While exiting the theater, my brother commented that the trailers for this movie were misleading, as he thought it would explore more of the details, perhaps even the origin, of the titular civil war. Instead, the civil war is simply a back drop for a deep character study and a sequence of well acted and incredibly well shot vignettes that explore the small scale affects of the war while sweeping the practical details under the rug. Interestingly, it even feels like the underlying politics behind the division are kept intentionally out of focus. Luckily, I don't watch trailers, so I didn't experience this disconnect and could appreciate the movie for what it is - and what it is, is great.

First, I want to call out the technical filmmaking. As I already mentioned, this movie is incredibly well shot, and though I didn't see it in IMAX, I can safely say that it is deserving of the format. Perhaps even more impressive though was the sound, as the action sequences were explosive, with every gun shot feeling far more powerful than I've come to expect out of recent films. Combine that with the chaotic mix of shouting soldiers, helicopters overhead, and cleverly leveraged silence, and you get an Oscar worthy sound design. This sound also heavily contributes to the film's successful use of tension, which was near constant throughout.

When it comes to the writing, this movie is actually incredibly simple. In a lot of ways, it plays like a zombie road trip (which the director is no stranger to, having written 28 days/weeks later), except instead of zombies it's random militia encounters. But the key point is that the each sequence is largely stand alone, with the throughline being only the characters. But because the characters are complex/compelling and each sequence offers some unique obstacle or idea, the vignette structure is a success despite lacking some narrative connective tissue. On top of that, the moment to moment dialogue is fantastic. I think it also helps that the film keeps its length reasonable, as this structure might have outstayed its welcome at 2+ hours.

Finally, I've got to call out the performances, which are all fantastic. I'm sure Kirsten Dunst and Caille Spaeny will get plenty of deserved praise, but Wagner Moura's performance might have been my favorite. Jesse Plemons also deserves a shoutout for nailing his disturbing role.

I'm completely fine with not painting the broader context of the civil war in this film. If that doesn't interest Garland as a filmmaker, there's no need to. The notion of California and Texas teaming up negates any possibility of this being a direct metaphor almost by design. His interest here clearly lies in making a movie about journalism and neutrality as symbolized through the character played by Kirsten Dunst. Together with fellow photojournalists Joel, Jessie and Sammy we find ourselves on a road trip where our protagonists are trying to get to the white house and interview the president (Nick Offerman). Unfortunately, none of these characters are developed in an interesting way, so that makes the first half a bit of a slog. There's still interesting bits of tension, but some of the writing is surprisingly stupid coming from Alex Garland. Take the scene with Jesse Plemons, which is probably the best scene. The entire set-up to that scene introduces these two disposable new characters in a way that feels like it comes from a much dumber film, on top of that it makes the Plemons scene feel contrived and forced. That scene has some fantastic acting and tension, but it ultimately resolves in a way that's unintentionally funny by using a trope often found in action comedy films. I don't know if Garland's consciously watering it down to reach a broader audience, but he's certainly not at his sharpest here. You pretty much know from the beginning which characters are going to die, and they're usually killed once they expose themselves at their most human. Going back to how that comments on the theme of the film, I think that's an incredibly narrow minded, childish view of journalism. The film even indirectly acknowledges how taking pictures is a process of selection; there's bias involved there, it isn't neutral or simply something left for a reader to interpret. Combined with the general portrayal of the journalists as opportunistic assholes (look no further than the cheesy note this film ends on), this movie often fails to strike a chord that feels truthful. I could go into all the other small details that don't make a lot of sense (e.g. aren't there a ton of escape routes underneath the white house?), but instead I'll just leave it there. I enjoyed Dunst's and McKinley Henderson's performances (the other two aren't quite as strong) and the third act is an engaging set piece for as long as you don't put too much thought into it. Technically, it's fine. There's some beautiful visual moments but I wouldn't say it looks better than _Devs_ or _Annihilation_. Rob Hardy does some interesting things with objects coming in and out of focus to reflect the main characters, but in terms of colour and composition I expect a little better from him. The music choices didn't work at all for me, I found the juxtaposition way too jarring. There's this De La Soul needle drop when someone's being executed and I'm still baffled what that scene's trying to communicate tonally. Still, I enjoyed the sound design and strong use of silence, especially during the more intense scenes. Overall, if this is A24's interpretation of what a blockbuster should be going forward, they probably shouldn't bother. I'm astounded by how much of this doesn't work. It's simultaneously too watered down to work as art and not fun enough to work as entertainment. For something that's tainted to be the 'most controversial movie of the year', it's too forgettable to leave a real impression.

