With an election right around the corner and the possibility of Donald Trump being reelected in 2024 Hollywood is going back to its old Playbook of instilling fear porn to sway public opinion.

The idea of another civil war in the United States of America is a narrative that has been repeated several times over the last few years.  In a country that is more ideologically divided than at any point in its history,  the question has to be asked how much more before the government reaches a Breaking Point? Things get a little more suspect when Washington politicians start throwing around the idea of a civil war in Hollywood and begin to make movies romanticizing it. 

The latest film from A24  is a film entitled Civil War. The film begins in a reality where the states of California, Texas, and Florida have decided to succeed against the federal government to create a nationwide Civil War. The story is focused on four journalists on the front lines of this bloody conflict to document what is happening for the world to see. Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst is joined by an eccentric right hand man, an elderly mentor, and a young Protege as they embark on an 800-mile road trip to the White House to interview the president who is seen as the cause for the Civil Rebellion in the country.

The road trip will not be friendly as they will have to go deep into enemy territory AKA Rural America and fight their way to the capital to get what could be the story of a lifetime. It’s hard to engage with a Civil War story when the plot doesn’t give you any rhyme or reason as to why anything is happening to begin with. The opening of this film introduces us to the president of the United States announcing the status of the three states that have decided to secede from the country. 

The audience is not told why these states are seceding outside of the fact that the president is on his 3rd term. The biggest plot hole being how California and Texas are working together in this conflict,  we’re told that there are two sides to this war however we don’t know why anyone is fighting to begin with. You can tell that for the sake of avoiding further division that Alex Garland went out of their way to avoid pointing the finger at any particular individual or any particular movement in this movie. 

That doesn’t mean they don’t give you hints of what led to the situation.  Early on in the film we’re given brief scenes of people with American flags committing Islamic-style Jihad on the streets of New York City with no context of why it’s happening. As the film progresses,  characters travel deep into a world country where they are confronted by white men with guns who are hostile to outsiders.  With a couple of references to Charlottesville and the film’s portrayal of the president,  you don’t have to think too hard about who this film is talking about.

The problem is that with those implications we are never given clear answers to why any of this is happening.  Why are three states at war with the federal government?  Why is the federal government attacking its citizens? Why is the president the enemy of the story?  We do not get answers to any of these questions. The film at its core is a story of four journalists who travel around the country documenting what they see during a wartime conflict.  The only difference is that the backdrop is not a Middle Eastern country. It’s right here at home. 

Kirsten Dunst plays the protagonist who comes off as a very unlikable individual who is dealing with issues of PTSD. In the context of the story is never clarified if her PTSD comes from the active conflict or conflict that she experienced before this event. Wagner Moura plays her colleague who comes off as a bit of a wild card in a nut job but never does anything to earn that estimation. Cailee Spaeny is a young photographer who mirrors Lee without her unfriendly demeanor. Stephen McKinley Henderson is there as a veteran New York Times Reporter who is out of his element but tries to be the voice of reason within the story.

For film critics who see this as an ideological dog whistle to stir up their Donald Trump PTSD, this film is an amazing visual of the scenario that only exists in their heads.  For audiences who are trying to understand the plot of this film,  the movie is an ideological battle between two sides without an ideology. 

Maybe the next time you try to tell a story about the American Civil War, don’t hire a British guy to write and direct the story. 

Civil War is the equivalent of ordering a Publix chicken tender sandwich and they forget to give you the chicken. The film would have been good if there was any meat in it.

2/5

Don’t forget to Subscribe for Updates. Also, Follow Us at Society-Reviews, YouTube,  Twitter, Odysee, Rumble, and Twitch