A bit of a mixed bag. I do think it would help if the film provided more context as to why the war started. And who is on what side. It can be a little confusing at times as they encounter new people to know where they politically lie. Though I understand that the director probably wanted to keep things ambiguous a)to not draw any real life parallells/backlash and b)draw similarities to the journalists were following who are morally ambiguous. Also towards the end they make it out like there whole trip to DC has been for nothing and they were too late, and the next scene is literally them in the middle of a battle in DC and it was so jarring. I dont know if that was a problem with the story or if something was cut out during editing. There are also a couple of other weird tonal shifts. Like where they introduce new characters Tony and Bohai randomly in the middle of the movie. Like not only did they not really add anything to the movie (and also exit the movie pretty quickly) but it felt odd to have such a serious tone throughout the movie and then go into this "Ha ha were so crazy" goofing off scene. But overall I still quite enjoyed the film and felt it was impactful. I think it does a good job of plopping you in the middle of action and give you a sense of what a war would actually be like. It definitely doesnt pull any punches when it comes to the brutality. And Kirsten Dunst is amazing in the film. A very subtle but effective performance.
Review of Civil War