4/10

The title “Civil War” may conjure mental images of combat galore, pulse-pounding action sequences, and glorious scenes of battle and valor. Alex Garland’s new film has some of these things, but your heart is less likely to be jolted by action than it is to be slowly cranked to a frantic pace by the unrelenting tension that is laid thick across the entire runtime.

The majority of _Civil War_ is a road movie. Lee (Kirsten Dunst) is a war photojournalist who is traveling from New York City to Washington, D.C. with fellow journalists Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and Joel (Wagner Maura), along with a young upstart photographer, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny). Years into an American civil war, parts of the United States are desolate, dangerous places; of course, these are the parts that the group must pass through. Lee and Joel are intent on interviewing and photographing the President (Nick Offerman) before the conflict comes to what they believe is its inevitable end with his execution. With a pretty on-the-nose deadline of July 4, the clock starts clicking.

Interestingly, this film shies away almost completely from political conversations surrounding the nuances of the larger conflict. The provocative title and concept evokes our national anxiety, particularly in a contentious election year, but then subverts what we expect from it in a fascinating way. We hear snippets of background, like a disbanded FBI and the “Antifa Massacre”, but generally speaking, it’s not about who did what to start the war — instead, it’s about the war already in progress, and how it has devastated the country. Rather than investigating the division between Republican and Democrat, Garland (ironically, a British filmmaker) is much more interested in the human response to war. The film is a series of vignettes illustrating this point as the journalists come across various set pieces throughout their journey to D.C. In Pennsylvania, a small group of men have taken command of a gas station and string up looters in the car wash; in West Virginia, an entire town is going about their business as though the war is not happening; and in what is undoubtedly the most tense sequence in the film, just outside of Charlottesville, VA, our group is held up by several nationalist soldiers digging a mass grave filled with those they deem un-American.

Alex Garland creates an interesting take on the idea of an American civil war by examining it through the lens of a group of journalists. Rather than an extravaganza of CGI battles, this begs for a much more grounded and practical approach to the conflict, which is exactly what we get. It puts the disquieting notion of what a war-torn United States could look like front and center without gratuitous spectacle to cushion the blow. I couldn’t help but reflect on the way the 2023 Academy-Award-winning documentary _20 Days in Mariupol_ made me feel; I was deeply and profoundly disturbed by that film, but months later, I am able to mentally demarcate those events and images in Ukraine as being halfway across the globe. I am safe from them. _Civil War_ forced me to consider: what if they weren’t, and I wasn’t?

With _Civil War_, Alex Garland has reached into an all-too-plausible future and pulled out a nauseatingly anxious portrait of an America that has fallen. The public discourse surrounding this movie is undoubtedly hurtling towards contentious debates, and with intentionally vague in-text politics, it’s relatively easy for almost anyone to claim that this film justifies their current political ideology and intolerances; one can readily adjust who is “us” and who is “them”. This dichotomy sounds divisive, but if the sides are so easily characterized as one or the other, doesn’t that actually mean that they’re much closer than you’d think?

In investigating our differences, Garland has made a poignant argument — and perhaps a desperate plea — that Americans are, maybe, more alike than we are different.

The film, although set in a context of armed conflict, deviates from the traditional war theme to focus on war photojournalists, promoting a perspective on the work of such professionals. Through a series of small scenes, the director seeks to compose a portrait of these professionals' actions on the battlefield without declaring the reasons for the war or identifying the sides involved.

Each scene, individually, is well-executed, standing out for the quality of cinematography and an immersive sound work that amplifies the tension. However, these scenes, although effective individually, fail to come together cohesively. The result is a film that seems less than the sum of its parts. The main problem with the film is a lack of depth.

Although technically well-produced, particularly in terms of audio, the film falls short of a deeper approach, which could have elevated it from a mere display of impactful scenes to a truly impactful work.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/civil-war-review-a-thought-provoking-dive-into-war-journalism-and-moral-complexity/

"Civil War attests to Alex Garland’s fascinating ability to create impactful narratives that provoke deep discussions, beyond his unwavering commitment to the themes and characters at hand, without falling into preachy stances.

A film that transcends political boundaries, focusing on war journalism, the moral dilemmas faced by those who risk their lives to tell stories that cannot be ignored, and the personal transformation necessary to carry out such an inhuman task. The character complexity and the chilling intensity of the cinematography and sound production contribute to a powerfully engaging, repeatedly shocking audiovisual experience.

It’s a tribute to a profession often forgotten, but equally a challenge for viewers to reflect on critical issues in contemporary society."

Rating: A-