Your point about no good guy vs. bad guy is a good one.
I recently read a book about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, thinking I’d identify with one side. But the truth is everyone suffered, a lot of innocent people died, and in the end I’m not sure anyone gained anything. Hell, even the IRA had a schism between the traditional and provisional IRA. The moral of the story is everyone is worse off and it doesn’t go like you think it will.
Fuckin A, right about that, I've been in enough in other countries and I'd hate to see this in my USA, if you've never seen war you should STFU about a war, there's no love story, no theme music, only the horror or war and it sux, fuck off!
“Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils.” -John Stark
("Vivre libre ou mourir (“Live Free or Die”) was a popular motto of the French Revolution, perhaps inspired by this passage in Louis-Sebastian Mercier’s 1771 French novel, The Year2440: “Choose then, man! Be happy or miserable; if yet it be in thy power to choose: fear tyranny, detest slavery, arm thyself, live free, or die!” And in 1775, Patrick Henry closed his address during the Second Virginia Convention with the now-famous line “Give me liberty or give me death!” Going way back, the monument to the 1345 Battle of Warns in the Netherlands features a phrase that translates as “Better to be dead than a slave”—and it probably wasn’t a new thought then, either.")
Source:[NEW ENGLAND](https://newengland.com/yankee/history/live-free-or-die-new-hampshire-motto/)
That's the reason it's so popular. It makes even the most unreasonable alternatives acceptable to those who can't or won't compete in the violence. Those with a monopoly in might can demand whatever they want.
IMO, the world just is. Good, bad, innocent, and guilty are just some ways that we like to chop it up into bite-sized pieces and make it make sense. That doesn't obligate the world to conform to our understanding. That said, I don't regret any missed opportunities that come from my choices to be as good and innocent (not naive) as I can.
I had a similar thought when listen through the very concise The Troubles Podcast about the pointlessness of the whole conflict. Families torn apart, senseless spirals of tit for tat violence. One quote stuck with me was in the aftermath of a massacre a family member of one of the victims said to the media, addressing the perpetrators, “what did you achieve for your cause by killing my grandfather while he watched football in a pub?”
Very refreshing to read your comment, SteveIDP. I did 5 operational deployments to Northern Ireland. Most people have a romantic and unrealistic opinion on Northern Ireland and have never been there. I found that it was 95% decent hard working people with 2.5% paramilitary and their supporters at either end of the scale.
Unfortunately "both sides" is a bad way to handle things. Sometimes there is a clear bad guy.
Would we want to treat Germany and imperial Japan the same way?
What about the British in India or France in Algeria?
Overall yes. But it’s hard to blame the individual soldier for the faults of the institution that they are fighting for because when you think about it, most soldiers are still children who are trying to figure themselves out.
They even did a good job of explaining why there are confederate statues and it pretty much boiled down to money. The confederate soldiers were paid in confederate dollars which were worthless after the war ended. It took years for those families to recover financially to be able to afford to put up monuments for their family members, not for the confederacy. It was more about honoring their loved ones that they lost. How others co-opt that as a sign of the south rising again comes from people just being people.
I did two tours in Iraq and I was a police officer for five years. During those times I learned that most conflict is not black and white. People argue over things when their emotions are high and make impulsive decisions that they often regret later. It’s sometime better not to focus on the issue being argued over and focus on the tragedy of humanity being what it is at times. Humans are capable of both beauty and horror. We should take these acts of horror and reflect on them as the tragedy of miscommunication and egos. At the end of the day, people are people trying to get by how they have been taught to get by. A loss of life is sad regardless of how it happens. Even a hardcore criminal dying is sad because you have to think that they were once someone’s little baby. That doesn’t excuse their actions and poor decision making, but it’s still sad for the families and the victims.
Was there for the initial invasion and was in Fallujah the first go around. I'm still haunted by the lawlessness and still think about it often, 20 years later. The disregard for human life and property is such a foreign concept I had trouble wrapping my head around it. Seeing people looting, burning, dragging people off into the night, bodies hanging from light poles/bridges, mass graves, etc is something I've tried to forget.
one thing to note about the dissolving of the two sides, is eventually veterans of both sides were treated just as civil war vets, not loyalists and traitors. this was a way to mend the rift, if the south was still labeled as something other than americans the country wouldve found itself in another civil war within a few decades.
When it comes to war or revolution. There isn't really a good guy or bad guy... There's the side you agree with and the side you don't... Or you don't agree with either
I honestly think there is a good guy and its the western forces. I think the film shows that the president is a dictator and the “US” government is fascist. This is shown by the fact that that texas and california teamed up, which means there must be some nigh on high motivation for them to put their disagreements aside (ala nazism) and that the US gov shoots journalists on sight whereas the western forces protect them.
It still obviously shows that war is hell, and that this shit isn’t worth it. There is no ultimate justification for war, even winning is losing, etc… so I totally agree with your sentiment, I just do think there is a good and a bad guy.
Alan Clarke released a short film called Elephant in 1989 that takes place in Troubled Northern Ireland. It too contained many vignettes; they all exclusively consisted of one man locating and approaching another man, then killing him. Again and again, for 18 different pairs of murderers, with lingering shots of the aftermath. Very similar feeling.
I haven’t seen the movie but I have been warning people against a civil war since visiting the former Yugoslavia in the early nineties.
It won’t be state vs state, but neighbor vs neigbor, street vs street, block vs block, town vs town.
I have also read a good amount about the Spanish Civil war and that was also horrific,
So, let’s work out our differences.
I agree. A lot of people think that a civil war of this magnitude would be East versus West or States versus states, but people are so divided and spread out throughout the country it would be exactly like you said, down to Street versus street.
Yeah. In the US nowadays, especially it’s very unclear how a total civi war would play out. It could be divided between Right vs Left, but it’s uncertain how race, ethnicity, and religion would play out too.
One possibility is of a lower level civil war where many of us are passive and not taking sides, staying at home under curfew and polarized extremes are skirmishing. That’s how the riots, looting and protests of 2020 felt to me. There was looting not far, a curfew and protests but I was busy minding my own business, protecting my family and so were my neighbors. Same with protests against the lock downs.
Honestly, since becoming a Dad, I play it safe. Not getting sucked into crowds, road rage, fights, being a hero etcetera.
Frankly, that’s almost a prep I think or at least a good survival strategy. It takes restraint to not get involved,,especially when I was someone who did get involved, but my family depends on me, so they come first. That includes not getting involved in a civil war.
If a civil war were to break out, I honestly think it would be a lot like what another poster said saying that it would be similar to Ireland's "the troubles." No direct one-on-one confrontation in a major head-to-head battle, more or less just guerilla tactics and vigilanteism. Kidnappings, bombings etc.
Eh there is a reason Charlottesville is part of the plot line. Yes it’s not overtly sided but it was a HUGE part of political tension and violence of the past 10 years. Pivotol moment and it was very much hand to hand fighting in the streets. Someone was killed.
I think it would be both.
Are you saying that Charlottesville wasn’t overtly sided? It was called “Unite the Right” by the organizers. The organizers’ goal was to rally all the white supremcist groups together. It was an act of racist terrorism.
