Alex Garland is arguably one of the most divisive directors working in Hollywood today. Whether “Annihilation” or “Men,” his directorial efforts typically see very drastic differences amongst critics and audiences. Well Garland continues that streak with his latest film “Civil War” starring Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny and Stephen McKinley Henderson.

Set in the not too distant future, the film centers around a team of photo journalists looking to interview the President of the United States (Nick Offerman). The only problem? This future sees America in the midst of a violent civil war, where states like California, Florida and a handful of others have seceded. 

I want to clear up any confusion that might have some audiences fooled: this is not an action movie. While this film is A24’s highest budget ($50 millions) and the trailers very heavily rely on the film’s larger set pieces, it is still a character driven drama at the end of the day. With that out of the way, I really did love “Civil War” and found it to be a haunting look into a possible future our country could find itself in down the line. 

For starters, the film hit incredibly close to home with the main characters of the film being journalists. Dunst, Moura and Henderson played the seasoned veterans who remain desensitized to the horrors before them while Spaeny’s native Jessie serves as our audience surrogate. Dunst is incredibly effective at this emotionless professional torn down by the years of war photography while still trying to look out and prevent Jessie from suffering the same fate. However, the MVP of the film is Stephen McKinley Henderson’s Sammy. He is the oldest member of the group and is the closest the group comes to having a moral compass.  Smith carries this great weight with his performance. He serves as the opposite of Dunst, someone who has seen equal types of horror, but tries to remain optimistic of a better tomorrow. Even if realistically that tomorrow will never come.

Another standout element the film has going for it is the direction and cinematography. Not only is the increased budget on full display allowing for some amazing set pieces (in particular one set during a forest fire), but the film is simply gorgeous in the most disturbing way. There is a lot of distressing imagery throughout this film and it never shies away from lingering on the brutality of what’s on screen. However, since the film is centered around photojournalists, so many of the shots in the film are framed like a photograph and at times it is hauntingly breathtaking.

While I truly loved “Civil War,” I cannot say that it is flawless nor do I necessarily disagree with many of the issues others have with the film. Easily the film’s biggest flaw is the world building. It is very clear that the film is meant to be a view of what the possible future for America could look like. While it does hit many of the notes it needs to, the film fails to fully develop the world to a place we fully grasp. The breadcrumbs are there, but it is left far too vague to really get a sense of what Garland is necessarily trying to say. While I believe the message of the film was that choosing a side in war is fruitless, I feel the film does little to help us understand either side of the dueling Americans.

While not always clear in its messaging and themes, “Civil War” still serves as a solid piece of dystopian drama and horror. Carried by a stellar cast and some of the sleekest directing I have seen from a film this year thus far. It may miss the essential elements to make it a perfect depiction of what the future of our country may hold, there is enough haunting imagery and sequences to make many fearful of what could be next for America.

Share