Western Forces | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Western Forces’

Yeah, That’ll Do…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Alex Garland, Arizona, Cailee Spaeny, California, Civil War (2024) — movie review, General Comments, Kirsten Dunst, Lee Smith, Movie Reviews, Nevada, New Mexico, New York City, Nick Offerman, Osama bin Laden, Reviews, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Strong Movie Recommendation, Texas, The White House, United States, Wagner Moura, Washington D.C., Western Forces on March 31, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Civil War” (2024) — movie review
Today’s review is for the near-future action / political thriller “Civil War”, starring Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith (a veteran war photojournalist who has seen too much and is running on instinct and exhaustion); Wagner Moura as Joel (a fellow journalist chasing danger with a mix of adrenaline and denial); Cailee Spaeny as Jessie (a young, inexperienced photographer trying to learn what the job really demands); Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (an older reporter whose calm presence masks how fragile the moment has become); and Nick Offerman as the President (a leader clinging to power as the country fractures around him). Directed by Alex Garland, the film follows a small group of journalists traveling across a collapsing United States to reach Washington, D.C. before the government falls.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. This is definitely a movie I would have liked to watch in a theater because of the action scenes and the scale. Of course, I didn’t due to my on-going health conditions. This film was recommended to me by both my older daughter and her husband who did see it in a theater when it first came out. Most recently, it was recommended to me by one of my high-school friends in a follow-up email after our latest group lunch. The film got a lot of attention for its realism, its focus on journalists instead of soldiers, and its refusal to explain how the country got to this point. Released in 2024, “Civil War” was not nominated for any Academy Awards, but it generated a lot of discussion about media, polarization, and how fragile civil society can be. Historically, the film is significant because it’s one of the first major studio movies to depict a modern American civil conflict without leaning on fantasy, zombies, or alternate history. It tries to imagine what a breakdown might actually look like — messy, confusing, and frighteningly ordinary.

Plot: The story follows Lee, Joel, Jessie, and Sammy as they travel from New York toward Washington, D.C. while the country is in open conflict. The Western Forces (an alliance of California and Texas) are closing in on the capital, and the President is making his last stand. The journalists aren’t trying to take sides; they’re trying to document what’s happening before it’s over. Along the way, they pass through towns that look normal until they aren’t, encounter militias with unclear loyalties, and witness violence that feels both random and inevitable. Jessie tries to learn from Lee, who is torn between protecting the younger photographer and teaching her the harsh reality of the job. As they get closer to D.C., the fighting intensifies, and the group is forced into situations where being a journalist doesn’t guarantee safety. The final act takes place during the assault on the White House, where the line between observer and participant collapses almost completely.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong across the board; immersive and unsettling; a few; yes / mostly.

Any good? Yes. “Civil War” works because it stays grounded. It doesn’t try to explain the politics or offer a grand theory about how the country fell apart. Instead, it focuses on what journalists do in dangerous places: observe, document, and try to stay alive. The film builds tension through small moments — a checkpoint that could go bad, a town that seems calm until it isn’t, a conversation that feels like it could turn violent at any second. The pacing is steady, and the sense of dread grows as the group gets closer to Washington. This is not a “fun” movie. It’s a dramatically effective one.

Acting: Dunst gives the film its emotional center. She plays Lee as someone who has been doing this too long: tired, wary, and trying to keep her distance from the world even as she documents it. Moura brings energy and recklessness to Joel, and his chemistry with Dunst feels lived-in. Spaeny is very good as Jessie; she captures the mix of fear, ambition, and naïveté that comes with being new to the job. Henderson adds warmth and gravity as Sammy, and his scenes help balance the film’s intensity. Offerman, in limited screen time, plays the President with a controlled, brittle confidence that fits the story. The supporting cast — soldiers, civilians, and militia members — feels believable, which helps sell the world.

Filming / FX: The film looks and sounds real. Garland uses handheld cameras, natural lighting, and practical effects to make the action feel immediate. The firefights are loud, chaotic, and confusing, and that is probably the point. The production design is subtle: damaged buildings, improvised checkpoints, and landscapes that look familiar but slightly off. The sound design is excellent, especially in the final assault, where gunfire, explosions, and shouted commands blend into a disorienting mix. The film avoids flashy CGI and relies on grounded visuals, which makes everything feel more plausible.

Problems: A few. The film’s refusal to explain how the civil war started will frustrate some viewers. It’s seems a deliberate choice, but it leaves the world feeling vague (and unbelievable) at times. The characters, while well-acted, aren’t deeply developed; they’re defined more by their roles than by their personal histories. The final act is intense and some viewers may find it too much. The film risks being misunderstood. Some may read it as political commentary when it’s really more about the experience of covering conflict. None of these issues break the movie, but they’re worth noting.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes / mostly. “Civil War” is tense, unsettling, and memorable. It’s not a movie I’d watch casually, but it seems like one that will stick with me (particularly if I view it a few more times). The focus on journalists gives the story a different angle than most war films, and the performances make the characters feel real even when the world around them is falling apart. The film raises questions without trying to answer them, which is part of its strength. It’s a tough watch, but a (mostly) worthwhile one.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “Civil War” is a well-made, grounded, and thought-provoking film that imagines a modern American conflict without today’s typical political sensationalism. Its historical significance lies in its willingness to depict a fractured United States, and its focus on journalists gives the film a unique perspective. The acting is strong, the filming is immersive, and the tension is steady throughout. It’s not comforting, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in political thrillers, war journalism, or films that explore how fragile society can be.

Final Thoughts: I had various reactions / observations throughout the viewing: 1) I found it discomforting to see the casual indifference being portrayed in the killing of “fellow” American citizens – particularly the dump truck scene – because they weren’t “American” enough for the folks who had the guns; 2) The flag of the “WF” (Western Forces) had two stars representing Texas and California. Imagining these two states joining in a succession movement against the rest of the United States is so ludicrous as to border on multi-universes and other altered realities. Could their combined forces defeat the rest of the U.S. – probably, but the logistics of two geographically separated states (1100 air miles or 1400 ground miles) militarily supporting each other, would be daunting – to say the least. Now, if Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico had joined the succession, it’s slightly more conceivable, but still unlikely, just based on the political differences between the two main states. And, 3) during the attack on Washington D.C. and the White House, it greatly troubled me that we were being shown American forces killing other American forces (and civilians) as if there were nothing to it. Strangely, in the moment, it didn’t bother me at all that the military executed a sitting albeit dictatorial President without judicial review / input. It’s only in afterthought I remember, I didn’t think it was right for a real person (Osama bin Laden) so I shouldn’t feel comfortable with it happening to a fictional President. I guess that’s just the American citizen in me…

.
Click here (31 March) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.