling it. He probably loses every time he plays Tic Tac Toe.
But hey, he also knows nothing of presidential security, so he's consistent there. Added bonus, he also doesn't understand automobile physics. (You'll know it when you see it.)
Alex also directed this film. There are some really good scenes, but also a lot of garbage. Again, he knows NOTHING about the military, and I'm not just ripping him for the lack of reality, tension, or drama in the very few action scenes. I'm ripping him because everything is just such bullshit. There's a sniper scene that starts off really promising, but quickly becomes so stupid that it's almost a comedic skit. The constant overlays of music so we hear nothing but while we see shots he was trying really hard to make more emotionally gripping than they really are, were mostly annoying and pretentious.
Credit where it's due, the actors tried. Aside from Offerman who was honestly not great in his final scene, I cannot think of a single bad performance. Everyone was great.
To show how amateur hour this film is though, the absolute best performance in the film was by Jesse Plemons, the soldier wearing the red sun glasses. He's fucking UNCREDITED. In fact, a shitton of people were uncredited. WTF? Could A24 not cut checks for extras or something? And yeah, that scene "What kind of American?" is easily the best in the film. It's legit riveting, filled with tension, and off the charts acting.
BTW, I think Troy might be onto something with Offerman doing a kinda, sorta Trump impression. I'd even add that his line at the end is also in that character. BUT, did you happen to notice that the VP was a light skinned black woman. (also uncredited) Was that supposed to be Kamala Harris?
Great acting throughout and one truly memorable scene aren't enough to save this boring road trip movie for me.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Scammed. Movie was called Civil War, but that was just the background for this movie which was called, "Really the Journalists are the Real Heroes."
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Just watched this tonight. I couldn't make sense of who was who as far as teams they were on. I saw the military at the end, and they were fighting. . . the military? Hitting the white house? And I was thinking about the hardware they had, etc. And it occurred to me that pretty much everything the military has is made by civilian contractors. I've been in a facility that made tank and APC bodies. Ammo manufacturers are all over the place. It also occurred to me that there's no one factory that makes tanks, helicopters, etc. So there would have to be a huge logistical hurdle to actually start making these things for an 'enemy of the state'. But. . . there sort of is a path to civilians having access to military hardware. We can also obviously commandeer it, etc. While yes, the military has the tech, machines, etc. But 'we the people' have numbers. Could the civilian population take out the military? Perhaps. However, we would NEVER be able to work as a team well enough to pull it off. Anyway. . .
Yes, that was Trump. 100%. Plemons' scene was the best one, and it felt like one that would totally play out all over the country. Storming the white house to kill the pres was a stupid premise. It's fine they used journalists to tell this story, but, they had way too much 'journalist' in the story which I found to be more of a waste of time than progress the story. Again, the only time I cared about them was with Plemons. Any other time, could care less about their 'struggles'.
Not impressed. Disagree with most of the premise of the story.
Oh, I did at least feel good about the fact that the people did in fact over threw the government they didn't like. Which is a premise I WOULD be a fan of.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
It doesn't seem plausible that someone trying to take over the US could possibly be against TX AND California. Because I do think that both put together would steam roll whatever was left, as was shown in the movie, it'd be wild to even try. (didn't the film say the Air Force or Navy that was left decided not to fight?)
There are a ton of military bases in CA, same with TX, so I can see the hardware being available if both were teamed up.
There are a ton of military bases in CA, same with TX, so I can see the hardware being available if both were teamed up.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
On paper perhaps, but not realistically IF it were them vs the other 48:
-The biggest issue they would face is logistics. They're too far apart to truly support one another. If either sent troops anywhere, they'd be wide open for counter attacks.
-Both states combined make up 20-22% of our armed forces. 80 vs 20...
-California and Texas do have the most bases (CA is #1 and Texas #2), but the other 48 states have more. Not by a lot, but they do have more.
-I'm not going to dig into all the equipment at each base to figure out who has the advantage there, but just know that the other 48 have the nukes...
This is such a great example of why support roles are so critical. You can't win a LoL match with just your ADC. The Revolutionaries don't beat Britain without logistical support from the French. Luke doesn't blow up the Death Star if the Falcon doesn't return to provide cover. Leroy Jenkins might have made it if the support folks moved faster! And so on.
Anyway, I was just having fun there. In the movie there are four separate groups, three of which were against the government, so yeah. No contest.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
Yeah I was assuming if CA goes the pac northwest goes with us and probably every state between CA and Texas joins the block. Would be safer for them and shift the battle lines to the northeast or south.
This is all stupid theory crafting though - if this movie did one thing well it was it made me not at all hyped about a modern civil war. It’d be horrific.
This is all stupid theory crafting though - if this movie did one thing well it was it made me not at all hyped about a modern civil war. It’d be horrific.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
It is, but it's fun. It's like discussing who'd win between the Hulk and Superman (Hulk).
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
There's a subreddit who does this ... r/powerscaling? maybe. I'm not even a member of that group but I read it so much the alg sends it my way.
Anyway the response is always WHICH Hulk, because there's like 6 of them and some of them can beat superman.
But then someone else will chime in that Superman canonically cannot be beaten or killed in the DC timeline for some strange lore reason.
So we're at at impasse.
Civil War - A24 - (2024)
But he's been killed...? I think twice? And variants of him, multiple times. Plus, how utterly boring would he be if he, literally, cannot be beaten or killed?
Fair point on which Hulk. I was thinking standard green. Mainly because the longer he's there (angrier), the stronger he gets. Eventually, it would be too much for even Supes.
Although, he is dumb, so Supes could win there.
Thus, I'll say Worldbreaker Hulk.
And that, is how you derail a thread!
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell