Civil War Movie
- Thread starter JasonTAlexanderJR
- Start date
People in the movie say there is no representation of left or right leaning people. I wondered if that’s true. And does the audience want to pick a side?
Interesting. I think I would maybe agree. Its actually sorta difficult to understand why they are even having the war. But there aren’t very many explicit social issues, except one race related scene.
It's intentionally vague like that. The most powerful confederate forces are an alliance of California and Texas. The president is a authoritarian but we have limited knowledge of the actual domestic political situation other than the POTUS is in a third term which is the most direct nod to maybe Trump's election denial but it doesn't say how he gets a third term or anything about his politics. There's a mass grave scene and nothing is really revealed about the perpetrators loyalties/agenda. It throws you that the story is following war journalists almost as is if they're the heroes but I think the point is to make the audience a neutral observer of the conflict through their eyes. Main through line is urban combat in basically the USA we know
Last edited:
Very entertaining. I would have preferred more of any type of political context included but that would make this movie less powerful to a broad audience if one of the messages is supposed to be "it could happen here"
We are far too close to this movie becoming a reality for me to really want to go see it. I'll probably wait until it hits streaming. I just don't have time to go see many movies and when I do have time I'm so exhausted that I'll likely fall asleep in the theater.
The US Civil War was fought over a central theme. If there is a next one it will be much more confusing with various factions and changing alliances The Civil War as fought in Kansas and Missouri would be closer than in the deep south. Smaller skirmishes and no clear lines. Civilians at a high risk around combative elements
The movie has been characterized as a "love letter to journalism". An attempt to cast journalists as heroes.
American's trust in the media is at all time lows. And for good cause. They play a role in amping up the division in this country. See the ridiculous headlines in the recent Chicago Police shootout.
A fictional movie attempting to glorify journalists is exactly what I'd expect from Hollywood.
American's trust in the media is at all time lows. And for good cause. They play a role in amping up the division in this country. See the ridiculous headlines in the recent Chicago Police shootout.
A fictional movie attempting to glorify journalists is exactly what I'd expect from Hollywood.
Sound of Freedom is streaming for free if you’re a Prime member. Just here to help.
Didn't really glorify them much or make them look good. Nobody really looks good in this movie. It also kind of works with the journalists being the viewers' avatar which is how was works in America. To most of us (especially neocons) war is media entertainment. The idea was not to glamorize war like most American war films by making the protagonists one side of the conflict. But I mean you could just watch it and find out
Last edited:
Am I the only one who doesn't know wtf this movie is called or that it was out?
what do you expect...someone to actually watch the movie before forming an opinion?
I'm not the one that referred to it as "love letter to journalism". The people in the movie did that.
It was a ok. 3 out of 5 stars. It was from the perspective of journalists.
I'd characterize the movie as brutal and demoralizing.
I'd characterize the movie as brutal and demoralizing.
Woah, I edited this post. That's amazing. Northern did watch it? Talk about an unexpected plot development.
It's thought provoking. The military is split between the 2 sides and you do have to play close attention. Example. The fighters flying over the WF camp and doing rolls shows they have air assets. On the flip is scene where the journalist are asking mock questions they would ask POTUS and one is " would you use air strikes again on civilians.
My take was the 3 time POTUS became a dictator and the civil war was to overthrow him (and why the WF would not take him alive). Glad they killed him after he begged for his life.
Last edited:
I'm aware of "Imbedded Journalist" in combat situations but if there is any degree of reality I feel very sorry for the soldiers.
Multiple times soldiers lives were put at risk protecting and being distracted by journalist during the firefights. Obviously this was portrayed ***SPOILER ALERT***by an experienced journalist losing their life protecting a "young and dumb" one.
I'd hate to see any soldier lose their life so a journalist could get a story/shot of a lifetime.