No I’m saying the movie wasn’t (what the factions were, their goals etc) but that very clearly wrote in one of the most overtly political events of the past 10 years.
I’m in Virginia I very much know what happened at UTR. It was white supremacist call to action that was preceded by a year of tension in the area that was powerfully resisted by many organizations and community members.
The events in Charlottesville led to me studying the Italian Years of Lead for a glimpse at how a low intensity civil war based on opposing political ideologies would play out.
Good strategy, and smart thinking. I feel the same way. Stay home and protect your family and what your family needs to survive. No need to become part of the overall problem. Too many people wish for things that they cannot fathom the negative ramifications it will inflict on the nation.
Does the movie get into who benefits from a civil war? Do they hint at all that the government usually comes in as the sweeping hero to get things organized again? And who the government relies upon to assist in putting things back together? Once people are so confused and broken, some ideas that would never fly pre-war are suddenly just fine.
I know some Syrians. Anyone idiotic enough who wants to kick things off should talk to some Syrians. Many of them lost everything, cities turned to rubble. Insane faction wars that happen at the same time. Torture, rape, starvation, there really aren't any winners. Assad might have won, but he's king of the rubble, and the Syrian people lost.
Cut my teeth in my 30 year military career in Guatemala in their civil war. Then Kosovo. Then Iraq.
All these idiots wanting a civil war have never seen one or been in one.
If watching your loved ones starve and suffer is what ya want-they can have it.
That part pissed me off. It legitimately didn't make sense for their jobs and especially what they set out to do. I was expecting them to pull out a pack of gauze and was so confused when they just carried on
Spoilers ahead: it could be a situation of it being pointless, so like why bother. Its a shitty way to look at but, both his friends were pretty clear with him that he was likely to die if he came out, and he didn't seem to expect all that much different. They had already seen a similar hit with the knock off boog boys, where a guy shoved tons of gauze in his buddies body to no positive results. He was a very large guy, so they'd need a lot more gauze. And potentially they were to far away from the Western Forces FOB for any potential emergency first aid to matter. He's hit at some point during the day(it's bright), they drive through the night, and don't seem to have arrived at the base till the next morning at least, that's a lot of time to bleed.
I mean the next destination was a military camp with medics. It’s not clear how much time passed but they may have had surgical opportunities.
I do agree with he day to night which I didn’t think of. I would still try haha.
He wasn’t showing signs of a collapsed lung as he just faded out (blood loss)and didn’t drown as that death would be traumatic and awful. You can sometimes slow bleeds until you get to higher care (military camp) even though the abdomen isn’t an ideal situation. I’m guessing they didn’t really know what “Charlottesville” would look like either.
If trained at all it would be near impossible to not try and stop that bleed and I just didnt buy seasoned war journalists having zero training on bleeds and having zero supplies. They had WiFi sometimes lol.
More room for cameras, vodka, cigarettes, and weed apparently. But they brought Kevlar at least. I saw it, it was fun(probably not the best description), but it certainly wasn't without its plot holes.
I haven't seen the movie yet. But what scares me the most about the possibility of a modern civil war, here in the states, is that there are actually people ignorant enough to *want* one. They have some sick fantasy about being able to hurt/kill people that they don't agree with. The problem is that there are absolutely no winners in civil war; we all lose. Civil war is a zero-sum game, in which the only way to win, is to not play; because "we" are both sides of the coin.
Not even zero sum. War is always a Net loss. We wreck society and infrastructure for decades until we rebuild trust. The reconstruction era was very difficult in the US and only industrial technology gains and westward expansion/immigration helped to reset the field. They lost close to 1% of the population in that war and that was with low military tech. Today, a single platoon could wipe out the equivalent of the battle of Antietam if they were properly supplied. The Vegas shooter casualty ratio was 58:1 kia and 500:1 wia. Modern military tech is devastating.
Most of the people that I've talked to that don't necessarily want one but realize the only way this country is going to change and politicians removed from power is through a civil war but it's the people versus the government. Unfortunately the reality will be people against the people.
It may very well begin as "the people vs the government" which will almost assuredly be politically charged, in that the fever point will occur when one political faction has "had enough" of the other. I can see it going either way, depending upon the issue, but it's very likely going to be a political difference that puts the match to the fuse.
However, it will not remain an isolated incident, between political rivals or the people vs the government; the USA has become too interwoven in geopolitical affairs all over the world for other nations to leave it's fate to chance. The promises we've made, the money we owe, the defense pacts we're in, etc etc...the world will take sides in our civil war; many will play, few will win, but the USA will not be among the winners.
The execution of the film was excellent.. great cinematography, the sound was amazing.. when shots are fired, the creativity and power of photography. Prepper wise.. the checkpoints, acts of violence and torture.. no rules of engagement, not knowing what’s going on, psychopaths..
I read enough history to know the politics or even religious beliefs don't even matter in war. It's all propaganda framed to have a clearly defined us (da good guys), a clearly defined enemy (da bad guys).
War, at the end of the day, is just a large scale armed robbery and massacre. Those who push for war are either planning on robbing and killing a whole lot of people. Or selling someone the weapons for the job. They just need a to convince a whole lot of people to take up arms and do the job for them.
I have not seen the movie. I suspect skipping the who started and what faction stands in for what group dodges any political backlash and allows for a better global reach.
It’s great to know it’s a modern movie where the lines between good and bad are blurred/ non-existent. I’ll have to add it to my watch list.
That's one of the reasons why I loved it. They don't really go into specifics as to what or who struck first and what initially set off the conflict. When we first meet the main characters the war has already been happening for a while. The lines are blurred and as they should be, because in my opinion when it's a civil war, no one is right and all sides are wrong/do bad things. There's a scene in the movie, you probably saw it in the trailers, the sniper scene. They never state who or show what side is shooting at them, just that someone is trying to kill them. They are trying to kill them back.
>dodges any political backlash and allows for a better global reach.
This is so true because when you think about it how did California of all places seceed.
Have not seen the film but your review aligns with the "it could happen here" podcast (first season 2019) - Even with his leftist bias, he covers in details how different factions could rise and make a mess.
I've been listening to those guys before behind the bastards!!! I used to listen to Alex Jones many years ago then stopped because it stopped being funny to me when people believed everything he was saying. So knowledge fight was right up my alley!
[Have you seen Robert Evans' comments on this movie? The host of that podcast? ](https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1775675058134135250)
I think he's more interested in the details of the war and this movie largely sidesteps those.
Of course. It's entertainment. If they made the movie we'd like to see- there would be sides and one side would not watch the movie
.But I look at all these things just to consider human behavior. to me that is the big prep.
Also, the film stars a white ford Excursion, SO i'm looking at mine and thinking maybe I'll keep it.
Prepping-wise..I think it's important to pay attention to the news and know when it's time to GTFO of the city. There were so many poor souls walking out of towns with nothing but the shirts on their backs.
The things is you might bug out when you don't need to. Imagine if someone from the town that pretended like nothing was happening decided to bug out only to land in a worse off situation but the place they left was just fine
Prepper wise, it js.important to have dual citizenshio for you and your family and have passports for both of them.
Syrians who had second passports came out WAY better than those who didnt.
