Civil War Coming April 12th

[RSF]

On 4/12/2024 at 2:52 PM, Spaztecs said:

In my mind, the US is really five distinct geo-political regions.

The Left Coast, Inter-Mountain West (Everything East of the Sierras/Cascades to the Front Range), The South, Midwest, and North East.

Different cultures, economic interests, attitudes, ideas on Governance.

Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

 

Just 1 happy geo-political region.

[THEUniversityofNevada]

On 4/16/2024 at 11:23 AM, azgreg said:

If you can afford to.

 

If you can’t afford to leave the country, you certainly couldn’t afford the economic collapse that would come from a Civil War.

[sean327]

On 4/15/2024 at 12:19 AM, Nevada Convert said:

Dude, I was about to check in to see what’s up. Hope all is well. 

I'm good brother. Just had to get through the last 12 months with my sanity intact. So far, so good.

[utenation]

On 4/14/2024 at 10:59 PM, mugtang said:

I went and saw it today.  Really liked it.  I wish there was some more backstory as to what happened and how they got to that point. But I think it did a good job, portrayed what a civil war might look like.  It certainly doesn’t glorify war in any way. 

Well shit. If it’s “Mug approved” I’m going. 
 

im going to check it out tonight. 

[mugtang]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:09 AM, THEUniversityofNevada said:

I think the intent of the movie was not to preach a political message beyond, THIS WOULD SUCK! Don't do it!

To clarify, there is no right of succession in the U.S. Constitution, but as United States citizens, we have freedom of movement. If we believe things are bad and unrecoverable, we are free to pack up and leave. 

Yeah that’s pretty much the message I got.  This is a bad idea. Let’s not do it.  And honestly I think it was pretty tame in the battle sequences. 

[utenation]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:36 PM, ridgeview2 said:

I watched the film last night in IMAX and I really enjoyed it. I was curious how they played the CA/TX team up in the film and it does seem plausible. Basically 3/4 of the country secede from the Union with California and Texas being the "leaders" of the Western Forces. They are the only two states that are big enough, financially independent, and have the resources to lead a secession. Throughout the film you can hear rumblings that the north western states don't agree with California and the Florida Alliance faction having their own issues trying to get the Eastern states on board with their own secession. The President (Nick Offerman) pissed everyone off and caused the country to split essentially into 4 different factions, each with their own agendas and ideas about how to rebuild the country.

Alex Garland did a pretty good job about not shoving politics down your throat, but instead let the story play out through the lens of wartime photo journalists and the audience has to draw up their own conclusions. If you read between the lines and catch some of the offhand dialogue peppered throughout the film you can get more of an idea on the political leanings and alliances between the different states which I thought was pretty cool. The film is brutal and extremely violent. The woman sitting next to me walked out and left midway through because she couldn't hand the stress in some scenes.   

I'm not sure what to think of this film.  I'm glad they didn't get too political because that would just tank this movie given the polarization going on in our country.  I didn't really enjoy the glorification of this being done through the lens of combat reporters. Some of the scenes were overdone with the WF group protecting the reporters in the middle of fierce battle scenes.  The main cast wasn't even embedded. they just showed up. The military would just want them the hell out of the way to be honest, but I guess that would ruin the plot.

I did enjoy how they focused on the desensitization of the cast and brought in the young girl and watch her go from scared shitless to a good camera shot warrior.  And just when you started to get attached to the cast, the movie reminds you that you should be numb with the environment by killing them off and everyone should just move on.

I thought Kristen Dunst did a great job developing this part of the film. She had the popular war eyes of the 1000 mile stare. 

Some of the battle scenes were just in your face, which I enjoyed. They went from silence to theatre loud combat with a lot of fire power in a blink of an eye. I thought the special effects were bad ass. Some of the scenes with the Apaches taking care of business looked good. Washington DC looked like Baghdad in 2003 with all the Triple A. I did enjoy that this was like no other war/drama movie I've seen that has some hero(s) saving the day.   

My lasting impression is how there is such a fine line in our society between good people that make things work and savage, wild animals. 

 

[crixus]

On 4/16/2024 at 8:09 AM, THEUniversityofNevada said:

I think the intent of the movie was not to preach a political message beyond, THIS WOULD SUCK! Don't do it!

To clarify, there is no right of succession in the U.S. Constitution, but as United States citizens, we have freedom of movement. If we believe things are bad and unrecoverable, we are free to pack up and leave. 

I saw an interview with Kirsten Dunst who plays a photojournalist in the film and that's pretty much what she said. 

[retrofade]

I watched it this afternoon.

Sobering.

Intense.

Surreal.

I ranked it up there with Saving Private Ryan in terms of intensity, and I don't know if I'll ever want to watch it again. I'm still glad that I saw it, though.