Civil War (2024) User Reviews

Disturbing, brilliant and essential

[mark-deckard-1967 · 9/10 · 13 April 2024]

America is getting sick. Alex Garland has offered us a vaccintion for what ails us. Like a serum for snake bite made of venom itself, this film grabs us by the shoulders and screams "You got a civil war fantasy? Fine, I'll put it on a 40 foot screen and dare you to cheer."

Civil War finds it's foundational vision in the eyes of those who for decades have brought us the soul shattering reality of war, free from the romance of Hollywood patriotism- war journalists whose frenzied, conflicted oddysey plunges them into a mad gauntlet of fire and film, killing and kodachrome. Like soldiers in a war of attrition, they must constantly reassess the purpose of thier risks and sacrifices as they watch their colleagues fall for the sake of the priceless pictoral story of war. Three generations of war correspondants traveling together into the insanity becomes the testiment to three phases in the life of such a calling.

We are introduced to the strangeness of how soldiers, out for blood, tolerate and facilitate the prescence of these unarmored observers every step of the way through the hell of combat. Garland seems to tap into some unspoken ethos of universal creedance among combatants that the history of it all must be seen and those who record it must survive to tell of it. It is never explained, merely displayed.

We are reminded that in a modern Americn civil war, rogue atrocity can roll through your city just as easy as it did for My Lai. If you think that in the fog of war we would maintain our civility and morality like gentlemen, think again. For every five patriots there might be one psychopath ready to fill ditches with the innocent dead executed under the jurisprudence of a few unhinged men with guns.

We have no idea why this war is being fought. Perhaps it is a just war. Perhaps it is a crazed cessationist rebellion. We aren't afforded such information. It would only get in the way of the vital message-war is hell and be careful when you tell your fellow American to go to hell for thier political differences. What you end up with might be far darker and damning than you ever dreamed.

The genius of this film rests partially in an absurd alliance between California and Texas, two of the most opposite states in the Union. By joining this ideological odd couple, the story immunizes itself against accusations of partisanship or cultural favortism. Yet it also beckons us to imagine what kind of national crisis could bring such opposites together.

This film will be awarded there is no doubt. Alex Garland has broken new ground and his script and actors and cinemetography deserve all the awards they get.

It doesn't take sides, it just serves as a reminder, war is hell.

[ItsJonThompson · 8/10 · 24 April 2024]

A truly immersive experience into what a civil war in an America could "feel" like. I was fortunate enough to enjoy an IMAX screening and a particular stand out of the film was the sound design. Civil War uses its surround sound space as I viral part of its story telling. The gunshots truly rock you and surround you, even the sound track has explosive moments that jar you and remind you that you are in a place of chaos and instability. The story is simple but profound, using the 3rd eye or journalism, doing its best to tell an unbiased perspective of the what the world looks like at its most biased... a civil war. See it on the biggest screen and the best sound system you can. Its not a call of duty campaign, its not saving private Ryan, its its own thing so clear your head of expectation and just take the ride.

Former FBI Agent persoective: one of the most important films in history

[ramair350 · 10/10 · 13 April 2024]

Everybody should see this film. No spoilers, but it is a glimpse into what life could be like in a modern American civil war. Indeed, there is nothing civil about war. It is a terrifying film to me, primarily since it is a future that is possible. Not probable, but not a giant leap either. Collapse of government happens quickly. Just ask a former Soviet citizen.

The film is captivating and intense. The couple next to me in the theater walked out 20 minutes in due to the violence. Guess what: that is what war is. The film does not glorify war; indeed, it is quite anti-war. There are times where war unfortunately is necessary. Please let's not make it necessary within this great country of ours.

See the film. Please.

Masterpiece about war journalism. A phenomenal Kirsten Dunst

[aceshop3 · 10/10 · 6 April 2024]

Let me start with: the discourse around this film is truly fascinating-and I think it's incredible to read this some time after watching the movie. The trailers were kind of awful marketing imo. This is a character-driven story, but in the most tense way possible. Anything can happen at any moment, and the left swerves are constant. I have to stress that OH MY GOD you have to see this on the big screen! It's one of the most immersive films I've ever seen-I wasn't pulled out of it for even a second and it is so bloody beautiful!

