Civil War Is A Stupid Movie - A Look At What Went Wrong

Civil War Is A Stupid Movie - A Look At What Went Wrong

Detail Author:

  • Name : Mr. Deontae Hermiston Jr.
  • Username : estefania75
  • Email : oborer@hackett.com
  • Birthdate : 1973-11-20
  • Address : 603 Rubye Light Apt. 387 South Tyson, ID 20618-8994
  • Phone : +1-678-565-6409
  • Company : Ziemann, Schaefer and Feest
  • Job : Home Entertainment Equipment Installer
  • Bio : Et unde recusandae unde veritatis sed sunt. Quidem et adipisci sapiente nam. Rerum assumenda porro et. Reiciendis quidem aut nihil officia maxime omnis error.

Socials

facebook:

  • url : https://facebook.com/quincy_xx
  • username : quincy_xx
  • bio : Omnis velit laudantium sed qui. Non magni distinctio voluptate similique.
  • followers : 5877
  • following : 981

linkedin:

tiktok:

  • url : https://tiktok.com/@quincy_crona
  • username : quincy_crona
  • bio : Ea non illo suscipit laboriosam et sed. Beatae quas id molestias modi.
  • followers : 5051
  • following : 359

Sometimes, a movie comes along that just leaves you scratching your head, and for many, "Civil War" fits that bill rather well. It feels like a very stark look at some really deep societal issues, almost like a doctor's report on something unhealthy that is spreading. The film, released in 2024, has certainly gotten people talking, stirring up all sorts of feelings and thoughts about its choices.

This particular film, a 2024 dystopian action thriller, comes from the mind of Alex Garland, and it features a group of well-known performers, including Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura, among others. It tries to show a future where the United States is caught in a rough, violent struggle, one that moves many people from their homes and changes countless lives. Yet, for some viewers, the way it goes about telling this story feels, in a way, just a little off.

The discussion around this movie has been quite lively, with people expressing everything from deep enjoyment to significant disappointment. Some folks, you know, walked out feeling happy and like they truly got something from it, even if they were a bit shaken up. Others found themselves quite frustrated, wondering about some of the decisions made within the story and by the people in it. So, what is that makes this particular film spark such different reactions?

Table of Contents

What Makes "Civil War" So Uncomfortable For Viewers?

This film is, in some respects, a rather harsh and unsettling experience for many who watch it. It's not that the movie clearly backs one side or another, or that it has a very specific viewpoint it wants you to take. Actually, it's quite the opposite. The film doesn't really pick a side, and that, for a lot of people, is the whole point of why it feels so difficult to sit through. We tend to prefer, you know, having very clear groups to cheer for or against in a story, and this movie just doesn't offer that comfort. It leaves you, basically, without a team to support, which can be a little unsettling.

The lack of a defined stance might be unsettling for some, as it means the movie doesn't give easy answers. People often like their stories to show them a clear path, or at least a clear villain. This film, however, seems to avoid taking a stand on the issues it presents. It just shows things as they are, or as they might be, without telling you how to feel about them. This can make the viewing experience a little less straightforward than many might prefer, leaving you to form your own thoughts, which is, you know, a bit of work.

For some, this lack of clear direction makes the film feel a bit like a mirror, reflecting something back without giving much guidance. It's like seeing a situation play out without a narrator telling you who is right or wrong. This can be a source of frustration, as people often want a story to provide some kind of moral compass. So, in a way, this movie challenges the usual way we like to experience stories, which can be, you know, quite a departure from the norm.

Is "Civil War" A Stupid Movie When It Comes To Its Message?

Some people feel that "Civil War" struggles to truly get its point across, even though it appears to be trying quite hard. The person who made it, Alex Garland, definitely seems to understand the kind of visual storytelling and persuasive language that can stir up feelings. Yet, for some viewers, the message doesn't quite land, or it feels a bit muddled. It’s almost as if the film has a lot to say, but it doesn't always manage to say it clearly, which can make it seem, you know, a bit pointless in its overall aim.

The film's maker, Alex Garland, has stated that he wanted people to figure out the movie's deeper meaning for themselves, suggesting that some critics might have missed the political undertones. This approach means that what you take away from the film could be very different from what someone else does. It's like a puzzle where everyone sees a different picture, which can be a strength for some, but for others, it just makes the whole thing feel, basically, a bit confusing. So, for some, the movie is a bit too open to interpretation.

