Civil War 2024

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

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 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 going to pretend that I know nothing of what Alex Garland himself has said about this movie and his motivations while writing it. All I've heard is vague bad misinterpretations of what he's said anyhow and I have no interest in doing any further research.

I have a different interpretation of this movie. I don't think it's trying to be "apolitical" or be a centrist stance on anything. I'm not even sure it's trying to be much of a war movie as such or be a study of the United States and divisive politics. I don't even feel like it's a look into "war journalism" and I'm sure actual journalists would be fairly appalled at how they're portrayed and I'm reasonably certain that this is in no way accurate whatsoever. Obviously the movie isn't trying to be left or right wing and is certainly vague about party affiliations but it is also thoroughly unconcerned with trying to explain what happened that led to these events beyond vague, hand wavy concoctions. To me, the ending very much comes across as "you can try your hardest to not care but you will be forced to". I don't think it ends abruptly because it ends when the story does. There's nothing more to discuss because what would inevitably happen happened. The characters are forced to come to grips with what the maelstrom around them as they wade through the muck in the quest for their own brand of thrills. This is simply a character study of a unique set of individuals in an unusual and dangerous situation with the setting simply as set dressing.

Before I go any deeper into my thoughts that are filled with spoilers, I'll give my spoiler free opinions. This was an incredible movie but not without its fumbles. The dialog is not always good and some lines come across as quite goofy. But when it hits, it very much hits it right out of the park. The battle scenes are tense, the music choices are excellent and the performances are absolutely wonderful. Kirsten Dunst is obviously a highlight but Cailee Spiney was a revelation, not having seen her in anything else before this. Jesse Plemons' small role has already been memed into oblivion but with good reason because it certainly is one of the most memorable sequences I can think of. The movie is shot beautifully and it very much is one of the most gorgeous, well shot movies I've seen in recent memory. All that said, it's so hard to recommend this movie to anyone. It's not straightforward or plot driven like most of Alex Garland's previous works (barring Men that I have not watched as of writing this review) but to me, this would certainly count as required viewing if you want to watch a movie unlike any other with fairly unique subject matter and for a masterclass in building tension. Watch it if given the opportunity but do not go in expecting payoffs and action set pieces. This was an extremely thought provoking piece but I don't think it was for the reasons I was expecting. I think I will be thinking about this one for a long time.

Now with the spoilers:

The moment it became clear to me that the movie wasn't trying to be apolitical was when they went arrived at the town out of time. Joe asks the cashier if she knows what's happening around them to which she says "we're trying to stay out of it". This clearly initially comes off as the naive and arrogant retort of someone privileged enough by geography to afford to say that but soon after, the movie shows that the town has taken the violent steps to keep it that way and it did not come about by accident. The town is no apolitical anachronistic paradise but a haven that is enforced through guns and blood spilled conveniently off screen. In a similar vein, none of the characters by the end remain neutral or disconnected from what happens around them. Lee is clearly shaken and can barely do her job in the moments leading up to the invasion of the White House. We do know that she is not immune to the affects of her work but what changes through the runtime is her affinity for Jessie and protecting her as she figuratively passes the torch to her. Lee tried to move with the times and keep herself focused as she adopted the digital camera, struggling to upload her shots through broken wifi, as the new generation comes in with the old film camera to take up her mantle. Joe and Jessie can clearly no longer stay neutral in the conflict as they leave behind Sammy and Lee's corpses and direct their ire towards the President who they probably feel is the reason for their colleagues' deaths and they take satisfaction in almost joyfully covering the President's final moments. "War is bad" seems almost like a trite message to have to be covered in 109 minutes but ultimately that is what I feel the movie is about. It does not matter how many photos you take, the moments that will deeply affect you will remain in your mind forever, needing no reminders and war is a powerful force that will leave an indelible mark on anyone

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 director mistook 'vagueness' for 'subtlety', and seems to have accidentally made one of the least subtle commentaries on his own - and many Americans - flawed beliefs. Also, he's a failed war photojournalist who is making a love letter to a passion of his by recreating an entire coffee table's worth of famous war photos - essentially larping. That would be just fine if it were in just about any other movie other than this.

