---
title: "Civil War"
year: 2024
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/civil-war"
fi1m_id: "civil-war"
imdb_id: "tt17279496"
tmdb_id: 929590
wikidata_id: "Q111538862"
fi1m_score: 70
critics_score: 67
critics_reviews: 18
published: "2026-09-10"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:37:41.590345+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Civil War (2024)

Directed by Alex Garland · 1h 49m · MPA R · War, Action, Drama

## Identity

Civil War

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/civil-war
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** civil-war
- **IMDb ID:** tt17279496
- **TMDB ID:** 929590
- **Wikidata ID:** Q111538862
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt17279496/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/929590, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q111538862

**Fi1m score: 70** · Critics 67 from 18 reviews

*In a sentence:* A road trip across a burning country in which nobody in the car asks how the fire started

> Alex Garland’s war film is loud, tense and superbly made, and it has decided not to tell us what the war is about. Kirsten Dunst is the reason to see it; the silence around her is a choice we accepted without quite liking it.

## Synopsis

The United States is at war with itself, and the President (Nick Offerman) is holding out in Washington while the fighting moves towards him. Lee (Kirsten Dunst), a veteran war photographer, is covering the collapse of her own country for once. With her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura), an older reporter, Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), and Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), a young photographer who attaches herself to them in New York, she sets out to drive to the capital and interview the President before the war gets there first. The direct roads are gone, so they go the long way round, through checkpoints, small towns and places where nobody is sure who is in charge. Written and directed by Alex Garland.

## Review

Alex Garland has imagined a second American civil war and declined to say what it is about. Four journalists set out to drive from New York to Washington to interview the President before the fighting reaches him. *Civil War* is tense, loud and superbly made, and whether the silence around its war is a strength or a dodge is the argument we had on the way home. We came down, narrowly, on the side of the film.

Kirsten Dunst plays Lee as a woman who has photographed other people’s wars for so long that she can watch a man burn and think about her exposure. She does almost nothing with her face, and it is the best thing here. Wagner Moura’s Joel gets a visible kick out of gunfire and is honest about it. Stephen McKinley Henderson gives Sammy, the old hand who cannot run any more and comes anyway, a tired decency the film leans on whenever it needs a conscience. Cailee Spaeny’s Jessie is the apprentice, and Spaeny plays her hardening cleanly even when the script draws it in straight lines.

Rob Hardy shoots most of it in flat, bright daylight, so the burnt-out cars and the bodies at the roadside look less like a war film than like the news. The camera stays at the reporters’ shoulders; we see what they see and nothing else. When Lee or Jessie takes a picture the film stops on the still, drained of colour, and the sound drops away for a second. Caty Maxey’s production design is best in the in-between places: a petrol station where the pumps still run and the prices have climbed into the hundreds, a shopping centre with a sniper somewhere among the Christmas decorations. Meghan Kasperlik puts the journalists in press vests that were plainly made for other people’s wars.

Jake Roberts cuts the road as a chain of stops, each with its own rules, and lets the car scenes between them breathe. The gunfire is mixed so loud that we flinched, which is the intention; the cheerful pop songs laid over the carnage are also the intention, and work about half the time. Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury’s score is mostly a low drone under the driving and stays out of the way until the last stretch, when it gets loud too.

The set pieces are spaced out along the road, each louder than the last, and Garland stages them so that we are never sure where the shots are coming from. The combat, when it comes, is the most exciting he has staged; we were thrilled, and then a little ashamed of being thrilled, which we suspect is the point.

The trouble is that the point is not enough. Garland has taken the causes out of his war so that nobody can accuse him of taking a side, and the result is a war with interchangeable sides and a President who is a voice on a television. Nick Offerman is on screen for a few minutes and given nothing to play but a man rehearsing a speech. The journalists talk about neutrality as a professional duty, and the film has borrowed that duty for itself. After 109 minutes we know how a country looks when it comes apart, and we do not know why this one did.

[*Ex Machina*](https://film.one/film/ex-machina) (2014) and *Annihilation* (2018) each had an idea and followed it to the end. This one has an idea, that the people who bring us pictures of war are half in love with it, and follows it honestly while a larger one sits in the back seat unasked. We would see it in a cinema, if the volume can be borne, because the noise is doing half the work. Go with someone who has firm politics and watch them look for theirs on the screen. They will not find them, and Garland would call that a success.

*Fi1m score 70, published 10 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

The reviews split on one question and agree on almost everything else. Most critics praise Garland’s craft: the combat sequences, the sound design and the road-trip structure are described as immersive and often frightening, and Kirsten Dunst’s performance as a veteran war photographer is singled out repeatedly as the film’s anchor. Stephen McKinley Henderson and Cailee Spaeny draw notice too.

