User Reviews

I loved the concept of the film and some elements of this film delivered but unfortunately as a full experience it fell short for me by some distance.

Too many parts of the fore-fronted narrative are predictable and many characters felt "2D" - the old head who espouses wisdom, the grizzle main protagonist, the cool guy who drinks too much and claims to love the chase and finally the up and comer who won't hear no whilst putting others in danger. No spoilers here but it plays out how you'd expect...

There's moments where you think "yeah, let's explore this" and it moves on. The pace seems confusing with a huge wait until action is reached then a final 15 minutes of non-stop.

The soundtrack was great, the basis of the story which follows war photographer was promising but the execution was a shame. 6/10 from me.

America is getting sick. Alex Garland has offered us a vaccintion for what ails us. Like a serum for snake bite made of venom itself, this film grabs us by the shoulders and screams "You got a civil war fantasy? Fine, I'll put it on a 40 foot screen and dare you to cheer."

Civil War finds it's foundational vision in the eyes of those who for decades have brought us the soul shattering reality of war, free from the romance of Hollywood patriotism- war journalists whose frenzied, conflicted oddysey plunges them into a mad gauntlet of fire and film, killing and kodachrome. Like soldiers in a war of attrition, they must constantly reassess the purpose of thier risks and sacrifices as they watch their colleagues fall for the sake of the priceless pictoral story of war. Three generations of war correspondants traveling together into the insanity becomes the testiment to three phases in the life of such a calling.

We are introduced to the strangeness of how soldiers, out for blood, tolerate and facilitate the prescence of these unarmored observers every step of the way through the hell of combat. Garland seems to tap into some unspoken ethos of universal creedance among combatants that the history of it all must be seen and those who record it must survive to tell of it. It is never explained, merely displayed.

We are reminded that in a modern Americn civil war, rogue atrocity can roll through your city just as easy as it did for My Lai. If you think that in the fog of war we would maintain our civility and morality like gentlemen, think again. For every five patriots there might be one psychopath ready to fill ditches with the innocent dead executed under the jurisprudence of a few unhinged men with guns.

We have no idea why this war is being fought. Perhaps it is a just war. Perhaps it is a crazed cessationist rebellion. We aren't afforded such information. It would only get in the way of the vital message-war is hell and be careful when you tell your fellow American to go to hell for thier political differences. What you end up with might be far darker and damning than you ever dreamed.

The genius of this film rests partially in an absurd alliance between California and Texas, two of the most opposite states in the Union. By joining this ideological odd couple, the story immunizes itself against accusations of partisanship or cultural favortism. Yet it also beckons us to imagine what kind of national crisis could bring such opposites together.

This film will be awarded there is no doubt. Alex Garland has broken new ground and his script and actors and cinemetography deserve all the awards they get.

Everybody should see this film. No spoilers, but it is a glimpse into what life could be like in a modern American civil war. Indeed, there is nothing civil about war. It is a terrifying film to me, primarily since it is a future that is possible. Not probable, but not a giant leap either. Collapse of government happens quickly. Just ask a former Soviet citizen.

The film is captivating and intense. The couple next to me in the theater walked out 20 minutes in due to the violence. Guess what: that is what war is. The film does not glorify war; indeed, it is quite anti-war. There are times where war unfortunately is necessary. Please let's not make it necessary within this great country of ours.

See the film. Please.

A truly immersive experience into what a civil war in an America could "feel" like. I was fortunate enough to enjoy an IMAX screening and a particular stand out of the film was the sound design. Civil War uses its surround sound space as I viral part of its story telling. The gunshots truly rock you and surround you, even the sound track has explosive moments that jar you and remind you that you are in a place of chaos and instability. The story is simple but profound, using the 3rd eye or journalism, doing its best to tell an unbiased perspective of the what the world looks like at its most biased... a civil war. See it on the biggest screen and the best sound system you can. Its not a call of duty campaign, its not saving private Ryan, its its own thing so clear your head of expectation and just take the ride.

There is a good movie to be made about the polarisation and aggression of US politics leading to civil war. This was not it. Uses a grossly undeveloped political scenario as an excuse to show us routine, gratuitous violence and contrived relationships. Casting an actress who looks 14 as a 23 year old was a big mistake and pushing her from wide eyed innocence through a ridiculous, unbelievable journey to awakening ambition via horror was crudely handled. Taking photos of people while they suffer and die is obscene and the pain and gore of violence was trivialised, not dignified by this sad movie.