If you haven't seen it, I think you could best imagine it as what would happen if you told Ubisoft to make a 'gritty, edgy, hyper-realistic movie about a civil war in America'. All of those adjectives are committeed-away and this fictional America is turned into a politically-inoffensive Far Cry world where the story doesn't fully make sense, and neither do the characters. Except, in Far Cry, it doesn't really matter because you're there for the over-the-top gameplay. In Civil War you're supposed to be there for the characters, the story, and the realism. Nothing quite matches up.

Also, the action sequences in this movie play out like some kid recorded a Call of Duty cutscene on his phone and told the director to recreate the video, so it doesn't even have that going for it.

To give you a taste of how Ubisoft this world, Texas, Florida, and The Boogaloo Boys are the good guys. They're the good guys in a movie about fighting back against a fascist dictator who stole an election and ended democracy. In the real world, it's been three years since the real Texas, Florida, and the fucking accelerationist Boogaloo Boys assisted a real fascist wannabe dictator to steal a real election and keep himself in power.

What a way to both sides this. Stand up for your work, Garland.

This movie is like praising Mike Pence for not committing a coup, or Liz Cheney for not appeasing a fascist. Civil War uses deafening gunshots, gore, and genuinely harrowing stories to make people think that this is a serious commentary, but they're really only distractions from the many, many unanswered questions it raises. Because of this, it ends up feeling incredibly flat, a story about how we're deemed to repeat the same mistakes over and over, and that's actually okay. Aren't photojournalists amazing? Ignore the fact that it's 2024 and a single TikToker in this story would have more storytelling power than the entire New York Times and these nostalgia-driven awkwardly-justified FILM cameras.

It talks about how bad war is for both sides, and how both sides do bad things. But it doesn't, really.

The only - incredibly brief - mentions of any political philosophies other than right-wing liberalism (good) and right-wing fascism (bad) is descriptions of them as suicide bombers, immoral and directionless anarchists where men paint their nails, and vague mentions of massacres being committed by (maybe?) Antifa of all people. It's always intentionally - to the point of distraction - vague, so no matter what you believe you can think of those fellas as good or bad. The only thing that is certain is that they are not serious points of view and should be ignored. We will only talk about the right-wing here.

Otherwise, anything even centrist is totally ruled out in this world, it's only used as a way to excuse horrific acts by the right. Oh, those Nazis over there are murdering thousands of people? Well never mind that, this guy with green hair has a gun and my word does he look shift. They're the same, right? Let's never mention it again. Liberalism = normal and apolitical. This movie can't possibly be political. All the other commenters here wouldn't possibly be telling on themselves and their political beliefs.

There are literal 1940s Nazi propaganda films listed on Trakt. Not that you should, but if you go have a look you will find tons of Nazis on here commenting how amazing those dogshit - but very highly-rated - films were. We all have biases, and we tend to seek out media that agrees with our biases. It's important to take that into consideration when it comes to the ratings and comments here - and for what you expect going into this film. This is liberal propaganda, and was intended to be so by the director. He has done many interviews regarding this film, I would advise looking at them in conjunction with this piece.

Back to the movie, it portrays liberals as the heroic photojournalists from 'what's left of the New York Times'. We're then supposed to ignore the litany of war crimes these liberals commit. We're also supposed to believe their constant immoral decisions were 'uncontrollable' or 'out of their hands'. We are supposed to see them as neutral documentarians who don't intervene... unless it involves running into gunfire to get a quote of no consequence that nobody will ever need, or to nauseatingly stand around a dead body and pose like it's a deer they just shot on a hunt. They rubbernecked and inserted themselves into the story, in many occasions actively making it worse in favor of the fascists. They posed dead and dying bodies just so they could get the shot they wanted. They endangered themselves and others for no reason.

And, the biggest sin of all: not once did they pick up a gun. I'm not anti-journalist, and I think war journalism is possibly the most important form of journalism there is. But this is their home, and this is supposed to be an allegory in favor of liberal-democracy, journalism, and fixing the divide in American politics (whatever he thinks that means), but the main characters do none of that? They stand around a photograph Americans killing and defiling each other? They don't do a single piece of journalism in the entire movie. They're just making content for their feed. It's so depressing.