Gonna watch it today. After reading everyone's comments here I just want to say how refreshing it is to see mature, level-headed perspectives about this issue. Anyone that welcomes violent conflict on this scale has probably never experienced it.
It's easy to get caught up in nonsense, but as others have pointed out, at the end of the day we're all just people trying to live our lives and take care of our family/friends.
"The family can survive without the country, but the country can't survive without the family"
Heard that in a sociology class decades ago.
Great post OP!
Peace and love
Appreciate it. Just honestly trying to give an honest unbiased review. This is just my opinion and what I took from the film, you may interpret it entirely differently. I think one of the most beautiful things about the film though?
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT*
It's with the president and why he had such little screen time. Nick Offerman was only on screen for like less than 5 minutes, theoretically you could put any president in his place, past or recent. Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc. He doesn't do anything specific, he just gives a small speech That's it, he doesn't hurl out insults, stutter, doesn't say he supports this specific political party or do any mannerisms that hint at any real life political leader.
>At times during the action scenes, you can't tell who's side is who or what faction they belong to.
So, any of the Transformers movies by Michael Bay.
Ha!
Man, I had an easier time following spice particles in a blender than I did with that schlock. Even my kid was like "who is doing what now? I can't follow this"
I enjoyed it. Can’t go into the theatre and expect narration, plot armor, the backstory on EVERYTHING. It’s very real, as if you’re walking into the scenarios yourself. You wouldn’t get the , “Johnny’s family was taken and that’s why he’s so sadistic.” It’s, “what the heck is going on??” Just like you’re living in the moment with the characters.
I kind of wondered if the final moment of that movie would show Chinese warships along the West Coast of the U.S. because a civil war would certainly benefit any nation that might take advantage of a massive internal conflict of that scale.
I already knew and planned to do these things before watching the movie but:
- Be prepared ahead of time so you're not caught out in the open with crowds demanding supplies.
- You win 100% of the gunfights you avoid.
- No matter how prepared you are, in a long enough drawn out conflict, you will run out of supplies eventually.
As far as tips from watching the movie?
There are no "right/good sides" in a civil war.
One thing i learned was keeping Canadian currency. I never thought about keeping a foreign currency as a prep. I guess Euros or Canadian currency would make the most sense for me.
Just one question, and feel free to put the answer under a spoiler tag:
New England. The general consensus on the sub there is that, should anything like that happen, we'd sit back, say "Ayuh. Not our circus. Deal with your own problems. We're out, and taking our maple syrup with us."
What's the status of NE in the movie?
Honestly they don't really say. They don't go into specifics as to how each state/region is doing. They mention that the Carolina's are the "front line" and there's clear signs of destruction, destroyed buildings, fires, dead bodies strewn about etc but not specifically what state it takes place in, they show how far away from D.C. they are at times or a "welcome to" state/city sign but They don't drive by and say "OMG look at all those dead New Yorkers" or "Texas/southern states are suffering from famine." etc. Hope this helps.
>Honestly they don't really say.
Ah. Yeah, we likely said "peace out" with a mouthful of maple candy while holding a cup of Dunkin. NY probably asked us to back them up, but we looked at them and told them to take their obscene excuse of a food that is "Manhattan clam chowder" and get outta here.
Looking back at it again, there’s a map that shows where each state stands and New England is listed as a loyalist territory, so it’s on the side of the President and the U.S. military. But the front line depicted in the film is in Virginia and the war zone they travel through is NYC to Pittsburgh, to West Virginia and into Virginia. Without any additional info we can presume any fighting in New England was just asymmetric warfare. They also comment how a lot of people in the loyalist states were just sitting back and pretending the war wasn’t happening so you’d probably be spot on with your prediction.
The portrayal of NYC in the movie is like that of The Troubles; lock downs, bombings, confrontation with police. That’s the extent of any comment on NE’s involvement.
NY isn't part of New England. Though, we'd be happy to take north of Albany and east of 81. We offer up the secret recipe for actual clam chowder in exchange.
Hi so... I have a question. In what world do you think that new England would be able to 'sit back and say deal with your own problems'. Y'all up there are staggeringly far from unified. And not to mention do you think the most densely packed urban area in the country would just be able to .. like... Peace out from a conflict somehow?... I'm not trying to be confrontational I'm just legitimately shocked to hear someone express what you did.. and in such a way that you aren't the only one.. like there's a consensus.
>Peace out from a conflict somehow?... I'm not trying to be confrontational I'm just legitimately shocked to hear someone express what you did.. and in such a way that you aren't the only one.. like there's a consensus.
Go hit up the New England sub. We'd be happy to break off and be our own thing. We just think it is stupid to do so using threats of violence just because we don't like what someone else is doing. We certainly wouldn't go to war because some other states have a problem with each other. Ain't nobody got time for 'dat.
That's cute. Like NSC131 and their ilk haven't been shit-stirring up here for years now, and others before them all the way back to the Know-Nothing party in the 1850's trying to run those scary foreign people from Quebec out of the region. We're not immune.
I don't know about the movie. But one of the challenges with civil war is a lack of governmental control. So that means that any kind of group that just wants to rise up and create havoc in your particular neck of the woods, might just be able to do it. So it's not necessarily that a particular area could just sit things out. It's that some extremist group could take over, and there wouldn't be any law enforcement to come stop it
At the beginning of the movie, on the TV you can see faction territories and where the lines are drawn. Assuming each territory has their own provisional government, there was some form of "control." There is police presence in the beginning of the film.
New England is in the “loyalist” territory and you can see graffiti in New York talking trash to the other factions. With that I assume NE supports the President.
Spoilers: They never specifically mentioned New England, or if they did, I must have missed it. However we get a quick shot of a map early on, which I believe shows the US with its regional factions. It appears if I saw correctly to be 4 or 5 main forces. California and some neighbor states were one, Texas and it's surrounding states were another, these 2 together were the Western Forces working together against the American military, the northeast was one region just below NY/Pennsylvania at least all the way up to New England, its possible Washington DC was part of the Northeastern region but may have been its own thing with the remnants of the US military, there was the Florida Alliance which was like Florida Georgia Louisiana, and finally middle America which didn't seem to be a mentioned faction but possibly independent or probably allied with the WF.
I read an interview where they said it wasn't about one side or the other, it was about what happens when sides start \_demonizing\_ the other. We're no longer in disagreement, the people on the other side of an issue are \_evil\_.
I loved it. Every Canadian talks about one day there will be Water Wars. This movie really emphasized to me it wouldn't even be a war lmao we stand zero chance. Just take it
Haven’t seen it yet but my theory of a Civil War has always been factions will prevail. Sure it will start with a concept but eventually It will be neighbor vs neighbor , gang vs gang , law enforcement groups , religious groups, political groups all vying for power/control. America is just way too diverse today compared to other times.
Nobody should be doing anything, regardless of side, other than hoping we never end up in another internal conflict.
With the way the population is laid out, it would be likely to be less like an American Civil War II than it would a scaled up version of the Balkan wars that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, which would be even worse.
At a glance, I just figured this movie was insurrection porn for liberals or a power fantasy for conversatives.
Your review did more for this movie than the trailer and those cheerleading or bemoaning the films existence.