The reservations cluster around politics. A large group finds the film’s refusal to explain the war’s causes or take a side either evasive or timid; Time Out calls it gripping but frustrating for that reason, and Film Comment argues it shrinks from race, class and ideology in favour of spectacle. The harshest notices, from Paste and The Ringer, treat the neutrality as cowardice and the vision of collapse as derivative. Defenders at Vulture and /Film read the same neutrality as the point, a film about desensitisation rather than a warning. The spread is wide.

## Straight answers

**Is Civil War worth watching?**

*Civil War* is worth watching for anyone who wants a tense, superbly made road film through a collapsing America, and we scored it 70. Kirsten Dunst is the reason to see it. Alex Garland refuses to say what the war is about, and whether that silence is a strength or a dodge is the argument you will have afterwards.

**How long is Civil War, and what is it rated?**

*Civil War* runs 1h 49m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a war and action film.

**Where can I watch Civil War in the US?**

*Civil War* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $4.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Civil War, and is it suitable for children?**

*Civil War* is a 15 in the UK and not suitable for children. It shows burnt-out cars, bodies at the roadside and a man burning, and the gunfire is mixed so loud that we flinched. Older teenagers who can take sustained combat and a steady, unsentimental camera should manage it; the squeamish will not.

**How does Civil War compare to Children of Men?**

*Civil War* and [*Children of Men*](https://film.one/film/children-of-men) both make a country's collapse look like the news, but Cuarón's film has a plainer cause and one person to deliver, and its long unbroken takes are the more frightening. Garland's is louder and has the better central performance in Kirsten Dunst. We rate the earlier film higher; pick it if you want a story with a reason behind its ruin.

**What should I watch after Civil War?**

After *Civil War*, try [*Children of Men*](https://film.one/film/children-of-men) (2006, Fi1m 85): Britain falls apart in the background while Clive Owen tries to deliver one person safely. Then [*Come and See*](https://film.one/film/come-and-see) (1985, Fi1m 92): The war film Garland’s is gesturing towards; it does not let you look away; and [*Salvador*](https://film.one/film/salvador) (1986, Fi1m 74): Oliver Stone’s reporters in El Salvador, drunk, frightened and firmly on a side.