When a film leaves its message so open, it can lead to a lot of different thoughts about what it's trying to say. This can be interesting, as it gets people talking and thinking. However, it can also lead to a sense that the film doesn't have a strong central idea, or that it fails to deliver a powerful statement. If a film is supposed to make you think, and it leaves you thinking about what it was even trying to say, then that might be seen as a bit of a missed opportunity, you know, in a way.

The Visuals of "Civil War" - A Mixed Bag?

There are parts of "Civil War" that are quite striking to look at, while others are truly unsettling. The film shows some of the most believable city combat scenes ever put on screen, which is, you know, pretty impressive. When you see it on a really big screen, like in IMAX, it can be quite jarring, making you feel like you are right there in the middle of the action. This visual aspect is something many people have talked about, as it really does stand out, and it feels, basically, very real.

The way the movie looks and feels can be a lot to take in. It presents a world that is visually rich but also very harsh. This combination of beautiful filmmaking and horrifying events creates a viewing experience that can be both captivating and disturbing. It's almost as if the film wants you to appreciate its artistry while also making you feel very uncomfortable about the things it shows. So, in some respects, the visuals themselves contribute to the overall feeling that "Civil War" is a stupid movie, if you consider its impact on your comfort.

Some viewers have found the visual style to be a highlight, praising how well the scenes of conflict are put together. Others, however, might find the sheer intensity of these visuals to be overwhelming, especially when paired with the film's unclear narrative. It’s like being shown something incredibly vivid but without a clear reason why, which can be, you know, a bit much for some. The movie does not shy away from showing the ugly side of things, and it does so with a lot of skill, which makes it, you know, quite a sight to behold.

Character Choices - Why Do They Seem So... Unwise in "Civil War"?

A common point of discussion among those who think "Civil War" is a stupid movie revolves around the choices made by the people in the story. Some viewers have felt that the characters do things that just don't make a lot of sense, leading to situations that feel, basically, quite silly. For instance, bringing an older, perhaps less fit, person into the middle of a war zone is something that struck some as a really poor decision. It makes you wonder, you know, about the logic behind some of the actions on screen.

The actions of the characters can sometimes feel disconnected from what you might expect from people in such a dangerous situation. It's like watching someone walk into an obvious trap, and you just want to shout at the screen. This can pull you out of the story, making it harder to believe what's happening. If the people in the film are making choices that seem, in a way, very unthoughtful, then it can make the whole movie feel less serious, even when the events are quite serious. So, for some, the characters make "Civil War" a stupid movie.

Take, for example, the character of Jessie. While some might understand the reasons for her actions, others, like those who have seen the film more than once, still find her choices hard to accept. There's a scene where she goes between an officer and a person being beaten, without any protective gear, which struck some as, you know, a very reckless act. This kind of behavior, while perhaps meant to show courage, can instead make the character seem, basically, a bit foolish to some viewers. It just doesn't seem like a smart move in a very rough situation.

The "Civil War" Experience - Fun or Frazzling?

For some people, watching "Civil War" was a rather enjoyable experience, even if it left them a bit shaken. One viewer mentioned that they went into it without too many expectations, just wanting to react to what was on screen. They walked out feeling happy and having really liked it, even though they were a little rattled by the end. This suggests that the film, you know, can be a good time for those who approach it with an open mind, ready for whatever it throws at them, which is, basically, quite a varied reaction.

The film, being an A24 production, often carries a certain expectation of being unique or thought-provoking. For some, "Civil War" delivered on that, providing a kind of entertainment that goes beyond simple action. It's like going on a roller coaster that leaves you a little breathless but also glad you rode it. This feeling of being both entertained and somewhat overwhelmed is a common response, showing that the movie does have a powerful effect on its audience, in a way, even if it's not always a comfortable one.

On the other hand, the film's harshness and the choices of its characters can make it a very different experience for others. What one person finds "fun" might be what another finds "frazzling" in a negative sense. The intensity of the urban combat scenes, for instance, could be seen as a thrilling part of the movie by some, while others might find them just too much to handle. So, the experience of "Civil War" is, you know, very much in the eye of the person watching it, and it can vary quite a bit.

Does "Civil War" Miss The Mark On Storytelling?

