Is Civil War any good?

Yes.

Very modern day and realistic. Not way out there for a dystopian movie.

Real good movie with interesting structure and action. Watch it in Imax if it’s an option.

quote:

---

Is Civil War any good?

---

Audiences seem to be divided.

quote:

---

Is it journalist-hero propaganda?

---

I mean, yeah

But it is also REALLY dull

Very disappointed. Don’t get me wrong it is better than most of the rehashed garbage or superhero movies, but it not only didn’t live up to my expectations, it kind of sucked.

I was looking forward to this one. He's one of my favorite movie makers working today. But it was boring and leaves you really unsatisfied. It’s more an homage to reporters than anything else.

Pablo Escobar was great in it.

The younger female photojournalist was maybe the most annoying character I’ve seen in a movie in a long time.

I loved the premise.

Drop the viewer in the middle of a modern Civil War by following a group of photojournalists along a road trip through the hellscape.

Some intense scenes. Great music and visuals. Some great acting and some terrible acting (the young journalist).

I just thought the ending fell flat.

I'm not sure what movie the posters saying the journalists were heroes watched though. I certainly didn't view the journalists as heroes.

Its a bad movie.


Its a left wing larp and a view on america from the eyes of a British liberal.


The journalists will save us.

I think this will be a pretty honest assessment.

Is it what the trailers portrayed it to be? Absolutely not. I went into the theater thinking it was going to be an action movie. It was not. With that, I was disappointed. It is very much an artsy type of movie. The director, Alex Garland, cared most about how a scene looked and felt. If you are going into it looking for something like that, than this is a great movie. Reminiscent of A Thin Red Line by Terrence Malik. Very artsy, not bad, but if you were looking for Band of Brothers action in Guadalcanal, it just quite didn't hit the spot.

This movie is all about your expectations. If you go in expecting what the trailers are promising, you will be greatly disappointed. If you go in, already knowing and wanting this to be an artsy movie, than I think you will like it. It is a movie about journalists with a few battle and other tense scenes mixed in.

I will say, Garland did a great job removing politics from it. You actually have no idea, politically and factionally speaking, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

I liked the movie. See it! We spend more money on an order of fries than the cost of a ticket and the time spent on here could have spent watching the movie and deciding for yourself what you think the movie was about.

Please excuse my random unfocused comments below and do not read them if you cannot live with my dumpster fire of disorganize thought. I have been writing like a second grader since 1st or 2nd grader. You will not find a conclusion that relates to the non-existent introduction.

Introduction…

Regarding the movie. It appears that Texas and California individually have succeeded from the Union and either form individual counties or City States.

See the following map with a legend at the bottom: Map

The divided states are indicated on the map in color:
Blue - Loyalist states (United States) from the northeast down to South Carolina, across the central band of states over to the border of California. It also includes Alaska and Hawaii. See the map.
Green - Western Forces. Texas and California.
Red - Florida Alliance. From Florida over to the Louisiana/Texas border.
Yellow - New People's Army. The northwest.

I am assuming that president of the U.S.A. wanted to force Texas and California back in line. With that action the two former states formed the Wester Forces under the banner of a US style flag with multiple red and white stipes and a blue field with two stars.

In real life I believe the two-star flag will probably become a big seller if made available for sale, symbolizing a belief in state rights through individual republics. 10th amendment.

The journalists serve as the eyes of the story. Early in the movie they are in New York but want to travel to Washington D.C. to photograph and interview the president. The comment made while discussing going to see the president is that they will be put to death if they go to the D.C. I think by the Loyalists military, secret service or whatever group is in charge.

I have read reviews on IMDB that state that the big bad president represents Trump. Once again, I say to look at the map. The Union states are indicated on the map in blue. Not that Trump is not from New York.

Just my observation of the movie regarding the forces that are fighting the U.S. forces. All the trained military type of personal do an amazing job of respecting and protecting the main four press character in the movie. They created shields many times, pull them back to safety, etc. It was impressive. I realize that their presence complicates movements and safety for the soldiers. Once again, impressive!

Note that the press characters are only reporting, not siding with anyone. Of the four main characters, only two survive.

The male reporter’s reason for going was for a quote from the president. His comment regarding the president’s quote says that he held an opinion or attitude about the president, and I thought that quote and reaction from the reporter was…perfect.

I thought that the young character who wanted to join the original group of three reporters served well in the representation of her ignorance and naivete of what the reality of blatant destruction and death in warfare was. Very young for the position or action she wanted to be in. She also was not a carded member of the press, but I have never seen a credential required in our constitution. Later she got a rush being in the middle of the center of battle. She was also protected by the military personal and the three other press members. She was yanked out of the line of fire multiple times.

My biggest tangent is below, but it has in the past few decades been the biggest cause of issues or disagreements between individuals, states, and the federal government. If something is not a federal power established by the constitution, then each state or individual have been constitutionally empowered. Also note the first word in the first amendment, Congress, has a comma in it. Besides changes caused by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the first amendment as written left a lot of power regarding speech and religion to the states. I am not sure what I believe regarding that. Some of the boundaries probably helped. If by the first amendment there is a separation of church and state, is the not a separation of press and state?

Tenth Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The four last words of the Tenth Amendment, “or to the people.” still leads me to believe that there is some source of power that the people have other town halls and voting.

Conclusion…See the last sentence of the second paragraph. And go see the movie!