Posted on 04/21/2024 8:44:51 AM PDT by eastexsteve
After I insisted you tell me.
"I couldn't tell if the bust was young Robert senior, or John."
You repeatedly mentioned the bust because you believed it represented something about the president and yet you don't know which Kennedy it was. And Biden apparently doesn't even have a JFK bust in the Oval Office.
"All the time you've spent on here polling me about the movie, you certainly had time to go see it. "
I'm not interested in watching contemporary movies. I haven't been interested in movies for decades because they're obviously written and cast to fit a narrative. In the film, the bad guy is the White male president. Who are the good guys? A woman. A black man. A hispanic man. The message is obvious. The White man is the problem. The solution is a coalition of females and non-Whites. It's called "inter-sectionalism". That's the PC subplot you missed.
You might be interested in this review. Read the comments too.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a60479468/civil-war-ending-explained/
This isn't rocket science. It doesn't matter which Kennedy it was. Biden is the only president with a Kennedy bust in his office.
It DOES matter because you insisted it was KEY to understanding which president in the movie represented which president in real life. I take it in the movie it's the JFK bust but Biden has the RFK bust.
I'm not going to see the movie about a non-white intersectional coalition defeating the evil White man and nothing you say will change my mind.
I am curious about one thing. At the very end, in the developing photograph, what is the race and or ethnicity of the solder(s) in the picture.
If a trailer picques my interest, chances are good I’ll see it. I don’t read reviews until after I see the movie because I don’t to be told what to think about a movie before I see it. Rather, I read reviews afterward because I am entertained to find out if the reviewers and I saw the same movie. (Often, we haven’t.)
I saw the director’s earlier film (Ex Machina, which I enjoyed) and based on the strength of that, I saw Civil War on opening weekend. I would say the movie I saw was mostly entertaining and occassionally riveting. Especially towards the end.
I would aldo say the movie is underdeveloped and rather naive. The movie is supposed to be about the journslists covering a civil war and not the civil war the journalists are covering. But the journalists as characters are not well developed. Their personal stories and motivations are shallow where they exist at all; they are suprisingly oblivious to real dangers; and (if we are to believe what they say) have no opinion about the war they are covering. All of that strains credulity.
All interest is in the action happening around them. While everyone wears garb, the movie is coy about who is really who. All sides are cruel—except, strangely, to the journalists. (Which, if we are following them, need the plot armor. But that is a poor excuse for it because it is abused.) I saw no prisoners taken except to be summarily executed. Journalists are supposed to shot on site by the Loyalists in DC, but the intrepid journalists (half of them) make it all the way to the Oval Office.
Ironically, the most professional army among the three stated rebel forces of the Western Forces composed of allied units from Texas and California. Vanishingly few movie-goers believe such a thing is possible. I can if you can suspend your disbelief via two conceits: 1) having a lot of bases, both states have more to gain by joining forces than fighting one another; and 2) “opposites attract.” I don’t think we ever see the forces of the Florida Alliance (essentially, the Deep South) nor the New People’s Army (Pacific Northwest, North Rockies, and Northern Great Plains). I think the rebels we see early in the film are independent local militias that are against the Loyalists but not neccessarily allied with each other.
The journalists will have you shaking your head at the hare-brained things they do to “get the photo” or the story. Only one has any sense and the group’s “Gandalf.” The less said about that, the better, as the crazy things they do permit you to see all the other events going on around them and must be suffered through.
Earlier, I said that prisoners are not taken in this movie. That provides the context for two of the tensest scenes in the movie. One, you see in the trailer. (The “What kind of American are you?” scene.) And the film’s very end where the Western Forces capture the President. I can understand (even if I don’t condone) local militias dispensing their own justice. But the Western Forces, which presumably have a command structure given their heavy weapons, efficient logistics, and battlefield prowess, dispense summary justice, too. Despite assurances at the last, they are under orders to kill the President on sight.
That is where I have my biggest problem with the movie. Tbe most professional of forces will not take prisoners. Not even the President. In the US Civil War, prisoners _were_ taken. And the Confederate Army was disbanded and paroled to go home and promised not to be prosecuted IF they remained on good behavior and obeyed the laws. An occupation followed while the seceding states were rehabilitated and brought back into the Union. But the officers were not tried for treason though they could not hold office.
...My point: the movie poses that a new civil war in the will be far more brutal as no prisoners will be taken. We don’t quite see that brutality (as it would be a war-horror movie like “Come and See”) but it is strongly implied. But.. would it? I like to think that at least the President (and perhaps other politicians, officials, and generals) would be taken alive, if possible. If only to establish the legitimacy of the new government in part by putting the President and others on trial.
I think an argument could be made that the film’s President is not Trump:
• It is mentioned in the movie that the President did use military force against US citizens. Biden has threatened to use the armed forces against its citizens. Obama did have a US citizen directly targeted via a drone strike. Trump has not done nor threatened that
• There is a standing order among the Loyalists in DC that journalists are to be shot when encountered. Biden and Obama have famously avoided the press. Trump has engaged even the most hostile press by answering questions at every opportunity.
• There is a last-ditch battle in DC. Trump could not call out the National Guard for January 6. Nancy Pelosi saw to that. Pelosi did call out the Capitol Police (among others) on January 6 and later the National Guard to throw up fences everywhere in DC and occuppied it for a month. Seriously, who exhibits a “last ditch” mentality?
But...a lot of folks who also saw the movie say they saw Trump being characatured. I won’t say they are wrong. They could as easily make their argument, too.
I cannot recommend the movie as a casual weekend treat. It’s too serious and not serious enough. If you want to see what the Ex Machina director made, I think you will find it at least “interesting” and it should hold your attention. If you want to what an American civil war in the next decade or two _might_ look like, I think there is enough action, suspense, and speculation to also keep you through two hours. But it’s not a “see who wins” movie. It tries to avoid that point but there is enough fodder to tick a person off.
In an earlier thread, I gave the movie a ‘B+.’
BTW: The preceding is just my review of the film to the general readership. It is not a rebuttal to the original poster.
The very last scene epitomizes the goofiness, where the floor where a frenzied firefight has just taken place is littered with... wait for it... unfired cartridges.
Link to screenshot of last scene below. If you don't to see any spoilers, don't click on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.