Some people feel that "Civil War" doesn't quite hit the mark when it comes to telling a story, even though the idea of a fictional second civil war in the United States isn't, you know, a bad concept at all. The movie doesn't really focus on how such a war would actually work or the details of it. Instead, it sticks very closely to a group of war journalists as they move through what feels like the final stages of a very harsh government falling apart. This focus means it skips over many things some viewers might expect from a movie about such a big event, which can make "Civil War" a stupid movie to some.

The film's choice to follow journalists, rather than focusing on the larger conflict's background or its political reasons, means that viewers don't get much information about the war itself. You don't learn about the sides, or why they are fighting, or the bigger picture of how the country got to this point. It's almost as if the war is just a backdrop for the characters' personal journey, which can leave some viewers feeling like they're missing a lot of context. So, in a way, the story feels incomplete to some.

This approach to storytelling can be frustrating for those who want a clearer narrative or a deeper exploration of the film's premise. If you come to the movie hoping to understand the mechanics of a modern American civil conflict, you might be disappointed. The film, you know, simply doesn't offer that kind of detail. It just shows you what these specific people see and experience, which can feel a bit narrow for such a big subject. It's like being shown a small piece of a much larger picture, and you don't get to see the whole thing, which can be, basically, a bit unsatisfying.

A Comparison - Is "Civil War" A Stupid Movie Next To Others?

Some viewers have drawn comparisons between "Civil War" and other films, sometimes not in a very kind way. One opinion states that the only good thing about "Civil War" is that it's not as bad as another movie called "Men," which is about a woman trying to get through something called "toxic masculinity." This suggests that while "Civil War" might have its problems, there are other films out there that are considered even less enjoyable or more difficult to watch. It's like saying, you know, it's not the worst thing you could see, which is, basically, faint praise.

Another, much harsher, comparison suggests that even some of the most foolish movies, ones with truly unpleasant ideas about patriotism and traditional male roles, still manage to be better than Alex Garland's "Civil War." This comes from the idea that those other films, despite their flaws, at least have some kind of over-the-top moment or a clear, if misguided, worldview that makes them memorable. "Civil War," by this measure, seems to lack even that kind of distinct, if flawed, personality. So, for some, "Civil War" is a stupid movie when put next to other films.

These comparisons highlight how varied people's opinions can be when it comes to movies. What one person finds to be a significant flaw, another might see as a deliberate choice. The fact that "Civil War" is being weighed against other films, both positively and negatively, shows that it has certainly sparked a lot of discussion. It just seems to sit in a space where people are trying to figure out where it fits in the broader landscape of cinema, and for some, it just doesn't measure up, you know, to much at all.

What Was Alex Garland's Aim With "Civil War"?

Alex Garland, the person who wrote and directed "Civil War," appears to have had a specific purpose in mind for the film. Some have suggested that perhaps his aim was to make a movie that might feel, in a way, even worse than a real American civil conflict. This could mean he wanted to create something so uncomfortable and jarring that it would really make people think about the horrors of such a situation. It's like he wanted to hold up a mirror to a very dark possibility, which is, you know, a pretty bold move.

The film is often described as a series of frightening scenes, one after another, which could be part of Garland's plan. By presenting these intense moments without a clear political agenda, he might have intended for the audience to experience the chaos and brutality firsthand, rather than getting caught up in specific ideologies. This method means the film focuses more on the raw experience of conflict, leaving the deeper meaning to the individual viewer. So, the film is, basically, a collection of moments that are meant to disturb.

Garland's approach to filmmaking, where he allows people to interpret the message themselves, is a key part of his style. He seems to understand how to use visuals and language to create a certain feeling, even if the overall communication of a single, clear point is sometimes missed by viewers. This suggests that his goal might not have been to teach a lesson or deliver a straightforward message, but rather to provoke a reaction and encourage personal reflection. It's a method that can lead to a lot of different thoughts about whether "Civil War" is a stupid movie or a deeply meaningful one, you know, depending on your perspective.

How to keep civil engineers safe at work, in the field | ASCE

Civil Engineering Building Construction

What Is The Future Of Civil Engineers In India? | Chitkara University

Related Post

How To Make A Book On Minecraft - Your Crafting Guide

El Paso Franklin High School Shooting What Does Mean? Meaning Uses And More Fluentslang

Husband Panties What Funny Booty Bachelorette Party Bridal Gift

Hunter Long Father - Family Connections In Football