This one aligns closest with how I think about it: https://www.vox.com/politics/24127680/civil-war-review-alex-garland-polarization-violence

When I left the theater, the comp ringing in my head was Apocalypse Now. Having not read about it in advance, I thought there would be more about the political machinations, and there was zilch on that. It was a WAR IS MADNESS movie.

Via @ctdawe.bsky.social, Jamelle Bouie in the NY Times: What Are the Stakes of ‘Civil War,’ Really?.

It's definitely an alternate reality when Texas and California align on the same side and go to war.

If you're looking for a nice discussion, I love the one they had on The Big Picture podcast. The show is always a really nice mixture of thoughtful and friendly discussion.

Walter Chaw over at Film Freak Central had my favorite review I think:

Civil War is a celebration of journalists as they do the unromantic work of chronicling history as it repeats itself. It is a consideration of the role of mentorship in our brief, painful lives, a celebration of the righteous value of truth for its own sake as breadcrumbs left by lost children in a dark wood to mark that we knew. It made no difference for us, but it might for those who would follow.

Haven't seen it yet, but of all the reviews and takes I've seen, Kermode's was the only one that made me thing, ah, this might be more interesting than I'd thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvgrix7yv_w YYMV of course.

I always like reading Letterboxd reviews because typically the people there are smarter about movies than me. There are lots of meme and joke posts, but also lots of people who do a better job putting my feelings into words than I can.

Plus, it's great to see so many people with such disparate takes back-to-back. I feel like I get a much more complete sense of how people are interpreting a film when I can read two completely different reviews one after the other like this.

The polygon review on the movie seems to paint it squarely as a story about war journalism and the civil war being in the US as a framing device to make the characters/viewers care about the war. From the article:

This isn’t a story about the causes or strategies of post-united America: It’s a personal story about the hows and whys of war journalism — and how the field changes for someone covering a war in their homeland, instead of on foreign turf.

As unnecessarily provocative as that is, I think it's a good idea. Not just because it definitely drove interest in the movie, but because it seems to be actually making people engage with the "why" of a war movie, as opposed to just the "what". If they set this movie in Afghanistan or Iraq, do we spend this much time trying to figure the sides of the conflict, and what started it? Or do we just watch for the big explosive set pieces and the quiet reflective moments with everything else as backdrop for tragedy?

I appreciated this post on Boing Boing from Roy Christopher: https://boingboing.net/2024/04/14/civil-war-nightmarish-exploration-of-war-photographers-experiences.html

This movie is about two things, primarily: the role of journalists in our society and the horrors of civil war.

I’ve just read many reviews that criticize this for being about nothing/being “hollow” or for the director not taking sides or being more explicit about which side is which and who is right or wrong. They are missing the point. I think it is somewhat understandable given how this movie was marketed.

Kirstyn Dunst’s character, Lee, states the thesis of the movie relatively early on: “Once you start asking yourself those questions, you can't stop. So we don't ask. We record so other people ask. You want to be a journalist? That's the job.” The rest of the movie examines what that means if true, and if that is true.

It raises two warnings, I think:
1. Civil war in the United States would be a horror unlike anything most Americans have ever seen or can even imagine.
2. Journalists and publishers need to more carefully consider what they are doing and why they are doing it.

It is one of the most horrifying movies I’ve seen, and I have seen a lot.

Sam Kriss's very long take just dropped. I like this bit:

Look again at the lingering scenes of its effects, which are clearly supposed to be sobering. Tent cities in New York. A dead town in Appalachia, its abandoned mall surrounded by burned-out vehicles, home to packs of stray dogs. Washington DC fortified, scarred with security fences. You see where I’m going with this. That’s just America! That’s just what it looks like over there! This vision of a country that’s been at war with itself for years on end is visually identical with the present.

https://samkriss.substack.com/p/baby-wants-bloodshed