As "Civil War" (2024 release; 109 min.) opens, POTUS addresses the nation that an important victory over the Western Forces has been achieved. We then get introduced to Lee and Joel, who are reporters for Reuters. Lee is a legendary photo journalist, and she captures a civil unrest in New York City, where a woman detonates a suicide bomb. At this point we are 10 minutes into the movie...
Couple of comments: this is the latest from British writer-director Alex Garland ("Ex Machine", "Annihilation"). Here he brings us what a modern day civil war in the US could look like. On that level, the movie speaks for itself, as we watch how it all plays out. More importantly, Garland made the choice to not explain or give any background or context what events lead to civil war breaking out to begin with. Nor do we know how long the war has been raging already when the movie opens. It's literally watching several sides combatting without any clue as to why. This is a fundamental flaw in my opinion, as we the viewers have no reason to relate to either side or to become emotionally invest. (How is it that Texas and California, two very different states on so many levels, have now joined to form the Western Forces? This movie won't tell you.) Much of the movie is in fact a road movie, until it gives way to the final battle in DC in the last half hour or so. Kirsten Dunst brings an outstanding performance as Lee, and the rest of the main cast is very solid as well. But when all is said and done, I felt disappointed with this movie, because I literally had no idea or clue as to how we got to having a civil war raging in this country.
"Civil War" premiered at this year's SXSW festival to positive acclaim. The movie opened this weekend in theaters, and I couldn't wait to see it, based in the trailer. The movie is currently rated 82% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which feels very generous to me. The Friday matinee showing where I saw this at was poorly attended (about 10 people in a very large auditorium). If you are in the mood to find out how a modern day civil war could play out in the US without any further context or background information, I'd suggest you check this out and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: this is the latest from British writer-director Alex Garland ("Ex Machine", "Annihilation"). Here he brings us what a modern day civil war in the US could look like. On that level, the movie speaks for itself, as we watch how it all plays out. More importantly, Garland made the choice to not explain or give any background or context what events lead to civil war breaking out to begin with. Nor do we know how long the war has been raging already when the movie opens. It's literally watching several sides combatting without any clue as to why. This is a fundamental flaw in my opinion, as we the viewers have no reason to relate to either side or to become emotionally invest. (How is it that Texas and California, two very different states on so many levels, have now joined to form the Western Forces? This movie won't tell you.) Much of the movie is in fact a road movie, until it gives way to the final battle in DC in the last half hour or so. Kirsten Dunst brings an outstanding performance as Lee, and the rest of the main cast is very solid as well. But when all is said and done, I felt disappointed with this movie, because I literally had no idea or clue as to how we got to having a civil war raging in this country.
"Civil War" premiered at this year's SXSW festival to positive acclaim. The movie opened this weekend in theaters, and I couldn't wait to see it, based in the trailer. The movie is currently rated 82% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which feels very generous to me. The Friday matinee showing where I saw this at was poorly attended (about 10 people in a very large auditorium). If you are in the mood to find out how a modern day civil war could play out in the US without any further context or background information, I'd suggest you check this out and draw your own conclusion.