Rating: 3.5/5 stars

“Civil War” could not have been released in a more timely fashion. In the midst of political tension and an election year in the U.S., a movie that chronicles a “What if?” scenario of violent political polarization and a second civil war is quite bold. One question was on the minds of many heading into this film: how political would it be?

Written and directed by Alex Garland (“Ex Machina”), “Civil War” is a dystopian thriller that follows a group of photojournalists and their journey to Washington, D.C. in an escalating second American Civil War. The cast includes Kirsten Dunst (“Melancholia”), Wagner Moura (“Narcos”), Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Dune”) and Cailee Spaeny (“Priscilla”) as the aforementioned team of journalists. The chemistry between the journalists was solid and the performances were pretty great, especially Dunst and Spaeny. Even though Jesse Plemons (“The Irishman’’) is barely in the film, his one scene stands out among the rest. The amount of suspense and intimidation felt during his scene was uncanny. Spaeny’s character was well-representative of the audience: the shock, the horror, the fear and anxiety; she sold it all. Dunst’s character has been through it all in her years covering wars and the experience & trauma can be felt through her performance.

The film, cinematically speaking, was a spectacle. The production and set design is intricate; there is so much to look at that engrosses you in the war setting. The action sequences are intense and grounded, the cinematography makes the film feel large in scale with shots that are purposeful & artistically-driven, and the sound design is expertly crafted. The movie has great suspense and tension, keeping the audience on the edge of their seat all throughout.

The presentation is super high-quality and because of that, this film is one of the better original blockbusters in recent years. Not only do the action sequences feel grounded, but the film as a whole keeps it as realistic as possible. If anything, Garland wanted to portray this in a way that makes people resent such an event from happening.

There are problems however. Firstly, there are tonal inconsistencies throughout with the jokes and song choices included. Secondly, while the journalist characters have good chemistry and are well-performed, they could not be more basic from a writing perspective. They start to feel more like archetypes at a certain point than actual, fleshed out characters. The side characters they meet along the way are arguably more interesting. Lastly, to answer the question from the beginning, Garland chose to not have politics at the forefront or make the film lean one way politically or the other. The film is pretty neutral, which was a smart choice, but lacks personality and feels kinda stale. Because it is played safe in this area, the film does not have anything new or thought-provoking to say other than the tried-and-true “war is hell” cliché. Not that being anti-war is bad; it is refreshing this film managed to take that stance. For what it is worth, it does show what journalists go through to inform citizens, their experience on the frontlines of war and the ethics they have to cross to do their job. More substance weaved into the narrative would have gone a long way. 

Overall, “Civil War” has a number of shortcomings that prevent it from being truly great; yet despite that, it is a blockbuster that should be praised for its excellent presentation, superb technical elements, and strong performances. 

Image by A24 via YouTube