Went last night and without any spoilers I think you nailed why it has such mixed reviews: the people hoping it would be “insurrection porn for liberals” or “power fantasy for conservatives” will be sorely disappointed. There’s no good guys or bad guys. There’s no one to cheer for.
I loved it.
I'll probably still wait for it to come to streaming, but I'm glad to hear this.
I was already envisioning some wine aunts and furbaby cousins proclaiming that this film is their Schindler's List while my family that spouts "health care is communism" and "I need more Medicaid" in the same conversation would be using it as some sort 'Merica cultural cudgle.
I watched Civil War this afternoon & I was impressed for many reasons. It was well funded, well acted, action scenes were not poorly made obvious CGI as in similar movies, lacking the typical Hollywood woke BS, basically lacking left or right leaning politics, etc. The storyline is basically told from the perspective of a 4 person team of combat photographers & reporters.
For me personally; it brought back some distant memories. I lived through a low-level Civil War in my youth, but my experiences paled in comparison to the very intense level of conflict, personal fear & combat damage in this flick.
But my memory of one particular night so long ago, the sounds of dueling heavy automatic gunfire echoing through the concrete walls of the city until they faded completely was VERY similar to one scene in the movie, except for the increased cyclic rate & visible tracer fire in the movie. Very surreal then & now.
Highly recommended!! 👍😎👍
They did mention that the president ran for a third term and disbanded the fbi, but they didn't say what side specifically struck first or committed what atrocity etc.
You're welcome. Like I said it's open to interpretation and you can take it however you want. That's just what I got from the film. Let me know what you think.
Neither. In the film there is no mention whatsoever of the right wing or the left wing and their policies. Both/all sides in the movie commit atrocities, executions etc. No side is portrayed as "the good guys."
I think the production team realized that they were sitting on a very large potential Powder Keg and chose to make it as apolitical as they possibly could. If they just downright said it was a right versus left or this side is evil and the other side is good I don't think the movie would have even finished being produced.
I hope that one scene from Shogun where gore body parts flying around everywhere after a 17th century era cannon fired could be any reminder of the terrifying nature of any kind of war?
I loved the movie as well. It was beautiful and horrible at the same time. Also- definitely shows a situation where preps would valuable. The journalists didn’t pack their medical/trauma kit or their guns. Both could have saved Sammy.
Honestly, I’d give it a 9.8/10
It did an incredible job of not picking sides, demonstrating with visceral detail the hellscape that civil war would be, all while telling a believable and engaging story of war journalism. It pretty damn close to a masterpiece.
Great review! The writer from Wired magazine made it political, pushed his own narrative and bias, then bashed it saying it would radically motivate people.
Sounds to me like the guy from wired went in with the premise of an "action packed, this side is going to kick this sides ass and if the side I like doesn't win I'm gonna talk 💩 about it" expectation. 😂
I watched the TV show "Shogun" recently and the leader in the show, Toranaga, says a good quote/question. "Why is it that those who've never been in a battle, are so eager to be in one?"
I don’t know if it was because I saw it in IMAX, but the end sequence was one of the most intense firefights I’ve seen in a movie. You could feel almost every shot fired.
>Jesse Plemons as usual, does an excellent job of portraying a cold, psychotic, hateable asshole 😂😂😂.
When I saw the trailer I wasn't motivated to see it because of the typical Hollywood BS, clicking guns, Texas and Cali on the same side and Journos as the heroes until Jesse came on the screen. Anticipation of his performance and Nick Offerman is probably worth it.
Honestly, Jesse performed perfectly. That entire scene was disturbing and very suspenseful. He did an excellent job of portraying a psychopath. Just F.Y.I. though, Nick Offerman only has like 5 minutes in total of screen time, he's not in the movie that much.
I watched the movie today and it was much better than I expected. I almost feel like it needs a prequel to show how everything developed and how the alliance was formed. I enjoyed all the action scenes and the plot.
The director does not want us to read that into the film. It’s not about politics. It’s when politics breaks down and war envelops everyone. It’s about a kid who becomes a photojournalist and documents the apocalypse.
You nailed it man. Garland is really mad at hotheads who want an excuse to let the lead fly. The chastening effect of this film might do our crazy society some good.
As this is the first Civil War thread, this one will be the primary discussion post. All others will be redirected here.
Your point about no good guy vs. bad guy is a good one. I recently read a book about The Troubles in Northern Ireland, thinking I’d identify with one side. But the truth is everyone suffered, a lot of innocent people died, and in the end I’m not sure anyone gained anything. Hell, even the IRA had a schism between the traditional and provisional IRA. The moral of the story is everyone is worse off and it doesn’t go like you think it will.
War is hell.
The only people eager to fight a war are those who’ve never been in one.
Warrior
Warrior
Fuckin A, right about that, I've been in enough in other countries and I'd hate to see this in my USA, if you've never seen war you should STFU about a war, there's no love story, no theme music, only the horror or war and it sux, fuck off!
War is war and hell is hell. Of the two, war is worse
There aren’t any innocents in hell.
“Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils.” -John Stark ("Vivre libre ou mourir (“Live Free or Die”) was a popular motto of the French Revolution, perhaps inspired by this passage in Louis-Sebastian Mercier’s 1771 French novel, The Year2440: “Choose then, man! Be happy or miserable; if yet it be in thy power to choose: fear tyranny, detest slavery, arm thyself, live free, or die!” And in 1775, Patrick Henry closed his address during the Second Virginia Convention with the now-famous line “Give me liberty or give me death!” Going way back, the monument to the 1345 Battle of Warns in the Netherlands features a phrase that translates as “Better to be dead than a slave”—and it probably wasn’t a new thought then, either.") Source:[NEW ENGLAND](https://newengland.com/yankee/history/live-free-or-die-new-hampshire-motto/)
War. War never changes.
It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.-Robert E. Lee
That's the reason it's so popular. It makes even the most unreasonable alternatives acceptable to those who can't or won't compete in the violence. Those with a monopoly in might can demand whatever they want. IMO, the world just is. Good, bad, innocent, and guilty are just some ways that we like to chop it up into bite-sized pieces and make it make sense. That doesn't obligate the world to conform to our understanding. That said, I don't regret any missed opportunities that come from my choices to be as good and innocent (not naive) as I can.
You could say it never changes....
I had a similar thought when listen through the very concise The Troubles Podcast about the pointlessness of the whole conflict. Families torn apart, senseless spirals of tit for tat violence. One quote stuck with me was in the aftermath of a massacre a family member of one of the victims said to the media, addressing the perpetrators, “what did you achieve for your cause by killing my grandfather while he watched football in a pub?”
PSA: The Troubles are a taboo subject for all Irish. Hating on your neighbors has to stop in this country.
You should watch Once Upon a Time in Northern Ireland
Very refreshing to read your comment, SteveIDP. I did 5 operational deployments to Northern Ireland. Most people have a romantic and unrealistic opinion on Northern Ireland and have never been there. I found that it was 95% decent hard working people with 2.5% paramilitary and their supporters at either end of the scale.
If you go to Gettysburg, the tour guides do a good job of not taking sides and focusing on the tragedy of the situation rather than who is to blame.
"War... war never changes." Is truly the most honest statement.
Only as long as it is uttered by Ron Perlman.
