Alex Garland is an artist I admire quite a bit; while 2022’s Men was a definite miss from him, I have loved all of his other films. Ex Machina is a personal favorite of mine, Annihilation is one of the most unique horror films I’ve ever seen, and Devs was a fascinating, if not slightly underwhelming series. I believe that Garland ranks among our best current directors, right next to those like Denis Villeneuve and Christopher Nolan. I was looking forward to Civil War quite a bit; one of my favorite directors making a tense action-thriller about the current political climate of America sounds like a dream come true. The truth is, Civil War is not a satire, and does not have a message to spread. This may seem very confusing for the type of film it appears to be at first glance, but once you move past some of the expectations that were established from trailers and posters, this is still a solid film with some great performances, cinematography, and a strong script. While it is not at all what I initially expected, I still found Civil War to be a very impactful and effective film that shines a light on both wartime journalism and the fallout that can occur when a civil war ravages a country.

Now, don’t be fooled going in: while it may seem like Civil War would be commenting on America, its government, and its citizens, but it has absolutely nothing to say in that regard. Many were understandably very disappointed by this revelation, and I was at first, too; I know that Garland is capable of making both good and bad commentary, and I was really hoping to see him say something about the extreme amount of tension that currently exists in our country. While I definitely agree that the film could have been better had it taken this approach, I would make the point that Civil War does a great job at what it’s trying to be. When you start to look into Garland a little more, his approach to this movie starts to make some more sense; the dude’s British, so why would he have anything to say about American politics? If anything, I believe that he purposely wanted to create an America that would never exist in the real world in order to establish a unique setting. In what world would Texas and California ever form an alliance to perform a coup? The different sides of this war seem laughable at first, but I found it to be a pretty interesting approach to this topic. I do completely understand why some view this to be a cowardly attempt at analyzing American politics, taking no side and not even taking a centrist viewpoint, but I honestly don’t think that it’s even an attempt at analyzing American politics.  While there is no grand message or concept that Garland is trying to deliver to the viewer, there are still hints at one; of course, Jesse Plemmons’ already iconic “What kind of American are you?” line hits pretty hard, and references to events like the ‘Antifa massacre’ help to establish the mystery of this America.

Personally, I enjoyed how the film is set up; we’re given no background about this war, and are thrown right into the action, witnessing the sheer brutality of it all. A few hints are thrown around here and there, but ultimately, the audience is left in the dark about the events that occurred leading up to the war. The road trip format works pretty well for this one, as it allows us to see troops of many different sides; the main cast of journalists encounters many different citizens and squads of soldiers, which fleshes out the world a lot, making it much more believable. I thought the film’s approach to the story was a pretty interesting way to go about it, as you’re left to piece things together yourself, and still be left clueless about many elements of it. The viewer is almost given the same perspective as the journalists of the main cast; a non-biased viewpoint of the war, only interested in getting action shots for their publishers. I wouldn’t say that this makes Civil War a libertarian or centrist film, as some may say, but just a film that wanted to focus on this specific aspect not often seen in films. The only other one I can think of off the top of my head is Full Metal Jacket, and wartime journalism isn’t even the main focus there, so it’s very interesting to see a larger spotlight on it.

Aside from the debates surrounding what the film is trying to say (or lack thereof), it’s just an overall very well executed production. Garland’s past works have all been so tense partly because of how claustrophobic and condensed the settings are; all three of his other directorial efforts and his television series take place in very few different places, and the casts generally consist of less than ten people. Civil War is on a much larger scale than anything else he’s made before, and I think he handled it very well; like I said, it’s something of a road trip movie, and the characters find themselves in many situations taking place in larger settings. The final battle is technically brilliant, being a complete assault on your senses for a straight fifteen to twenty minutes. It’s frantic, stressful, and loud, and serves as a great finale to the film. The performances are great, including both main and side characters; Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny in particular really stand out here, and I love the way they portray journalists that are willing to do anything to get the perfect shot. All of the random soldiers or civilians the group comes across are great, but as I already mentioned, Jesse Plemmons is easily the most memorable. His usual deadpan delivery works to make the scene really tense, framing him as a very unstable person who will snap at any second. I also really enjoyed Stephen Mckinley Henderson’s character, who always serves as a great supporting cast member. Henderson is kind of like David Dastalmachian, where it seems like he’s in every random movie that releases in some form, and always elevate whatever scene they’re in.

Civil War is not the film I expected, but I still wouldn’t say I was disappointed with the end product. If anything, Garland straying away from a more satirical or commentative film may be a good thing; we all know what happened with Men. I would’ve maybe just altered how the film was marketed. The trailers and posters definitely hint at a film that is political in nature, and I think that they put people into the wrong mindset before sitting down for the film. While it would definitely make sense for this film to have a political message, it doesn’t necessarily need to, but it probably would’ve been smarter to focus the marketing more on the journalism aspect and less on the whole ‘America fighting itself’ aspect, as it is slightly misleading. Despite all of this, Garland’s talent still shines through in the cinematography, sound design, and effects, and the film utilizes its budget quite well. It’s actually the most expensive film A24 has ever produced, surpassing last year’s Beau is Afraid, and they’ve already seen a return investment on that, as the film has maintained #1 status at the box office for two consecutive weeks, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up surpassing Everything Everywhere All At Once and Hereditary to become their highest grossing overall. While I do believe that this could have been a better film, I do think that what we got was still quite good, and showcases a lot of talent in its director, veteran actors, and newer cast members.