Civil War

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.

Civil War isn't science fiction-it's speculative reality drawn from the headlines we scroll past every day. Alex Garland has crafted something rare: a war film without glorification, a dystopia without excess. What unfolds is a portrait of America not as it might be, but as it nearly is-fractured by polarization, eroded by propaganda, and abandoned by leadership more concerned with loyalty than legitimacy.

Through the lens of war journalists (played with haunting restraint by Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny), we traverse a country in pieces-some cities crumbling, others clinging to an eerie normalcy. The genius lies in the nuance: this isn't red vs. Blue, good vs. Evil. It's chaos as governance, ideology as identity, and cruelty as currency.

For those watching recent history with a furrowed brow, Civil War lands like a flare in the darkness. It doesn't tell us what to think-it forces us to ask how close we already are. And in doing so, it becomes not just a film, but a quiet, urgent warning.

Watch it while it's still fiction.

B. Mitchell / J. Vail.

There tend to be two groups of people who dislike this movie:

• Those who were expecting a movie about war.

• Those who were expecting a movie about politics.

This movie isn't about war or politics at all, it's an adventure story about a group of war photographers. Very little is ever discussed or explained about the war itself, how it started, nor the political affiliations of those involved. The story is mostly about the photographers and how the journey affects them as people.

Through various misadventures the viewer begins to piece together a rough picture of how the conflict is going, but it's never really the focus of the story. If you go in expecting every question to be answered, you've missed the point of the movie. If you were bored by (or entirely ignored) the characters' conversations, and only paid attention when there was killing going on, you REALLY missed the point of the movie.

Overall, I found this to be a very moving film, with compelling performances by all the leads and a superb script. This movie succeeds at what it sets out to accomplish, though what it accomplishes might not be to every viewer's taste.

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.

There are some tricky reviews here and they all have a few things in common. They're all stuck on the economical and social, if not geographical logistics of a union between Florida, Texas and California, and they're all written by Americans. As someone not connected to the States I can say I think their perspective is smeared. This movie isn't about how certain political alliances came together or why certain people engaged in conflict, testified to by the fact that you don't ever even learn the president's name let alone the political party. You might want more out of the movie asking how all this came to be and you may be asking in hope of gaining allegiance to one side of the conflict or the other. The fact is this movie is not About the Why, the How or any of that. This movie is a war documentary that happens to be placed in an environment that you are familiar with. And in that respect it is superb. The acting is excellent and as required, the cinematography is very very strong. It's well paced and well written and gives you everything it promises. I think Kirsten Dunst is not as good an actor as she thinks she is but that hardly tracks from the powerful collective performance of the four main cast. This film is about the visceral and unsettling reality of conflict, life and death, and it's brought to you in a familiar place not 10,000 miles away in a foreign land. A choice that makes the impact all the more real. Sure, doing this runs the risk of the film seeming gimmicky or like any other disaster film but I think it's side steps that with grace and deft. What you are left with his real drama, real moments, real lives and the brutality and human and inhumanity of war. Please just forget the question as to whether this could happen in this exact way and just appreciate the world in which it did.