“CIVIL WAR” has as much depth as “Hunger Games” (A24).

Critics and movie-goers have been kind to the new movie, “Civil  War,” but having seen it, I think there’s room for a minority opinion on the film.

“Civil  War” posits a fractured United States in the “near future” although filmmaker Alex Garland admits the script was written in 2020.

It’s difficult to summarize the movie because there’s so much missing from it. Details about who and what and why are scarce, but closeup shots of dismembered and burned bodies, arterial spray and more of what one writer called “necro-porn” abound.

To enjoy or even admire a motion picture, I need a bit backstory to develop credibility. There’s almost none here. A president decides he wants a third term so he takes it.

California and Texas team up as “Western Forces” and begin marching east toward the capital. Soldiers in Hawaiian shirts become involved in firefights with armor-clad grunts from … the other side? Which other side?

Photographers for no identified news organization dangle their cameras from the straps rushing into danger in a world without telephoto lenses.

Frankly, “Civil War” feels more like “Hunger Games” than future history. If these “journalists” are the last, best hope for a polarized nation, we are in a lot of trouble.

– Jim Tortolano