Nothing makes something seem like a chore as much as “you need to watch it to determine if we sold it accurately”. I guess I will wait a couple months and see if anyone still thinks this is at all an interesting movie.
10 Likes
6 Likes
not what I said, but sure, whatever.
Oops, I accidentally imagined your post had some content to reply to. My apologies for the mistake.
7 Likes
You have yours, and I have my own.
8 Likes
Also, it strikes me that going to a movie in the theater is much more of an expensive pain the ass than it used to be… like, if you’re not sure about a film, for whatever reason, why waste your time and money to go! 
I’m not liking what I’m seeing from the various reviews I’ve read, and I’m not sure I’m in the mood for a pointless realistic gorefest, so why should I spend nearly $100 for my family go see it, when we could watch something we’re more sure about wanting to see. Maybe I’ll see it when it’s out on streaming and/or DVD, maybe I won’t… Others might have decided it seemed interesting and that it was worth their time. Good for them. Doesn’t necessarily change my mind.
Besides that, I don’t really think it’s some major moral failing to come to some preliminary conclusions based on advertising and various reviews - which, there have been A LOT of reviews, and not just some drive by reactions, but some indepth ones that are really bringing out both strong points in favor and those less sure about the film… That’s why there are ads and reviews - so people can make slightly more informed choices about going to see a movie!
10 Likes
that is extremly understandable. I just checked; streaming is plannend to start may 27. see ya then again?
Um. no. I still get to have an opinion and express that in public about whether I think this film is worth my time or not. You did, and that’s fine. Thus far, I have not seen anything that makes me think this will be worth seeing. I may change my mind, but at this point, I’m really not seeing anything that makes me want to see this.
And guess what, I get to say that. It’s not some huge moral failing to say that.
8 Likes
I read a review panning it for not being specifically partisan and failing to “take sides”. I felt bad for the reviewer having to watch a film that’s not blatantly partisan and which didn’t hold his hand while telling him what precisely to think.
I derived meaning from it despite the lack of virtue signalling and overt moralizing. I guess I like being allowed to formulate my own conclusions.
On an unrelated note: Civil War absolutely passes the Bechdel Test, so there’s that too. I also like that my Canadian dollars are the only currency that retains its value after societal collapse. 
4 Likes
Er…
Trying to cajole folks into watching a film they obviously have no interest in is rather obnoxious behavior; just sayin’.
Stating that one has no interest because it looks like a waste of one’s time and/or money is an acceptable stance to make in this conversation.
12 Likes
I’m sorry, but if opposing violent fascists is “virtue signaling and overt moralizing” then… guilty as charged. I’m okay with making the fascists bad guys, because, you know… they actually ARE the baddies. If Garland thinks we don’t need to know that context of a conflict, what caused it and set off rounds of violence, in favor of some attempt to be “objective” then yeah… I don’t really need to see that. There are plenty of films about war that find ways to focus on the outcomes of violence without delving into “both sides are bad” bullshit.
What more info do we need on fascism? Is heaps of bodies not nearly enough for you?
7 Likes
I
I clicked your hidden text to read your spoiler. Thanks for that (seriously!). I was reluctant to see it because (for various reasons… mostly because I’m a sensitive, wee soul) but your summary makes me want to see it.
2 Likes
This thread…more or less (probably less, but it made me laugh)
11 Likes
4 Likes
Someone tried to tell you that you couldn’t?
4 Likes
I agree 100% with your opinion on MMA. I’m shocked how normalised it has become in society.
My local pub has gone full UFC sprots bar and I hate it.
As far as this film goes, it sounds incredibly “meh”.
Im somewhat intrigued about the Northwest Maoists though.
2 Likes
I cannot believe that I am seeing an argument about whether or not people must watch a movie.
On behalf of nobody in particular and with no authority invested in me, I would just like to say: watch the movie if you want to. Don’t watch it if you don’t want to. Feel free to have strong opinions about it either way.
8 Likes
I could kind of see making that cinematic choice if the goal is to show: a civil war would be horrific. And they don’t want to distract viewers by including politics that could cause them to shut down and not receive that message. This is just a guess, though.
Personally, I already know war is horrific and don’t need to live through it vicariously to know that. Like you, but maybe for different reasons, I’m not at all interested in watching this movie. There are already tons of interesting takes on how society responds to systemic breakdowns in various sci-fi and future-based shows if one is interested in that aspect.
11 Likes
Which, I think, that’s his argument for what he’s doing? Like, it’s all via the lens of the journalists experiencing war… But I’ve read enough war reporting/memoirs to know that stripping out the politics at play makes little sense. It’s hard to imagine Joe Saccos work without the political context.
Yeah, that too.
10 Likes