I should not have loved this movie, but I did, because it has some truly wild universal implications-it's not limited to the US at all. I had to take a long time to process this film, but I understand the breathless first reactions: this is not like anything I've seen before, for one particular reason. I also totally get the Apocalypse Now comparisons: now there's another film that contradicted each impulse it put out. One might say that by nullifying itself it too was "empty"-but of course it wasn't. This movie is pretty meta: what I think and say will say a lot about me and how I see the world. That's super cool! But it's not about war (outside of being an anti-war film). It's about war journalism, and spectacle.

A lack of context might annoy people. And why? Well, frankly, because this is a movie that is opposed to American exceptionalism. It aggressively shoves your face in its sameness actually. It renders it banal; a war zone like any other country in another war film where most American viewers likely have little idea of the opposing parties or actors involved. Every gun shot is loud as hell, every explosion is far too much: spectacle, yes, and people ask "to what end?" I find it radical. One can make up five different backstories of how Texas and California seceded separately and then allied against a fascist President: but the only reason you'd have a problem with the fact that Civil War doesn't tell you is because you're too attached to the American-ness of it all. America? Depicted like any other? The cheek! Jesse Plemons' character heavily evokes the Khmer Rouge. There's so many other examples-they remind you of somewhere else (Vietcong references, Afghanistan/Iraq imagery, less domestic parallels than international ones tbh). I admire the provocation to us Americans, I really do. This film is about the spectacle of war and how it would look today: literally any war, anywhere, and here! And it's using the most provocative, iconic setting to do that.

The performances are OFF THE WALL. Dunst is phenomenal, she's the whole-ass movie! We've literally never seen this from her before, and damn, that range. One doesn't doubt her as Lee, a veteran war photographer, for a moment, even though she barely says anything. It's saying a lot that this is up there amongst her best work. Hell, it's one of the best performances of this whole decade. The whole movie plays out through her reactions and tonally she's pitched it perfectly. And Wagner Moura is almost equally brilliant (it could reasonably be considered a co-lead performance imo): his Joel is chaotic, wild, and hedonistic. The depiction of war journalists is so precise: the bizarre, adrenaline-fueling addiction that it seems to require. It's devastating. The film explores the ethics of reporting: where it ends is not stated, but it is clear. In Moura's scream, in Dunst's eyes, in Stephen McKinley Henderson's beautifully wise tone, and then in Spaeny's reverse-mirroring her idol's journey. The score was appropriately surreal, the needle-drops brilliant (deep cuts!), all the techs are undeniably in sync. None of this would've worked without this ensemble, and Dunst in particular. They're not just the characters: they're the whole point of the film.

One might ask: How stupid does Alex Garland have to be to make a film so pointedly open to all the criticism? He knows people will call it "empty", lacking in a "political stance." He knows people will find it bombastic, or that because we're thrown into the deep end, no amount of character shading and performance work will prevent people from saying things like "thin characterization". But Lee, Joel & Sammy (McKinley Henderson) are razor-sharp. Jessie (Spaeny) is the real enigma. I think for Garland, this setting was the only vehicle through which there might be an actual jolt, and he wasn't wrong. The setting is familiar *globally*: what better setting to choose than the icons of a global superpower most people in the world are familiar with? This might seem like a step too far as comparison but people across the world were just as shocked as anyone when the towers went down on 9/11. Why? Because they wondered: it could happen there too? Really?! Garland's somehow made a film that feels real enough to evoke that shock.

I kept thinking with every second I would soon say it's exploitative. But this movie doesn't allow any feel-good triumphalism. It's dark & terrifying. This is the sheer dread and despair of war: there is no questioning that the film is staunchly anti-war: the cost of it all feels so palpable. The aesthetic of this film and the strong emotion it elicits-all clearly intended-is more than enough for me to run with. I would've definitely been annoyed if it had been too definitive. This is an anti-war, anti-exceptionalism film about the nature of telling the truth about war. It's a masterpiece, it just is.

Felt like a missed opportunity

[clarejoshua · 6/10 · 11 April 2024]

I loved the concept of the film and some elements of this film delivered but unfortunately as a full experience it fell short for me by some distance.

Too many parts of the fore-fronted narrative are predictable and many characters felt "2D" - the old head who espouses wisdom, the grizzle main protagonist, the cool guy who drinks too much and claims to love the chase and finally the up and comer who won't hear no whilst putting others in danger. No spoilers here but it plays out how you'd expect...

