Civil War - Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing

As a Texan who was born and raised in the Lone Star state, the idea of Texas teaming up with California for any reason is absolutely hilarious. Especially in this day and age.

Although I too was shocked and laughed a bit at your observation, I’ll say this for Kirsten Dunst: Good for her for staying away from plastic surgery and just aging like a normal person. There are people who aren’t even in Hollywood that can’t do that, so I find that pretty admirable.

Like Kirsten Dunst’s courage in resisting Hollywood plastic surgery pressure. She said “I'm not gonna screw up my face and look like a freak. I'd rather get old and do good roles." 👍🏼

Pretty impressive film, combat wise. It's been a minute since I've seen such close violence, often accompanied by no music. Gunfights actually sound accurate and it doesn't shy away from showing the obvious tragedy of war and needless killing.

The most unrealistic part about this is the fact that the president isn't 102 years old but instead closer to an actual average American.

A modern Civil War movie, released in an election year. Couldn’t get more opportune timing than that.

In my opinion, it was a deliberate and smart move to not delve into the background of conflict in much detail. This is a very different approach to other war movies. It is not important, who wins this war. There are no hero fighters that we are supposed to root for and villains that we are supposed to despise. We are being thrown into a conflict that the characters have already fully accepted to be parts of their lives and have become mainly indifferent to. And the main characters are photographers. They are not there to pick a side. They are there to observe and document this conflict. And we are there with them. Observing the chaos, the violence, the pure horror that would be anyone´s experience in a situation like that. And also, along with the young photographer, we become more and more used to the violence and grow more indifferent towards it as the movie goes on. I think that was a brilliant way to tell a war story. (Also, saying that this movie was beautifully shot is an understatement. 85% of the shots were incredible. Multiple times I was tempted to take out my phone and photograph the screen because it looked so stunning, which obviously I didn´t do. Also very fitting that a movie about photographers takes so much care in capturing beautiful images.

Unfortunately, I'm not with Critical Drinker on this one. Sometimes a movie is akin to a canvas of painting, that does not need any additional story. Civil war in the USA is the end of the world as we know it. Simple as that. I recall watching Italian film called Gomorra, that has a neutral point of view as well, and it conveyed the ideas without any additional narration perfectly.

And the crowd goes mild.

The most unrealistic thing about Civil War is thinking any state would want to rebel against a Ron Swanson presidency.

Usually I agree with you, but I think this film is smarter than you give it credit for. We saw the war through the eyes through apolitical journalists—therefore we saw horror, not politics. Obviously I think you’ve got some good points.

I liked it, personally. I saw it in Imax, and it felt like I was there. I don't think the point was to tell a story on how it realistically could happen, but rather what an actual civil war would look like after a while. Nobody is the good guys, nobody really knows who they're fighting and what they're fighting for anymore. Everybody loses. The people who dislike it are generally quite partisan one way or the other and seem to be annoyed that it doesn't swing overtly left or right.

Theory: The president was, in fact, Ron Swanson. He hated the government so much he continued to climb the ladder until he could be the one to run it into the ground.

Ron Swanson finally made it. He took down the government from the inside. Absolute mad lad.

The movie was about journalism and not about a civil war

In all fairness, the portrayal of the second American civil war as a natural disaster with neither side really having a goal to actually fight for is probably the most accurate you could get. Our political climate these days basically boils down to, "fuck those guys, they don't wear our colors". Everyone is caught up in identity politics and nobody seems to care about the real problems that created our mess in the first place.

Movie sucked cause there was no Captain America, false advertising

To Kirsten's credit, Drinker, she's recently said that she doesn't want (or plan) to have a plastic surgery and prefers to age naturally. This is somewhat refreshing actually when most actors (both men & women) have been abusing the cosmetic procedures to the point that they can't even mimic properly when playing their characters, which imho affects their performance. Also, it could've been a makeup contributing to her weary look, in line with her character.

I think the director purposely didn't give information about why the sides were fighting, because that was the point. A civil war is a defeat for everyone. I agree with the drinker about the characters, they needed more depth and they certainly could have added 10-15 minutes to the runtime to achieve that.

I want to bleach my hair, put on red sunglasses, scratch my face, and win an Oscar.