Civil War is the latest film from director Alex Garland, who did Ex Machina and Annihilation. I haven't seen Ex machina, but really like Annihilation. Plus, the concept for this movie is quite interesting, especially in today's political climate. So, I was pretty excited for this movie. Does it live up to the hype? No, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't entertained throughout most of it. The does the film does it does very well. It's what it doesn't do that's the problem.
From the trailer I thought this film was going to be primarily from the perspective of the military as they fight this war, but that's not the case at all. This is a road trip movie focusing on photojournalists of all people. I think that's the best thing about this movie. By it being from the perspective of journalist it gives not only the excuse of seeing much of the United States, and how they've all been affected by the war, but also you get to see how this has affected the common people. You see many war crimes being committed and human rights being trampled on everywhere, which happens in all wars.
Visually the film is great. It's well shot, it gives a good sense of scope. There aren't many battles, but the few that you do see are well done, particularly the fire fight at the end. The acting is good across the board. This might be the best I've ever seen Kirsten Dunst. I'm not usually a fan of hers. In fact, the only other movie I've liked her in is Kiki's Delivery Service as the voice of Kiki.
The major problem this film has lies in the worldbuilding or lack thereof. This film deals with a second American civil war. However, the only times we actually get meaningful exposition on the war itself is in the opening scene and a couple throwaway lines here or there. In those scenes they briefly state what factions are fighting in this war, but not why they are fighting. We never learn what started the war, how long it's been going, or why each faction is doing the things they do. Why did these states secede from the union in the first place. None of the characters talk about, or even have an opinion on the war itself, which is extremely odd.
Alex Garland seems to really love ambiguity, and he seems to really want to make his version of The Road. Here's the thing. In a horror movie like Annihilation, or a post-apocalyptic film like The Road, you can get away with not explaining everything to the audience, especially if they don't tie in with the core story. This is a dystopian about a second civil war that directly ties with the main narrative. Not giving the necessary exposition about what is going on in this case comes off as extremely lazy and makes some of what the characters do in certain scenes feel very odd.
The only other reason I can think of as to why this is, is because the director did not want to alienate anyone in the audience by leaning one way or another on a hot political subject. On one hand, I'm glad Garland chose to make a more straightforward and more grounded story about the horrors of war rather than a preachy left or rightwing propaganda piece. Movies today are too political as they are. One the other hand, there's a difference between being overly political and giving necessary details to know what is happening in this world.
Because we don't know much of anything about the war and why each side is fighting, the ending comes off as hollow. I honestly had no idea what I was supposed to be feeling at the very end. All I ended up feeling was confusion and bewilderment. The ending doesn't even make much sense really.
Overall, I still think the film is okay. I enjoyed myself for the first two-thirds of it. It's well-shot and I was with the characters enough to be invested. However, if Garland had actually bothered to actually flesh out the world and this conflict this could have been an amazing commentary film, if not an amazing one. As it is, it's a fine watch, but it feels hollow in the end.
From the trailer I thought this film was going to be primarily from the perspective of the military as they fight this war, but that's not the case at all. This is a road trip movie focusing on photojournalists of all people. I think that's the best thing about this movie. By it being from the perspective of journalist it gives not only the excuse of seeing much of the United States, and how they've all been affected by the war, but also you get to see how this has affected the common people. You see many war crimes being committed and human rights being trampled on everywhere, which happens in all wars.
Visually the film is great. It's well shot, it gives a good sense of scope. There aren't many battles, but the few that you do see are well done, particularly the fire fight at the end. The acting is good across the board. This might be the best I've ever seen Kirsten Dunst. I'm not usually a fan of hers. In fact, the only other movie I've liked her in is Kiki's Delivery Service as the voice of Kiki.
The major problem this film has lies in the worldbuilding or lack thereof. This film deals with a second American civil war. However, the only times we actually get meaningful exposition on the war itself is in the opening scene and a couple throwaway lines here or there. In those scenes they briefly state what factions are fighting in this war, but not why they are fighting. We never learn what started the war, how long it's been going, or why each faction is doing the things they do. Why did these states secede from the union in the first place. None of the characters talk about, or even have an opinion on the war itself, which is extremely odd.
Alex Garland seems to really love ambiguity, and he seems to really want to make his version of The Road. Here's the thing. In a horror movie like Annihilation, or a post-apocalyptic film like The Road, you can get away with not explaining everything to the audience, especially if they don't tie in with the core story. This is a dystopian about a second civil war that directly ties with the main narrative. Not giving the necessary exposition about what is going on in this case comes off as extremely lazy and makes some of what the characters do in certain scenes feel very odd.
The only other reason I can think of as to why this is, is because the director did not want to alienate anyone in the audience by leaning one way or another on a hot political subject. On one hand, I'm glad Garland chose to make a more straightforward and more grounded story about the horrors of war rather than a preachy left or rightwing propaganda piece. Movies today are too political as they are. One the other hand, there's a difference between being overly political and giving necessary details to know what is happening in this world.
Because we don't know much of anything about the war and why each side is fighting, the ending comes off as hollow. I honestly had no idea what I was supposed to be feeling at the very end. All I ended up feeling was confusion and bewilderment. The ending doesn't even make much sense really.
Overall, I still think the film is okay. I enjoyed myself for the first two-thirds of it. It's well-shot and I was with the characters enough to be invested. However, if Garland had actually bothered to actually flesh out the world and this conflict this could have been an amazing commentary film, if not an amazing one. As it is, it's a fine watch, but it feels hollow in the end.
Tell Your Friends