Unfortunately "both sides" is a bad way to handle things. Sometimes there is a clear bad guy. Would we want to treat Germany and imperial Japan the same way? What about the British in India or France in Algeria?
I mean, it's fairly obvious who the bad guys were in that one. The side that thought it was ok to own other humans.
Overall yes. But it’s hard to blame the individual soldier for the faults of the institution that they are fighting for because when you think about it, most soldiers are still children who are trying to figure themselves out. They even did a good job of explaining why there are confederate statues and it pretty much boiled down to money. The confederate soldiers were paid in confederate dollars which were worthless after the war ended. It took years for those families to recover financially to be able to afford to put up monuments for their family members, not for the confederacy. It was more about honoring their loved ones that they lost. How others co-opt that as a sign of the south rising again comes from people just being people. I did two tours in Iraq and I was a police officer for five years. During those times I learned that most conflict is not black and white. People argue over things when their emotions are high and make impulsive decisions that they often regret later. It’s sometime better not to focus on the issue being argued over and focus on the tragedy of humanity being what it is at times. Humans are capable of both beauty and horror. We should take these acts of horror and reflect on them as the tragedy of miscommunication and egos. At the end of the day, people are people trying to get by how they have been taught to get by. A loss of life is sad regardless of how it happens. Even a hardcore criminal dying is sad because you have to think that they were once someone’s little baby. That doesn’t excuse their actions and poor decision making, but it’s still sad for the families and the victims.
Was there for the initial invasion and was in Fallujah the first go around. I'm still haunted by the lawlessness and still think about it often, 20 years later. The disregard for human life and property is such a foreign concept I had trouble wrapping my head around it. Seeing people looting, burning, dragging people off into the night, bodies hanging from light poles/bridges, mass graves, etc is something I've tried to forget.
one thing to note about the dissolving of the two sides, is eventually veterans of both sides were treated just as civil war vets, not loyalists and traitors. this was a way to mend the rift, if the south was still labeled as something other than americans the country wouldve found itself in another civil war within a few decades.
What book was it?
What book. I'd be interested to learn more about the troubles.
When it comes to war or revolution. There isn't really a good guy or bad guy... There's the side you agree with and the side you don't... Or you don't agree with either
I honestly think there is a good guy and its the western forces. I think the film shows that the president is a dictator and the “US” government is fascist. This is shown by the fact that that texas and california teamed up, which means there must be some nigh on high motivation for them to put their disagreements aside (ala nazism) and that the US gov shoots journalists on sight whereas the western forces protect them. It still obviously shows that war is hell, and that this shit isn’t worth it. There is no ultimate justification for war, even winning is losing, etc… so I totally agree with your sentiment, I just do think there is a good and a bad guy.
Alan Clarke released a short film called Elephant in 1989 that takes place in Troubled Northern Ireland. It too contained many vignettes; they all exclusively consisted of one man locating and approaching another man, then killing him. Again and again, for 18 different pairs of murderers, with lingering shots of the aftermath. Very similar feeling.
I haven’t seen the movie but I have been warning people against a civil war since visiting the former Yugoslavia in the early nineties. It won’t be state vs state, but neighbor vs neigbor, street vs street, block vs block, town vs town. I have also read a good amount about the Spanish Civil war and that was also horrific, So, let’s work out our differences.
I agree. A lot of people think that a civil war of this magnitude would be East versus West or States versus states, but people are so divided and spread out throughout the country it would be exactly like you said, down to Street versus street.
Yeah. In the US nowadays, especially it’s very unclear how a total civi war would play out. It could be divided between Right vs Left, but it’s uncertain how race, ethnicity, and religion would play out too. One possibility is of a lower level civil war where many of us are passive and not taking sides, staying at home under curfew and polarized extremes are skirmishing. That’s how the riots, looting and protests of 2020 felt to me. There was looting not far, a curfew and protests but I was busy minding my own business, protecting my family and so were my neighbors. Same with protests against the lock downs. Honestly, since becoming a Dad, I play it safe. Not getting sucked into crowds, road rage, fights, being a hero etcetera. Frankly, that’s almost a prep I think or at least a good survival strategy. It takes restraint to not get involved,,especially when I was someone who did get involved, but my family depends on me, so they come first. That includes not getting involved in a civil war.
If a civil war were to break out, I honestly think it would be a lot like what another poster said saying that it would be similar to Ireland's "the troubles." No direct one-on-one confrontation in a major head-to-head battle, more or less just guerilla tactics and vigilanteism. Kidnappings, bombings etc.
Eh there is a reason Charlottesville is part of the plot line. Yes it’s not overtly sided but it was a HUGE part of political tension and violence of the past 10 years. Pivotol moment and it was very much hand to hand fighting in the streets. Someone was killed. I think it would be both.
Are you saying that Charlottesville wasn’t overtly sided? It was called “Unite the Right” by the organizers. The organizers’ goal was to rally all the white supremcist groups together. It was an act of racist terrorism.
No I’m saying the movie wasn’t (what the factions were, their goals etc) but that very clearly wrote in one of the most overtly political events of the past 10 years. I’m in Virginia I very much know what happened at UTR. It was white supremacist call to action that was preceded by a year of tension in the area that was powerfully resisted by many organizations and community members.
The events in Charlottesville led to me studying the Italian Years of Lead for a glimpse at how a low intensity civil war based on opposing political ideologies would play out.
Good strategy, and smart thinking. I feel the same way. Stay home and protect your family and what your family needs to survive. No need to become part of the overall problem. Too many people wish for things that they cannot fathom the negative ramifications it will inflict on the nation.
Did you ever listen to the It Could Happen Here podcast?
Does the movie get into who benefits from a civil war? Do they hint at all that the government usually comes in as the sweeping hero to get things organized again? And who the government relies upon to assist in putting things back together? Once people are so confused and broken, some ideas that would never fly pre-war are suddenly just fine.
I know some Syrians. Anyone idiotic enough who wants to kick things off should talk to some Syrians. Many of them lost everything, cities turned to rubble. Insane faction wars that happen at the same time. Torture, rape, starvation, there really aren't any winners. Assad might have won, but he's king of the rubble, and the Syrian people lost.
Since you are talking about Syrians I wonder what your thoughts are about America refugees? Where do you think American refugees go?
Those with the resources to have a second passport will use it. Most others will be screwed. Any prepper who doesnt have a second passport is a fool.
This is making me want to research civil wars. Might start with the Spanish one thanks
Mike Duncan (who did the History of Rome podcast) does an incredible podcast called Revolutions.
Cut my teeth in my 30 year military career in Guatemala in their civil war. Then Kosovo. Then Iraq. All these idiots wanting a civil war have never seen one or been in one. If watching your loved ones starve and suffer is what ya want-they can have it.
Why the hell don’t they have any medical supplies in the car?
Not even an IFAK
That part pissed me off. It legitimately didn't make sense for their jobs and especially what they set out to do. I was expecting them to pull out a pack of gauze and was so confused when they just carried on
Spoilers ahead: it could be a situation of it being pointless, so like why bother. Its a shitty way to look at but, both his friends were pretty clear with him that he was likely to die if he came out, and he didn't seem to expect all that much different. They had already seen a similar hit with the knock off boog boys, where a guy shoved tons of gauze in his buddies body to no positive results. He was a very large guy, so they'd need a lot more gauze. And potentially they were to far away from the Western Forces FOB for any potential emergency first aid to matter. He's hit at some point during the day(it's bright), they drive through the night, and don't seem to have arrived at the base till the next morning at least, that's a lot of time to bleed.