Let me start with: the discourse around this film is truly fascinating-and I think it's incredible to read this some time after watching the movie. The trailers were kind of awful marketing imo. This is a character-driven story, but in the most tense way possible. Anything can happen at any moment, and the left swerves are constant. I have to stress that OH MY GOD you have to see this on the big screen! It's one of the most immersive films I've ever seen-I wasn't pulled out of it for even a second and it is so bloody beautiful!

I should not have loved this movie, but I did, because it has some truly wild universal implications-it's not limited to the US at all. I had to take a long time to process this film, but I understand the breathless first reactions: this is not like anything I've seen before, for one particular reason. I also totally get the Apocalypse Now comparisons: now there's another film that contradicted each impulse it put out. One might say that by nullifying itself it too was "empty"-but of course it wasn't. This movie is pretty meta: what I think and say will say a lot about me and how I see the world. That's super cool! But it's not about war (outside of being an anti-war film). It's about war journalism, and spectacle.

A lack of context might annoy people. And why? Well, frankly, because this is a movie that is opposed to American exceptionalism. It aggressively shoves your face in its sameness actually. It renders it banal; a war zone like any other country in another war film where most American viewers likely have little idea of the opposing parties or actors involved. Every gun shot is loud as hell, every explosion is far too much: spectacle, yes, and people ask "to what end?" I find it radical. One can make up five different backstories of how Texas and California seceded separately and then allied against a fascist President: but the only reason you'd have a problem with the fact that Civil War doesn't tell you is because you're too attached to the American-ness of it all. America? Depicted like any other? The cheek! Jesse Plemons' character heavily evokes the Khmer Rouge. There's so many other examples-they remind you of somewhere else (Vietcong references, Afghanistan/Iraq imagery, less domestic parallels than international ones tbh). I admire the provocation to us Americans, I really do. This film is about the spectacle of war and how it would look today: literally any war, anywhere, and here! And it's using the most provocative, iconic setting to do that.

The performances are OFF THE WALL. Dunst is phenomenal, she's the whole-ass movie! We've literally never seen this from her before, and damn, that range. One doesn't doubt her as Lee, a veteran war photographer, for a moment, even though she barely says anything. It's saying a lot that this is up there amongst her best work. Hell, it's one of the best performances of this whole decade. The whole movie plays out through her reactions and tonally she's pitched it perfectly. And Wagner Moura is almost equally brilliant (it could reasonably be considered a co-lead performance imo): his Joel is chaotic, wild, and hedonistic. The depiction of war journalists is so precise: the bizarre, adrenaline-fueling addiction that it seems to require. It's devastating. The film explores the ethics of reporting: where it ends is not stated, but it is clear. In Moura's scream, in Dunst's eyes, in Stephen McKinley Henderson's beautifully wise tone, and then in Spaeny's reverse-mirroring her idol's journey. The score was appropriately surreal, the needle-drops brilliant (deep cuts!), all the techs are undeniably in sync. None of this would've worked without this ensemble, and Dunst in particular. They're not just the characters: they're the whole point of the film.

One might ask: How stupid does Alex Garland have to be to make a film so pointedly open to all the criticism? He knows people will call it "empty", lacking in a "political stance." He knows people will find it bombastic, or that because we're thrown into the deep end, no amount of character shading and performance work will prevent people from saying things like "thin characterization". But Lee, Joel & Sammy (McKinley Henderson) are razor-sharp. Jessie (Spaeny) is the real enigma. I think for Garland, this setting was the only vehicle through which there might be an actual jolt, and he wasn't wrong. The setting is familiar *globally*: what better setting to choose than the icons of a global superpower most people in the world are familiar with? This might seem like a step too far as comparison but people across the world were just as shocked as anyone when the towers went down on 9/11. Why? Because they wondered: it could happen there too? Really?! Garland's somehow made a film that feels real enough to evoke that shock.

I kept thinking with every second I would soon say it's exploitative. But this movie doesn't allow any feel-good triumphalism. It's dark & terrifying. This is the sheer dread and despair of war: there is no questioning that the film is staunchly anti-war: the cost of it all feels so palpable. The aesthetic of this film and the strong emotion it elicits-all clearly intended-is more than enough for me to run with. I would've definitely been annoyed if it had been too definitive. This is an anti-war, anti-exceptionalism film about the nature of telling the truth about war. It's a masterpiece, it just is.

I was genuinely incredibly impressed by this movie. After watching the trailer, I was expecting an Expendables type of film. The reality is that this movie is brilliant. A dark twist and a brief insight into photo journalism and the horrors of war. A lot of time and effort has clearly gone into the production of this film. The way the actors move and react to situations added to the realism and added to the enjoyment of the viewer. Kirstin Dunst wasn't my first choice but her performance was spot on. I would recommend watching this film in IMax at the cinema. A lot of the drama would not necessarily be transferred to the small screen. Highly recommend.

