I haven’t been this stressed out since Uncut Gems.

Civil War is the latest from director Alex Garland, who has had a prominent track record in filmmaking. The name alone gathers cinephile’s like myself together. That, and A24, which happens to be the most expense A24 movie ever made at $50 million. The film follows a group of war journalists in a dystopian future America who travel to Washington D.C. to interview the president before rebel factions take action. The film also manages to rack up an impressive cast of Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Jesse Plemons, and Nick Offerman.

Going into the film, there was a lot of hype. Alex Garland? Check. The cast? Check. The promotional material? Check. A24? Check. The raving reviews from SXSW declaring it a masterpiece? Check. The film had everything going for it, and what better way than to witness in the best theater possible – IMAX. Between an R-rating, a big budget, and Garland’s lukewarm prior entry showed that A24 was taking a big risk here. Mix that with the politics, it’s clear from the get-go that this wouldn’t be for everyone.

When you take rave reviews into consideration, it can go one or two ways. Everyone is surely entitled to how they feel about the film they consume, but setting expectations beforehand can be a bit dangerous, especially if that’s something that viewers are dependent on. I may have to sit on it to determine if it is the masterpiece that has been declared by many early viewers, but this is why I always go into any movie that I am interested in with open arms. When I go see a film, I am out of control and have to accept that the filmmaker is the one in control, and this was the right way to embrace this film.

Opening up the film to a less than confident president played by Nick Offerman, his words that he stumbles over echo the violent scenes happening across the states. Instead of explaining everything to you as to how this world came to be, the film takes a rather unique approach by jumping right into the story of journalists. This allows the story to start almost immediately, which also explaining how this world came to be as the film goes on. At 1107 minutes, it is faced paced, yet it all works out perfectly. I had to only look at my watch twice, because I was so impressed with how much is tackled. I could see some viewers being turned off by not getting the big picture of this world. To me, it works to keep the film going and subvert expectations.

I mentioned the impressive cast before, but I have to really emphasize here how this cast feels like something you don’t see all that much anymore. Dunst is phenomenal in the lead role. You really get the sense as to how damaged she is. Moura has a standout role here and one that was desperately needed after Narcos to show his capability in a major leading role. Spaeny is terrific and unrecognizable compared to Priscilla. Henderson has a standout role, and Plemons short presence will leave you shaken. I really respect Garland’s ability to work with other talented cast members, while retaining some cast that he has worked with in the past in smaller supporting roles. Even with Garland’s retirement from directing, he sets the tone as to how to branch out and work with new talent.

Mentioning of Garland, I can’t get over how grand his vision is here. People talk a lot about how the director’s job is to bring the talent out of the cast. Recently, and I can’t recall where I saw this, but I saw where the director’s job is to bring their vision to life. That’s how I felt only ten minutes into watching tis film. The characters are fully realized, the sound design is unreal, and the story continuously has twists and turns that you don’t see coming. One particular aspect that I appreciate about his work is how he utilizes music into his films. There’s a particular sequences where Moura is screaming as music is playing. You just see this character’s pain. Moura is fully embodying this character, and that’s what makes Garland unique. He just understands how to let the characters show emotion.

As for the story, this will be hit or miss with viewers. Depending on where you lean with current day politics is how you are going to feel about the movie. As mentioned, I always go into films with an open perspective, so no politics involved here. I just found Garland resemble a realistic depiction of what a future in the United States could look like. The film doesn’t spend too much time on the little details. Instead, the little details are mentioned throughout the film in order to better service the story.

The story, revolving around journalists, was really captivating. It was integral to tell to better service the times today. Coming from a writer myself, I found the passion that the characters had to be very real. The first act hits hard to set the tone of what this world looks like. It doesn’t hold back in terms of story, and especially with sound. The sound design is immaculate throughout. I would not be surprised to see the film get nominated at the Oscars for sound design.

The second act is where the film slows down and services more to the characters. Some may not be into this part of the film as it sets a slower tone. To me, it was necessary to develop these characters, especially for what happens in the third act. You always get the sense that something bad is going to happen to these characters before they reach D.C., but the way it happens completely subverts expectations that left me shook. Without giving anything way, I would recommend just letting go and be engrossed into the film. With the help of the established sound design and action, the film has one final act that leads up to a heart-stopping finish that left me floored, and a bit confused.

At first, I thought my issues may lie with the set-up. It’s very unorthodox and is going to either win or lose viewers almost immediately. I’m sure the film could have had at least another twenty minutes to establish more to this world. To me, it didn’t really bother me, but I try to look at film universally to appeal to a larger crown. What lost me is what happens in one particular scene in the end. No spoilers, of course, but I found what happens in this scene to be a bit much. As much as I love Garland’s filmography, his weak spot always seems to lie with the ending. I get what they were trying to go for with said scene, but it resulted in a rushed conclusion of that story that left me wanting more. I can also see where this is going to divide people. If anything, the end is probably the weak the spot. Who knows, it might grow on me.

Overall, I really enjoyed Civil War for what it is. It’s technical design is at an all-time high, the cast is perfection, and its story is poignant. The fact that its already dividing audience’s goes to show how prominent the film is in starting a dialogue after the movie.

VERDICT: Amazing