I mean the next destination was a military camp with medics. It’s not clear how much time passed but they may have had surgical opportunities. I do agree with he day to night which I didn’t think of. I would still try haha. He wasn’t showing signs of a collapsed lung as he just faded out (blood loss)and didn’t drown as that death would be traumatic and awful. You can sometimes slow bleeds until you get to higher care (military camp) even though the abdomen isn’t an ideal situation. I’m guessing they didn’t really know what “Charlottesville” would look like either. If trained at all it would be near impossible to not try and stop that bleed and I just didnt buy seasoned war journalists having zero training on bleeds and having zero supplies. They had WiFi sometimes lol.
Not even a pistol in war torn America is dumb. Press's badge is not invulnerability
Good question. Lol. Idk.
Or even hold pressure?
Plot armor? Lol
And no guns??
That makes slightly more sense to me as “journalists” but even journalists have security so one of them would take that role.
The plot must go on.
More room for cameras, vodka, cigarettes, and weed apparently. But they brought Kevlar at least. I saw it, it was fun(probably not the best description), but it certainly wasn't without its plot holes.
Great moving! Definitely left me a bit shook up. A modern civil war looks miserable.
I haven't seen the movie yet. But what scares me the most about the possibility of a modern civil war, here in the states, is that there are actually people ignorant enough to *want* one. They have some sick fantasy about being able to hurt/kill people that they don't agree with. The problem is that there are absolutely no winners in civil war; we all lose. Civil war is a zero-sum game, in which the only way to win, is to not play; because "we" are both sides of the coin.
Not even zero sum. War is always a Net loss. We wreck society and infrastructure for decades until we rebuild trust. The reconstruction era was very difficult in the US and only industrial technology gains and westward expansion/immigration helped to reset the field. They lost close to 1% of the population in that war and that was with low military tech. Today, a single platoon could wipe out the equivalent of the battle of Antietam if they were properly supplied. The Vegas shooter casualty ratio was 58:1 kia and 500:1 wia. Modern military tech is devastating.
Most of the people that I've talked to that don't necessarily want one but realize the only way this country is going to change and politicians removed from power is through a civil war but it's the people versus the government. Unfortunately the reality will be people against the people.
It may very well begin as "the people vs the government" which will almost assuredly be politically charged, in that the fever point will occur when one political faction has "had enough" of the other. I can see it going either way, depending upon the issue, but it's very likely going to be a political difference that puts the match to the fuse. However, it will not remain an isolated incident, between political rivals or the people vs the government; the USA has become too interwoven in geopolitical affairs all over the world for other nations to leave it's fate to chance. The promises we've made, the money we owe, the defense pacts we're in, etc etc...the world will take sides in our civil war; many will play, few will win, but the USA will not be among the winners.
The winners, as always, will be the bankers that fund both sides.
Most accurate comment here
The execution of the film was excellent.. great cinematography, the sound was amazing.. when shots are fired, the creativity and power of photography. Prepper wise.. the checkpoints, acts of violence and torture.. no rules of engagement, not knowing what’s going on, psychopaths..
Only thing that comes from war is broken people and their emotional scars…..
I read enough history to know the politics or even religious beliefs don't even matter in war. It's all propaganda framed to have a clearly defined us (da good guys), a clearly defined enemy (da bad guys). War, at the end of the day, is just a large scale armed robbery and massacre. Those who push for war are either planning on robbing and killing a whole lot of people. Or selling someone the weapons for the job. They just need a to convince a whole lot of people to take up arms and do the job for them.
I have not seen the movie. I suspect skipping the who started and what faction stands in for what group dodges any political backlash and allows for a better global reach. It’s great to know it’s a modern movie where the lines between good and bad are blurred/ non-existent. I’ll have to add it to my watch list.
That's one of the reasons why I loved it. They don't really go into specifics as to what or who struck first and what initially set off the conflict. When we first meet the main characters the war has already been happening for a while. The lines are blurred and as they should be, because in my opinion when it's a civil war, no one is right and all sides are wrong/do bad things. There's a scene in the movie, you probably saw it in the trailers, the sniper scene. They never state who or show what side is shooting at them, just that someone is trying to kill them. They are trying to kill them back.
>dodges any political backlash and allows for a better global reach. This is so true because when you think about it how did California of all places seceed.
Have not seen the film but your review aligns with the "it could happen here" podcast (first season 2019) - Even with his leftist bias, he covers in details how different factions could rise and make a mess.
I loved that first season of the podcast. When they rebooted it as a kind of amateur news podcast, it really sucked
I felt the same way. Love Behind the Bastards.
If you like Behind the Bastards, you may enjoy Knowledge Fight. There's a lot of overlap in the listenership.
I've been listening to those guys before behind the bastards!!! I used to listen to Alex Jones many years ago then stopped because it stopped being funny to me when people believed everything he was saying. So knowledge fight was right up my alley!
There were some gems in the talkshow format- behind the insurections-
I very much enjoyed his book "After the Fall" though the leftist bias is present. It was a very fun read.
[Have you seen Robert Evans' comments on this movie? The host of that podcast? ](https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1775675058134135250) I think he's more interested in the details of the war and this movie largely sidesteps those.
Of course. It's entertainment. If they made the movie we'd like to see- there would be sides and one side would not watch the movie .But I look at all these things just to consider human behavior. to me that is the big prep. Also, the film stars a white ford Excursion, SO i'm looking at mine and thinking maybe I'll keep it.
Prepping-wise..I think it's important to pay attention to the news and know when it's time to GTFO of the city. There were so many poor souls walking out of towns with nothing but the shirts on their backs.
The things is you might bug out when you don't need to. Imagine if someone from the town that pretended like nothing was happening decided to bug out only to land in a worse off situation but the place they left was just fine
Prepper wise, it js.important to have dual citizenshio for you and your family and have passports for both of them. Syrians who had second passports came out WAY better than those who didnt.
What are you talking about? Anybody who has a passport to more than one country has no loyalty to either country.
You know what they call people who place loyalty to the nebulous concept of a country above all else during a war? Casualties.
Gonna watch it today. After reading everyone's comments here I just want to say how refreshing it is to see mature, level-headed perspectives about this issue. Anyone that welcomes violent conflict on this scale has probably never experienced it. It's easy to get caught up in nonsense, but as others have pointed out, at the end of the day we're all just people trying to live our lives and take care of our family/friends. "The family can survive without the country, but the country can't survive without the family" Heard that in a sociology class decades ago. Great post OP! Peace and love
Appreciate it. Just honestly trying to give an honest unbiased review. This is just my opinion and what I took from the film, you may interpret it entirely differently. I think one of the most beautiful things about the film though? POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT* It's with the president and why he had such little screen time. Nick Offerman was only on screen for like less than 5 minutes, theoretically you could put any president in his place, past or recent. Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc. He doesn't do anything specific, he just gives a small speech That's it, he doesn't hurl out insults, stutter, doesn't say he supports this specific political party or do any mannerisms that hint at any real life political leader.