I don't even know where to start. Did I see the same movie as the other reviewers? So much of this movie made absolutely no sense. In particular WHY ARE YOU CARRYING FILM TO WARZONES? THIS ISNT A HIGH SCHOOL ART PROJECT. Why is one of the press people on the party constantly in danger with no camera? Why are they constantly jumping on the line of fire for bad shots? Why are people changing cars on the highway for no reason? Why is the press constantly assuming the people they meet will just let them be? Why are they constantly in the way of the people with guns? So so dumb. Even after all this nonsense the movie had no actual point. So annoyed with this movie.

First time I watch the trailer, I thought it would be a movie that shows a bunch of militaries and politicians trying to come up with some strategies and a lead character just fight for one of two sides, who play a key role in the war and finally that side wins. But I was completely wrong.

This is a taste of war experience that shows you the cruelty of real war. It's so direct. It doesn't confuse you with big talks about politics about powers and conflicts. Instead, it puts you in a position that is vulnerable and also in the very front line of war, it's all about experience rather than telling you a intriguing story.

I love Garland's previous movies, but this one doesn't get much farther than to say that war is bad.

All of the characters are unrealistic and shallow, especially the antagonists seem to be cartoonesque depictions of a perceived stereotype that doesn't really exist in the west.

We lack an explanation or motivation for the war other than the assumed modern political division. This movie will probably not age well.

The characters are shallow, and the pacing is messy and just seems to want to get to the end.

The movie feels like a means to an end, not a good story, it seems that the goal was to make a movie about civil war, but ended up being an essay about journalism.

Let's hope this will be Garland's worst film and he stays out of politically themed storytelling because this writing was pretty terrible. Whereas his earlier films are brilliant, he seems to be going downhill fast.. almost like some sort of mind virus got to him...

Think everyone expected a typical war film. This is Alex Garland, when has he ever delivered a typical anything the man gives you a played out trope and flips it on its head. At the core of this film is humanity, he does a job not only showing you attrocites of war that happen all over the role but the backdrop is our own backyard and us. He holds the mirror up to us and makes us face those uncomfortable possibilities and scenarios. The added photography real delivers the message. Is their any form of "story" that people keep complaining about? Absolutely, but you'd be foolish not to see or notice it. The slow disensitization of one character in particular while trying ever bit to hold onto her humanity is what really got me. Movie stays with you long after and show your that living in a country where we are suppose to understand each other regardless of your differences instead of reaching this extremism were saying play out in our country begs the question Are we no different then those said enemies we had back in the middle east? Or Vietnam?

Hope this film opens up people to those questions because if you are their for just mindless action film fun. Go watch Rambo 3.

The director has prepared us for a movie about how the differences in our political spectrum have led to a civil war. Unfortunately, there is zero background information. This is a movie about war correspondents . . . That's it. It's not "an American tale" or anything special in terms of impact. It's just a very well done war movie, with bad guys and good guys, and they can be from either side of the political spectrum. I found it pretty, well-shot and production design is great as well. But I found it hollow, without the detail that I would have liked to have seen about the two sides. I think that Garland didn't focus on any of that because he didn't want to be accused of picking a side. But without it. It's simply a movie about people shooting guns. Lots of loud noises and explosions, and the (interesting) character development of a set of photo journalists.

Then he went out with a bang! Other than a horror film, this movie was the first to keep me my anxiety level up about whats going to happen next. It was a packed showing and looking around me, the whole audience was stressing and literally on the edge of their seats. Real raw, nothing held back and it feels real like this could happen in due time.. and I think that's where the edge of the seat happens for us. The performances were amazing as well! Kirsten dunst has showed finally shown the ability she has in a long time since Fargo or maybe in Virgin Suicides. Other performances were raw and well executed to grab the audience and share the spotlight. This is a movie you will see and recommend to others for a long time. Strap in because the first 5 mins will shake you.

