Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Civil War Isn’t the Movie You Think It Is

Published

on

Civil War Isn’t the Movie You Think It Is

Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny in Civil War.
Photo: Murray Close /A24

Americans sure do love to see their institutions destroyed onscreen. I remember back when it was sorta-kinda news that audiences applauded and cheered as aliens blew up the White House in Roland Emmerich’s Independence Day (1996). Since then, it’s been standard operating practice for blockbusters, particularly the disaster-y ones, to incinerate or otherwise defile a monument or an iconic government building. (We took a brief recess after 9/11 — “too soon,” etc. — but went right back to it once the cultural all-clear sounded.) Maybe because our institutions were deemed so secure and unchanging for so long, the idea that they might be ravaged by aliens, meteors, zombies, or Dylan McDermott became a naughty fantasy we were eager to see played out onscreen, over and over and over again. A variation on this kind of chaos has become all too real over the past few years, with more than 40 percent of the country in a 2022 poll saying they think a civil war is likely within the next decade. I’m not entirely convinced that the constant barrage of apocalyptic destruction on our screens is unrelated. We’ve been spectators to the fantasy for so long that we’ve come to imagine we’re participants in it.

Here’s another truth about repeatedly indulging in our fantasies: We become desensitized to them. What makes Alex Garland’s Civil War so diabolically clever is the way that it both revels in and abhors our fascination with the idea of America as a battlefield. No real monuments get done blowed up real good in this one. The spectacle this time is coyer but somehow all-consuming. What’s being incinerated in Civil War is the American idea itself.

Advertisement

The film is set in what appears to be the present, but in this version of the present a combination of strongman tactics and secessionist movements have fractured the United States into multiple armed, politically unspecified factions. The president (Nick Offerman), we’re told, has refused to give up power and is now serving his third term; he’s dissolved the FBI, bombed American cities, and made a point of killing journalists on sight, or so we’re told. California and Texas have joined forces and become something called the Western Front. There’s also the so-called Florida Alliance. Smoke rises from the cities; the highways are filled with walls of wrecked cars; suicide bombers dive into crowds lined up for water rations; death squads, snipers, and mass graves dot the countryside.

How we got here, or what these people are fighting over, is mostly meaningless to Kirsten Dunst’s Lee and Wagner Moura’s Joel, two war journalists making the treacherous drive from New York City to Washington, D.C., for an exclusive, probably dangerous interview with the beleaguered president. Tagging along for the ride in their van are Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny, a young, inexperienced photographer who aspires to a career like Lee’s, and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), an aging reporter who wants to go to the front lines in Charlottesville. Lee is vexed by both their presences. Jessie’s too young, and Sammy’s too old. The blood-soaked highways of the divided states of America are no place for either of them.

The journalists covering this war gather in hotel bars, get drunk, and loudly yuk it up with the jacked-up bonhomie we might recognize from movies set in foreign lands like The Killing Fields, Under Fire, and Salvador. They’re mostly numb to the horrors they’re chronicling. After the young Jessie is scarred by an early run-in with a man who threatens to shoot two unarmed, tortured, barely alive captives, Lee tells her that it’s not their job to ask questions or get involved: “We take pictures so others can ask these questions.”

One of the reasons Lee is such a legend in her field is because she has grown a protective shell around herself. She wants to get the picture. That’s it. She’s protective of Jessie but only to the extent that the girl will slow them down or upend their plans. “Would you photograph that moment, if I got shot?” Jessie asks. “What do you think?” Lee responds, as if the answer is obviously yes. But we also understand that Lee bears the psychological scars of what she’s seen. At night, alone in her bath at a hotel, she covers her eyes and revisits the horrors she’s photographed all over the world. “I thought I was sending a message home: Don’t do this,” she says of her earlier work. “But here we are.” Garland can be clunky and obvious with his dialogue, but Dunst can also make just about any line sound true. Her face tells one story, her words tell another; together, they bring this conflicted woman to life.

The film embodies Lee’s traumatized numbness to a degree. Garland knows how to build suspense, and he depicts astonishing violence with the requisite horror, but he also moves his film along in playfully provocative ways. After one ghastly sequence in which guerrillas shoot a weeping soldier, the director cuts to a montage set to De La Soul’s “Say No Go,” a song about a horrific subject that adds a peppy beat to the grisly images onscreen. (I was reminded of the way Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket cut to the Trashmen’s “Surfin’ Bird” right after a similar firefight.)

Advertisement

Even the film’s episodic quality — it’s really just a ghastly travelogue through the war-torn Eastern Seaboard, with our protagonists confronted at each stop with some upsetting new incident — feels like a provocation. Part of shutting yourself off to such horrors involves being able to move past them, and Civil War, like its characters, glides past each monstrous vignette with unbothered brio. This can make the film feel weirdly weightless at times. Its characters are observers and nomads. If anything, they feel less invested in what they’re witnessing as the movie goes on.