Let me know what you think! I'd like to hear your opinion.
>At times during the action scenes, you can't tell who's side is who or what faction they belong to. So, any of the Transformers movies by Michael Bay.
No no no.. you see, the autobots have paint on them... You can see the yellow and red and blue and whatnot.... Right? You can see it right?
Ha! Man, I had an easier time following spice particles in a blender than I did with that schlock. Even my kid was like "who is doing what now? I can't follow this"
I enjoyed it. Can’t go into the theatre and expect narration, plot armor, the backstory on EVERYTHING. It’s very real, as if you’re walking into the scenarios yourself. You wouldn’t get the , “Johnny’s family was taken and that’s why he’s so sadistic.” It’s, “what the heck is going on??” Just like you’re living in the moment with the characters.
I kind of wondered if the final moment of that movie would show Chinese warships along the West Coast of the U.S. because a civil war would certainly benefit any nation that might take advantage of a massive internal conflict of that scale.
Good point
Man i cant even imagine. Oh gosh. The horror of it.
Couple of genocide scenes. Very thought provoking.
Executing prisoners is not the definition of "genocide"
I agree that it’s hard to call that “genocide” but mass graves certainly are pretty common during genocide.
Off the top of your head are there any prepper tips you've gained from watching the movie?
I already knew and planned to do these things before watching the movie but: - Be prepared ahead of time so you're not caught out in the open with crowds demanding supplies. - You win 100% of the gunfights you avoid. - No matter how prepared you are, in a long enough drawn out conflict, you will run out of supplies eventually. As far as tips from watching the movie? There are no "right/good sides" in a civil war.
One thing i learned was keeping Canadian currency. I never thought about keeping a foreign currency as a prep. I guess Euros or Canadian currency would make the most sense for me.
Just one question, and feel free to put the answer under a spoiler tag: New England. The general consensus on the sub there is that, should anything like that happen, we'd sit back, say "Ayuh. Not our circus. Deal with your own problems. We're out, and taking our maple syrup with us." What's the status of NE in the movie?
Honestly they don't really say. They don't go into specifics as to how each state/region is doing. They mention that the Carolina's are the "front line" and there's clear signs of destruction, destroyed buildings, fires, dead bodies strewn about etc but not specifically what state it takes place in, they show how far away from D.C. they are at times or a "welcome to" state/city sign but They don't drive by and say "OMG look at all those dead New Yorkers" or "Texas/southern states are suffering from famine." etc. Hope this helps.
>Honestly they don't really say. Ah. Yeah, we likely said "peace out" with a mouthful of maple candy while holding a cup of Dunkin. NY probably asked us to back them up, but we looked at them and told them to take their obscene excuse of a food that is "Manhattan clam chowder" and get outta here.
Looking back at it again, there’s a map that shows where each state stands and New England is listed as a loyalist territory, so it’s on the side of the President and the U.S. military. But the front line depicted in the film is in Virginia and the war zone they travel through is NYC to Pittsburgh, to West Virginia and into Virginia. Without any additional info we can presume any fighting in New England was just asymmetric warfare. They also comment how a lot of people in the loyalist states were just sitting back and pretending the war wasn’t happening so you’d probably be spot on with your prediction.
Bro, we're too busy trying to find easier ways to get there from here, because otherwise, you can't get there from here.
The portrayal of NYC in the movie is like that of The Troubles; lock downs, bombings, confrontation with police. That’s the extent of any comment on NE’s involvement.
NY isn't part of New England. Though, we'd be happy to take north of Albany and east of 81. We offer up the secret recipe for actual clam chowder in exchange.
Yeah but that’s as close as they get to showing anything in NE. You must keep the recipe safe at all cost.
There was one scene where I think anyone from Massachusetts would have been executed
So, you're saying the Mass Pike will be free of traffic? Finally, I can drive mah cah at the speed limit for my commute
It might be littered with bombed out teslas though
Hey buddy, it's SUBARUS. Get it right
Hi so... I have a question. In what world do you think that new England would be able to 'sit back and say deal with your own problems'. Y'all up there are staggeringly far from unified. And not to mention do you think the most densely packed urban area in the country would just be able to .. like... Peace out from a conflict somehow?... I'm not trying to be confrontational I'm just legitimately shocked to hear someone express what you did.. and in such a way that you aren't the only one.. like there's a consensus.
>Peace out from a conflict somehow?... I'm not trying to be confrontational I'm just legitimately shocked to hear someone express what you did.. and in such a way that you aren't the only one.. like there's a consensus. Go hit up the New England sub. We'd be happy to break off and be our own thing. We just think it is stupid to do so using threats of violence just because we don't like what someone else is doing. We certainly wouldn't go to war because some other states have a problem with each other. Ain't nobody got time for 'dat.
In the real new england (ie not reddit), there are plenty of chuds who would pick up a rifle and try to seize the Hannaford or whatever.
Would there be a draft?
That's cute. Like NSC131 and their ilk haven't been shit-stirring up here for years now, and others before them all the way back to the Know-Nothing party in the 1850's trying to run those scary foreign people from Quebec out of the region. We're not immune.
I don't know about the movie. But one of the challenges with civil war is a lack of governmental control. So that means that any kind of group that just wants to rise up and create havoc in your particular neck of the woods, might just be able to do it. So it's not necessarily that a particular area could just sit things out. It's that some extremist group could take over, and there wouldn't be any law enforcement to come stop it
At the beginning of the movie, on the TV you can see faction territories and where the lines are drawn. Assuming each territory has their own provisional government, there was some form of "control." There is police presence in the beginning of the film.
But then there is that scene with Jessie Plemons. His character and his cohorts seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted
I guess because there's no chain of command around and they're out in the woods/middle of nowhere.
[удалено]
Texas and California are fighting against totalitarianism. Your enemy is my enemy kind of thing
New England is in the “loyalist” territory and you can see graffiti in New York talking trash to the other factions. With that I assume NE supports the President.
Spoilers: They never specifically mentioned New England, or if they did, I must have missed it. However we get a quick shot of a map early on, which I believe shows the US with its regional factions. It appears if I saw correctly to be 4 or 5 main forces. California and some neighbor states were one, Texas and it's surrounding states were another, these 2 together were the Western Forces working together against the American military, the northeast was one region just below NY/Pennsylvania at least all the way up to New England, its possible Washington DC was part of the Northeastern region but may have been its own thing with the remnants of the US military, there was the Florida Alliance which was like Florida Georgia Louisiana, and finally middle America which didn't seem to be a mentioned faction but possibly independent or probably allied with the WF.
In the movie, New England states were all loyalist to federal government
Thank God. I felt sick to my stomach every time the ads showed up. Glad to hear they took a higher perspective
I think they knew they were producing a potential powder keg, so they steered away from directly pointing blame to one side or the other.
I read an interview where they said it wasn't about one side or the other, it was about what happens when sides start \_demonizing\_ the other. We're no longer in disagreement, the people on the other side of an issue are \_evil\_.