The only time there was any sense of bravery shown was when a journalist ran over a Nazi to save his friends. They never stop to think that maybe they should have shot him the second they saw him - an actual Nazi dumping civilian bodies into a mass grave. They'd rather pretend to be 'civilized' and observe - until very predictably it comes back to bite them and a man loses his life because of it. The only piece of bravery stemmed from deathly fear, that very quickly turned into actual death. How were they to ever know that a leopard would eat their faces? They were so civilized and moral.

For the rest of it, they might as well not be there. Many others here have commented that this is really a very personal story. I agree, except that I would add that it's a personal story about failing your country and your friends... and doing nothing about it. Nobody tries to do something useful. Nobody changes their minds. Nobody improves their personalities. Nobody even tries to do any fucking journalism. They just drive about watching their country crumble - in part due to the actions of the older journalists in the group - and their friends die. They are smug and self-assured about their clearly wrong believes. They watch a brutal deposition and lust in the violence. They have no plans for what comes next. THEY HAVE NO PLANS FOR WHAT COMES NEXT. A bit on the nose for NYT, isn't it? Overthrow a dictator and everything will be sunshine and daises and oil right?

The right-wing in this movie is responsible for almost every drop of blood spilled, both on screen and implied in the larger world. Both sides in this civil war were right-wing, with the loyalist 'Washington DC' side being more extreme. They tore the country apart because one side wanted more, and the other failed to stop them. It's the story of a tiny minority with weird and evil beliefs fighting amongst each other and destroying everything in their wake. It is the story of America. Unintentionally.

The director was too unable to analyze his own beliefs and - yet again - let the right-wing be the heroes and the villains. Media like this is why that orange fascist we all hate so much is being allowed to have a second attempt at a coup. He'll play by the rules he's already broken, right? Let's hope this particular leopard proves this comparison wrong.

I don't expect anybody will get to this point in the screed, but thank you if you did. I needed to get it off my chest, what a frustrating couple of hours that was.

Just as a point of interest, it portrays the Boogaloo Boys in this as some badass Seal Team 6 militia operation instead of the bumbling mess they showed themselves to be when they tried their actual coup. The real Boogaloo Boys are loving this, they are using in their propaganda. I am certain this will create a couple of new boys for them. I would say that sums this movie up nicely. A piece of smug liberal nonsense about how they are the good guys, while actually helping the bad guys at every turn.

This was a great movie. Cinematography was top tier and extremely well acted. Reminded me a bit of the old video game, "Beyond Good & Evil"

I went in having not watched the trailers and I was pleasantly surprised at the complete lack of political commentary. I enjoyed that it had its own conflict and world, rather than being a political commentary on Left vs Right, which definitely could have been an angle to build a movie around in today's USA.

Characters felt real, and the world building was incredible. I loved how they captured the tranquility and prosperity of American life in the background of the chaos. It hit that this is not too different to the current USA today, just that the violence has not overtly bubbled to the surface as much as it has in the movie.

Some great moments ($300 CAD being worth a ton for gas, while the $300 USD has hyperinflated due to the conflict.

The scene with Jesse Plemons and the friendly journalists in the car when he kills both of them was intense, but the dialogue was a bit off.

There were some pacing issues in this movie, namely the conversations between Lee & Jessie. I felt these interactions were forced and inauthentic - they were a bit angsty and corny on a first watch, but in hindsight I feel better about them - it was all foreshadowing for the final scene, which was masterfully executed.

I liked how it ended, although I was hoping Joe would have got his interview before they executed the President.

This is almost a 9 for me, but pacing and dialogue issues in some moments downgrade it to an 8.

• This was basically January 6th in the eyes of news media & Twitter, lol -

Jokes aside
Solid DECENT movie - but definitely flawed. They completely left out pretty important story details, like WHY the civil war is happening, and motivations for either side. The most they did was make the president look and speak like Trump, but the movie didn't dare make any further commentary on the country or politics - you just get in the movie and you learn that Florida and California defected.
That's it. I'm not looking for side to be taken, but some development of WHY it was happening would really help.

