[Note: This review will discuss elements of Civil War that were revealed in promotional material, such as trailers. If you’re someone who enjoys going into recent movies knowing as little as possible, you may want to skip reading this review.]
I expected more provocation out of Civil War, but ended up getting a pretty standard war movie with an interesting, though underdeveloped, premise.
What I’m about to write next is something you can basically assume without me having to say it: There is plenty of political strife across the United States in 2024. Which makes the release of a movie titled Civil War that same year all the more controversial. It seems either director Alex Garland or A24 themselves were aware of the discussion this movie would garner if it came out on an election year. Especially one where both candidates have been causing high tensions and nervousness for both sides of the country. One would expect a poignant narrative about such tensions. However, that is not what Civil War is about. Even so, despite having a premise I was personally invested in once it made itself known, the story ended up being weaker than anticipated—making me suspicious the release frame for this film was mostly influenced by its title and little else.
Civil War follows a team of photojournalists during the twilight days of the Second American Civil War, racing their way from New York City to Washington D.C. in an attempt to interview the President before the war comes to an end. The team consists of award-winning journalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura), former New York Times writer Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and aspiring photojournalist Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny). While the characters often get time to talk to one another and grow over the course of the film, the main components involve short, vignette-like sequences showing the horrors of the war across the northern Loyalist states as the team travels to the capital. While these scenes feel more like they were ripped out of a post-apocalyptic film than a war movie, they instill a reflection of just how divided America is, all documented without direct comment by the photojournalist team.
At its core, Civil War is a horror road trip film, with the group interacting with soldiers and survivors alike, painting a picture of the vast harshness of the war for everyone. This includes rogue soldiers who no longer know what side their on, to communities pretending the war isn’t happening at all. These dichotomies are all explored in a variety of ways, showcasing people’s reactions to war itself. However, this is slightly downgraded by the lack of information about why the war actually happened. While one could piece together their own interpretation of events, the movie doesn’t provide all the answers as to why the US is split into four different factions (one of which is barely mentioned in the film at all, if ever). Even though this provides a look at war in a general sense by not making it about the actual meat of the conflict, it takes away from what’s going on by painting a broader brush on the notion of war in general. While said brushstrokes form a nice painting, it seems like the film was afraid of making some of the edges jagged. Of actually giving broader perspective other than the general impacts of war—something plenty of other films have done to more effective degrees.
The movie’s characters also failed to captivate me the way I was hoping they would. In the first act of the film, the characterization is strong, signaling how the types of dynamics between the group will cause different effects in their journey. I got to know the characters’ goals, dreams, and fears, fleshing them out expertly and setting the stage for their respective story arcs. However, as the scenarios continue to play out, the characters become little more than a pair of binoculars for the audience to look out from. This worked to develop the world in a broader sense, but it also negated so much of the strong characterization that was present at the start of the movie. It wasn’t until near the end that characters felt more like actors in the story than just a vehicle for the audience. But, at the same time, it was hard to see them as little more than lenses given how long the film spent conditioning the viewers to see them as such. It was an unfortunate form of stifling that relegated such interesting dynamics, watering them down to heads talking. As opposed to the engaging characters originally conceived of.
Despite these negatives, though, there was a lot that worked for the movie when taking out the context of its middling story attributes. The cinematography is fantastic, with plenty of creative ways photojournalism gets incorporated into the filmmaking itself. These moments allow for audiences to wrestle with the notion of how important this journalism is. This is because these are often compounded by horrifying situations, which are simply documented by the journalists despite involving people in desperate need of help. But, it’s not a journalist’s job to interfere with the world they’re observing. This makes it hard to grapple with, and there were many times where me—a TV/movie journalist myself—saw the characters as nothing short of vultures. It was a conflicting feeling made all the more potent knowing that, if a war like this were real, this is exactly how photojournalists would behave. It’s horrifying on a moral, human level. But, it’s also important for someone to document what’s going on. These feelings were resonant through the film, the movie never giving a clear answer as to whether you should be rooting for or against such behavior.
In terms of the horrifying situations, many of them on their own were very potent to the film’s message. The most terrifying one of all featured Jesse Plemons as a ceaselessly frightening rogue militiaman. It was the highlight of the movie, and the one scene I’m going to remember forever about this film. The rest of the scenarios were serviceable, doing what needed to be done to further the message of the movie. However—and I hate to bring negativity to the ending of this review—a lot of the film’s positive attributes only worked in a vacuum. Separate from the rest of the movie, the scenarios and cinematography are phenomenal. However, they’re held down by what feels like an underdeveloped script, flat characters, and the nagging feeling that something is simply missing.
While I got a lot out of Civil War for its objective exploration of photojournalism and its importance to the world, the overall narrative and characters didn’t grip me. This made me feel emotionally removed from the messages of the movie and scenarios therein. While I can appreciate what the movie was trying to do with its premise, it ultimately fell flat because of a lack of something stable I could get attached to. This makes it difficult for me to recommend, as while it has its good moments, these often feel suppressed under the weight of its poor overarching story. If you’re looking for something controversial or provocative, you’re not going to find it here. Instead, this film is a by-the-numbers war story focused on journalists with a road trip element. It’s not a bad film, and certainly has artistic merit. But it leaves a lot to be desired, especially given its release window and title.
Civil War’s writing ultimately dragged down its more stellar attributes, making it a comparative disappointment.
***
If you like the blog and want to support me, consider buying one of my books here.
For weekly updates on my writing, subscribe to The Crown Informer!
For more Frayed Branches, you can subscribe to get new essays (usually) every Tuesday and Thursday at 5 PM EST—and Twigs reviews at any time—below:
You can also share this essay by clicking the box below:
Thank you for your support!