"Lia" is a woman's name. Will Thomas is a man who stole it. He is a liar, a coward, a bully, and a thief. He is no more entitled to a woman's name than he is to a woman's championship, which he also stole.
I haven't read all the comments, nor seen this movie - just the trailer. If the movie is about embedded journalists covering the fighting, maybe it's not important what the fighting is about (this would date/age the movie anyway). Maybe it's about something more fundamental, more timeless, like the freedom of the press, or the nature of truth? Is there anything about this movie that might be making a statement about what makes the press free? What makes it un-free? How a government controlling the press, controls "truth" and thus the people? Just curious...
This is the first review of this movie that gets it exactly correct. I am a fan of Alex Garland but this movie is completely pointless.. and excuse for gratuitous violence and nothing more. There is virtually no plot, no logic, no character development, no consistency. It has virtually no redeeming features, except perhaps for good cinematography and music.
One of the most timely films of the decade. Civil War is a cautionary tale, presented without politicizing and muddying the point. For those who imagine that a civil war will resolve our problems. Sorry, you a just reading the wrong history books. Go see the movie.
I went into this movie thinking it would have an obvious political agenda but still be interesting speculative fiction a la The Handmaids Tale or something like that. But the fact that they didn’t go into the reasons for the outbreak of the war and the who’s who of the people fighting it just made this movie incredibly boring. Incredibly boring with almost no character development or plot. Just a lot of loud noises which prevented one from being able to sleep through it.
Thank you Suzy Weiss for debunking this movie, which seems a bit like a cynical Brit (the director Alex Garland) looking down his nose at our growing pains here in the U.S. I'll take my cue from Warren Buffett -- "Never bet against America."
This confirms what I've gathered from reviews. I used to think art could be divorced from politics, but when it's consumed the cultural convo over the past years, it needs to be addressed , because art is at its best when it comments on the culture. To do this and not play by Hollywood's rules, we self-produced an audio drama series, newly released on all audio platforms. https://safesociety.world. Think Nineteen Eighty-Four, but today. (Coincidentally, a new Audible read of this novel is just out now too, but I don't think it's revamped to clearly reference the present). There's a trailer for ours here (NSFW) and you can see a bunch of topics teased https://youtu.be/u8qpS3zaizU
It would be hard to have a real civil war, given the entire American left is a bunch of pussies. They’d want “the government” to kill those evil insurrectionist J6ers, like they did Ashli Babbitt, but most military people wouldn’t go along with that.
If you think Iran’s hunger for war stops at Israel, Lebanon, Iraq or Saudi Arabia (and several other countries in the middle east and Africa) then you haven’t listened to what they’re actually saying…
One would guess chanting “Death to America” and calling the US “Big Satan” since 1979 might have gotten the point around…
Try reading some Quran, it’s relatively short and you’ll get the gist pretty quickly
(translation: Infidels are anyone who is not Muslim.. Not only Jews / other minorities)
Iran is controlled by fanatic Jihadists who are set on a WORLD ruled by Islam.
That is their end goal.
Yes they know they can’t take the US on yet in full force but that is why they are budding up with China & Russia and aiming to become a nuclear power
I've not seen the movie, but watched the trailers. I assumed the TX-CA alliance was a "if the devil was fighting Hitler, I would ally with the devil" (paraphrasing Churchill) sort of thing. Keeping it "2024 neutral" in terms of the plot is probably just smart business.
As others have said, the first steps towards any civil war would be "nullification" crises where states won't enforce or otherwise oppose federal efforts. Then groups of states align into blocks. There is, obviously, historical precedent to all this. One element that is different from 1860 is that pretty much every state now is a "border state" in the sense that parts of it align strongly with the right or left.
Geographically, based on county level election results from 2020, over 80% of US territory is majority "red" (the colors are wrong, obviously, since the leftists are the actual reds). The leftist majorities are compressing into smaller and smaller parts of US territory. Biden was credited with winning the fewest counties in modern US history.