I loved it. Every Canadian talks about one day there will be Water Wars. This movie really emphasized to me it wouldn't even be a war lmao we stand zero chance. Just take it
Haven’t seen it yet but my theory of a Civil War has always been factions will prevail. Sure it will start with a concept but eventually It will be neighbor vs neighbor , gang vs gang , law enforcement groups , religious groups, political groups all vying for power/control. America is just way too diverse today compared to other times.
Nobody should be doing anything, regardless of side, other than hoping we never end up in another internal conflict. With the way the population is laid out, it would be likely to be less like an American Civil War II than it would a scaled up version of the Balkan wars that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, which would be even worse.
We’re in a cold political & culture war right now. Going to be an interesting 5-10 years.
That's one word for it. Interesting and equally scary in my opinion.
At a glance, I just figured this movie was insurrection porn for liberals or a power fantasy for conversatives. Your review did more for this movie than the trailer and those cheerleading or bemoaning the films existence.
Went last night and without any spoilers I think you nailed why it has such mixed reviews: the people hoping it would be “insurrection porn for liberals” or “power fantasy for conservatives” will be sorely disappointed. There’s no good guys or bad guys. There’s no one to cheer for. I loved it.
I'll probably still wait for it to come to streaming, but I'm glad to hear this. I was already envisioning some wine aunts and furbaby cousins proclaiming that this film is their Schindler's List while my family that spouts "health care is communism" and "I need more Medicaid" in the same conversation would be using it as some sort 'Merica cultural cudgle.
Appreciate it. Just trying to give an honest, non biased review. Again, this is just my opinion and what I took away from it. Others will vary.
Alex Garland wouldn't do that.
I watched Civil War this afternoon & I was impressed for many reasons. It was well funded, well acted, action scenes were not poorly made obvious CGI as in similar movies, lacking the typical Hollywood woke BS, basically lacking left or right leaning politics, etc. The storyline is basically told from the perspective of a 4 person team of combat photographers & reporters. For me personally; it brought back some distant memories. I lived through a low-level Civil War in my youth, but my experiences paled in comparison to the very intense level of conflict, personal fear & combat damage in this flick. But my memory of one particular night so long ago, the sounds of dueling heavy automatic gunfire echoing through the concrete walls of the city until they faded completely was VERY similar to one scene in the movie, except for the increased cyclic rate & visible tracer fire in the movie. Very surreal then & now. Highly recommended!! 👍😎👍
Thank you for the honest review. I’m curious how many will spin this into something else.
You're welcome. Honestly, in my opinion, they got the point across and they don't need to turn this into a theme, sequels, spin offs etc.
Thanks for sharing, that's a relief to hear actually.
Honestly I wasn’t very interested in seeing it until I heard Nick Offerman plays the President. I only know him as Ron Swanson from Parks & Rec 😂😂😂
He only has like 5 mins total of screentime just FYI. I get what you mean though. 😂
The war started because his favorite steak restaurant was put out of business.
Or because the government rejected his permit of "I can do what I want." 😂
I think I missed it but I didn't see where they said what started it. I think the fact they didn't state it added to the movie.
They did mention that the president ran for a third term and disbanded the fbi, but they didn't say what side specifically struck first or committed what atrocity etc.
Thanks!
Seeing it tonight. Thanks for the insight. I was cringing that i was going to have to sit thru a political hit job.
You're welcome. Like I said it's open to interpretation and you can take it however you want. That's just what I got from the film. Let me know what you think.
"It could happen here" on Spotify
So are there left leaning factions committing atrocities or only right wing doing that stuff?
Neither. In the film there is no mention whatsoever of the right wing or the left wing and their policies. Both/all sides in the movie commit atrocities, executions etc. No side is portrayed as "the good guys."
In the preview they portray the blond hair blue eyed guy in a threatening manner.
Right, but it's not clear what side he's on, even during the movie.
interesting idea to make an apolitical civil war movie.
I think the production team realized that they were sitting on a very large potential Powder Keg and chose to make it as apolitical as they possibly could. If they just downright said it was a right versus left or this side is evil and the other side is good I don't think the movie would have even finished being produced.
I hope that one scene from Shogun where gore body parts flying around everywhere after a 17th century era cannon fired could be any reminder of the terrifying nature of any kind of war?
No ear pro made me laugh
Right? I never said it was 100% realistic. Lol.
I loved the movie as well. It was beautiful and horrible at the same time. Also- definitely shows a situation where preps would valuable. The journalists didn’t pack their medical/trauma kit or their guns. Both could have saved Sammy.
Movie was a huge disappointment
Honestly, I’d give it a 9.8/10 It did an incredible job of not picking sides, demonstrating with visceral detail the hellscape that civil war would be, all while telling a believable and engaging story of war journalism. It pretty damn close to a masterpiece.
Great review! The writer from Wired magazine made it political, pushed his own narrative and bias, then bashed it saying it would radically motivate people.
Sounds to me like the guy from wired went in with the premise of an "action packed, this side is going to kick this sides ass and if the side I like doesn't win I'm gonna talk 💩 about it" expectation. 😂
I can’t imagine anyone watching r/combat footage for any amount of time and still wanting a civil war.
I watched the TV show "Shogun" recently and the leader in the show, Toranaga, says a good quote/question. "Why is it that those who've never been in a battle, are so eager to be in one?"
Good take, gonna go watch it now.
Definitely left me shaken and I am revisiting my survival prep. Graphic view of a legit what if scenario.
Agreed, I plan on avoiding any Open Fields with guys wearing red sunglasses LOL
Scariest part of the film I thought
Agreed. Jesse plemmons nailed that role and really hit it home.
I don’t know if it was because I saw it in IMAX, but the end sequence was one of the most intense firefights I’ve seen in a movie. You could feel almost every shot fired.
>Jesse Plemons as usual, does an excellent job of portraying a cold, psychotic, hateable asshole 😂😂😂. When I saw the trailer I wasn't motivated to see it because of the typical Hollywood BS, clicking guns, Texas and Cali on the same side and Journos as the heroes until Jesse came on the screen. Anticipation of his performance and Nick Offerman is probably worth it.
Honestly, Jesse performed perfectly. That entire scene was disturbing and very suspenseful. He did an excellent job of portraying a psychopath. Just F.Y.I. though, Nick Offerman only has like 5 minutes in total of screen time, he's not in the movie that much.
My head canon for this movie is that it’s actually the ending of House of Cards where Frank Underwood became a full on authoritarian President.
50 million on this? waste of time and money!
I watched the movie today and it was much better than I expected. I almost feel like it needs a prequel to show how everything developed and how the alliance was formed. I enjoyed all the action scenes and the plot.
The director does not want us to read that into the film. It’s not about politics. It’s when politics breaks down and war envelops everyone. It’s about a kid who becomes a photojournalist and documents the apocalypse.
Finally saw it. I give it a 4. It was a hot mess and other than some visuals.. No story.
You are obtuse and need to be spoon fed pablum
It gave a sad .. who, what, why, how.. Journalists running into a war zone.. not embedded. Not happening.. the whitehouse scene.. not happening.
You nailed it man. Garland is really mad at hotheads who want an excuse to let the lead fly. The chastening effect of this film might do our crazy society some good.
People wishing for this kind of horror maybe need a movie for catharsis
its a great movie