Civil War: It's Quite Good

Very true to its nature, A24's movie, about a theoretical Second American Civil War, has started a civil war in the online discourse surrounding it. Takes on this film tend to fall into two categories - that of the modern masterpiece and that of the vague, pointless, almost boring action flick. Well, as is the norm when it comes to fan discourse, neither of these things is necessarily true. While I would by no means label the movie a "masterpiece," Alex Garland's "Civil War" is an imperfect yet effective, emotional, terrifying, entertaining, and intelligent film about the different ways war affects people. So, dear reader, grab your guns and your red sunglasses and let's dive into this film.

"Civil War" is set in a slightly futuristic America, say, sometime soon after this November. Nineteen states have separated from the union, among them Florida, Texas, and California (don't ask me about the politics, I didn't write the movie), to form a series of factions named "The Florida Alliance," "The Western Forces," "The Second Republic of Texas," and "The Republic of California." In true A24 fashion, the film takes a very unconventional approach to narrative conventions, and instead of following a military installation of some manner, as would be the norm within the field of action dramas, it opts to follow a group of journalists who are trying to make it to Washington DC to interview the sitting president of the United States before he is ousted by separatist forces. Right off the bat, I knew this movie would be very different from anything I'd seen before. And the rapidly-growing divide between critics and audiences on the movie did nothing to dissuade me of that notion. So, now that I've seen the movie, I have to say, my verdict is that while it's not perfect, it is quite good, and it does a lot of things quite well. Let's start with some surface-level stuff.

The action sequences in this movie have been labeled, quote, "hands down the best combat ever put to screen" by The Chive. And honestly, I have a hard time disagreeing with that sentiment. The action sequences in this movie are jaw-dropping. Not because they're all overwhelmingly big or bombastic but because they're smart, incredibly intense, and utterly unique. Point in case, the sniper sequence where our journalist protagonists discover two snipers hiding in an abandoned and almost fever-dream-like Christmas carnival facing off against unseen enemies in a house up the hill. I'm not going to lie, it was unlike anything I'd ever seen before. The dialogue in the scene was terse and unexpectedly funny, and that added to a very surreal sense that this movie pulls off well when it decides to reach for it. This was only one out of several excellent action sequences in the movie, on top of the Boogaloo gunfight (yes, you read that right. Don't worry, the movie doesn't take sides, so don't get mad at me or something), the shocking rations riot at the start of the film, the final push on Washington DC at the climax of the movie, and the Jesse Plemmons scene that everyone can't stop talking about (for good reason). This film knows how to make your pulse go through the roof, and when you have superb sound design on your side as well, you can craft one heck of an action sequence. However, the action in the movie never felt sensationalized, which I appreciated. I wouldn't exactly call "Civil War" an anti-war film, but it takes the time to remind us that war is a terrifying and tragic affair for some while also acknowledging that it can be nothing short of a drug for others.

The cinematography and aforementioned sound design in this film are excellent. This film seemed to use a lot of natural light to a great effect. I wouldn't exactly call it "every frame a painting" like I would a movie such as "The Revenant," "All Quiet on the Western Front," or "The Batman," but the film looked unlike anything I'd ever seen before. This is probably due to the fact that they shot this movie on what some might call a potato. Now, before that sounds really harsh, let me clarify. The camera that was used to shoot this film was a DJI Ronin 4D. It costs around $7000. A pretty penny for your average independent filmmaker. However, this is a very, very, very cheap camera to use for a multi-million dollar movie. And you know what? I can't really complain, because it allowed the cinematographer of the film, Rob Hardy, to capture an image that was very new. I don't know how to describe it other than it "bleeds indie film." The bokeh (the way the camera interacts with out-of-focus areas in the frame) is incredibly unique. You'll probably have to go see the movie yourself to see what I mean, but once you do, you'll understand.

The characters of this film are competently done, if a little flat, which is only due to the film having a few faces too many in the frame. The dynamic duo of Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) is easy to root for. It's the tried-and-true formula of the hardened veteran being teamed up with the eager-eyed youngster who has to learn the rules of the world, and you know what, even though it's been done a million times, I'm happy to see it get done again, because it's a smart and effective dynamic. Joel (portrayed by Wagner Moura), the other front-and-center major player in this movie, is a thrill-seeker needing to learn the fact that war kind of sucks. I can't say that these characters are the deepest or most intricately woven together characters ever made, but for what they were, they were individual and effective. And I must say, whenever a character dies, you feel the hole they leave behind in the plot. That is a very important aspect of a movie. And finally, Jesse Plemmons. I'm going to bring him up again because, while he's only in one scene, his unnamed character absolutely steals the show. His performance was nothing short of chilling, and a real highlight of this film.

As for my complaints about the movie, I would have to poke a hole in the fact that, while the motivations of each faction don't really matter in terms of the larger narrative arc, it would have been nice to know more details about why our nation went to war with itself. There is a fleeting nod to the fact that the sitting US president, portrayed by Nick Offerman, has illegally disbanded the FBI and unlawfully entered a third term, but it's all so vague. This seems to be the reason a lot of people hated this movie, but it's largely an inconsequential flaw. However, my biggest issue with the film has to be the fact that it lacks a falling action. The movie ended, and I sat there going, "...that's it?" The movie could have used at least 10 more minutes of runtime to bring the film to a more satisfying conclusion. However, that said, a lot of the criticism that has been levied at this movie has been completely irrelevant to the actual plot of the film, and this has annoyed me a lot. People, especially audience members, reviewed the movie they wanted to see, rather than the movie they actually got, and while "Civil War" has some annoying flaws, it's a competently made, thrilling, and often haunting film that will stick with me for a while. It's not perfect, but it's quite good for what it is - a unique and thrilling take on war movies. If you can accept that the movie won't take sides to an almost maddening degree, you're going to walk out of the theater with a huge adrenaline high, and within a few days, you'll probably want to go watch the movie again - provided you weren't put off by some of the more gratuitous but completely necessary moments in the film. Just don't walk into the movie with expectations. Otherwise, you may very well find yourself engaged in the virtual cultural civil war surrounding "Civil War."

"Well, what kind of Civil War viewer are you?"

"...you don't know?"

**Laughs in red sunglasses**

Civil War - 8/10

Matthew 12:25-28