'Civil War' Isn't Worth The Discourse

You know how sometimes when there’s been such a wide spectrum of passionate, well-argued reactions to a film that you begin to think that it might actually be superb since it’s already ignited such a fascinating and polarizing debate? Well, “Civil War” proves that theory wrong.

The chatter around director Alex Garland’s film began last December when its trailerdebuted. It includes a few recognizable hot buttons: the White House in peril, an undesired president, journalists under threat, a white supremacist wielding an assault rifle, overzealous armed forces, a blissfully ignorant white woman actively trying “to stay out” of it all.

“God bless America,” the president (Nick Offerman) says in the two-and-half-minute teaser. Another historically loaded statement that reeks of weaponized patriotism and Christianity.

It was the exact combination of images to provoke an already intensified audience — particularly on social media, where whole arguments are sometimes erected based merely on a seven-word post. The understanding was that “Civil War” was about to be released during a “very important election year” (reciting a common sentiment there, but when isn’t it important?).

A disgraced Donald Trumpis still in the running for U.S. presidency. Multiple wars are happeningacross the world, including in countries where journalists are killedin their pursuit of the truth. Misinformationand ongoing attacks on journalism are also routine right here in America, where white supremacists are empoweredand culture warson- and offline persist.

“Civil War,” from a director whose fans believe thoughtfully confronts issues like misogyny and artificial intelligence in films including “Men” and “Ex Machina” (both of which are deeply flawed,