So, unlike 1860-1861, there are not clear borders. If civil conflict actually broke out, rural NY and PA would be aligned with SC and TX and similar - Eastern Oregon would not be taking orders from Salem. Detroit and Austin would be besieged islands, and similar. Highly populated cities don't produce the food they eat. Their citizens are not generally skilled in the US of rifles.
It would all be really messy and I hope we don't see this. In the worst case scenario, nations have peacefully separated in the modern era (ex Czech Republic and Slovakia, even the USSR mostly).
That’s disappointing. I have been looking forward to it, as his movies have a unique ability to stick with me days, even weeks later. Then again, disappointment is always a matter of expectation, and I suppose I was not expecting any “on-the-nose” commentary. Instead I expect to see a realistic look at what lies just beyond our growing societal division. I’m still going to see it, but with a little less enthusiasm now.
I wasn't planning on seeing the movie but the fact that it doesn't take sides (we know how that would go) and there are looters tortured in a parking lot does peek my interest.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who’s seen Annihilation (or from what I’ve seen, most else of Garland’s writing). Like his other films, it appears to be another example not of action and aesthetic value placed over story and substance, which can be great (e.g., Mission: Impossible, Maverick, the Fast & Furious series, etc.), but rather aesthetic itself posing as substance…which is boring and dishonest. He’s not the only one guilty of this (*cough*, Ari Aster..). But it’s a dumb trend, and one of the most annoying. I would put Garland’s own 28 Days Later in that former camp as well, which I expect worked well because he wrote it when he was a younger, braver, less successful and less pessimistic of a filmmaker. And because he didn’t direct it :/
I'm looking forward to the movie. I believe that none of the issues we think are important will be important if bullets start flying. It will not take long for us to just want the stability back. I'd be interested if some Yugoslavians would chime in.
It's Will Thomas, not "Lia".
"Lia" is a woman's name. Will Thomas is a man who stole it. He is a liar, a coward, a bully, and a thief. He is no more entitled to a woman's name than he is to a woman's championship, which he also stole.
https://pennathletics.com/sports/mens-swimming-and-diving/roster/will-thomas/14590
I haven't read all the comments, nor seen this movie - just the trailer. If the movie is about embedded journalists covering the fighting, maybe it's not important what the fighting is about (this would date/age the movie anyway). Maybe it's about something more fundamental, more timeless, like the freedom of the press, or the nature of truth? Is there anything about this movie that might be making a statement about what makes the press free? What makes it un-free? How a government controlling the press, controls "truth" and thus the people? Just curious...
This is the first review of this movie that gets it exactly correct. I am a fan of Alex Garland but this movie is completely pointless.. and excuse for gratuitous violence and nothing more. There is virtually no plot, no logic, no character development, no consistency. It has virtually no redeeming features, except perhaps for good cinematography and music.
One of the most timely films of the decade. Civil War is a cautionary tale, presented without politicizing and muddying the point. For those who imagine that a civil war will resolve our problems. Sorry, you a just reading the wrong history books. Go see the movie.
I went into this movie thinking it would have an obvious political agenda but still be interesting speculative fiction a la The Handmaids Tale or something like that. But the fact that they didn’t go into the reasons for the outbreak of the war and the who’s who of the people fighting it just made this movie incredibly boring. Incredibly boring with almost no character development or plot. Just a lot of loud noises which prevented one from being able to sleep through it.
Thank you Suzy Weiss for debunking this movie, which seems a bit like a cynical Brit (the director Alex Garland) looking down his nose at our growing pains here in the U.S. I'll take my cue from Warren Buffett -- "Never bet against America."
This confirms what I've gathered from reviews. I used to think art could be divorced from politics, but when it's consumed the cultural convo over the past years, it needs to be addressed , because art is at its best when it comments on the culture. To do this and not play by Hollywood's rules, we self-produced an audio drama series, newly released on all audio platforms. https://safesociety.world. Think Nineteen Eighty-Four, but today. (Coincidentally, a new Audible read of this novel is just out now too, but I don't think it's revamped to clearly reference the present). There's a trailer for ours here (NSFW) and you can see a bunch of topics teased https://youtu.be/u8qpS3zaizU
It would be hard to have a real civil war, given the entire American left is a bunch of pussies. They’d want “the government” to kill those evil insurrectionist J6ers, like they did Ashli Babbitt, but most military people wouldn’t go along with that.