There's moments where you think "yeah, let's explore this" and it moves on. The pace seems confusing with a huge wait until action is reached then a final 15 minutes of non-stop.

The soundtrack was great, the basis of the story which follows war photographer was promising but the execution was a shame. 6/10 from me.

The trailer doesn't do this film justice...

[jeremy-clay59 · 9/10 · 10 April 2024]

I was genuinely incredibly impressed by this movie. After watching the trailer, I was expecting an Expendables type of film. The reality is that this movie is brilliant. A dark twist and a brief insight into photo journalism and the horrors of war. A lot of time and effort has clearly gone into the production of this film. The way the actors move and react to situations added to the realism and added to the enjoyment of the viewer. Kirstin Dunst wasn't my first choice but her performance was spot on. I would recommend watching this film in IMax at the cinema. A lot of the drama would not necessarily be transferred to the small screen. Highly recommend.

A lot of emptiness

[jwcstorage · 6/10 · 17 April 2024]

I went into Civil War blind, knowing almost nothing about it and not knowing what to expect.

A war correspondence movie was not it.

I've watched similar movies in the past, but found this one surprisingly empty in more ways than one.

The script feels very loose and meandering, even though its a pretty straight forward Point A to Point B scenario.

The characters feel rather shallow, which is odd considering a majority of the movie is focused solely on them. They also feel more lumped together than a cohesive group.

The world is also pretty empty, which is odd considering that they're driving through the heart of a wartorn America.

The story, likewise, is pretty empty. For a lot of talking, the audience doesnt really get much from any of the characters. They still felt mostly like strangers by the end of the film.

Once the movie began, I knew I shouldnt be expecting large scale battles or anything like that, the movie was too intimate and close, not to mention we're following 4 members of the press. Theres really only a small handful of important, impactful scenes, but the audience doesnt have much of a reason to care about them.

By the end, two of our 'heroes' are dead, and one seems to have lost his sense of self to the point where he effectively advocates and accepts the presidents death.

It wasnt a bad movie, it just also wasnt a very good movie, or story.

STOP! I need a quote.

[chand-suhas · 8/10 · 19 April 2024]

United States government is at a civil war against it's own rebellious states. The loyal soldiers of the government are at war with the militants, who are trying to take over Washington D. C. and famous war photojournalist Lee Smith saves Jessie, a newbie photojournalist during a suicide bombing. Lee and her colleagues Joel and Sammy, make a plan to drive to Washington D. C. to capture the exclusive moment when the city falls while conducting a final interview of the President. Jessie joins the group, against Lee's wishes and soon Lee turns into her mentor as they travel through various hurdles. How they bond over the short period of time and how Will they ensure to take the photographs so that others can ask the right question, forms rest of the story.

Civil War is an extremely well shot film and choosing to watch it on IMAX was the best decision I made. Cinematographer and also the action director needs to be lauded as the film has several stunning as well as chilling moments captured and the action scenes are top notch. Civil War is definitely not an easy watch and it is not even a surprise that the world they show in, looks so believable. The segment with the small town having complete normalcy looked odd whereas everything else looked normal, which again makes up for sad truth. The performances stand out too, leading with Kirsten Dunst and Civil War easily is the top contender for one of the best films of this year.

Strongly recommended.

Wanted to love it, ended up frustrated

[awessel-58117 · 6/10 · 13 April 2024]

I wanted to love this movie going into it, but I found myself frustrated by its inability to deliver any semblance of stakes or taking a stance on something. For a political movie this was a bold, bland, and terrible choice. This needed less fence-sitting and more big swings. You can't make a political movie and then not take any political stances, even in the form of good vs evil being two different political ideologies in a fictional version of the U. S.

With that being said, there were some very compelling scenes that left me on the edge of my seat and clambering for more. Especially the scene where Jesse Plemons makes his appearance. This along with the scene driving through the burning forest were my favorites of the film. An honorable mention is the entire fight to get into the white house during the DC scene, which had me so anxious and stressed that I was almost feeling nauseous (in a good way of course).

The sound design was impeccable and it had me feeling like I was in every scene with the characters, especially the gunfight moments. Another impactful point was the use of silence during emotive scenes, most notably in the moment we see Joe screaming while the helicopters are taking off and when he and Jesse are in the back seat having a breakdown.

