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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The title is "Civil War" but that's the closest you're gonna get to an actual Civil War during this movie.

This is sort of a low rent version of Apocalypse Now. The characters are going on a mission to reach the White House. And along the way they wind up in several violent misadventures.

But Apocalypse Now fleshed out the target - Colonel Kurtz. In this story, we have no idea who the President is psychologically and why others want to kill him. So the underlying motivation driving the protagonist is completely lacking.

Moreover, during the course of what is supposedly a war, some of the characters engage in teenage antics that undermine the seriousness of their plight.

As many other commentators have stated - this movie is disjointed. If you're expecting to see a Civil War, DON'T watch this movie. There ain't one in there.

I had high hopes for this movie as Alex Garland rarely disappoints,. But its a very shallow script like a six part mini series where the action scenes have been edited into a movie. There is no explanation of why there is a civil war, who is fighting who, what the outcome is or anything else that might cast some light on the situation. We just follow some unimportant characters through some hairy experiences. The movie should have been a mini series with a credible story line and a lot more characters elucidating the factions and their motivations. A week after watching it I had forgotten it! Don't waste your time.

I think many people have missed the real message of the movie. Could it have been better, of course. However, my rating isn't about the movies political implications, but rather about how it shows the possibility of our country heading in that direction. The film effectively illustrates potential realities we could face. It highlights how extremists on both sides, driven solely by their own beliefs, can overlook the impact on others. One of the early scenes brought me to tears, reflecting on the possibility of such actions happening among us. By the end, I was overwhelmed with a sense of dread. I encourage you to watch this film with an open mind, rather than expecting polarizing content, so you can grasp how quickly our relatively young nation could shift towards such a daunting new normal.

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.

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.

Nope, sorry, this just didn't work for me. It appears that there is a civil war amongst these United States. California and Texas have seceded from the Union and Florida seems to be having a wobble too. The President (Nick Offerman) makes a speech assuring the rest of his country that they've nothing to worry about, but hardened photo-journalist "Lee" (Kirsten Dunst) and her cohort "Joel" (Wagner Moura) reckon that the conflict is quite likely to come to an altogether different conclusion. They bravely decide to travel the 800-odd miles to Washington DC to try and interview him. Their out-of-shape veteran associate "Sammy" (Stephen McKinley Henderson) thinks they are mad, but also wants in on the trip. Meantime, the enthusiastic young photographer "Jessie" (Cailee Spaeny) has managed to hook up with the team and so, rather implausibly, they agree to take her on this perilous journey. It's that implausibility that carries the whole thing as the completely preposterous scenario unfolds before us. No effort is made to fill us in on the cause of this warfare. Did the President seize power? Was he elected from a party these states didn't vote for? Are they just brutal and well armed revolutionaries? Then we have the ridiculous dialogue - usually from Henderson with his "always take fuel when you can" or "this way only leads to death" type profundities as the group travel through a remarkably stable, well fuelled and provisioned, nation where there's hardly the merest hint of mass migrations, fear or terror. Indeed, their blue "Press" helmets and a little bit of kevlar seem to render them immune to the deadly drama that they are supposed to be experiencing. Jesse Plemons makes a brief appearance - that actually leads to the only vaguely exciting part of this chronology, but otherwise it's all a bit on a non-event. Dunst starts off as a strong and characterful woman but that dwindles away and, well, I was just a bit bored as the denouement hoved into view with all the predicability of the sun coming up. It's bitty, episodic, unrealistic and populated with characters in whom I simply could not believe. Sure, maybe it's supposed to be outlandishly apocalyptic, but it reminded me for the most part of an episode of "Falling Skies" - only without the aliens. Perhaps it might resonate better with an American audience? I'm not one of them and this didn't.

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 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.

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.

"Civil War" is a dystopian thriller film written and directed by Alex Garland ("Ex Machina", "Annihilation"). Starring Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny, it is an unfulfilled, superficial take on a rather deep, contentious topic.

In the midst of a second American Civil War, renowned war photographer Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) meets up with her team of journalists consisting of Joel (Wagner Moura) and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson). After surviving a suicide attack in New York City, the group decide to travel to Washington D. C. in hopes of interviewing the President (Nick Offerman) before he is overthrown. As the group prepare to venture off, Joel allows aspiring young photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) to accompany them on their lengthy journey, with whom Lee reluctantly decides to take under her wing. While the team drive through the war-torn states, Jessie soon learns from Lee that in order to become a credible photographer, she must overcome her fears in covering the carnage taking place right before her eyes.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, there's no denying that we are currently living in one of the most politically divisive times in the history of Western civilisation. Not since the 19th century has there been so much hostility that one would assume if things continue to escalate, the American superpower could very well break out into another civil war. Considering how much technology has advanced over the past hundred years, things could certainly take a turn for the worse with the possibility of neither side emerging as the victor. The 2024 film "Civil War" deals with this hypothetical scenario from the perspective of the risk-taking photojournalists in a lacklustre manner that fails to do justice to its intriguing concept.