On the good side there's some very good cinematography. The acting is competent. As for the rest, it's not terrible. To say it's formulaic doesn't take things much further because what isn't these days. There's no actual plot but that's also allowed lately. It's a bit odd that there's no explanation at all about how the USA has found itself in a civil war or as to why the president is ultimately portrayed as such an unsympathetic character but that is ok too since it's really all about the journey of the central characters. As to those characters, they're somewhat stereotypical. You've got the photo hack who's seen all the horrors of war ( in case we didn't get this we are shown a sequence of her reminiscences) there's the ingenue and, as is normal, the hero's reluctance to take her on board and the usual mix of support. In the end you have the new girl getting on with business and proving that she's the real deal. If the characters are a bit cliche'd, the dialogue hardly helps with lines like (I'm paraphrasing because I can't recall exactly but something like) "I've never felt so scared in my life, but I've never felt more alive". It's a bit like a mixture between Watership Down and Apocalypse Now except it really doesn't match up to either of those.

Civil War doesn't really say much but it's got noble intentions as it shows the bravery and desensitisation that journalists have whilst succeeding as an anti-war film that uses the spectacle to disorient and shock rather than thrill. It's a lean and intense mid-budget film that proves less can be so much more.

The core trio are surprisingly strong when it comes to depth and investment. Kirsten Dunst excels as a world weary reporter who's spent years trying to prevent this very outcome, Cailee Spaeny is incredible as the newcomer who's still really affected by what she witnesses and Wagner Moura is a lot of fun as the one in it for the adrenaline rush.

Alex Garland's direction is excellent as he moves through a steady stream of disturbing imagery, utilising both deafening noise and powerful quietness. Every set piece is terrific, mainly thanks to the sound design which ensures every bullet fired has never felt louder or scarier. It's a real assault on the senses, especially in IMAX.

Civil War masquerades as a action packed movie that aims to comment on the current state of political division in America, but is afraid to alienate any of its audience so it becomes a strange coming of age story. The movie also tries to comment on war journalism by presenting us with the dangers faced by journalists, but makes the main protagonist incredibly stupid just asking to get shot. She seems to actively want to die, and aims to take every down with her. However when the movie presented me with an action scene I was stunned. The Visuals and Audio were phenomenal. The Action scenes were done incredibly but my only wish was that the main characters weren't in them. In the end I was entertained, but disappointed.

Went in expecting a thrilling, realistic, emotional depiction of what America could come to if we continue the division and polarization we currently are in. Just 10 minutes in, the dramatic and obnoxious sound effects and the complete lack of context and storyline had me contemplating whether to walk out, yet I stayed in my seat, figuring it would get better based on the generally positive reviews I saw online.

The sound effects and music are completely out of place: heavy metal and hip hop music playing when people are dying, and some weird meditation music playing as a forest is engulfed in flames. I almost fell asleep because of how boring and out of place the movie was, only to be awaken by obnoxiously loud noises and music that are probably designed to keep peoples' attention throughout this poorly-made film.

The entire movie is alike to a teenager playing a video game and driving around like crazy in the midst of shooting and explosions with no context whatsoever. There was no introduction, no storyline, no plot, and no meaning. With the hip hop music and obnoxious sounds playing whilst deceased bodies are displayed, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to feel sad or upbeat, or just completely puzzled as to what the hell is going on. There's literally nobody to root for, because you don't know who any of them are.

I left the theater feeling deeply unsatisfied and confused. I wasted almost 2 hours of my life, and probably 2 years of my hearing.

Note: I'm a big fan of Garland's work, until this one.

The movie is technically good. Weak script but not terrible. Acting is OK.

This is an anti-war movie. The portrayed factions on purpose don't map to any of the current sides. The idea (or claim of intent) is to make the viewer not be able to identify with either side.

The sides are portrayed as ridiculous and without any good reason. In real life, there have to be strong reasons to go to fight. Even if they are lies or exaggerations. People fight to defend their own ethnicity/nationality/tribe, or to uphold or impose their religion/ideology, or to avenge lost ones. It has to be something very strong to overcome your survival instinct and risk losing your life.

In the movie, journalists are portrayed as the good people who can't understand why the rest are fighting at all. This is the biggest lie of the movie. MEDIA is usually the main way people are stirred into war and conflicts. They define the ENEMY, they vilify it, and convince viewers the other side are non-humans (necessary to convince people to kill others). Any journalist who doesn't align with the MEDIA on either side is banished/cancelled. See how it's playing in both "left" and "right" media nowadays. Same happened in both world wars before.

So this movie pretends to be impartial but it's a LIE. It wants to DEMORALIZE people to NEVER REBEL against tyranny.

Like the ones fueling riots and later, once things get out of hand, cry "why can't we get along?". Media is evil.

History teaches if there's unjust power grab to destroy a republic people should rebel or suffer the consequences for a very long time. And if most people are cowards, GTFO before it's too late. Suffer now or suffer forever as a serf, vassal, or slave. But doing nothing is the worst you can do.