Warfare

As the invaded family ask of the US military. Why? Why did you do this? What was all this about? And it's a good question and not a criticism of the film in anyway. Maybe that was part of the point of it all. Although the congratulatory credits footage confuses that angle as we get to meet the real perpetrators of the events of the film.

I was on board with the who futility of war, the meaningless nature of the soldiers taking over a random house, smashing down walls and taking captive the innocent families that live there and then having to defend themselves from attacks caused by the act of taking over a random house, hey how about just don't take the house, right?

That seemed like a poignant message and if left at that then we've got ourselves a film with a solid message, but then we get the actual soldiers taking photos on the set with the actors and smiling, and the message about thanks for always answering the call" and well maybe we're all just imagining there's a lesson learned here at all. You can't have a sobering film on the brutal insensitivity of the US Military and the pointless damage it inflicts on the innocent around the world and then go all hugs for the military bros as the credits roll, can you? It was a confusing message.

It was a well made movie, fantastic sound design. I just don't know what I'm supposed to take away from it, and maybe that's part of the point, the world is full of contradictions.

But I really did feel embarrassed and ashamed for the cruelty inflicted on the families we hardly saw in this film.

It starts light. Almost like a joke.

Young soldiers, full of swagger, testosterone, and nervous energy, dropped into a foreign neighborhood with gear, guns, and no real plan. You think you know where it's going.

Then it tightens. Hard.

Alex Garland's Warfare isn't a typical war film. It's a mirror. A slow-burn portrait of occupation - show up, seize control, provoke chaos, and leave. It doesn't lecture. It just sits with you. Uncomfortably.

They're foreign soldiers holding civilians in their own home at gunpoint, surrounded by a community trying to push them out. Whether the locals are rescuers or rebels depends on your perspective - and Garland refuses to give you one.

There's no soaring score. No rousing speeches. Just dust, dread, a spectacle of force and the weight of presence. It's not about winning.

It's a loud reflection of the post-9/11 playbook: arrive with guns, destabilize everything, leave behind blood and rubble. Sound familiar?

Warfare isn't a war film. It's war.

Garland and Mendoza strip the genre of everything recognizable: no character arcs, no flashbacks, no patriotic overtures or emotional beats. There are no names to remember. No home to long for. No cinematic scaffolding to hold onto. What's left is the brutal machinery of combat - dry, immediate, procedural.

This is not the psychological descent of Apocalypse Now, nor the trembling humanism of Saving Private Ryan. It's more like being waterboarded with dust, sound, and confusion.

The camera is unflinching - tight, reactive, often handheld but never "shaky-cam" chaos. It moves with the soldiers, but never sentimentalizes them. There's no slow-mo. No meditative framing. Just bodies moving through smoke, clearing rooms, capturing buildings. The lens doesn't find beauty in destruction - it avoids it entirely. The few wide shots we get are just to show how small they are. How futile it all looks from a distance. The sound design is relentless: radios crackling over one another, gunfire echoing through narrow alleyways. There is almost no score, and when music does appear (Low's Dancing and Blood) it's droning, ghostly, anti-heroic. It haunts rather than elevates. The production design is chillingly effective. Everything feels lived-in and long-dead at the same time. You can smell the ash, feel the heat radiating off the concrete. The environments aren't stylized, they're decayed, abandoned, half-real. It feels like the war has already happened, and this is just the residue.

One of the final moments, set to the droning nightmare of Low's Dancing and Blood, shows a blurry portrait of an Iraqi family seconds before their home is destroyed. Not for shock. Not for plot. But because that is war-it happens, and then it's gone, and the image remains, smeared and indistinct.

Civil War framed the ethics of capturing violence. Warfare removes the frame entirely. There is no image here to interpret - just presence. Just event.

It's also one of the most immersive war films I've ever seen, precisely because it refuses to explain itself. The film doesn't care if you're lost. It wants you to be. Questions pile up. None are answered. Context is treated like luxury, one the characters (and audience) don't get.

By the final sequence, you feel exhausted - not thrilled, not moved - just emptied out. And then the film has the audacity to end on one word:

"Why?"

But it doesn't ask it to provoke. It asks it like a ghost would. Like a memory does. It's not a question. It's an echo.

Warfare is not a film you watch. It's something you survive.

9/10.

P. S Having experienced Warfare in Dolby Atmos, I must emphasize how sonically overwhelming the film's opening sequence is - a moment of almost euphoric surrealism, as the soldiers lose themselves in the pulsating rhythm of Call on Me, the bass resonating so powerfully it felt like the theater roof was coming down. It's a scene of unexpected levity and collective joy, rendered with hypnotic energy and tonal audacity. Precisely this striking contrast - between the almost absurd vitality of the prologue and the film's emotionally pulverizing, desolate conclusion - marks one of the boldest and most jarring juxtapositions in recent cinema.

