From "The First Omen" to "Monkey Man," "Sting" and "Civil War," it seems that there is something in the air during April of 2024 that is causing Hollywood marketing professionals to falsely advertise their movies. "The First Omen" is more slow-burn drama than horror; "Monkey Man" is barely an action film; "Sting" is basically a coming-of-age children's thriller; and "Civil War" is by no means the explosive, politically charged, and action packed war extravaganza that A24 would have you believe it is. And typically, I wouldn't mind this expectation subverting style, as long as the movie had a tight, taut script, interesting and nuanced characters, refined performances, and a riveting plot. "Civil War" has none of these things.
A24 has a reputation for publishing thought-provoking, artistic pictures that - yes - subvert audience expectations. More than that, A24 films typically have razor sharp scripts and humanistic dialogue that draws viewers into the world, engrossing them in the (often brutal) struggle of the characters that are inhabiting the screen. And oh, how I wish that "Civil War" followed this trend that A24 has been so consistent in practicing.
Directed by Alex Garland, "Civil War" both looks and sounds great. With sound design that sends shockwaves down theatre seats, each and every gunshot borders on deafening to the point where I saw my fellow movie goers covering their ears at points; needless to say, it's effective, adding a certain intensity to the action scenes that is simply missing from other, even more expensive, action films. And from a visual perspective, "Civil War" is a pretty film (a forest fire sequence is especially striking) that also isn't afraid to immerse viewers in the type of grotesque imagery that one would expect from a movie that is depicting a modern-day war torn America. From street bombings to point blank executions, this isn't an easy movie to watch from a thematic standpoint, but man, it sure is easy to look at with the type of lush visuals you'd expect from an Alex Garland film. And if you're coming for action, you'll get it... kind of. The last act is, frankly, mind blowing, following a prolonged action sequence that is certainly exciting, albeit disturbing given the context of, well, a civil war in America. That said, the build up to this sequence is full of, honestly, not much.
Starring Kirsten Dunst as a wartime photojournalist, "Civil War" follows Kirsten and her merry band of psychopa- sorry, of photographers, as they road trip from one atrocity to the next, taking snapshots with the tenacity and glee of a TMZ reporter. Kind of echoing the Jake Gyllenhaal film "Nightcralwer," in "Civil War," Kirsten dons the same blank, lifeless expression as she photographs dead people, dying people, and people who are about to die. Her colleagues do the same thing with varying levels of enthusiasm - some are at first disgusted at the sight of violence, while others literally proclaim "What a rush!" after a fire fight. Many seem to think this film is a glorification of journalism, but I disagree; mostly every character is un-empathetic to the extreme, bordering on inhuman, as they photograph atrocities and never once think to themselves, "Huh, maybe I should step in and help." So on one hand I understand what Garland was trying to say; on the other hand, the characters were so unlikeable that I absolutely hated watching them.
However, and as I mentioned, the film "Nightcrawler" deals with similar themes - the difference is that movie is well acted, and extremely well written. On the contrary, "Civil War" is just bland. The performances are mostly all one note, and the dialogue is so, so silly, with every character acting so unrealistic that I couldn't help but roll my eyes with every word that exited their mouth and with every action they took that no one in their right mind would take. Characters act so silly, and their dialogue is so ridiculous, that it's a wonder they've survived so long in the world they're inhabiting. And it's a shame, because where this movie truly had to shine to succeed was in its characters and script, and both of those things are just not up to par.
This review is a little too long winded at this point, so I feel like it's time for me to quit writing and simply say that "Civil War" is not a mainstream movie, and that's okay. What's not okay is the fact that the movie is full of boring characters, boring dialogue, and a boring plot. The sound design and visuals are incredible, in typical Garland fashion; the rest of the movie is just kind of there. This is not a bad movie by any means, but it's also not that good, and by the time it ended both myself and my movie going partner felt the exact same way about it: Ehh.
A24 has a reputation for publishing thought-provoking, artistic pictures that - yes - subvert audience expectations. More than that, A24 films typically have razor sharp scripts and humanistic dialogue that draws viewers into the world, engrossing them in the (often brutal) struggle of the characters that are inhabiting the screen. And oh, how I wish that "Civil War" followed this trend that A24 has been so consistent in practicing.
Directed by Alex Garland, "Civil War" both looks and sounds great. With sound design that sends shockwaves down theatre seats, each and every gunshot borders on deafening to the point where I saw my fellow movie goers covering their ears at points; needless to say, it's effective, adding a certain intensity to the action scenes that is simply missing from other, even more expensive, action films. And from a visual perspective, "Civil War" is a pretty film (a forest fire sequence is especially striking) that also isn't afraid to immerse viewers in the type of grotesque imagery that one would expect from a movie that is depicting a modern-day war torn America. From street bombings to point blank executions, this isn't an easy movie to watch from a thematic standpoint, but man, it sure is easy to look at with the type of lush visuals you'd expect from an Alex Garland film. And if you're coming for action, you'll get it... kind of. The last act is, frankly, mind blowing, following a prolonged action sequence that is certainly exciting, albeit disturbing given the context of, well, a civil war in America. That said, the build up to this sequence is full of, honestly, not much.
Starring Kirsten Dunst as a wartime photojournalist, "Civil War" follows Kirsten and her merry band of psychopa- sorry, of photographers, as they road trip from one atrocity to the next, taking snapshots with the tenacity and glee of a TMZ reporter. Kind of echoing the Jake Gyllenhaal film "Nightcralwer," in "Civil War," Kirsten dons the same blank, lifeless expression as she photographs dead people, dying people, and people who are about to die. Her colleagues do the same thing with varying levels of enthusiasm - some are at first disgusted at the sight of violence, while others literally proclaim "What a rush!" after a fire fight. Many seem to think this film is a glorification of journalism, but I disagree; mostly every character is un-empathetic to the extreme, bordering on inhuman, as they photograph atrocities and never once think to themselves, "Huh, maybe I should step in and help." So on one hand I understand what Garland was trying to say; on the other hand, the characters were so unlikeable that I absolutely hated watching them.
However, and as I mentioned, the film "Nightcrawler" deals with similar themes - the difference is that movie is well acted, and extremely well written. On the contrary, "Civil War" is just bland. The performances are mostly all one note, and the dialogue is so, so silly, with every character acting so unrealistic that I couldn't help but roll my eyes with every word that exited their mouth and with every action they took that no one in their right mind would take. Characters act so silly, and their dialogue is so ridiculous, that it's a wonder they've survived so long in the world they're inhabiting. And it's a shame, because where this movie truly had to shine to succeed was in its characters and script, and both of those things are just not up to par.
This review is a little too long winded at this point, so I feel like it's time for me to quit writing and simply say that "Civil War" is not a mainstream movie, and that's okay. What's not okay is the fact that the movie is full of boring characters, boring dialogue, and a boring plot. The sound design and visuals are incredible, in typical Garland fashion; the rest of the movie is just kind of there. This is not a bad movie by any means, but it's also not that good, and by the time it ended both myself and my movie going partner felt the exact same way about it: Ehh.