Civil War, A Review

So, we went and saw Civil War Saturday. A ton of hype about this film and I was cautiously optimistic that it would be an interesting story with dramatic elements and a message that, hopefully, wasn't wokist claptrap.

To say that I was disappointed is an understatement. I won't spoil the movie, because what you've seen in the previews is pretty much the entire movie. There is no explanation for the conflict, no reason why the states are still acting as units, nor why California and Texas are allies while Oklahoma and Oregon as on the same side. In a way that isn't important. Trying to come up with a semi-logical story around the reason for a conflict isn't as important as what the story could be...assuming it's a good story. I mean, I rather enjoy The Purge series of movies. They don't make any sense, but are fun movies that have interesting characters such that you care what happens to them.

Then we have the characters of Civil War. Kirsten Dunst's Lee Miller is the central character of the story. She is a hard boiled award winning photojournalist who has cataloged numerous war zones around the world. She is impartially chronicling the horrors she sees through her camera as a warning to the "civilized" world that war is terrible and should be avoided. You'd want to root for her as she reluctantly mentors a young aspiring photojournalist named Jessie (Cailee Spaney) whom I assumed was 12-16 from the previews and if they hadn't said she was 23 I would have assumed she was a high school journalist. She is Lee from so many years prior with all the passion but lacking the nerve and the sense of age. At one point Lee tells her that she will do something stupid and get herself killed and Jessie asks her, "Will you photograph it?" To which Lee replies..."What do you think?"

The problem with this storyline is that Lee exemplifies the journalist that is totally impartial. She photographs a man who is captured and then shoved into a tire, doused with gasoline and then set on fire while calmly taking photos. Surely an award was won from that, we assume, and it sets up her character as having seen so much horror that she is numb to it now. She praises Jessie for a spectacular shot of a soldier they are with in a firefight, capturing him bleeding out while his leader tries to save him. For both of them the pursuit of the "money shot" is all that motivates them. They aren't in pursuit of the truth, or history, but rather that image that will win an award or symbolize a conflict. In the end, they are deeply flawed and selfish characters that you come to dislike if not despise by the end.

The two other main characters are Lee's reporter Joel played by Wagner Moura whom had been in some other shows/movies I've seen and been utterly forgettable. His portrayal of Joel is creepy and borderline disgusting at times. Perhaps he is spot on for many journalists...I hope not. Lastly is Sammy (portrayed wonderfully by Stephen McKinley Henderson) the old New York Times reporter who mentored Lee long ago and, frankly, is the best and most likeable character in the entire movie. He is an old school journalist, like Lee is supposed to be, but even after decades of covering the worst conflict in the world, he has not lost his moral compass or his ethics about reporting. At least I got that impression. In the end, he is the hero of the story more so than any other.

Which is the problem with the movie. The plot is weak overall with little explanation of why anything happened. Which means that this should he a story of characters, but, outside of Sammy, they aren't likeable or admirable. They meet a cross section of people as they travel each with their own sliver of a story, but it also makes it disjointed as opposed to coherent.

What was the purpose of the movie? Why should anyone see it? I wish I had answers to that question. In a way, perhaps that was the point. That journalists are just as vulnerable to enui as everyone, because they have to report and not get involved. That the natural state of humans is conflict. Or maybe the point was something else that I never considered. It wasn't overly woke, or if it was it was so subtle that I was able to disregard it. Which goes back to the question...why does this movie exist? It doesn't have an overt message. It doesn't tell a cautionary story. It doesn't even tell a compelling story. Visually it was decent and the combat scenes were well done, but, for me, that wasn't enough. I doubt it will be for most people except those of the critical persuasion who will adore this film.