Besides that though Alex nailed many other elements though. It felt real and tangible - even bordering on WEIRD seeing the shots in the movie , it felt pretty real and they didn't skimp on details. THE SOUND DESIGN for this movie really is insane too - I've never heard guns sound this real & accurate in the movie, it really steps up the immersion.

I also appreciate the deep plot when it was present. The commentary on photo journalism was a cool focus from the regular, especially shedding light on just WHAT these journalist go through. Kind of in the same vein as Fall Guy bringing attention to stunt actors. So that's cool!

Characters are pretty scant on development & Jessie is the victim of "character needs to do something incomprehensibly dumb to move plot forward." but besides that everyone was ok. My main gripe was the ending - What happened to Lee? They show her losing it, not focusing on getting good photos & just blanking and she DIES at the end and that's that. They don't explore her character further, why those things happened, nothing. It was kind of of an unfulfilling end, like Alex forgot to finish her character arc. I was waiting for the plot to move forward but then the movie abruptly ends.

Overall - movie was a fun watch, but definitely sloppy in more areas then I expected, especially coming from Alex Garland.

Let’s dive into the chaotic world of “Civil War” (2024), a film that’s as divisive as a pineapple pizza at a gourmet pizza party. Imagine a dystopian future where the United States is more fractured than a dropped smartphone screen. In this alternate reality, militias and fascism are like the estranged in-laws at Thanksgiving dinner—nobody wants them there, but they insist on showing up anyway.

“When the nation crumbles, journalists rise… and then question their life choices.”

Picture this: A group of journalists, armed with notepads and existential dread, embarks on a road trip through a war-torn America. Their mission? To cover the conflict, dodge bullets, and find the perfect Instagram filter for documenting the apocalypse. It’s like “Thelma & Louise” meets “Mad Max,” but with less desert and more existential angst.

“Civil War” is like a Tinder date gone wrong. You swipe right, expecting a thrilling adventure, but instead, you end up at a coffee shop with someone who insists on discussing their stamp collection. You’re there, sipping your latte, wondering how you got roped into this mess. The movie promises epic battles, but it delivers more awkward silences than a mime convention.

“Civil War” is like that cryptic fortune cookie message: intriguing, confusing, and probably written by an AI. In summary, “Civil War” is the kind of movie that leaves you questioning your life choices. As the credits roll, you’ll wonder if you’ve wasted precious hours better spent alphabetizing your sock drawer. But fear not—it’s still more entertaining than a PowerPoint presentation on tax law. So grab your emotional baggage and board this train wreck. As they say, “In a divided nation, journalists unite… and then argue about who gets the last soy latte in the press room.”

Slate used to have a feature called "If It Happened There..." which consisted of tongue-in-cheek articles on US political news written in the way we'd cover it if it happened somewhere else.

For example, take this from the 2013 government shutdown:
"The capital’s rival clans find themselves at an impasse, unable to agree on a measure that will allow the American state to carry out its most basic functions. While the factions have come close to such a shutdown before, opponents of President Barack Obama’s embattled regime now appear prepared to allow the government to be shuttered over opposition to a controversial plan intended to bring the nation’s health care system in line with international standards."

Alex Garland's Civil War reminds me of these. The film uses conventions from Vietnam War movies, contemporary documentaries and, of course, the news, to make comprehensible a potential 2nd US Civil War.

The decision not to disclose the ideologies of the factions involved was wise, in my opinion.

Ideology would have distracted from Garland's primary points. Viewers would have picked a side to root for and been preoccupied with war fantasies and trying to guess who will win.

Instead, our focus is on the innocent civilians who suffer needlessly and the bloodthirsty who kill needlessly in every war, on every side.

