When I learned Alex garland was taking this bold topic on as a high profile A24 release, my interest was super high. I was initially worried how the film would be received. Politically, we are a mess right now, and heading into the films release, I was hesitant to sit in a theater for this. But, reviews were mixed, and then I became even less likely. Now, at home, I can enjoy civil War, or I could, if it was good.
Alex Garland managed to take on a hot button topic that has nothing to say. On one hand, there will be people saying that this film is all about photojournalism, and the people who bear witness to the violence. But, on the other hand, this is some alternate America, where California and Texas have teamed up, Florida is doing its own thing, and there’s a lot of in fighting. The President is trying to put on a brave face, but our country is almost becoming 50 colonies. But… why?
Making this film, but not really giving depth to the people in the fight is really just a useless look at some journalists trying to remain neutral so they can report. But, neutral at what? In one scene, they are quick to show their press pass, but another they aren’t. Why? it is trying so hard to just tell audiences that a Civil War would be bad, without exploring any of the reasons this world got there. And remember, this is not our America. There is no way in hell our current California and Texas would be working on a team up. So, you could have explored ideals, values, topics, but Garland is so disinterested in divisiveness that he’d rather have his film have nothing to say, than perhaps say the wrong thing.
The performances are fine, with Jesse Plemons getting a lot of attention for a very supporting role that is honestly far better than the one he’s actually nominated for. Jesse Plemons gets cast too frequently as the nice guy, or the slow guy, the unsuspecting guy, that to see him as a dangerous faction leader with a short temper was a pleasant surprise. Also, I enjoyed the concept of Nick Offerman as President. Ron Swanson in the White House? Why not?
This had so much potential, and for an A24 film, it ends up becoming the most accessible, because it isn’t interested in creating division. it hopes your thoughts on the horrors of war are enough, except we see that i every single war film ever. Garland’s best work is still Ex Machina, but I remain optimistic that the best is yet to come.
What I Look For In The Audio Description?: Well, the movie is about photojournalists, so imagery is far more important here than really character specifics. For this film to work, we have to experience the horror that Garland wants us to experience, and everything else is secondary, just helping to shape his dystopian reality. but, you can’t have a film about photojournalists and say that images being delivered to the audience isn’t the top priority. If there’s a mass grave, go into it. If there are dead kids, describe it. that is the film Garland chose to make.
What It Does: I’m actually not a fan of this track. It is very poorly recorded. It sounds like something someone would throw together at the last minute to qualify for a film festival, not a final audio description track that follows with the movie. Considering how much A24 spent on this, and its relatively Ok box office performance, where’s the audio description that doesn’t sound like one guy made it in his home, doing everything himself? The audio quality wasn’t good, he’s a boring narrator, and his description wasn’t awful, but certainly wasn’t anything to rave about. I’m hoping when this goes to MAX that it will have a much better track.
Final Thoughts: Fine acting, but the best performances are almost cameos, and for all the hype this film has, it fell short. Garland is still a very promising director, who really tried to pull some craft in here, and it does show, it is just disappointing that for a movie about war, he avoided a fight. And the audio description is waving the white flag of surrender.
Final Grade: C+