A journey across a dystopian future America, following a team of military-embedded journalists as they race against time to reach DC before rebel factions descend upon the White House.
When I heard "Civil War," I imagined epic battles, dramatic speeches, and more red and blue than a presidential election map. What I got instead was a ragtag team of military-embedded journalists running through a dystopian America, dodging bullets while racing to Washington, D.C. It’s like they combined a war documentary with the raw chaos of a live battlefield, and then slapped a title that misleads like a toddler with chocolate on his face insisting he didn't eat the cake.
Let's talk about the good stuff. The war scenes were insane—in the best possible way. It felt like you were right there, heart racing, ducking behind cover with Kirsten Dunst's character as bullets whizzed by. They used full blanks for the gunfire, which added to the realism. Trust me, I jumped out of my seat more times than I'd like to admit. And the way they superimposed the photos into the scenes? Brilliant. It gave you this sense of being in the moment while also reminding you that these journalists were capturing history in the middle of absolute chaos.
Wagner Moura and Cailee Spaeny also bring some serious acting chops. Moura is intense, his character holding onto his humanity in the midst of the madness. Spaeny, on the other hand, is all grit and determination, the kind of journalist who won't let a little thing like gunfire keep her from getting the shot. And Kirsten Dunst? She nails that war-weary-but-still-fighting vibe, like she's seen it all but isn't giving up just yet.
But let's address the elephant in the room—the title. Civil War? More like "Generic War Movie with Journalists." Seriously, if you’re going to call it "Civil War," maybe give us some context? We get it; there's a corrupt third-term president doing some seriously shady stuff, but that's about it. No backstory, no deep dive into how things got so bad. It's like being dropped into a high school chemistry class without knowing what a beaker is. Confusing and frustrating.
Another downside? The lack of plot twists. I’m all for a straightforward story, but this was like reading a book with all the pages missing except the first and last chapters. Everything was telegraphed from a mile away. I kept waiting for some big reveal or a twist that would blow my mind, but nothing. It’s like they forgot the script needed a little excitement beyond the explosions.
And that brings me to the biggest gripe: the political undertones. This movie feels like a mainstream media fever dream of what could happen if Trump won re-election. It's so sneaky-handed with the "corrupt president" narrative that it's almost comical. I mean, I get it, we're living in interesting times, but does every dystopian movie have to hit us over the head with real life imitating art politics? A little subtlety would’ve been nice.
On a lighter note, there's this scene with Christmas decorations in the middle of a sniper shootout. Apparently, they weren't even designed for the movie—they were just there because some attraction failed, and the director thought it would be a cool metaphor for chaos. I have to admit, it was a weird but effective touch. Like, if you can't put away the tinsel and lights, something's seriously wrong.
Despite all its flaws, "Civil War" is still worth a watch for the action and the performances. It's intense, fast-paced, and visually stunning. Just don't go in expecting a deep exploration of America's political climate. This is more about the adrenaline and less about the story.
My final rating? 7/10. It's a decent ride if you're into war movies with a modern twist. Just don't expect too much from the plot.
#CivilWar #DystopianFilm #KirstenDunst #WagnerMoura #CaileeSpaeny #WarMovie #ActionMovie #Journalism #AlexGarland #MovieReview
Comentarios