In the near future, a civil war has erupted between the authoritarian United States government and various secessionist movements. Renowned war photographer Lee Smith (Dunst) saves aspiring photojournalist Jessie (Spaeny) from a suicide bombing in New York City. They embark on a journey to Washington, DC, documenting the horrors of war as they go.
- External Sites(will open in a new window)
When the recent presidential election race was running hot and heavy, a new movie called Civil War hit theaters. Based on the idea of several states seceding from the US and waging war against the government based in Washington, DC, it seemed like a premonition of what the future could hold. But, it also seemed like a cash grab more than a film worth watching. Now that it’s available on streaming, I figured I’d give it a look. Would it be worth my time, or were my first impressions correct?
Kirsten Dunst leads the cast in Civil War, and looks far different from her previous role as Mary Jane Watson in Spider-Man. No longer fresh faced and vibrant, her character, a war photographer who’s been in some tough situations, is weary and bone tired – and her look reflects that. She is pretty good at pretending to stay detached of the horrors going on around her, and only lets herself break down when she’s alone.
Cailee Spaeny is also good in Civil War. She portrays a young photographer trying to get into the war business, and is the opposite of Dunst’s character Lee. She gets an adrenaline rush from being in the thick of things, and Lee obviously sees a younger version of herself – before the world beat her down. Spaeny does an excellent job of relaying that excitement/obsession with getting the shot, and the more she experiences, the more she embraces that rush.
The rest of the cast is pretty decent as well, with most of the time focused on Dunst, Spaeny, Wagner Moura and Stephen McKinley Henderson, with Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation (TV)) as the embattled US President. They all contribute well to the story, with Nick getting a smaller amount of screen time, but his voice playing out as the background for a lot of the shots. Even Jesse Plemons pops up in a (as usual) calm-yet-creepy cameo.
The story itself follows these four reporters as they travel to Washington, DC, in an attempt to interview/photograph the US President before one of these warring factions eventually takes over DC and assassinates him. Along the way, they encounter a lot of horrors of war, with Dunst and Spaeny looking to capture the shot (one usually more prominently than the other). This sets the viewer up for a litany of the horrors of war to be played out on screen.
The cinematography is probably the best thing about Civil War. A film about photographers, the cinematography seems to also always be searching for the perfect shot, creating a lot of beautiful images along the way (including a burning forest with the embers falling gently around their vehicle as they head on during the night). In fact, the cinematography really seems to be the only reason this movie was made in the first place.
The viewer never really gets a sense of why this film exists. Usually, films are presented with an intended morale in most war movies – either an anti-war bent showcasing the horrors of war (Apocalypse Now), or a patriotic bent showcasing the “best a man can be” scenarios (Act of Valor). Civil War does neither. Instead, it just seems to be vignettes of a turbulent time, tied together merely by the travelers. The viewer never really gets a vibe of whether war is bad or good. Also, who are the bad guys? The US President, or the coalitions trying to take over? The film never really points a finger at either. By the end, the viewer will be left disappointed, as a film with this quality of actors and such fantastic cinematography should feel so…not worth it.
