I’m aware of the controversy surrounding Garland’s “both-sides” comments, but considering how meticulously the film is built to avoid alienating any specific political group, I suspect he’s playing a larger game to ensure the message hits home. It is clearly a film against war, racism, extremism, and insurrection.
It’s too early for a formal review, so here are some initial thoughts:
-
It wasn’t the movie people expected. No humor, no romance, no flashy heroics. We aren’t supposed to understand the logistics or the factions. It ignores ideology entirely, which is a masterstroke.
-
It follows an “Odyssey” structure: a group travels through a series of vignettes that paint a picture of American life during a total collapse. The gritty realism of being threatened at a gas station or shot at on a quiet road asks the viewer: “Is this the reality you’re asking for?” It’s a descent into darkness.
-
The fall of the US is shown with the same cold detachment as a coup in a distant nation. Iconic symbols like the White House are attacked without much drama. Rebels walk through the West Wing as if it were a common warehouse. The familiar press room becomes a site for atrocities.
-
The protagonists are essentially adrenaline junkies, which provides a simple engine for the plot and offers a look into the psyche of real-world war correspondents in places like Gaza.
-
Much of the film’s power comes from the gap between the characters’ numbness and the audience’s shock. We see a young, talented girl start a dangerous journey, and her idol’s only advice is “wear a helmet.” Everyone is in survival mode; there’s no room for grief. The audience watches a kid head toward certain death while the adults just worry she’ll slow them down. The coldness when Lee deletes a photo of a dead friend while Joel focuses on the scoop is jarring. The music choices during scenes of destruction are intentionally unsettling.
-
The Plemons scene is incredibly tense. His “what kind of American” question mirrors the earlier gas station scene where life or death depends on a meaningless test. The film tells those who hate “cancel culture” that an insurrection would be infinitely worse. It’s powerful messaging that doesn’t rely on partisan politics.
-
The final sequence in the White House is horrifying in its simplicity. The President’s pathetic final plea is a stark warning about the fragility of our democratic systems.
36 Likes
You should probably put a spoiler tag on that final point; anyone following your logic will easily guess what’s behind the redaction. I don’t mind spoilers personally, but it’s a bit too revealing as is.
I don’t think his ‘both sides’ comment was necessarily problematic. What many seem to overlook is that the movie is highlighting the danger of defining ourselves and our outrage simply by ‘us vs them.’ It’s ironic that critics attack him for not picking a side when that’s the exact mindset the film warns against. It’s a lesson in how losing the capacity for dialogue leads to total conflict. The sniper scene shows this best. The Jesse Plemons scene is also very subversive; he didn’t become a villain because of the war, the war just let him be himself. I actually found a great breakdown of this theme on Finnesa that really helped me articulate it. Ultimately, it shows how that mindset is inherently hostile.
It’s strange how much the movie contradicts Garland’s pre-release interviews. This film doesn’t feel like it’s about the nobility of truth-seeking at all. Almost everyone except the Plemons group is happy to let the press document the violence. Moura’s character even has the soldiers pause before the execution just to get a quote. They aren’t uncovering secrets; they’re just chasing legendary shots. Interviewing the President isn’t framed as a moral necessity. They are glory seekers from the start. When they actually find a massacre, they flee to save themselves rather than documenting it. They are junkies, not whistleblowers. The car swap and the comment about being bored in the safe town make this clear. I don’t see how this honors journalists; they aren’t capturing historic moments of resistance, they’re just tagging along for a siege. It’s confusing.
I really enjoyed the Apocalypse Now vibes. The main difference is that Apocalypse Now knew when to slow down and let a moment breathe. My biggest gripe with Civil War, similar to Annihilation, is that Garland seems too eager to reach the end. He avoids spending time with the President or showing the aftermath of the deaths. There’s no real epilogue. We don’t see the impact of the interview or the photos, which makes the journey feel a bit light. It feels less like a ‘both sides’ issue and more like Garland wasn’t sure what his final message should be, leaving it in a grey area that feels either deep or empty depending on your mood.