If you think Iran’s hunger for war stops at Israel, Lebanon, Iraq or Saudi Arabia (and several other countries in the middle east and Africa) then you haven’t listened to what they’re actually saying…
One would guess chanting “Death to America” and calling the US “Big Satan” since 1979 might have gotten the point around…
Try reading some Quran, it’s relatively short and you’ll get the gist pretty quickly
(translation: Infidels are anyone who is not Muslim.. Not only Jews / other minorities)
Iran is controlled by fanatic Jihadists who are set on a WORLD ruled by Islam.
That is their end goal.
Yes they know they can’t take the US on yet in full force but that is why they are budding up with China & Russia and aiming to become a nuclear power
Read 2034 and 2054 if you want better speculative fiction.
Here's my issue with any movie, TV show, doco, whatever that attempts to portray poverty or war.
The smell is missing. Cordite, burning everything, rotting corpses all over. The stench of fear among the civs as they try to get out of the way.
You can look at the most graphic picture or movie and be unaffected, but add in the smells and it's completely different.
So all of these are lacking the most critical component to ram what's happening home; without it one can become easily inured to the visuals.
Think Haiti.
I've not seen the movie, but watched the trailers. I assumed the TX-CA alliance was a "if the devil was fighting Hitler, I would ally with the devil" (paraphrasing Churchill) sort of thing. Keeping it "2024 neutral" in terms of the plot is probably just smart business.
As others have said, the first steps towards any civil war would be "nullification" crises where states won't enforce or otherwise oppose federal efforts. Then groups of states align into blocks. There is, obviously, historical precedent to all this. One element that is different from 1860 is that pretty much every state now is a "border state" in the sense that parts of it align strongly with the right or left.
Geographically, based on county level election results from 2020, over 80% of US territory is majority "red" (the colors are wrong, obviously, since the leftists are the actual reds). The leftist majorities are compressing into smaller and smaller parts of US territory. Biden was credited with winning the fewest counties in modern US history.
So, unlike 1860-1861, there are not clear borders. If civil conflict actually broke out, rural NY and PA would be aligned with SC and TX and similar - Eastern Oregon would not be taking orders from Salem. Detroit and Austin would be besieged islands, and similar. Highly populated cities don't produce the food they eat. Their citizens are not generally skilled in the US of rifles.
It would all be really messy and I hope we don't see this. In the worst case scenario, nations have peacefully separated in the modern era (ex Czech Republic and Slovakia, even the USSR mostly).
That’s disappointing. I have been looking forward to it, as his movies have a unique ability to stick with me days, even weeks later. Then again, disappointment is always a matter of expectation, and I suppose I was not expecting any “on-the-nose” commentary. Instead I expect to see a realistic look at what lies just beyond our growing societal division. I’m still going to see it, but with a little less enthusiasm now.
I wasn't planning on seeing the movie but the fact that it doesn't take sides (we know how that would go) and there are looters tortured in a parking lot does peek my interest.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who’s seen Annihilation (or from what I’ve seen, most else of Garland’s writing). Like his other films, it appears to be another example not of action and aesthetic value placed over story and substance, which can be great (e.g., Mission: Impossible, Maverick, the Fast & Furious series, etc.), but rather aesthetic itself posing as substance…which is boring and dishonest. He’s not the only one guilty of this (*cough*, Ari Aster..). But it’s a dumb trend, and one of the most annoying. I would put Garland’s own 28 Days Later in that former camp as well, which I expect worked well because he wrote it when he was a younger, braver, less successful and less pessimistic of a filmmaker. And because he didn’t direct it :/
I'm looking forward to the movie. I believe that none of the issues we think are important will be important if bullets start flying. It will not take long for us to just want the stability back. I'd be interested if some Yugoslavians would chime in.