Trying to decode the alternate history in Alex Garland's Civil War is a fool's task, as is trying to untangle some kind of direct message about American politics. It's not about that, and will probably be the most misunderstood film of the year, or even the decade, because that's the natural impulse here. What it IS about, on a thematic level, is showing us what's already happening in the world - in Ukraine, in Syria, in Palestine - and giving it an American face, within American landscapes, to make what is far away more immediate to its target audience. The iconography is recognizable as what is transmitted by war correspondents, and therefore, this is the story of journalists and war photographers, the dangers they face (to both body and soul), the techniques they use, and the ethics of the job. It's a vocation that, in the absolute, is apolitical, and so Garland's America is necessarily fuzzy on its politics, a remix of the contemporary USA and of war-torn countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and it's on purpose, I think, that you're never sure which side the journalists are following around at any given moment, or which side is "righteous". Kirsten Dunst is great as a dead-eyed veteran photographer, at the end of her rope even as a younger model (Cailee Spaeny) comes in to slowly replace her in the narrative. The cycle continues. A lot of memorable moments that strike emotionally true in spite of the fantasy setting, mixing the mundane with the shocking in a way that can be missing from real-world footage where the "otherness"of a place might create a distance. But even if you're not an American, Georgia has been in films so much by now, the familiarity should have its effect.
Garland has a knack for story structure, Civil War has a good setup and hits the right narrative beats without being too cliche. The action sequences are also wonderfully directed, the climax of the second act with Jesse Plemons is just phenomenal. The dialogue and how some of the themes were tackled in this film were just lackluster though. Civil War barely explores what an actual civil war means, much less in the modern USA. I've read criticisms that this movie makes the statement: "both sides bad," but so much of this is so politically ambiguous that it doesn't make much of a statement at all. Garland seems to focus more on cool modern warfare on American soil set-pieces and the problems of journalism. (7/10)
I found “Civil War” pretty disappointing and nihilistic. The three main characters (especially “Jessie”) are adrenaline junkie sociopaths driven primarily by careerist motives. Essentially they’re each little Patrick Batemans in “Press” vests. Neither the journalists nor the director appear to give a damn WHY the war is being fought or what principles the soldiers are fighting for. They just want to get some “cool” action shots to add to their resumes. All in all, the movie is shallow and insubstantial.
The movie is so much better than the trailer! I was happy I saw it in a Sneak Preview, otherwise I would've missed this great personal story about journalists!
Very well made and a great movie overall. But very unrealistic portrayal of war. Lots of focus on most of what makes it into video games, and with a similar level of dynamism. Almost nothing in the way of artillery, drones, or mines to be seen - which almost entirely shape real wars where people have access to those kinds of resources.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 12 of 12
Siskoid
Trying to decode the alternate history in Alex Garland's Civil War is a fool's task, as is trying to untangle some kind of direct message about American politics. It's not about that, and will probably be the most misunderstood film of the year, or even the decade, because that's the natural impulse here. What it IS about, on a thematic level, is showing us what's already happening in the world - in Ukraine, in Syria, in Palestine - and giving it an American face, within American landscapes, to make what is far away more immediate to its target audience. The iconography is recognizable as what is transmitted by war correspondents, and therefore, this is the story of journalists and war photographers, the dangers they face (to both body and soul), the techniques they use, and the ethics of the job. It's a vocation that, in the absolute, is apolitical, and so Garland's America is necessarily fuzzy on its politics, a remix of the contemporary USA and of war-torn countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and it's on purpose, I think, that you're never sure which side the journalists are following around at any given moment, or which side is "righteous". Kirsten Dunst is great as a dead-eyed veteran photographer, at the end of her rope even as a younger model (Cailee Spaeny) comes in to slowly replace her in the narrative. The cycle continues. A lot of memorable moments that strike emotionally true in spite of the fantasy setting, mixing the mundane with the shocking in a way that can be missing from real-world footage where the "otherness"of a place might create a distance. But even if you're not an American, Georgia has been in films so much by now, the familiarity should have its effect.mcmakattack
Garland has a knack for story structure, Civil War has a good setup and hits the right narrative beats without being too cliche. The action sequences are also wonderfully directed, the climax of the second act with Jesse Plemons is just phenomenal. The dialogue and how some of the themes were tackled in this film were just lackluster though. Civil War barely explores what an actual civil war means, much less in the modern USA. I've read criticisms that this movie makes the statement: "both sides bad," but so much of this is so politically ambiguous that it doesn't make much of a statement at all. Garland seems to focus more on cool modern warfare on American soil set-pieces and the problems of journalism. (7/10)Filmbuff77
I found “Civil War” pretty disappointing and nihilistic. The three main characters (especially “Jessie”) are adrenaline junkie sociopaths driven primarily by careerist motives. Essentially they’re each little Patrick Batemans in “Press” vests. Neither the journalists nor the director appear to give a damn WHY the war is being fought or what principles the soldiers are fighting for. They just want to get some “cool” action shots to add to their resumes. All in all, the movie is shallow and insubstantial.GhostKnight
I did not like it probably because i expected moreWeak, just weak, nothing compared to Annihilation or EX Machina
Limbesdautomne
Initiatory road semi-apocalyptic war movie with a little poetry in it. Let me guess: Garland couldn't decide what movie he wanted to make?Read more movie qualification in French on La Saveur des goûts amers.
Norf
Reminded me of Apocalypse Now. A road movie with a group of journalists heading into the Heart of Darkness encountering set pieces on the way.yellowslug
The action scenes feel like Stuntman for the PS2. What a vile film haha.Videl
The movie is so much better than the trailer! I was happy I saw it in a Sneak Preview, otherwise I would've missed this great personal story about journalists!Tidorith
Very well made and a great movie overall. But very unrealistic portrayal of war. Lots of focus on most of what makes it into video games, and with a similar level of dynamism. Almost nothing in the way of artillery, drones, or mines to be seen - which almost entirely shape real wars where people have access to those kinds of resources.leodelgado01
really liked it; powerful enough; both beautiful and tense; the predictability of some plot points and character arcs didn't hurt the film (imo)Cthulhu1
A great film, but sadly yet another movie diminished by the inclusion of the final scene, (in fact practically the final shot!) in the trailers!!Dekisha
Well...world can only hope this happens.