I see the point about ‘detachment’ made often, but I don’t think it’s a positive. Garland is trying to emulate films like Come and See, but those were made by people who actually lived through the violence. I don’t think Garland is intentionally commenting on Western voyeurism; I think he’s just genuinely disconnected from the political reality. He has no stake in what he’s showing. The images and violence lack weight because they don’t seem to mean anything to him. It’s not even intentional nihilism. The only interesting part is how psychotic the journalists seem, but hearing him talk about ‘old fashioned reporting’ makes me think he actually views them as heroes, which is even weirder.
I found it a bit of a letdown but worth seeing in theaters. The score by Geoff Barrow had some odd choices that didn’t work for me, like the rap song after the skirmish or the music during the forest fire. It took me out of the experience. The performances were great, especially Cailee Spaeny and Jesse Plemons. However, the premise feels flawed. Garland thinks he’s being more profound than he is. We already know democracy is fragile. By trying to stay neutral, the film fails to address the actual shift toward authoritarianism in the US. Also, why are they only taking photos in the future? No video or audio? It feels like the movie is less than the sum of its parts.
A vital theme I haven’t seen discussed is Kirsten Dunst’s character’s internal struggle regarding her life’s work… documenting war after war in the hope of stopping them, only to realize it changed nothing. She found fame and adrenaline, but at a massive personal cost, and for what result? By the end, she has a breakdown that leads to her death… she saves the young photographer but then just stands there, seemingly lost in thought about her younger self and her choices, before being killed. The war just continues without a pause. It feels like a parallel to Alex Garland saying he’s retiring from directing; his own career path seems to mirror her journey.
Just saw it and initially wanted more world-building, but after seeing Garland’s interviews, it’s clear the war is just a backdrop. I think you missed a detail at the end: when the President begs for his life, Joel smiles and says ‘that’ll do.’ It gave me the impression he wasn’t neutral at all, but actually supported the execution. He wasn’t looking for information; he was looking for a specific end. Jessie, on the other hand, becomes cold and professional, completing her arc. Garland’s ambiguity is clever, but I feel like there are more layers to uncover on a rewatch, much like Ex Machina.
I’m pretty sure the girl said she was 23, so she’s a bit older than a high schooler. But I’m on board with everything else you noted; it’s a powerful movie that lingers in your mind for days, which is typical for Garland.
I might be giving Garland too much credit, but I think he’s exploring something more than just journalism. The film starts with journalism as a refuge, but eventually forces us to question the journalists’ motivations. They become increasingly voyeuristic, only reacting negatively when the violence is directed at them. By the end, the audience is almost rooting for the hunt for the President. When they reach the Oval Office, the journalists are part of the violence. The soldiers even pose for the photo. It’s not just a warning that ‘it could happen here,’ but a look at how conflict destroys our grasp on reality and reveals our own bloodlust.
My problem with the film is that it uses an American civil war as a backdrop for a story that could happen anywhere. If the goal was to explore the morality of war journalism, the US setting is a distraction. If the goal was to warn Americans about the horrors of civil war, I don’t think it succeeded because it failed to engage with why a modern American conflict would be uniquely terrifying.
There’s no brilliance here. What a total waste of a premise. It’s even worse that the director took such a relevant topic and used it to tell a boring, defeatist story. He had a great cast and a great setup, but it wasn’t even entertaining. Huge disappointment.
Civil War seems stuck between two worlds. It’s a neutral film about neutral journalists who claim to be politically motivated but never discuss politics. It uses the imagery of modern US politics but has nothing to say about it. It emphasizes how things look rather than what they mean. We see photos of photographers, but we rarely hear what they think. The film can’t decide if voyeurism is a critique of journalism or the point of it. It feels like a very specific Anglo-American failure; if this were set in any other country, the lack of political context for the journalists would seem ridiculous.
I agree that the main four are adrenaline junkies, but I think they represent the audience. We’ve been obsessed with the news cycle and the spectacle of democracy failing. We don’t want to look away, even though it’s destroying us.
This movie was incredibly shallow. There is no real message. The ‘neutrality’ of the press is easy to maintain when the audience has no idea what the war is even about. There’s no character growth, and the idea that you can just walk into a war zone with a press pass and no experience is silly. I expected something like The Killing Fields, but I got something closer to Red Dawn.