Posted on 04/18/2024 7:03:21 AM PDT by Rummyfan
I saw the new movie "Civil War" so you don’t have to. You’re welcome, and you owe me. Fifteen years ago this month, I started writing for the legendary Andrew Breitbart at Big Hollywood, where we drew attention to the increasing wokeness of Tinseltown. That’s why I saw this movie – to see if Hollywood had learned any lessons. I think it did, but it learned the wrong lessons.
Spoiler alert—it’s a bad movie, and you don’t want to see it. I’m going to tell you some of what happens, but you shouldn’t care because, if you’re smart, you’re going to listen to me and not spend money on it.
The problem with "Civil War" isn’t its point of view, to the extent it has one. Now, you can tell that, beneath the surface, it has a generic left-wing orientation. The bad guy president is vaguely Trumpy. He’s a straight white male, of course. In fact, every single villain is a straight, white male. None of the major heroes is a straight, white male. You can make movies where the villains are straight, white males, and where none of the heroes are straight, white males, but it’s now a woke Hollywood cliche to make all the villains straight, white males, and none of the heroes straight, white males. You can’t unsee it. Rural white guy? Definitely a villain. Black woman? Hero!
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I heard a lot of lefties dont like it because the bad is not orange man bad enough
I heard long ago that it will not be televised.
The biggest untold story is how many blacks lived in free states and now claim they were past slave decedents. Also how many blacks came up to the real Jim Crow area “the north east “ and the same whites that robbed the south of every penny then kicked the blacks butts back down south...
Its the same northern liberal scum that are cowards, liars and racist true and true.
“Here, something interesting happens, and all of a sudden the action comes to a flying stop for a five-minute dialogue scene with the characters in a head-on two-shot sitting on benches talking about their childhoods.”
That has become common now, or it must be very common, since I don’t watch TV much, and I see it often.
I figure the script writers can’t write and they are trying to hide that or save production costs by running out the clock.
“if you’re smart, you’re going to listen to me and not spend money on it.”
If I want to see it maybe I’ll watch a bootleg version and not spend money on it. That’s one way to get revenge on Hollywood cramming their values down your throat. Another is to just not consume their products.
“You can make movies where the villains are straight, white males, and where none of the heroes are straight, white males, but it’s now a woke Hollywood cliche to make all the villains straight, white males, and none of the heroes straight, white males.”
Mr. Robot has a hero who is a straight white male and a villain who is a homosexual, transexual, Chinese male.
If you want a cleaned-up version of the show (free of sex, nudity, profanity, or any other objectionable content according to your own preferences) you can view it using VidAngel.
When I heard of this I was angry that film makers were able to once again try to cash in on something. But as we used to say “it’s a free country” sic. For them, not us.
The coming situation in America is NOT a matter to take lightly for the usual stereotyping mass media to work with.
I haven’t seen it, of course.
Absolutely correct. There is no way in Hell Texas teams up with Commiefornia.
We would revolt against our state government if it tried.
Florida we would happily team up with.
I’ve read a synopsis of this crap movie. Journalists like blue helmets from the UN would all be considered enemy combatants. No one I knew has any respect for those whores.
It’s bad, leftist crap with their usual imaginary goblins everywhere.
“Blue Dawn.”
I really hope that name sticks.
Ping!
Thanks. I’ve not watched it yet but I’ve read enough reviews to be at least open to the view that the nonsensical alliances depicted in the movie — e.g. Texas and California, and the regional alliances — are deliberately scrambled in order to avoid any direct echoes of our current political divides. Those reviewers argue that the film is about other things and is meant to be a commentary on current U.S. politics. Others disagree. Which is why I will watch it and make up my own mind.
From the article: “But this movie ignores the civil war stuff and is all about journalists on a road trip.”
Correct. It’s not a war movie, it’s a road trip movie.
Also from the article: “But here’s the problem. It’s a movie about a civil war. “
Not correct. See above.
Good thinking! I’ve only ever voluntarily watched one movie that was so bad I had to leave. The internet makes pre-screening the themes from several points of view greatly more possible.
“Those reviewers argue that the film is about other things and is meant to be a commentary on current U.S. politics. “
Oops. I should’ve said that these reviewers argue that the movie is NOT supposed to echo current U.S. politics, except insofar as it touches on the danger of polarization running amuck if the center fails to hold. And it’s about the journalists.
Or so they say.
‘Civil War’ Review: Ridiculously Dopey, Anti-Trump Snuff Film
What's the old saying: How do you make a small fortune in the movie business? Start with a large fortune! For every successful indie project - Mel Gibson's The Passion for example - that does well, there are dozens of films we've never heard of.
Summarizing: no story, no characters, no context, no purpose. Oh and I'm sure a new movie titled "Civil War" during an election year is just a coincidence.
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.