Mark Vincent

Thought really embodied how a civil war would play out in the US… After reading some of the one star reviews, I feel like I have a duty to critique this film through the eyes of a historian and a military veteran. A lot of the critics seemed the film should have focused on why the civil war unfolded. If you have been in the US over the last five years I don’t think you really need an explanation. They often forget the fact that civil wars aren’t necessarily clear-cut events like our high school social studies teachers would like us to think. There generally isn’t some charismatic leader that rallies ordinary people to go to risk their lives, because that leader thinks it’s a good idea but rather someone who points to a group of people and says that’s cause of all your problems. People who enter into civil wars are willing to risk, not only their lives but their families, their friends and strangers alike. And I don’t think anyone thinking clearly would take those risks. Societies that enter into civil wars usually have some type of mass discontent that’s bubbling underneath the surface. The movie Civil War does not have to explain this to the American audience so it doesn’t. There are several hints as to why the war is being fought and the different answers should let the audience know there is no one reason. There was another critique that was commonly found in the one star reviews that mention senseless killing that they believe, somehow felt out a place. As an American, we see this type of violence, despite having a functioning economy, public services, and an intact food chain supply. Why would anybody believe murder wouldn’t be rampant in the absence of rule of law? Another ridiculous negative review stated that after the war is over everyone lays down their guns and there are no mass killings. It’s naive to think that and history would confirm that revenge/judicial killings occur. The last major criticism I saw was surrounding the old reporter who’s seen it all and the young upstart. This is probably the only artistic/symbolic choice I saw in the movie. A lot of the negative reviews had issues with the fact that a 23 year reporter in a war zone was ridiculous, like most combatants in conflicts aren’t over the age of 28. Those that have issues with the old man tagging along saying it was unrealistic. If that ruins the movie for you than no movie stands a chance. The choice to tell the story through the eyes of reporters is obvious because they are supposed to be observers. Any other way of telling the story would have likely pulled the audience to a particular side and we should all know what sides I’m referring to. But the 1 star reviewers might not get that. I felt like they wanted to blame a side and the only thing they got was a president who is hardly seen.