A criticism I have is that it follows the overused trend of the last decade of post-apocalyptic feeling sets for a story that doesn't require it. The traveling across desolate America and stopping at every small encounter with another person just made me think I was watching a rip off of The Last of Us.

This movie was good, but it could have been so much better. It could have done with being a solid 2:30 instead of 1:49 in run time. The pacing would have been better, more of the world building could have been established, and the introduction of what the stakes actually were for each side in the war could have been stated. But we got none of that.

I wish this was better than it was, I truly do. I am giving it a very soft 6/10 with the possibility of it being lower after a repeat viewing in the future. Wait to watch this one on streaming.

This isn't a civil war movie, it's a movie about a photographer

[Pigeon_down · 6/10 · 12 April 2024]

When I saw the trailer in the cinema a few months back, I was really excited to see this movie. Yes, there are a few issues with the premise, the idea that California and Texas would team up against other parts of the US - having lived in Texas and Cali I know they're two very different states.

However, the real problem with this movie is that the title is really click bait. I was expecting a film about a civil war in the US, but what I got was a really really slow movie about a war photographer and an aspiring war photographer on a road trip that happen to bump into a few looney rednecks.

All in, I was genuinely bored through most of this movie. I remember looking around the cinema thinking how many empty seats there were and, ah so that's where the speakers are!

The movie only really becomes more action packed toward the last quarter. The ending scene is pretty good, there are some excellent battle scenes, and it's more shocking that it's blue on blue. In fairness the last 20 minutes has some of the best battle scenes I've seen, hence I gave this movie a 6 as the last 20 minutes literally saved this film from being a solid 2.

So, other than the last 20 minutes battle, what is this movie really about? Well, it's about a seasoned war photographer who encounters some new 'kid' photographer that wants to learn the craft. The backdrop of the civil war is never explained. You have no idea who is the 'good side' and who is the 'bad side'. You don't know why it happened, who to root for, how big the sides are. Because of that, this literally could have been a movie about a war photographer in Rwanda or Serbia. It's also very slow imo. It's largely a road trip across parts of the US in which the photographers and journalists drive through towns and meet small numbers of looney people with guns - think The Walking Dead on a slow episode.

The worst thing about it is the story arc is predictable. You can pretty much guess where this is going to lead, spoiler, the old veteran photographer who won't risk anything to help the young upstart risks everything I was pretty much eye rolling in the final moments because it was very obvious what was going to happen.

Overall, I felt cheated - it was bait and switch. I thought I was getting something intense, some deeply thought out civil war in the US movie, characters on either side you could root for, but no, just a bit silly road trip, with the last 20 minutes giving the movie a very visually impactful battle scene.

Lack of Story

[pftq · 4/10 · 9 April 2024]

I'm a big fan of Garland's earlier films (Ex Machina, Annihilation) and wanted to like this, but sadly this one was a miss. There's not really a story - no reason why the war is happening or what is at stake. The characters are extremely unrelatable and are more there just to represent concepts (the media, racism, etc) rather than have any identity of their own. The war just happens to be there in the background while the characters are taking a roadtrip through rural America, which doesn't actually show any war going on, just random series of fights which could just be regular gun violence from today. You would hardly know there's a war going on except the characters telling you there is.

It's not until the last 10 minutes that you see any military operations and it lacks scale for only seemingly having about 100 troops fighting, given what's supposedly at stake. The movie should've started here and gone backwards into why the war is happening, which would've made a more interesting film in my opinion.

A slice of shockingly personal experience of being in a war

[camwang-43373 · 8/10 · 11 April 2024]

First time I watch the trailer, I thought it would be a movie that shows a bunch of militaries and politicians trying to come up with some strategies and a lead character just fight for one of two sides, who play a key role in the war and finally that side wins. But I was completely wrong.

This is a taste of war experience that shows you the cruelty of real war. It's so direct. It doesn't confuse you with big talks about politics about powers and conflicts. Instead, it puts you in a position that is vulnerable and also in the very front line of war, it's all about experience rather than telling you a intriguing story.

