Film Review: Civil War is Too Timid to Be Interesting
What is it good for?
2/5 stars
When I heard that Alex Garland was making a film about a new American civil war to be released in the middle of an extremely contentious election year, I was hyped. The idea seemed more daring and provocative than we have seen in quite some time. Sadly, Civil War lacks any real courage and Garland remains frustratingly "apolitical" with a story that should be inherently political. The result is a thrilling but shallow action movie with little to say with its fascinating premise beyond the tired old cliche that "war is hell."
Set in a near future in which the United States has devolved into warring factions, we follow photojournalist Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) who is traveling with several other journalists to interview the nebulously tyrannical president (Nick Offerman) before the "Western Forces," a combined alliance between Texas and California, attack Washington D.C.
The film remains steadfast in its refusal to explain any of the factors involved in this conflict. Who are the Western Forces and what do they want? What has the president done to bring about a full-on civil war? Garland doesn't even bother to ask these questions, failing to give audiences a sense of urgency. There is also some striking imagery reminiscent of footage from Vietnam and Bosnia. Seeing these images played out on American soil feels like they should be ripe for analysis, but there is no message behind them. The film says nothing about modern warfare or even photojournalism and only leaves us with sheer spectacle. The timid approach to politics gives us a film that feels like it wants to be The Battle of Algiers but becomes White House Down.
Written and directed by Alex Garland // Starring Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Cailee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Jefferson White, Nelson Lee, Evan Lai, Vince Pisani, Justin James Boykin, Jess Matney, Greg Hill, Edmund Donovan, Sonoya Mizuno, Nick Offerman, and Jesse Plemons // 109 minutes // A24 // Rated R
