By Gary

A beautifully horrifying look at a possible future as Civil War touches on a what if in America.

A journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

America is getting sick. Alex Garland has offered us a vaccination for what ails it. Like a serum for snake bite made from the venom itself, this film grabs us by the shoulders and screams “You got a civil war fantasy? Fine, I’ll put it on a 40 foot screen and dare you to cheer.”

Civil War finds it’s foundational vision in the eyes of those who for decades have brought us the soul shattering reality of war, free from the romance of Hollywood patriotism- war journalists whose frenzied, conflicted odyssey plunges them into a mad gauntlet of fire and film, killing and kodachrome.

Like soldiers in a war of attrition, they must constantly reassess the purpose of their risks and sacrifices as they watch their colleagues fall for the sake of the priceless pictorial story of war.

Three generations of war correspondents traveling together into the insanity becomes the testament to three phases in the life of such a calling.

We are introduced to the strangeness of how soldiers, out for blood, tolerate and facilitate the presence of these unarmored observers every step of the way through the hell of combat.

Garland seems to tap into some unspoken ethos of universal creedance among combatants that the history of it all must be seen and those who record it must survive to tell of it.

It is never explained, merely displayed. When they go into a room journalists and soldiers both go in shooting one with cameras and one with guns.

Which I know is probably unrealistic and that they would clear the room as best they can before letting the journalists in but it makes for amazing imaginary on the screen and is a good way to show that the journalists have to follow orders the same as the soldiers because if they don’t then people will possibly die.

Some people may find it a little slow the action scenes are spread out throughout.

The genius of this film rests partially in an absurd alliance between California and Texas, two of the most opposite states in the Union.

By joining this ideological odd couple, the story immunizes itself against accusations of partisanship or cultural favouritism.

Yet it also beckons us to imagine what kind of national crisis could bring such opposites together.

The performances were amazing as well as Kirsten Dunst gives a raw and well executed performance to grab the audience and you really believe she is this character she is portraying.

Calling the film Civil War is a bit of a misnomer. The film is about a small team of war photographers who go on a risky road trip to Washington to interview the president, while a civil war is going on in the background.

The film’s focus is primarily on the ethics of war photography and the personal costs for the photographers.

There is almost no political content in the film, so it is a quite different film than most people would probably expect.

The ongoing civil war in the film is completely unclear and undescribed. California and Texas are allied with each other.

The New People’s Army, which appears on a promotional map graphic for the movie, is not mentioned in the film, and we don’t hear who Florida is supposed to be siding with either.

The photographers seem to be following soldier teams from several of the warring parties, which further adds to the confusion.

This is a kind of warning against what could happen without it actually telling us what happened in the events that lead up to the Movie, it is also a love letter to war journalists/photographers.

My Rating: 8/10