Civil War’s lack of a political point of view, as well as its refusal to really identify the positions of its warring parties, has come in for some understandable criticism. But does any sane person really want a version of this film that attempts to spell out these people’s politics or, even worse, takes sides in its fictional conflict? (That sounds like it would be the worst movie ever made.) Garland does include flashes of real news footage from a variety of recent American disturbances, but he’s clearly done more research into media depictions of other countries’ war zones.

This is maybe his best idea, and why the film’s lack of political context feels more pointed than spineless: The conceit here is to depict Americans acting the way we’ve seen people act in other international conflicts, be it Vietnam or Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia or Iraq or Gaza or … well, the list goes on. In that sense, Civil War winds up becoming a movie about itself. Beyond the plausibility of war in the United States or the tragedy of such an eventuality, it’s about the way we refuse to let images from wars like this get to us. It’s more a call for reflection, an attempt to put us in the shoes of others, than a warning — not an It Can Happen Here movie, but a Here’s What It’s Like movie. It doesn’t want to make us feel so much as it wants us to ask why we don’t feel anything.

See All

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘The Drama’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘The Drama’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – Many potential brides and grooms-to-be have experienced cold feet in the lead-up to their nuptials. But few can have had their trotters quite so thoroughly chilled as the previously devoted fiance at the center of writer-director Kristoffer Borgli’s provocative psychological study “The Drama” (A24).

Played by Robert Pattinson, British-born, Boston-based museum curator Charlie Thompson begins the film delighted at the prospect of tying the knot with his live-in girlfriend Emma Harwood (Zendaya). But then comes a visit to their caterers where, after much wine has been sampled, the couple wanders down a dangerous conversational path with disastrous results.

Together with their husband-and-wife matron of honor, Rachel (Alana Haim), and best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie), Charlie and Emma take turns recounting the worst thing they’ve ever done. For Emma, this involves a potential act of profound evil that she planned in her mind but was ultimately dissuaded from carrying out, instead undergoing a kind of conversion.

Emma’s revelation disturbs all three of her companions but leaves Charlie reeling. With only days to go before the wedding, he finds himself forced to reassess his entire relationship with Emma.

As Charlie wavers between loyalty to the person he thought he knew and fear of hitching himself to someone he may never really have understood at all, he’s cast into emotional turmoil. For their part, Rachel and Mike also wrestle with how to react to the situation.

Advertisement

Among other ramifications, Borgli’s screenplay examines the effect of the bombshell on Emma and Charlie’s sexual interaction. So only grown viewers with a high tolerance for such material should accompany the duo through this dark passage in their lives. They’ll likely find the experience insightful but unsettling.

The film contains strong sexual content, including aberrant acts and glimpses of graphic premarital activity, cohabitation, a sequence involving gory physical violence, a narcotics theme, about a half-dozen uses of profanity, a couple of milder oaths, pervasive rough language, numerous crude expressions and obscene gestures. The OSV News classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Read More Movie & Television Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Thimmarajupalli TV Movie Review: A grounded rural drama that works better in the second half

Published

on

Thimmarajupalli TV Movie Review: A grounded rural drama that works better in the second half

The Times of India

TNN, Apr 18, 2026, 3:39 PM IST

3.0

Story-The film is set in a quiet, close-knit village, Thimmarajupalli, where life follows a predictable rhythm, shaped by routine, relationships and unspoken hierarchies. The arrival of a television set marks a subtle but significant shift, slowly influencing how people see the world beyond their immediate surroundings. What begins as curiosity and shared entertainment starts to affect personal dynamics, aspirations and even conflicts within the community.Amid these changes, the film follows a group of villagers whose lives intersect through everyday interactions, simmering tensions and evolving relationships. As the narrative progresses, seemingly ordinary incidents begin to connect, revealing a layer of mystery beneath the surface.Review-There’s a certain patience required to settle into Thimmarajupalli TV. It doesn’t rush to impress, nor does it lean on dramatic highs early on. Instead, director Muniraju takes his time — perhaps a little too much, to establish the world, its people and their rhythms. The first half feels like a long, observational walk through the village, capturing its textures, silences and small interactions. This slow-burn approach may test your patience initially. Scenes linger, conversations unfold without urgency, and the narrative seems content simply existing rather than progressing. But there’s a method to this stillness. By the time the film begins to reveal its underlying tensions, you’re already familiar with the space — its people, their quirks and their unspoken conflicts.It is in the second half that the film finds its footing. The mystery element, hinted at earlier, begins to take shape, pulling the narrative into a more engaging space. The shift isn’t dramatic but noticeable, the storytelling gains purpose, and the emotional stakes become clearer. What once felt meandering now starts to feel deliberate. The film benefits immensely from its rooted setting. The rural backdrop isn’t stylised for effect; it feels lived-in and authentic. The cast blends seamlessly into this world, delivering natural performances that add to the film’s grounded tone. There’s an ease in how the characters interact, making even simple moments feel genuine.The background score works effectively in enhancing mood, particularly in the latter portions where the mystery deepens. It doesn’t overpower but gently nudges the narrative forward, adding weight to key moments. Visually too, the film stays true to its setting, capturing the quiet beauty and isolation of rural life. That said, the pacing remains inconsistent. Even in the more engaging second half, certain stretches feel slightly indulgent, as though the film is reluctant to let go of its observational style. A tighter edit could have made the experience more cohesive without losing its essence.Thimmarajupalli TV is not a film that reveals itself instantly. It asks for time and patience, but rewards it with sincerity and a quietly engaging narrative. It may stumble along the way, but its rooted storytelling and stronger latter half ensure that it leaves a lasting impression.—Sanjana Pulugurtha