In the first scene, we see the President of the United States practicing a speech he will be delivering as his State of the Union address to the entire divided nation. We watch as the President nervously stumbles his way through the words he will be using to assure the country that this conflict is under control, almost as though he does not believe everything he is about to say. It is then revealed that the President's words are nothing more than lies, as his adversaries are fast approaching Washington D. C. with the intention of taking the nation's capital for themselves. What was once the safe and dignified capital city of America is now shown to be a violent war zone, complete with gunfire, military vehicles patrolling the streets, and various bodies littering the landscape.

Though this opening does begin the film on a promising note, it finds itself unable to maintain this level of curiosity for the duration of its runtime. Simply put, not enough is revealed about the President to make the audience believe that such a man could credibly stay in power among this huge war taking place. To the film's credit, there are some hints dropped throughout the story regarding what he has done, like how he apparently abolished term limits (he is now in his third term in power) and disbanded the FBI. Yet is it never properly explained how he is now in danger of being deposed from his position after so long. How did he suddenly lose this much support? Which political party does he belong to and which one wants him out? Why is he fighting this war with only a small amount of his staff to protect him? The movie never tells us.

Soon after, we are introduced to veteran photographer Lee, whose graphic pictures taken directly on the field of battle have gained her worldwide notoriety. This attracts an admirer in the young Jessie, who aspires to work alongside her idol as the war rages on. While on their journey towards the nation's capital, Jessie becomes increasingly exposed to the very worst that the war has to offer, something Lee informs her is a necessary part of the job. It is clear the film is intending to show us just how much war can affect the on-site journalists as much as those actually fighting on the frontline, yet it never quite utilises this idea properly.

For instance, the relationship between Lee and Jessie is decidedly two-dimensional. At no point did it ever feel like Lee really cared about Jessie beyond her being a mere work colleague. There is only one scene where it felt like Jessie was learning something from Lee about human brutality but it is quickly glanced over and never mentioned again. All the potential was there to have shown these two growing closer as student and teacher, yet the film squanders nearly every opportunity available. It's hard to become attached to these characters when the situations they are placed in add practically no emotional weight to the overall story, and in a film that is supposed to examine the impact of war on people, this is a major problem.

In spite of these deeper issues, the film at least manages to get its wartime atmosphere right. Director Alex Garland places the audience right in the middle of the conflict, with the possibility of danger lurking around just about any corner. I especially enjoyed the way he shows Washington D. C. as a warzone, resembling early 2000s Baghdad rather than a safe capital city within modern Western civilisation. Soldiers patrol the streets, major monuments like the Lincoln Memorial are constantly under threat of destruction, and the President is reduced to hiding in the White House with limited protection from his staff. This is far from the clean cut image America has held onto for so long, having now descended far into chaos and disunity.

Unfortunately, Garland falters in the world building aspect of this superpower gripped in a civil war, as there is little effort put into why certain locations adhere to one political belief over the other. In one scene, the group of journalists stop by a seemingly normal town that has chosen to remain neutral to this war, with its citizens going about their daily business like nothing is happening. Instead of exploring this interesting concept, the main characters merely use this town as a brief pitstop and quickly move on somewhere else. This raises many questions, like why did this town choose to stay out of the war? How have they avoided being attacked from outsiders for so long? How are they not suspicious of this random group of people suddenly appearing in their town? Yet more important plot holes that are glanced over and never properly addressed.

Although their characters are woefully underwritten, both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny try to make the most with the weak material given to them. Out of the two of them, Dunst is the biggest standout as Lee, whose frequent trips into the war torn locations of America have clearly taken their toll on her mental health. Here, it is shown that Lee has become almost completely desensitised to the bloodshed happening right in front of her, even barely flinching whenever a gun is fired in her presence. Dunst does a nice enough job portraying Lee's nuanced reactions to all this butchery, as this is nothing more than another day at the office for her.

On the other hand, Jessie's young, naive attitude towards her future career prospect is something that ends up defining her character throughout the whole film. At first, she is so shocked by what she is witnessing that it causes her to vomit and miss the chance to take a great photograph. Like Lee, Jessie also becomes desensitised to everything she sees, and in the process her photography skills improve drastically. Spaeny shows Jessie's emotional state becoming less and less of a issue, trading general compassion for on-location experience. As mentioned earlier, I just wish the film had explored Lee and Jessie's relationship better, as it would have made things more interesting to see their dynamic expanded upon throughout the story.

Given the current state of the world right now, it is a huge shame that a film like "Civil War" is unable to provide more than simply a curious look at how things could be. It has a lot on its mind about the future of America but it never expresses it in a manner that can leave a lasting impression. In my opinion, this concept would have worked much better as a miniseries rather than a condensed feature film, as this would allow for the necessary fleshing out of the characters and world building. Hopefully someone will run with that idea one day, because I would definitely watch that over this any day.

I rate it 5.5/10.

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.