Be realistic people

[johno1992 · 8/10 · 9 April 2024]

Think everyone expected a typical war film. This is Alex Garland, when has he ever delivered a typical anything the man gives you a played out trope and flips it on its head. At the core of this film is humanity, he does a job not only showing you attrocites of war that happen all over the role but the backdrop is our own backyard and us. He holds the mirror up to us and makes us face those uncomfortable possibilities and scenarios. The added photography real delivers the message. Is their any form of "story" that people keep complaining about? Absolutely, but you'd be foolish not to see or notice it. The slow disensitization of one character in particular while trying ever bit to hold onto her humanity is what really got me. Movie stays with you long after and show your that living in a country where we are suppose to understand each other regardless of your differences instead of reaching this extremism were saying play out in our country begs the question Are we no different then those said enemies we had back in the middle east? Or Vietnam?

Hope this film opens up people to those questions because if you are their for just mindless action film fun. Go watch Rambo 3.

Weak dialogue and character development.

[mfalcon64 · 6/10 · 15 April 2024]

I saw this with three friends and they all loved it, but i couldn't get past the corny dialogue, and the character development didn't make sense at all. The young woman, Jesse, and stoner journalist have full blown panic attacks and are puking on themselves while Kirsten continues to hold it down and then out of nowhere the roles reverse at the last moment at the end and Kirsten freezes when we've been shown that she's so experienced and numb to these types of events. Pure nonsense. Additionally, they are covering a small skirmish with people wearing plain clothes and minimal body armor, while the journalists are fully vested and wearing helmets, then at the end of the film when they are covering fully soldiers, with equipment aplenty, the journalists are wearing minimal gear. A lot of small plotlines and basic story points werent fully developed and kept taking me out of the film. Was looking forward to this too and was sadly disappointed.

The cinematography was great, although the lenses they shot on had a lot of chromatic aberrations which were distracting because they were wide open a lot of the time. The editing was great and never felt like it lingered too long on any shots. Sound design was good except for this moment when they're at the Western front camp and there was helicopter sound effects blaring for was too long. Technically a great film, just really fell flat with the insincere dialogue and poor character development.

If this is Alex Garland's last film...

[rocketwoods · 9/10 · 9 April 2024]

Then he went out with a bang! Other than a horror film, this movie was the first to keep me my anxiety level up about whats going to happen next. It was a packed showing and looking around me, the whole audience was stressing and literally on the edge of their seats. Real raw, nothing held back and it feels real like this could happen in due time.. and I think that's where the edge of the seat happens for us. The performances were amazing as well! Kirsten dunst has showed finally shown the ability she has in a long time since Fargo or maybe in Virgin Suicides. Other performances were raw and well executed to grab the audience and share the spotlight. This is a movie you will see and recommend to others for a long time. Strap in because the first 5 mins will shake you.

Thin and insubstantial

[billthomas · 12 April 2024]

There is a good movie to be made about the polarisation and aggression of US politics leading to civil war. This was not it. Uses a grossly undeveloped political scenario as an excuse to show us routine, gratuitous violence and contrived relationships. Casting an actress who looks 14 as a 23 year old was a big mistake and pushing her from wide eyed innocence through a ridiculous, unbelievable journey to awakening ambition via horror was crudely handled. Taking photos of people while they suffer and die is obscene and the pain and gore of violence was trivialised, not dignified by this sad movie.

Interesting, boring, interesting, boring, interesting the END

[Beyondtherain · 6/10 · 12 April 2024]

I understood the movie and concept, but it was very underwhelming and quiet...I was expecting it to be more action packed and more story, I was waiting for it to be over. It was way too predictable and just not that interesting. Can we just get the 28 Weeks later sequel? The trailers to this film made it seem like a masterpiece, what i felt was a Mediocre Docudrama with very predictable characters. Every scene was predictable and just flew by. The movie just didn't excite me at all. The best description of this movie is, THE PURGE MOVIE, WITHOUT ANY PURGING...Seriously it was exactly like one of those Purge movies from blumhouse without killing...I can't believe I thought this was going to be actually enjoyable. Even the ending just felt ridiculous and predictable. I understand it, but just didn't care for it at all. Bring on the zombie movie already.

Great anti-war film

[masonsaul · 8/10 · 9 April 2024]

Civil War doesn't really say much but it's got noble intentions as it shows the bravery and desensitisation that journalists have whilst succeeding as an anti-war film that uses the spectacle to disorient and shock rather than thrill. It's a lean and intense mid-budget film that proves less can be so much more.

