I did not have high hopes after watching the trailer and reveal of the Texas and California coalition, but I was willing to suspend disbelief once the creators said that it was more about journalists. That suspension did not last long.
I’ll tackle the elephant in the room first: the political landscape makes no sense. Obviously this is meant to take place in some alternate timeline, but no narrative explanation was given to how things even got here. Texas aligning with California? No way that could happen without some interesting things happening, but I guess the writer wasn’t creative enough to explore that. Florida seceding? Yeah, that’s self explanatory.
The only other political clues in the film is that the president is on his third term, and his forces regularly kill journalists. We also hear that Dunst’s character got her start photographing the “Antifa massacre” but that had to be 15-20 years in the past given clues to her age and when she started.
I know the whole plot is a cop-out to avoid commenting on the current powder keg of the political arena currently, but they could have at least stung together somewhat of a coherent story. Hell, Red Dawn did it with a text screen in the first scene better.
Now this is supposed to be a movie about hardened war journalists and a rookie covering the war, but they do not come across as good war journalists. Their demeanor and jaded world view fit well, but I could not get over their inconsistent use of PPE. You’d think their main goal driving across a war-torn country would to not get killed, but I guess not.
The movie starts with Dunst meeting Jessie at a protest, giving the girl her press vest. She wasn’t even wearing it when she rolled up, should probably do that. She later tells her to get a flak jacket and a helmet, which she also wasn’t wearing for the protest.
The only time they are fully kitted out (Kevlar vest, helmet) is during the first firefight they cover. Yeah, smart. But they wear full kit to a small firefight, but not the siege of f****** Washington, DC to kill the president?? Their other journalist colleagues that they met at the WF base have helmets, but the stars only have vests. I guess main character armor was enough to protect their brains.
Also you are hardened war journalists traveling across a war torn country, and you are not wearing your vests in the car? Even AFTER being shot at once? Sure, that makes sense.
I don’t fault the older guy because his friends were gonna get killed and didn’t really have time to throw it on, but wouldn’t be a concern if he already had it on…
And damn, none these 3 other journalists have enough medical training to even try to stop their long term colleagues bleeding? Cold.
I know it’s a theme of the movie that Dunst’s character has a bit of a death wish, but walking into the White House during an active siege ahead of the military? And your colleagues followed? Yeah, real hardened journalist behavior who survived other war zones.
Her death was also a bit ridiculous. Just pushing Jessie down from the line of fire and standing there herself. Like, she could have tackled her, which a smart, war-experienced person would do, but gotta symbolically pass the torch for narrative blah blah.
The death of the president was also hilarious. A man who is smart enough to send his motorcade out as distraction, who sends a negotiator to invading forces, is hiding out in the Oval Office? You’d think a spineless leader with intense self preservation instincts would, ya know, hide out in the presidential bunker under the White House, but guess they didn’t have the budget for that and gotta have the iconic shot of the office.
Overall the movie just asked us to ignore too many blaringly stupid things to push a narrative of “War bad, it could happen here!” And that’s it. The footage of the Lincoln memorial blowing up was more important than a coherent story to the message of the film. Somehow Red Dawn did it better, and that’s not a high bar to jump over.
No sorry the politics of Civil War really aren't confusing and extremely specific on whats going on and what causes the war. They ain't exactly subtle about it being a trump parallel, and the reasoning for Texas joining is due to the president bombing civilians.
The movie largely doesn't focus on that because it's not the point. It's a character study on Journalist and what motivated them.
A big part of that is Kirsten Dunst analyst of how much risk she takes and how much she puts herself in danger to feel something. The movie goes out of its way to call out her lack of safety and the other characters for that matter, which is strange you criticized the movie for showing it.
And argued they should be worried about dying, the entire point of the movie is they're not and how self destructive it is.
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
I got the disregard for their life was a central part, but it was shown so inconsistently that I didn’t think it was done well
1
Dodo_BaronApr 3, 2026
+1
What's inconsistent about it?
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
The choices of when to wear protective gear and not. Dunst’s shift from a prolonged panic attack under fire to doing the stupidest thing you can do in a war zone (walking into an unsecured building)
Her protection of Jessie is also inconsistent. She is trying to stop her from making the dumb mistakes she did, but does so inconsistently. Getting into a moving car? She was against it, she could have just braked and stopped that real quick. Heat of the moment and all but these are supposed to be people who can perform under intense stress.
1
Dodo_BaronApr 3, 2026
+1
I mean the film shows her switch from panic attack to the other pretty well. It's simple character development.
>Getting into a moving car? She was against it, she could have just braked and stopped that real quick.
The film clearly shows her accepting it after hesitation and realizing she's just like her. That's the entire point of the scene
1
AngusLynch09Apr 3, 2026
+1
Cool story.
1
michaelrxsApr 3, 2026
+1
The funniest thing about people who get soooo mad about the Texas/California coalition is that in 2020, Trump got 5.8 million votes in Texas. And in California he got…6 million votes. Lot of Republicans in California.
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
Yeah, Texas has more democrats than a lot of Blue states, California has a lot more republicans than a lot of Red states. How that coalition could occur would make an actual interesting story
1
LineZestyclose1573Apr 3, 2026
+1
Another person who completely missed anything civil war was trying to say. Shocking
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
I got what it was saying, I just thought it said it stupidly lol.