### Reviews we read (30)

- **RogerEbert.com**, Matt Zoller Seitz (85/100, inferred): The film is a great, furiously convincing thought experiment about journalistic ethics and the mentality of war correspondents in a collapsing United States. It stands out for its original portrait of reporters driven by the dopamine hit of getting the scoop amid chaos. [Read](https://rogerebert.com/reviews/civil-war-movie-review-2024)
- **Little White Lies**, Hannah Strong (3/4/3): The critic finds the film impressively mounted but lacking political bite, calling it bracing yet frustratingly timid. It singles out the strong performances, especially Stephen McKinley Henderson, and the earsplitting action scenes for praise while faulting the apolitical approach. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/civil-war)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Joshua Rothkopf (80/100, inferred): The critic calls the film a terrifying vision of a broken America that provokes a shudder of recognition and unease rather than exhilaration. He singles out the thrillingly dark road trip and moments of explosive tension as making the film valuable. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-04-11/civil-war-review-kirsten-dunst-cailee-spaeny-alex-garland-action)
- **Radio Times**, Patrick Cremona (4/5): This tense action drama focuses on journalists traversing a war-torn USA to interview the President; it is a complex film that serves as a paean to war reporters but also a cautionary tale about the ethics of pursuing a scoop. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-fqy4pk/civil-war/)
- **The New Yorker**, Justin Chang (65/100, inferred): Garland delivers a vividly detailed panorama of destruction with striking end-times aesthetics and a sincere tribute to journalists, but the parable remains at arm’s length due to fuzzy execution and a nonpartisan fog. It singles out the addictive allure of war coverage for praise while complaining of muddled politics. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/22/civil-war-movie-review)
- **Financial Times**, Danny Leigh (60/100, inferred): Garland crafts a slick, technically impressive but glib blockbuster about journalists documenting societal collapse, anchored by a strong performance from Kirsten Dunst that lends it some soul amid the provocation. [Read](https://www.ft.com/content/8b0b5ef5-2330-4704-a0ba-ea991eb01584)
- **Time Out**, Phil de Semlyen (3/5): The review finds the film gripping but frustrating due to its lack of context on the war's causes, praising its visceral portrait of a nation tearing itself apart while noting it is vague on political insights. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/civil-war-2024)
- **Total Film**, Neil Smith (60/100, inferred): Civil War is a grim, gritty and gruelling thriller depicting a vividly authentic future America in brutal conflict. Garland's technical prowess is undeniable, but after two hours of hostilities the world is one viewers are ready to leave. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/civil-war-2024-review/)
- **Film Comment**, Leo Goldsmith (40/100, inferred): The critic argues the film has little to say about a second American civil war and shrinks from political specifics like race, class or ideology, favoring vague spectacle and a narrow focus on journalists. It singles out the reliance on clichéd, shopworn imagery and lack of depth in portraying the press or politics as a cynical bid for broad appeal. [Read](https://www.filmcomment.com/civil-war-alex-garland/)
- **The i Paper** (40/100, inferred): Garland's film is visually striking but refuses to explore political backstory or real dangers facing the US, making it feel borderline irresponsible. It offers little beyond the idea that war is destructive and that journalism can worsen division. [Read](https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/civil-war-review-alex-garland-irresponsible-3000618)
- **Empire**, John Nugent: Garland vividly imagines a near-future US torn apart by civil war, focusing on journalists documenting the chaos rather than the politics or soldiers. The film is praised as gorgeously made, urgent and extraordinary cinema despite its provocative and sometimes exasperating political stance. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/civil-war/)
- **Evening Standard**, Nick Howells: Civil War is Garland's best film by far, a no-holds-barred war epic that comes close to greatness even if it is not really about civil war. It excels through its intense road-trip narrative, memorable vignettes and strong performances, particularly from Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/civil-war-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-b1150354.html)
- **Screen Daily**: The critic describes the film as an overwhelming and traumatic odyssey led by a transcendent performance from Kirsten Dunst, praising its sensorial portrait of the psychological toll on journalists and its jaw-dropping battles. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/civil-war-sxsw-review/5191613.article)
- **Sight and Sound**: The critic praises the film's thrilling examination of violence and how it throws the audience off balance, highlighting its focus on war photographers and the unsettling power of its portrayal of violence. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/civil-war-alex-garlands-spectacle-violence-determined-throw-audience-balance)
- **The Guardian**, Wendy Ide: Garland’s film focuses on war correspondents navigating a near-future US civil war, stripping away political specifics to examine the self-perpetuating nature of conflict. It excels in visceral combat sequences and sound design but falls short of more idea-driven war films. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/apr/14/civil-war-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-wagner-moura-cailee-spaeny-stephen-mckinley-henderson-jesse-plemons-nick-offerman)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Lovia Gyarkye: The film is a subversive and unsettling exercise that stimulates the intellect more than the emotions. Garland excels at visually recasting American iconography to question self-mythologizing but the central journalists feel emotionally distant. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/civil-war-review-kirsten-dunst-alex-garland-1235852455/)
- **The New York Times**, Manohla Dargis (Critic’s Pick): The critic describes the film as a blunt, gut-twisting work of speculative fiction that is mesmerizingly gripping yet harrowing. She singles out Kirsten Dunst’s performance for expressing a nation’s soul-sickness vividly. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/movies/civil-war-review-we-have-met-the-enemy-and-it-is-us-again.html)
- **The Telegraph**: Garland delivers an immersive, thrilling vision of a divided America through the eyes of photojournalists, balancing compassion for characters with high-stakes action and a probing intellect. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2024/03/26/civil-war-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst/)
- **The Times** (★★★★☆): Garland creates an intense, ambitious war film that relishes gory details and delivers an assaulting, uncompromising climax, marking his best work yet despite its provocative premise. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/article/civil-war-review-alex-garland-exceptional-war-movie-8z6dfzlmn)
- **Vulture**, Bilge Ebiri: Garland’s film is diabolically clever in the way it both revels in and abhors our fascination with America as a battlefield, ultimately becoming a movie about desensitization to images of war. It is more a call for reflection on why we don’t feel anything than a conventional warning. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/article/review-civil-war-starring-kirsten-dunst-and-cailee-spaeny.html)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (5/5): The critic calls the film a magnificent and towering piece of cinema that acts as a cold, bitter cautionary tale about plausible American societal breakdown and civil war. It singles out the shrewd focus on war journalists as a character study, captured through a clinical, unblinking lens that feels both eerie and clarifying. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/civil-war-review-unforgettable-if-you-have-guts/)
- **Collider**, Matthew Donato (9/10): Garland delivers his best film yet, a brutal yet beautiful look at combat journalism in a divided America through the eyes of reporters navigating chaos. The film offers visually stunning, chaotic dystopian narrative with outstanding performances. [Read](https://collider.com/civil-war-movie-review/)
- **/Film**, Jacob Hall (8.5/10): The critic praises the film's deliberate neutrality and immersive road-trip structure amid a second American civil war, highlighting its harrowing sense of disorientation and strong lead performance from Kirsten Dunst. It singles out the blend of horror and beauty in the visuals and sound design as particularly effective. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/1540289/civil-war-review-alex-garland-terrifying-war-movie-leave-you-shaken-sxsw-2024/)
- **NME**, Ralph Jones (4/5): The critic hails it as a staggering achievement of spectacle and sound with impeccable acting, believable dialogue, and no boredom, while celebrating journalists. It singles out the haunting Jesse Plemons standoff and beautiful moments like sparks in a burning forest, with minor quibbles about over-glamourising the profession and political neutrality. [Read](https://www.nme.com/reviews/film-reviews/civil-war-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-3616468)
- **Polygon**, Tasha Robinson (80/100, inferred): Garland prioritizes a timeless human story about war journalism and character dynamics over partisan politics, resulting in a gripping, immersive meditation on the profession. It is a thoroughly engaging war drama with tremendous human drama built into intense action sequences. [Read](https://www.polygon.com/24099490/civil-war-review-2024-alex-garland/)
- **Consequence** (70/100, inferred): Garland finds an ideal middle ground focusing on the day-to-day how of societal breakdown rather than the why, through journalists recording events in a nonspecific dystopia. The film is sure to be divisive but proves a disquieting, terrifying watch if one surrenders to its abstractions. [Read](https://consequence.net/2024/04/civil-war-review/)
- **Paste**, Kenneth Lowe (30/100, inferred): The film is a monument to both-sides nonsense, with a premise that is fucking stupid and relies on absurd, false equivalences in its portrayal of journalism and conflict. While technically competent with interesting ideas about photographers, it fails due to its political cowardice and ridiculous details. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/alex-garland/civil-war-alex-garland-objectivity-both-sides-journalism)
- **The Ringer**, Adam Nayman (30/100, inferred): The movie is bereft of major commentary, choosing to drop viewers into a war zone while exposing the director's limitations as a dramatist and provocateur. Its derivative vision of collapse feels hollow and pedantic, more divisive than insightful. [Read](https://www.theringer.com/2024/04/11/movies/civil-war-movie-review-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst)
- **Deadline**, Valerie Complex: The film is a muddled reflection that renders its cautionary tale less impactful than intended, with thin characterization and an overreliance on spectacle over substance leaving the critic disengaged. It singles out the loud volume and action sequences as overshadowing critical dialogue and narrative depth. [Read](https://deadline.com/2024/03/civil-war-review-alex-garlands-journey-through-desolation-loses-its-way-sxsw-1235859621/)
- **The Wrap**, Chase Hutchinson: Kirsten Dunst delivers an outstanding performance as the veteran war photographer at the center of this fraught and fascinating epic, which proves unexpectedly interesting despite not being Garland’s best film. The critic singles out Dunst’s emotional resonance and the film’s exploration of journalistic ethics as its greatest strengths. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/kirsten-dunst-civil-war-review-alex-garland/)