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Roommates’ Review: Sadie Sandler Navigates the Highs and Lows of Freshman Year in Chandler Levack’s Formulaic Netflix Comedy

Published

on

‘Roommates’ Review: Sadie Sandler Navigates the Highs and Lows of Freshman Year in Chandler Levack’s Formulaic Netflix Comedy

The new Netflix comedy “Roommates” wastes no time before immersing audiences in campus co-habitation drama. We see a girl running through the quad before helplessly looking up to see her angry roommate throwing her underwear and used sanitary products out the window. A screaming match ensues, and we’re immediately left to wonder how they got here and how the feud will be resolved.

Except they’re not the eponymous roommates we’re supposed to care about. Chandler Levack‘s new film is structured like a Russian nesting doll of roommate stories, as the two girls are confronted by a guidance counselor who decides to tell them another story of freshman year roommates who didn’t get along at first. Aside from the occasional “How I Met Your Mother”-style reaction cutaway, that’s the last we see of those initial foes.

Patton Oswalt, Jason Momoa, Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya and Denis Villeneuve at Warner Bros. Pictures “The Big Picture” Presentation during CinemaCon 2026, the official convention Cinema United, at The Dolby Colosseum Caesars Palace on April 14, 2026 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The real story is about Devon (Sadie Sandler), a soon-to-be freshman who is going through the universal experience of hoping that everything clicks for her in college after failing to find the right friends in middle school and high school. She’s cautiously optimistic when Celeste (Chloe East) agrees to be her roommate after a chance meeting at orientation, hoping the party-loving free spirit will help her come out of her shell and separate her from the nerdy image she maintained in high school.

But Devon quickly has to learn the lesson that hits so many of us sitcom and rom-com enthusiasts hard in early adulthood: the notion that opposites attract is utter nonsense, and trying to merge your day-to-day life with someone dramatically different is far more trouble than it’s worth. The two girls instantly clash, and Celeste remains a consistent thorn in Devon’s side as she tries to navigate all the familiar story beats of freshman year (parties, boys, missed homework assignments, Thanksgiving, et al).

Levack, a promising indie filmmaker with credits like “I Like Movies” and “Mile End Kicks” to her name, does serviceable work on what is clearly a director-for-hire job. There’s only so much visual wiggle room when you’re working with the all-too-familiar Netflix comedy aesthetic, but she gets distinct and compelling performances out of her two leads, executing the “Odd Couple” schtick without devolving into caricature. Jimmie Fowlie and Ceara O’Sullivan’s script relies on formulaic coming-of-age beats before drifting unexpectedly into absurdism in the third act. The film would have been stronger and more consistent by embracing that weirder tone from the beginning, but we’ll take what we can get.

While “Roommates” boasts plenty of familiar faces in supporting roles of varying consequence — Nick Kroll runs through all of the cliched “liberal dad” tropes, while Natasha Lyonne shows up as Devon’s endlessly supportive mom in a role that makes little use of her myriad talents — it’s primarily a star vehicle for its two leads. The film was produced through Adam Sandler’s Happy Madison production label, and it’s fair to assume that it exists to showcase Sadie’s talents as a performer. (Fittingly, parts of the film deal with the idea that being a nepo baby isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.) The young actress demonstrates a wide range of comedic and light drama chops, suggesting that she might be just as successful at playing approachable everywoman types as her father is.

Advertisement

While the comedy is hit-or-miss, “Roommates” does its best work when it shows how daunting teenage friendships can feel. Anyone who has ever defined themselves by an arbitrary social order designed by the cruelest and stupidest people on the planet (which is to say, anyone who has been a college freshman), should be able to relate to some of Devon’s struggles, and the film treats her problems with an admirable amount of empathy.

The film won’t be remembered as a campus classic, or even in the upper half of college movies, but it’s also not hard to see a world where somebody watches it at exactly the right time in their lives and proceeds to cherish it forever. “Roommates” has a real chance at being a formative experience for someone, which is more than a lot of movies can say. But those of us who have already been sufficiently formed? We can find better things to stream this weekend.

Grade: C+

“Roommates” is now streaming on Netflix.

Want to stay up to date on IndieWire’s film reviews and critical thoughts? Subscribe here to our newly launched newsletter, In Review by David Ehrlich, in which our Chief Film Critic and Head Reviews Editor rounds up the best new reviews and streaming picks along with some exclusive musings — all only available to subscribers. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending