Set in the not-too-distant future, “Civil War” follows four war-torn and military-embedded journalists determined to reach the nation’s capitol to interview the fascist president (Nick Offerman) before rebel factions — led by an alliance between Texas and California called the Western Forces and the Florida Alliance — descend upon the White House. If that doesn’t sound crazy enough, whatever you think this film is, it probably isn’t that. 

At its core, “Civil War” is a film about division and polarization that forces us to imagine the unimaginable — a second American Civil War. The film focuses on confronting the barbarity and consequences of domestic warfare and embracing our political differences. Actress Kirsten Dunst told CBS Sunday Morning, “At the heart of all this, it’s really about humanity and what happens when people stop treating each other like human beings.”

The human beings of this story are Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), an ambitious young war photographer who teams up with renowned war photojournalist Lee ( Dunst), along with her colleagues Joel (Wagner Moura) and mentor Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), a veteran of The New York Times. Spaeny and Dunst are an effective duo on screen together, portraying the film’s central human thread that strings together the hope and necessity for an unbiased press. 

Director Alex Garland — known for his previous ventures exploring the dangers of artificial intelligence in “Ex Machina” (2014), environmental decay in “Annihilation” (2018) and the complexities surrounding masculinity in “Men” (2022) — teamed up with A24 once again on the frontlines of apocalyptic American catastrophe and political frenzy. This time around, Garland uses his toolkit of tension to ignite the silver screen with a magnifying glass on the looming threat of dystopian upheaval. 

If there’s one thing Garland knows how to do in the director’s chair, it’s immersing audiences in the film’s setting. In “Civil War,” Garland presents the audience with a mixture of grizzly images across the rural American backdrop contrasted with the concrete chaos of New York City and Washington, D.C. Like the film’s photojournalist protagonists, Garland also uses the camera lens as a weapon on the battlefield of civil unrest; Rob Hardy’s cinematography is gritty and gripping, painting bloodshed across familiar American iconography and capturing a disturbing amount of insurgent violence and terror. 

The masterful use of editing and sound serves as a haunting vessel for this nightmarish road trip across the divided states in its expedition to uncover the human toll of war. The film’s rhythmic pacing mirrors the unpredictable ebb and flow of combat, creating moments of quiet introspection juxtaposed with thundering explosions and warfare, building a visceral sensory experience that underscores the film’s anti-war message.

Another highlight is Jesse Plemons’ shocking performance as a white-nationalist militiaman who halts the movie with his caliber for jarring intensity and delivers — while holding the press at gunpoint — the best line of the movie: “What kind of American are you?” That very sentiment encapsulates “Civil War” as a mirror of modern-day society — an eerie reflection of our current highly politically polarized landscape. 

The true brilliance of “Civil War” lies in its capacity to engage viewers, allowing them to feel as though they are alongside the photojournalists. This doesn’t create an apolitical experience but, rather, an inferential one, where viewers are encouraged to draw conclusions based on their own perception of political disruption on and off the screen. Garland does the exact thing with his cinema-making, allowing the audiences to make inferences about what they see rather than relying on exposition. 

The film revolves around journalists engaging in old-fashioned reporting, where bias is deliberately removed. This approach entails providing a factual account of events within a specific timeframe. By adhering to this style of reporting, the film aims to echo the principles of unbiased journalism, thereby reinforcing its central argument that polarization is detrimental. Introducing bias would not only deviate from this premise but also undermine the film’s powerful message about the dangers of societal division. 

Although the film is a roller coaster of anxiety and suspense, the plot is devoid of any true depth into the central conflict leading up to the war. The dystopian mythology — which is very intriguing — including Texas and California joining forces is never made clear, making for a vapid and hollow narrative experience at times. 

“Civil War” is much more than a “Purge”-esque popcorn grab, instead offering a mature conversation about society and its government. However, “Civil War” feels like a missed opportunity, one that could’ve been great but fails to emotionally engage beyond spectacle and thrill. That said, the wellspring of eternal conversation this film provokes is unavoidable and makes for a potent and effective warning about the loss of faith in the power of journalism and democracy.