Movie Review: Civil War (2024)

[Dave Gray]

Civil War (2024)

Premise: In a politically fictionalized modern-day America at war with itself, a van full of journalists brave the treacherous path to Washington D.C., in hope of landing an interview with a surrounded President.

Rating: A great film, but maybe not the one that you're expecting.

This movie is intense and bleak and pretty dour.  Imagine iconic imagery from films like Independence Day (1996) involving monuments like the Washington Monument and White House, expect with the tone of what you'd see on 60 minutes from war journalists on the ground in Iraq.  It's eerie.

The elephant in the room, though, is the movie's politics.  It is definitely political, but it is most certainly not partisan.  In fact, it goes out of its way to make itself unmappable to the modern era's right vs. left conflict.  A small example is that one of the secession alliances is Texas and California.  But more than that is that, for a movie called Civil War, it isn't really about a civil war.  The film takes place through the eyes of war journalists, just trying to report and get truth out there, and are trying not to make themselves part of the story.  The movie makes a point that, to those on the ground, it doesn't even matter what you're fighting about; once the person across from you is trying to shoot at you, you have to shoot back at them.

There are little hints at causes.  You hear on a TV broadcast that the president is in "his 3rd term" and there are little glimpses at the divide by the way that various soldiers act, but nothing that you can directly map or that is issue-based.  Also, I think it's fair to say that both sides are doing bad things and it's the war, itself, that is the villain.

But the movie isn't about any of that.  It's about the importance and the celebration of journalism.

The structure of the film is a road trip and each segment serves as a little vignette.  Each of them have something to say.   Some show the apathy of parts of the country, some show the intense gore in the fighting, others show the fear and unrest caused by a police state or a outside (or in this case, inside) occupation.  While the latter half is action packed, the movie does take its time and a lot of it is just reflection on the choices and risks that journalists take to get their story, yet the runtime is relatively short.

All of the cast is great, but there's a standout minor role from Jesse Plemmons, who plays a soldier at a roadside stop.  It's a chilling performance.

I loved it, but I realize that it speaks directly to a tone I like.  You may find it too disturbing or upsetting, as it doesn't have a traditional plot narrative where you're looking for good guys to overcome bad guys and it is a cynical take on America.

[Brian Fein]

I really wanted to see this movie, based solely on the trailer.  I was expecting the story would be told by the journalists, and that story would be about the fictitious conflict, its causes and resolution.  But it wasn't that, at all.  

The conflict was a background character.  An extra.  It was the obstacle to progress, but it wasn't front and center.  They didn't tell you what it was about or even WHEN the movie was taking place.  They dropped tiny nuggets of facts in passing, like photographing the "Antifa Massacre" - another fictitious event that has clearly driven political suggestion but no link to the current conflict.  States seceded from the union, formed smaller alliances, and the "President" was trying to keep it at bay.

One thing that really struck me as odd was that these seceeded rebel alliances had all the military firepower in the world.  They had dozens of Chinook-type helicopters, tanks, Humvees... if you were cut off from the union and had to form your own military, it seems like you wouldn't have access to the multi-billion-dollar US military budget and equipment.  But what do I know?

I liked the movie enough, but it was really not what I was expecting.

[Dave Gray]

One thing that really struck me as odd was that these seceeded rebel alliances had all the military firepower in the world.  They had dozens of Chinook-type helicopters, tanks, Humvees... if you were cut off from the union and had to form your own military, it seems like you wouldn't have access to the multi-billion-dollar US military budget and equipment.  But what do I know?

I would think that if Texas seceded, any military bases in their territory would de facto become successionist bases.  Definitely their equipment, but maybe even their leadership.

[Phishfan]

I would think that if Texas seceded, any military bases in their territory would de facto become successionist bases.  Definitely their equipment, but maybe even their leadership.

Maybe not necessarily their leadership but other leadership possibly. Military personnel aren't stationed where they are from so each base would have people from either side serving side by side. It would be interesting to see how they worked past that.

[Spider-Dan]

I would think that if Texas seceded, any military bases in their territory would de facto become successionist bases.  Definitely their equipment, but maybe even their leadership.

One of the main differences between today and the 1860s is that the officers and troops at a base in Texas are not necessarily (or even likely to be) from Texas.  So the governor of Texas declaring secession from the Union would not be likely to make those personnel fall under his command; rather, the opposite.  Those bases would probably need to be conquered by native Texans, which I don't see as likely.

[Dave Gray]

like photographing the "Antifa Massacre" - another fictitious event that has clearly driven political suggestion but no link to the current conflict

To add to this, they don't even say what the Antifa Massacre is.  It could be that Antifa got massacred by the government.  It could mean that Antifa did the massacring.  It uses evocative terminology, but you can apply it and make it work in any political landscape.