The core trio are surprisingly strong when it comes to depth and investment. Kirsten Dunst excels as a world weary reporter who's spent years trying to prevent this very outcome, Cailee Spaeny is incredible as the newcomer who's still really affected by what she witnesses and Wagner Moura is a lot of fun as the one in it for the adrenaline rush.

Alex Garland's direction is excellent as he moves through a steady stream of disturbing imagery, utilising both deafening noise and powerful quietness. Every set piece is terrific, mainly thanks to the sound design which ensures every bullet fired has never felt louder or scarier. It's a real assault on the senses, especially in IMAX.

Disappointing War Story without Background

[davejensen-97995 · 6/10 · 12 April 2024]

The director has prepared us for a movie about how the differences in our political spectrum have led to a civil war. Unfortunately, there is zero background information. This is a movie about war correspondents . . . That's it. It's not "an American tale" or anything special in terms of impact. It's just a very well done war movie, with bad guys and good guys, and they can be from either side of the political spectrum. I found it pretty, well-shot and production design is great as well. But I found it hollow, without the detail that I would have liked to have seen about the two sides. I think that Garland didn't focus on any of that because he didn't want to be accused of picking a side. But without it. It's simply a movie about people shooting guns. Lots of loud noises and explosions, and the (interesting) character development of a set of photo journalists.

Harrowingly Brilliant

[cutie7 · 8/10 · 13 April 2024]

Alex Garland's 2024 film "Civil War" stands out as a powerful anti-war statement, brilliantly capturing the dehumanizing effects of conflict without falling into the trap of excessive gore or violence. This isn't an easy watch-its stark portrayal of war's psychological and emotional impacts hits hard, making it a thought-provoking exploration that avoids sensationalism. The film's intense atmosphere is amplified by a fantastic soundtrack, which complements Garland's storytelling, creating a deeply immersive experience.

The performances in "Civil War" are a significant part of its success. The actors bring a raw, visceral energy that breathes life into their characters, making each personal story feel real and urgent. Their ability to convey the complexities of fear, loyalty, and despair adds a profound layer of authenticity to the film. Garland steers clear of typical war movie clichés, opting instead to focus on personal stories that illustrate the broader devastation of war. This approach doesn't just make "Civil War" relatable; it intensifies the emotional weight of the narrative, allowing viewers to feel the profound moral ambiguities and losses faced by its characters. With its compelling narrative, poignant execution, and standout performances, "Civil War" is a gut-punch of a film, showcasing Garland's skill in crafting narratives that are as unsettling as they are impactful.

Civil war without knowing what caused it... in dire need of a prequel

[paul-allaer · 6/10 · 13 April 2024]

As "Civil War" (2024 release; 109 min.) opens, POTUS addresses the nation that an important victory over the Western Forces has been achieved. We then get introduced to Lee and Joel, who are reporters for Reuters. Lee is a legendary photo journalist, and she captures a civil unrest in New York City, where a woman detonates a suicide bomb. At this point we are 10 minutes into the movie...

Couple of comments: this is the latest from British writer-director Alex Garland ("Ex Machine", "Annihilation"). Here he brings us what a modern day civil war in the US could look like. On that level, the movie speaks for itself, as we watch how it all plays out. More importantly, Garland made the choice to not explain or give any background or context what events lead to civil war breaking out to begin with. Nor do we know how long the war has been raging already when the movie opens. It's literally watching several sides combatting without any clue as to why. This is a fundamental flaw in my opinion, as we the viewers have no reason to relate to either side or to become emotionally invest. (How is it that Texas and California, two very different states on so many levels, have now joined to form the Western Forces? This movie won't tell you.) Much of the movie is in fact a road movie, until it gives way to the final battle in DC in the last half hour or so. Kirsten Dunst brings an outstanding performance as Lee, and the rest of the main cast is very solid as well. But when all is said and done, I felt disappointed with this movie, because I literally had no idea or clue as to how we got to having a civil war raging in this country.

"Civil War" premiered at this year's SXSW festival to positive acclaim. The movie opened this weekend in theaters, and I couldn't wait to see it, based in the trailer. The movie is currently rated 82% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which feels very generous to me. The Friday matinee showing where I saw this at was poorly attended (about 10 people in a very large auditorium). If you are in the mood to find out how a modern day civil war could play out in the US without any further context or background information, I'd suggest you check this out and draw your own conclusion.

