Civil War (2024) - film review

Usually, I'm not particularly happy to see the vast majority of audiences (beyond critics and cinephiles) divided on a movie, but I am with Alex Garland's latest feature. I can also confidently put that he probably intended it anyway.

Still of Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson and Nelson Lee in Civil War.

(Credit: A24)

For me, I had a positive cinematic experience coming out of the film. In hindsight, I realized it's inappropriate to say I "enjoyed" it, since much of the film was stressful and offered a terrifying "what-if" of the United States in the foreseeable future.

Unlike most reviews I've seen or heard, Civil War was my first Garland film. Having also continued my habit of not watching the trailer and voluntarily avoiding spoilers everywhere, I must say I was impressed by the film's technical excellence. I will and can only revisit this remark after I watch Ex Machina and Annihilation (looks like I can get by without watching Men).

Still of "Charlottesville" in Civil War.

(Credit: A24)

Apart from a few of the action sequences where it seemed somewhat rigid and mechanical, the cinematography, visual effects and sound challenge the standards of those major-studio productions. So how can any discerning, objective critic not even bother to compliment A24 for such an achievement with a fraction of the typical action film budget if produced by a big studio?

The lead quartet also delivered stellar performances - my favorite being Stephen McKinley Henderson, but as you'd know by now, the singular scene-stealing, show-stopping turn in the film was from Jesse Plemons, and it aches to not discuss it extensively but for the sake of not spoiling readers who have yet to watch the film, I am leaving it there as that.

Still of Jesse Plemons in Civil War.
(Credit: A24)

However, everything good and commendable about Civil War probably ends here. I fully acknowledge Garland's intention to not take a side in the political conflict both depicted in the film, and with how the film reflects on the reality in the US. This explains, rather idiot-proof, why he chose to tell the story from the eyes of war journalists - young and old, men and women (pretty diverse I must say).

In my view, the execution though, doesn't quite bring to life Garland's vision. Because the whole movie is so technically well-made from start to finish, there isn't one or few jarring moments where Garland's failure to drive his vision across could be easily seen. The ending is perhaps the only exception - the abruptness of it, while interesting from an entertainment point of view, shot the film in the foot by not exploiting the audience's captured attention to (re)emphasize the dehumanization of divisions and war, as well as the difficult spot that journalism is always in.

Still of Cailee Spaeny in Civil War.

(Credit: A24)

Garland has been making bladder-friendly films from the beginning and Civil War is of course no exception. What this film lacks is precisely what wasn't filmed (rather than what was) and Garland could have developed the story further to give more time and focus to, at least, Lee (played by Kirsten Dunst) and Jessie (played by Cailee Spaeny).

Civil War is both big in its vision and in its craftwork, but the intangibles were the missed opportunities. Had Garland truly meant it for audiences to reflect, discuss and form their own conclusions, I say he is too optimistic. Part of why the US is as it is today, and why it could be as portrayed in the film, is precisely because of indifference towards a genuine desire for peace and harmony, through open communications and mutual understanding.

I gave this film 3.5 stars on Letterboxd.

Check out my YouTube video review (soon) here.