Civil War (2024): Garland’s Dystopian Dream or Dreary Doldrums?

From the first frame, "Civil War" feels like a movie you don’t really want to watch—dragging its feet through a dystopian America that seems too real to be entertaining. Yet, there’s something about the crumbling ruins of this fictional United States that grips you, a deep-seated fear that compels you to stay, hoping for a payoff.

Alex Garland, known for his cerebral sci-fi masterpieces, plunges us into a world teetering on the edge. The film's premise promises much: a nation divided, rebel factions clawing for control, and a president barricaded in Washington, D.C., fighting for a third term. It’s a setup ripe for explosive revelations. Instead, the narrative crawls at a snail’s pace, each scene dripping with tension yet weighed down by a sense of inertia. You find yourself glued to the screen, not because it’s thrilling, but because the dystopian reality it portrays is disturbingly plausible.

Garland's strength lies in his ability to make the viewers feel every grain of sand, every drop of blood. The handheld camera work plunges us into the chaos with a visceral intensity—blood pools glisten under harsh fluorescent lights, mass graves stand as silent witnesses to untold horrors, and the echo of distant gunfire punctuates the silence. This isn't just a war movie; it's a war zone captured in agonizingly precise detail.

Kirsten Dunst delivers a performance that anchors the film, her portrayal of Lee a study in resilience and quiet desperation. Her eyes tell stories of battles witnessed and horrors endured, bringing depth to a character that speaks volumes with silence. She is joined by a compelling cast, including Wagner Moura and Jesse Plemons, whose brief appearance leaves a lasting impact—a militant figure with red-lensed sunglasses, embodying the film’s thematic murkiness.

Despite the dragging pace, the authenticity of Garland’s dystopian America made it impossible to look away. The ruins of a once-great nation carried an uncanny fear, a morbid curiosity that kept me hoping for redemption, for a twist that would justify the slow burn. And, in some ways, it did—eventually.

What Are We Not Seeing?

Alex Garland’s "Civil War" is a film that defies easy categorization. Critics and viewers may find themselves puzzled or even frustrated by its ambiguous storytelling and slow pace, but perhaps this is where its genius lies.

Garland has crafted a dystopian narrative that reflects the complexity and uncertainty of real-world conflicts. In an era saturated with fast-paced, action-driven films, "Civil War" takes a different approach. It immerses viewers in a world that feels disturbingly real, yet deliberately withholds clear explanations and resolutions. This can be seen as a reflection of the chaotic and often incomprehensible nature of actual warfare and political strife.

The Director’s Vision

Garland’s choice to focus on subtext rather than overt exposition suggests a deeper intention. By presenting a world where motives are murky and alliances are fluid, Garland challenges the audience to engage more actively with the film. This engagement mirrors the experience of living through real crises, where understanding and clarity are often in short supply.

Criticism as Essence

The criticism that "Civil War" is boring or slow might miss the point. The film’s pacing and ambiguity force the viewer to sit with discomfort and uncertainty, much like the characters in the story. This artistic choice can be seen as a commentary on the nature of conflict itself—its endless, grinding tension, and the lack of clear heroes or villains.

A Different Kind of Masterpiece

In the sea of poorly executed films, "Civil War" stands out as a piece that dares to be different. Its strength lies in its ability to evoke a visceral response, using imagery and atmosphere to convey its themes more than dialogue or action. The film's detailed and immersive world-building, combined with strong performances, particularly by Kirsten Dunst, offers a haunting look at a possible future.

Cailee Spaeny’s role as the eager photojournalist Jessie Cullen adds a layer of youthful naivety and eventual disillusionment, reflecting the harsh realities of war and the loss of innocence. Stephen McKinley Henderson as the elder journalist Sammy brings a grounded, sage-like presence, while Wagner Moura's portrayal of the adrenaline-addicted Joel adds complexity to the ensemble. Nick Offerman’s depiction of the embattled president, evoking a Trump-like figure, provides a chilling anchor to the narrative.

Garland’s background in science fiction and speculative fiction gives him a unique perspective, allowing him to build a world that feels both alien and familiar. This blending of genres and refusal to conform to traditional storytelling norms makes "Civil War" a unique entry in the dystopian genre. It’s a film that demands patience and contemplation, rewarding those willing to look beyond the surface.

But Yeah, It's Boring

While "Civil War" may leave some viewers with more questions than answers, this is precisely where its power lies. It’s not a film that provides easy solutions or straightforward narratives. Instead, it reflects the complexity and uncertainty of the world it depicts, making it a thought-provoking piece that stays with you long after the credits roll. Garland has created a film that is less about providing answers and more about asking the right questions, making it a potential masterpiece of its kind. But yeah, it's boring...