There have been anti-bellicose films since the early days of cinema. You can trace a throughline from All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), to Paths of Glory (1957), and Platoon (1986). As the U. S. has extracted itself from decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, more reflective films have started to emerge on those conflicts. While we've seen some modern anti-bellicose films like The Hurt Locker (2008), the genre has more often leaned toward propagandistic works such as Lone Survivor (2013), 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016), or 12 Strong (2018). With time and distance, however, a more nuanced perspective is developing-one less interested in glorification or recruitment. We now see stories exploring overlooked aspects, such as the treatment of translators in Guy Ritchie's The Covenant (2023), and more recently, the visceral helplessness felt by soldiers in Warfare (2025).

Warfare attempts to recreate, as faithfully as possible, a harrowing day in 2006 during the Battle of Ramadi, when a platoon of Navy SEALs was pinned down in a building. The platoon includes commander Erik (Will Poulter), head of comms Ray (D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai), sniper Elliot (Cosmo Jarvis), and soldiers Sam (Joseph Quinn) and Macdonald (Michael Gandolfini), among others.

Directed by Alex Garland, following his similarly themed Civil War (2024), and co-directed by Ray Mendoza-one of the real soldiers portrayed in the film (played by Woon-A-Tai)-Warfare adopts a stripped-down, technical approach. There is no soundtrack to steer viewers' emotions, no hand-holding through military jargon, and minimal expository dialogue about the characters or their mission. We're dropped into a scenario where the soldiers are tasked with securing a compound as an observation post, and from there, the situation escalates-their primary objective quickly becoming sheer survival.

With Garland's sharp directorial style and Mendoza's commitment to authenticity, Warfare avoids portraying the U. S. military as a glorified, video-game-like experience. The first act centers on the monotony of war-our characters mostly wait, bored but hyper-aware. When combat finally breaks out, Garland keeps the camera locked inside the house, emphasizing a suffocating sense of claustrophobia. Brief drone thermal images occasionally orient the viewer, but for the most part, the firefight is disorienting and tense. The soldiers fire out blindly, unsure if their shots land, spending most of their time hunkered down. A significant portion of the film focuses on the gruesome injuries sustained and the frantic, desperate efforts of fellow platoon members. Ideology fades quickly, replaced by a primal will to survive.

However, Warfare does fall into a familiar trap of many American war films: it centers the suffering of U. S. soldiers while sidelining the pain of local civilians and collaborators. In the film, the platoon occupies the home of two Iraqi families, who are forcibly confined to a single room and largely ignored. Only in a final lingering shot do we see an acknowledgment of their experience, but by then, they feel like shallow afterthoughts rather than co-victims. Similarly, the local translators embedded with the platoon are given short shrift. Though the film briefly shows them being dismissed, berated, and even used as human shields during an evacuation, this disturbing thread is dropped and never revisited. It's a missed opportunity, especially when contrasted with Guy Ritchie's The Covenant, which centers its narrative around the complex relationships between soldiers and translators. The idea that Warfare is "only about the American soldiers" doesn't excuse this neglect-just a few more scenes could have offered a more balanced and humane perspective.

The cast features an ensemble of rising stars-almost like a who's-who list of "Top 10 Actors to Watch." Poulter, Quinn, and Jarvis shine with charisma despite limited character development. Charles Melton also impresses in a small but commanding role. Some of the other actors, however, feel a bit green: Woon-A-Tai seems out of his depth at times, and Gandolfini's range still feels confined to familiar "wise guy" territory. That said, the film's focus on physical endurance and survivalism means deep character work isn't central, and more instinctual, visceral performances prove effective.

Warfare is a compelling anti-bellicose film, grounded in technical precision and immersive tension. Its dedication to realism and its refusal to glamorize war are commendable. While the marginalization of civilians and translators remains a significant flaw, the film succeeds in offering a grim, unflinching look at modern combat-a soldier-centric, rightfully distressing experience.

True "edge of your seat." Think of the tension of the first 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan," but over an hour and a half. No spoilers, but I love the fact that the movie immediately drops you into the situation. We don't need to know why the soldiers are there, or what their objective/mission is, because that's irrelevant when the bullets start to fly. These are just soldiers going on a mission. Finally, as a patriotic American, I feel that before Congress & the President deploy any of our U. S. Service people into harms way, they and the CEOs of Raytheon, Blackrock, Vanguard, and Halliburton should be forced to watch this movie, as well as the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, before anyone is deployed. Also, the law should be passed that all of their children should be the first deployed, call it the "No Fortunate Son" law. I think we would have less wars if that happened.