Hardened journalists with disregard for personal safety go on cross country adventure meeting the kinds of people who live in civil war zones. Ya got the folks who turn on neighbors to take the law into their own hands (gas station), those who ignore it (clothing store) hardliners who just wanna do some genocide of people they hate (“what kind of American are you?”) Guy. I’m just trying to survive “snipers”
I just don’t think that theme overshadowed how poorly it was written
1
LineZestyclose1573Apr 3, 2026
+1
Well firstly most of your word count is on criticising the costuming so maybe you don’t know what writing actually is?
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
I criticize the costuming because they are WAR journalists! Have you watched actual war coverage? You can’t have side characters in the same profession, in the same scene, wearing more protection than the main characters and me not surmise that that came about from the director saying “Ah, can’t see Dunst’s face enough, ditch the helmets”
I’m already supposed to suspend disbelief from the dumb narrative and focus on the journalists, I at least expect them to act like actual war journalists.
1
Bobby_HamanApr 3, 2026
+1
You realize this is fiction right?
If you like any science fiction movie than you are completely contradicting yourself.
But at the end of the day, I'm sure YOU know better than Alex Garland.
EDIT: Realize that OP is a person that politically doesn't align with this film. Check history. I'll just add "NO NEW WARS" really worked out didn't it?
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
Yeah, I like fiction lol. I think criticizing bad fiction is half the fun. Good science fiction works when characters act rationally according to the laws governing that universe, or irrationally to drive the plot in a compelling way. This movie didn’t do that in a compelling way.
Could I write a better movie than him? Who cares! Doesn’t mean I don’t get to criticize choices that the writer made I thought were bad. Got what he was going for, thought he did it poorly.
And LOL idk how you assumed that I am MAGA from my post history. Did you see me post about watches and knives? Or calling Harris a shit candidate? Genuinely curious because that’s the funniest part of your comment.
Like, even if I was ( far from it lol) the fact that you assume I didn’t like the movie for that reason just shows how the writer’s cop out of vague politics didn’t work for mass appeal.
1
Bobby_HamanApr 3, 2026
+1
Whatever you are or whether or not you liked the movie, your essay is you justifying the movie as if it exists in your reality as opposed to an alternate timeline of what could be.
Never said you were MAGA, but someone that says Harris was the worse of two evils is sitting on a side that the writer/director of this film definitely does not side with. Is it a perfect film? No. Maybe this wasn’t made for you.
You criticize so much about this film when we live in a world where the President of the United States sells meme coins and rug pulls his followers only to have them make more excuses as to why he is not doing exactly what he literally says he’s doing. This is one of many examples. If you asked me 5 years ago I would have believed this film would have been real over what’s currently happening with the Trump administration.
1
Lonely-Implement3934Apr 3, 2026
+1
I could’ve bought the vague politics if the journalism side felt airtight. That’s where it lost me too.
If you’re going to deliberately blur the “how did the country get here” part, fine — but then the boots-on-the-ground behavior has to feel real enough to carry the movie. Instead it kept wanting the weight of realism and the convenience of symbolism at the same time, and every time those two clashed, realism lost.
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
Exactly. I can only suspend so much disbelief. The war started because the president eliminated Tuesday from the calendar? Cool, whatever. Trying to shoe horn mediocre symbolism with apparently professional characters who do not act rationally given the situations constantly just exhausts the rest of that disbelief
1
tantivymApr 3, 2026
+1
If you find a California/Texas alignment ridiculous, you are pretty ignorant about the actual political/power structures of the United States. This has been a reliable tell of media literacy and political consciousness since this movie came out, actually.
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
How though? You think they could actually align in a war? If they did they would be the winning force, biggest population and economic centers of the US, but doubt they would without some interesting shifts in current politics
I get why the writer did it, to put two opposing states together for better mass appeal and not alienate either party. I just think it was a cop-out for that reason.
1
monster_syndromeApr 3, 2026
+1
Just to really drop the atomic bomb of the author's intent, Alex Garland said in an interview that he was specifically trying to avoid tying the sides to any specific politics. That's the reason it's California and Texas, in addition to everything else they have going for them, their alliance is meant to break away from the Red/Blue mindset.
Alex Garland wanted to generalize the conflict to be more about the divisive partisanship and fascism.
1
Wrong_Statement_497Apr 3, 2026
+1
it's ok to not focus on what's really going on but there has to be something else to carry the movie. Instead this movie just felt shallow, I had really high hopes for it.
1
okpaimeihereicomeApr 3, 2026
+1
I don’t really care
1
Most_Swimming4144Apr 3, 2026
+1
that's basically the movie in a nutshell though, they didn't care enough to make anything make sense either
just wanted pretty shots of america looking destroyed without putting in work to explain how we got there or why anyone would act like that
1
Dodo_BaronApr 3, 2026
+1
Not really the movie gives just enough of an explanation to work and focus in on what it actually wants to say. It's truly not that confusing
1
clarkrdApr 3, 2026
+1
The Second Civil War (1996) is more believable in this fucked up reality
1
PecancreakyApr 3, 2026
+1
Looks like a better movie with more nuanced takes on journalism lol
26 Comments