Movies - What NOT to see

TRex2 wrote:I am dedicating this thread to apocalyptic movies that you most certainly do NOT need to waste time and money on.

Civil War (2024)
IMDB gave it a rating of 7.6 out of 10
"A journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House."

TRex2 says:
I have not seen it.
Thank God, I was warned, and didn't wast my time on it.
A friend of min did, and warned me.

MPAA Rated R for strong violent content, bloody/disturbing images, and language throughout

Kulak is a writer about the Tactics of Politics.
His site is NSFW, because it is a brutal and unvarnished look at politics.
I don't always agree with him, but he always makes me think.
https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/short-take-review-civil-war-2024

KUlak wrote:If you look really closely at the edges you can see the points scoring politics and how they scammed Hollywood into funding it...

But the entire conceit of the film is it's like 20 years into the war and no one even knows what's being fought over. There are 3 factions that aren't fleshed out, at all, and for 90% of the runtime it has a heart of darkness/Apocalypse now detachment. We don’t even know which side most of the fighters are on most of the movie…

The idea that anyone could know what life would be like 2 years into a war, let alone 20 is ridiculous.

Kulak wrote:I've often thought SECOND CIVIL WAR films should be one of the largest genres in cheap indy Cinema, you just pick an obscure war movie about a war Americans know bugger all about, and take the concept ...  like The Beast and the soviet-Afghan War with a lone tank lost in hostile territory, or '71 and the Irish Troubles with a multi faction war over a misplaced soldier.... Then you remake it with American names and some environmental worldbuilding. BAM instant audience interest.

Except they picked the only movie it wouldn't work for. They picked War Photographer with Christian Frei.

And yes, they 100% did so to score points and praise "brave journalists" and yes the film does end with the "brave journalists" following a multiculti platoon lead by a Black Female sergeant into the Whitehouse to shoot a "3 term president" (white male)...who its been given enough hints that #####'s can cheer at a surrogate trump being shot… but that's not the reason it doesn't work.

Somehow a story set 20 years into a civil war, in the future, takes place in the 1990s and Reuters photojournalists are the ones documenting the war in real time...
...
Likewise it’s a dumb version of a photojournalism story where none of the ethical or moral considerations are shown,...