## Details

- **Director:** Alex Garland
- **Director:** Alex Garland
- **Writer:** Alex Garland
- **Cinematography:** Rob Hardy
- **Editor:** Jake Roberts
- **Music:** Geoff Barrow, Ben Salisbury
- **Production design:** Caty Maxey
- **Costume design:** Meghan Kasperlik
- **Producer:** Andrew Macdonald, Allon Reich, Gregory Goodman
- **Cast:** Kirsten Dunst as Lee; Wagner Moura as Joel; Cailee Spaeny as Jessie; Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy; Nelson Lee as Tony; Nick Offerman as President; Jefferson White as Dave; Evan Lai as Bohai
- **Runtime:** 1h 49m
- **Certificate (MPA):** R
- **Release (the US):** 12 April 2024
- **Genres:** War, Action, Drama
- **Budget:** $50 million
- **Box office:** $127 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2G18nIVpNE

## Where to watch in the US

- Amazon Prime Video: rent $4.99, uhd
- Apple TV: rent $4.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $7.99, uhd
- Apple TV: buy $19.99, hd

*Checked 2026-09-10.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, ES, FI, FR, GB, HK, ID, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, SE, SG, TH, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *Children of Men* (2006), Fi1m 85: Britain falls apart in the background while Clive Owen tries to deliver one person safely. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/children-of-men.md)
- *Come and See* (1985), Fi1m 92: The war film Garland’s is gesturing towards; it does not let you look away. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/come-and-see.md)
- *Salvador* (1986), Fi1m 74: Oliver Stone’s reporters in El Salvador, drunk, frightened and firmly on a side. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/salvador.md)
- *The Year of Living Dangerously* (1982): Correspondents in Jakarta as a country turns; the politics are all on screen.
- *Bacurau* (2019): A Brazilian village against tourists who hunt people; it knows exactly whose side it is on.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/civil-war