Civil War (2024)

Is Civil War a political film or not? It's a question that director Alex Garland must be utterly sick of being asked. The film, which is supposedly Garland's last as director, is set in a non-specified future and sits firmly on the fence in terms of the reasons behind said war that splits the country. Familiar peacetime settings like New York and Washington D.C as well as stalwart icons of American life (a decrepit and abandoned J.C Penny's store for example) are all turned into war-zones or neglected areas of disrepair and danger as fighting rages across the country.

We follow the war through a group of photojournalists led by Kirsten Dunst's Lee, who plans- alongside Joel (Wagner Moura) and ageing veteran Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson)- to travel through several danger zones to reach New York so they can interview the delusional President (Nick Offerman) whose reign in charge is swiftly approaching its end.

The three are joined by newbie Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) who sweet talks her way into the car much to the chagrin of Lee, who is desperate not to be hampered by someone whose inexperience and awe of her might well be her undoing.

This relationship is key to what hampers Garland's film. From the moment they set off and Jessie expresses her admiration for Lee's work and how much she want to be like her, we can see how the story plays out a mile off. It's simply a through line that I didn't care about; I was much more interested in how we got to where we are, and traversing barren places that were once thriving urban and rural states of being.

Garland is no stranger to this kind of wasteland, the opening scenes of 28 Days Later (2002), which he wrote, are eerie to say the least, and he conjures up plenty more tension filled silences in apparent emptiness here before unleashing a barrage of impressive violence at the film's finale. These scenes are where Civil War is at its best; it's nearly always unnerving to see dilapidated scenery especially if we're familiar with it, and Garland puts us on edge by offering up the idea that Texas and California have joined forces (The WF) in an attempt to take down the White House- an alliance that puts us further out of our comfort zone whilst also making the whole thing eerily plausible.

The actions of soldiers with hammered mindsets is something that is prevalent, if on the peripheral, and is explored in one brief but captivating sequence with a near film stealing cameo from Jessie Plemons as he meanders the edge of a mass grave whilst our main characters fear that these moments might well be their last.

Garland's ploy to create this world without ever having the journalists discuss what caused the situation is one in which its success is split- there's always something intriguing against a premise that's left unexplained if it's done well, but you sometimes feel Garland is absolutely hellbent on simply not approaching the topic. In interviews for Civil War he has maintained the lack of explanation, which although certainly doesn't affect the film as a spectacle, perhaps hampers its emotional heft, certainly with regard to the lead characters. It might be an unfair comparison but considering we were following journalists in a war-zone, I was instantly reminded of The Killing Fields (1984). Roland Joffé's tour de force takes its time telling its tale, and admittedly it had a true story to pull from; but its care and craft around its central characters makes it a superior film within this sub-genre, and one that Civil War could have learned a thing or two from.

That said, if Civil War is Garland's last hurrah as a feature length director it will be a real shame. Ex-Machina (2014), his debut full length, remains his finest; but to follow that up with equally ambitious (if not quite as successful) projects in Annihilation (2018) and Men (2022) proved he's a director that's always worth watching.

Civil War isn't his best film, and although it feels like it has something to say- Garland's insistence on not saying it sometimes makes you wish you had a bit of back story. There are certainly inferences that Offerman's President is a fascist (in his third term) and perhaps is a play on a real life character but I didn't need any of those sort of subtleties, because the characters we follow don't seem overly bothered with the particulars either.

There's some truly astonishing cinematography combined with superb choices of music (Rocket U.S.A by Suicide is a particular highlight) and sound editing, meaning that by the time the stunning final twenty minutes or so come round, you're primed and ready for them. The final hurrah is a photographic shot(s) we saw coming from the film's outset, and sum up Garland's swansong rather well.

When Civil War is good, it's very good, which means that the lack of empathy I felt towards one or two of the main characters was more of a problem than it might normally have been, as well as the telegraphed ending. That's more of a compliment to how good the film can be, and above all I just left hoping that this wasn't in fact Garland's final film.

Not because it was disappointing, far from it; but more so because he is a terrific director that takes his final bow with four very good films and one near masterpiece. 7.4/10