Watching this film causes laughter, irritation and disgust. Maybe I liked such movies before, but not now. It's so far from the real horrors of real war that you can't even imagine! The real war is now taking place in Ukraine. Here, the Russians are committing truly terrible atrocities that the imagination of the best cinematographer cannot create. Genocide of Ukrainians is taking place here. Ukrainians are the only nation on the planet that was able to resist the Russian Empire and that could defeat this Evil Empire once and for all with a sufficient number of weapons and financial support. But the USA and the entire collective West betrayed Ukraine, betrayed democracy and the world order. They thereby signed a sentence for themselves. They lost the war to the Russian Empire without even entering the war. This means the collapse of the entire civilized democratic world. The next empire to fall will be the USA, but not the wild Russian Empire, descendants of the Androphages and the Asian Golden Horde.
This film is precisely about the future fall of the democratic world, which has already today lost its understanding of true civilizational values, "swimmed in fat", relaxed in a warm bath and lost its bearings... The retribution for this will be cruel. Moreover, this will not even require the armed forces of the united totalitarian world (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, etc.). Russia generously financed populists and right-wing radicals in all countries of the European Union, the USA (as well as in other parts of the world) in order to successfully destroy these countries from the inside.
This film is not about journalists. This film is a warning that the time has come for Americans and Europeans to learn Russian (and later, likewise, Chinese or Arabic) and prepare for the domination of the so-called "Russian world". Because (you don't know it yet) Russia forbids the native language of all the peoples it conquers. At the same time, Russia (Moscovia or Moscow State until 1721) considers all countries where there is a population that speaks Russian to be a zone of its interests. That is, if the indigenous population of some countries wants to gain (return) independence from Russia in the future, Russia will use its Armed Forces "to protect the Russian-speaking population" in those countries. Such a closed circle. Get ready, gentlemen, Americans, Germans, French, English, Japanese, Koreans, Poles, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Finns, Swedes, Danes, Belgians... Everyone get ready.

"I've never been so scared in my entire life and I've never felt more alive."

This is exactly what I imagined an A24 movie in a blockbuster format would be like, mixing art with adrenaline action. I think Civil War is a good first attempt but it's not perfect by any means. It strangely doesn't take any political stances and doesn't try to be controversial – which feels like playing it safe – but I believe the point of the movie was to reflect journalism: "document and let the viewer make an opinion" – an idea also built on playing it safe.

The themes of journalism are the core of this and what makes it original and interesting. I do think the theme (and story) felt recycled in the second half though, it kept doing the same tricks over and over. A feeling that could have been avoided with more editing to tighten the runtime or just more creative ideas. It got borderline boring between the second and third act also.

The action sequences and especially the third act are epic and loud, excellent sound and special effects it all looked so real. Lots of tension throughout and even though it lets go of that tension quite often, it knows how to build it back up. Some shocking moments of violence. I don't get much of the musical choices, they don't fit the mood and it's just awful music in my opinion.

Kristen Dunst and Cailee Spaeny did a great job but the award goes to Jesse Plemons who manages to steal the best scene of the movie. Not a fan of Nick Offerman in this one, he felt off in the few scenes he got. A lot of this movie made me think of The Walking Dead for some reason, the highway filled with cars, the roadtrip, the encounter of new survivors, even the characters.

So I was fairly on the fence before seeing this, but Garland for me has a pretty good track record. So first off, I enjoyed it but I have a huge bias in that I do a lot of photography and while not war photography there is some very relatable things for photographers that other people might not fully appreciate.

However with that aside, I think there is a solid movie here that while not up with the best of Garland's portfolio certainty a solid entry. Great use of sound and lack of sound to express points, some really great perfomances, including Dunst in a role archetype I've not seen her in before, but genuinely solid across the board.

Some really striking visuals, using the foreground and iconography of America with backgrounds that you are used to seeing in the likes of Iraq invasion and Middle Eastern conflicts, which when coupled with the great use of music and sound design really created some suspenseful situations and others with heaps of unease.

While only having the simple message of "War is bad" I really wasn't expecting anything much more from the guy that gave us Dredd lol.
If I wanted to watch something with genuine hard hitting war messaging I'd go and watch The Zone of Interest again.

Solid movie, but might get bonus points if you're a photographer lol.