Should have been titled: "War Photography"

[darkreignn · 5/10 · 15 April 2024]

From "The First Omen" to "Monkey Man," "Sting" and "Civil War," it seems that there is something in the air during April of 2024 that is causing Hollywood marketing professionals to falsely advertise their movies. "The First Omen" is more slow-burn drama than horror; "Monkey Man" is barely an action film; "Sting" is basically a coming-of-age children's thriller; and "Civil War" is by no means the explosive, politically charged, and action packed war extravaganza that A24 would have you believe it is. And typically, I wouldn't mind this expectation subverting style, as long as the movie had a tight, taut script, interesting and nuanced characters, refined performances, and a riveting plot. "Civil War" has none of these things.

A24 has a reputation for publishing thought-provoking, artistic pictures that - yes - subvert audience expectations. More than that, A24 films typically have razor sharp scripts and humanistic dialogue that draws viewers into the world, engrossing them in the (often brutal) struggle of the characters that are inhabiting the screen. And oh, how I wish that "Civil War" followed this trend that A24 has been so consistent in practicing.

Directed by Alex Garland, "Civil War" both looks and sounds great. With sound design that sends shockwaves down theatre seats, each and every gunshot borders on deafening to the point where I saw my fellow movie goers covering their ears at points; needless to say, it's effective, adding a certain intensity to the action scenes that is simply missing from other, even more expensive, action films. And from a visual perspective, "Civil War" is a pretty film (a forest fire sequence is especially striking) that also isn't afraid to immerse viewers in the type of grotesque imagery that one would expect from a movie that is depicting a modern-day war torn America. From street bombings to point blank executions, this isn't an easy movie to watch from a thematic standpoint, but man, it sure is easy to look at with the type of lush visuals you'd expect from an Alex Garland film. And if you're coming for action, you'll get it... kind of. The last act is, frankly, mind blowing, following a prolonged action sequence that is certainly exciting, albeit disturbing given the context of, well, a civil war in America. That said, the build up to this sequence is full of, honestly, not much.

Starring Kirsten Dunst as a wartime photojournalist, "Civil War" follows Kirsten and her merry band of psychopa- sorry, of photographers, as they road trip from one atrocity to the next, taking snapshots with the tenacity and glee of a TMZ reporter. Kind of echoing the Jake Gyllenhaal film "Nightcralwer," in "Civil War," Kirsten dons the same blank, lifeless expression as she photographs dead people, dying people, and people who are about to die. Her colleagues do the same thing with varying levels of enthusiasm - some are at first disgusted at the sight of violence, while others literally proclaim "What a rush!" after a fire fight. Many seem to think this film is a glorification of journalism, but I disagree; mostly every character is un-empathetic to the extreme, bordering on inhuman, as they photograph atrocities and never once think to themselves, "Huh, maybe I should step in and help." So on one hand I understand what Garland was trying to say; on the other hand, the characters were so unlikeable that I absolutely hated watching them.

However, and as I mentioned, the film "Nightcrawler" deals with similar themes - the difference is that movie is well acted, and extremely well written. On the contrary, "Civil War" is just bland. The performances are mostly all one note, and the dialogue is so, so silly, with every character acting so unrealistic that I couldn't help but roll my eyes with every word that exited their mouth and with every action they took that no one in their right mind would take. Characters act so silly, and their dialogue is so ridiculous, that it's a wonder they've survived so long in the world they're inhabiting. And it's a shame, because where this movie truly had to shine to succeed was in its characters and script, and both of those things are just not up to par.

This review is a little too long winded at this point, so I feel like it's time for me to quit writing and simply say that "Civil War" is not a mainstream movie, and that's okay. What's not okay is the fact that the movie is full of boring characters, boring dialogue, and a boring plot. The sound design and visuals are incredible, in typical Garland fashion; the rest of the movie is just kind of there. This is not a bad movie by any means, but it's also not that good, and by the time it ended both myself and my movie going partner felt the exact same way about it: Ehh.

Highly recommended

[fblascogarma · 9/10 · 9 April 2024]

Alex Garland is one of my favorite writers. Wrote Ex Machina - a masterpiece. His style is not for everyone, but I love it.

Civil War doesn't explain what caused the war, and that's a creative decision that I like. At first my curious side was annoyed for not knowing. What happened? Who's in each side? How many sides are they?

But my wife explained: it's so you can not blame the democrats or the republicans.

That opened my eyes. And not just that, it was so chaotic that it felt like it didn't matter who was shooting who. A scene on a street decorated with Christmas brilliantly represents this.

Great performance from all but especially from Kirstin - one of my favorites. Puts so much into each character. So much depth.

Blasting sound. Sound on the shooting scene at the end elevated several levels the strength of impact. And then came flying a helicopter or plane and it elevated everything one more level.

I'm going to watch this movie again. Highly recommended.

Terrible message: stay confused and don't cause problems to the elites

[Waldorf-1979 · 13 April 2024]

Note: I'm a big fan of Garland's work, until this one.

The movie is technically good. Weak script but not terrible. Acting is OK.

This is an anti-war movie. The portrayed factions on purpose don't map to any of the current sides. The idea (or claim of intent) is to make the viewer not be able to identify with either side.

The sides are portrayed as ridiculous and without any good reason. In real life, there have to be strong reasons to go to fight. Even if they are lies or exaggerations. People fight to defend their own ethnicity/nationality/tribe, or to uphold or impose their religion/ideology, or to avenge lost ones. It has to be something very strong to overcome your survival instinct and risk losing your life.

In the movie, journalists are portrayed as the good people who can't understand why the rest are fighting at all. This is the biggest lie of the movie. MEDIA is usually the main way people are stirred into war and conflicts. They define the ENEMY, they vilify it, and convince viewers the other side are non-humans (necessary to convince people to kill others). Any journalist who doesn't align with the MEDIA on either side is banished/cancelled. See how it's playing in both "left" and "right" media nowadays. Same happened in both world wars before.

So this movie pretends to be impartial but it's a LIE. It wants to DEMORALIZE people to NEVER REBEL against tyranny.

Like the ones fueling riots and later, once things get out of hand, cry "why can't we get along?". Media is evil.

History teaches if there's unjust power grab to destroy a republic people should rebel or suffer the consequences for a very long time. And if most people are cowards, GTFO before it's too late. Suffer now or suffer forever as a serf, vassal, or slave. But doing nothing is the worst you can do.

From a non-Garland fan: this is Garland's best.

[sarastro7 · 9/10 · 8 April 2024]

I attended the premiere of author/director Alex Garland's latest film, CIVIL WAR. I have always had a strained relationship with his writing skills; I generally don't think he is very good (to put it mildly). So far, I have not given anything he has written or directed a higher rating than 6 stars out of 10 - some things significantly less. However, CIVIL WAR ends up at 8/10 - even though it still ends up being somewhat disappointing in a couple of ways.

Calling the film CIVIL WAR (in a US context) is a bit of a misnomer. The film is about a small team of war photographers who go on a risky road trip to Washington to "interview" the president, while a civil war is going on in the background. The film's focus is primarily on the ethics of war photography and the personal costs for the photographers. There is almost no political content in the film, so it is a quite different film than most people would probably expect.

The ongoing civil war in the film is completely unclear and undescribed. California and Texas are allied with each other - probably exclusively so that the film - kind of cowardly! - wouldn't favor either the predominantly Democratic Californians or the predominantly Republican Texans. The New People's Army (which appears on a promotional map graphic for the movie) is not mentioned in the film, and we don't hear who Florida is supposed to be siding with either. The photographers seem to be following soldier teams from several of the warring parties, which further adds to the confusion.

However, if you see the film as a film about war photographers and their traumatic experiences, then it is actually a good film. Plenty of action and shocking (and loud!) excitement - photographers can now rejoice that there is an action movie specifically aimed at them!

As I sat in the cinema at the end of the movie, I felt like it wouldn't have great re-watch value; that it was a movie I'd probably only see once. But I must admit that upon reflection and further analysis, I do want to watch it again. Some of those black and white photo shots are like forbidden porn - very cinematically sexy. I stress, "cinematically"!

I sat on row 7 in a large showroom; quite close to the screen. If I go again, I'll hang back to the furthest back-row (row 24) and get a bit of distance to the screen (and the loudness); a bit less in-my-face.

8/10.