Avaliações de usuários

I despise films that glorify war. The swelling strings, the slow-motion salutes, the valour-for-the-sake-of-it nonsense - it's tired and tone-deaf. That's why 'Warfare', the latest and arguably best A24 film I've seen in a long while, floored me. This isn't some patriotic puff piece. It's raw, visceral, and deeply uncomfortable in all the right ways.

Co-directed by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza (a former Navy SEAL whose real-life experience forms the backbone of the story), 'Warfare' drops you headfirst into the chaos of a mission gone sideways in 2006 Ramadi (Iraq). There's no time for character backstories or emotional flashbacks. You're in the dirt with these men, hearing the crack of gunfire, the ragged breathing, the frantic comms - every heartbeat of the film is felt in your chest. Real war, as this film so powerfully reminds us, isn't medals and glory. It's blood, guts, and a harrowing sense of hopelessness.

The cast - most notably D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Cosmo Jarvis, and Will Poulter - bring a haunting realism to their roles. You don't watch them; you endure alongside them. And that's what elevates 'Warfare' into something more than cinema. It's an experience. A brutal, brilliantly made, and emotionally devastating experience.

Any loss of life in war is a failure - of diplomacy, of leadership, of humanity. This film doesn't flinch from that truth. It holds your gaze and says: look at what we do to each other.

A masterpiece. Uncompromising and unforgettable. If you can, see it in a theatre. The sound design alone is worth the ticket - each echoing explosion and muffled breath immerses you deeper into the dread-soaked trenches of reality. 'Warfare' doesn't just show war. It makes you feel every awful second of it.

Super slow and quiet at the start then an eruption of chaos and gunfire without any kind of build up - typical Alex Garland films. Sound design and extra loud gunfire made it a very immersive experience. Some criticism of the film is that there was no story plot or character arcs but when the film ends, it's apparent that the Iraqis and the American soldiers are left with the trauma when everything suddenly stops and the violence has ended. Maybe gone are the days of entertainment war films and 'Warfare' makes people think about the nitty gritty details and what soldiers and civilians are left to deal with.

A masterclass in tension and sound design. A visceral, gut wrenching, unrelenting war film experience.

This film absolutely deserves an Oscar nod for its sound design, my ears are still ringing, but in the best way possible. It's not for the faint of heart. Rarely has the raw horror of war been depicted with such intensity; I haven't felt this shaken since Saving Private Ryan. The theatrical experience is essential, this soundscape demands a massive screen. The gunfire alone rivals Heat in realism and impact.

Those expecting a conventional narrative should adjust their expectations. This isn't a traditional hero's journey, it's an immersive, boots-on-the-ground depiction of a team navigating a chaotic operation where, even when everything is done right, everything can still go catastrophically wrong.

Watching this, my respect for our military deepened tenfold. The courage it takes to step into such situations is beyond comprehension, and the professionalism of the operators is portrayed with remarkable authenticity. This film didn't just entertain, it inspired me to be a better leader, a better friend.

This is the film I wanted Civil War to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alex Garland felt the same. It offered a deeper understanding of PTSD and the brotherhood forged in combat. The emotional and psychological toll is palpable, yet never overplayed.

This is not just a film, it's an experience. I'm already planning to see it again in theaters. I'm genuinely curious if my heart rate ever dropped below 130 bpm. As a filmmaker who dreams of tackling a military story one day, I found this both intimidating and inspiring.

So. Well. Done.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I want to start off by saying GWOT (global war on terrorism) can be seen in a couple different periods of time and I personally fall into the latter having gone to Afghanistan in 2010. The former however was really a depiction of the Wild West with ROE (rules of engagement) and TTPs (tactics techniques and procedures); folks were learning this new environment that didn't exist. Admittedly I'm a little biased because I spent a number of years supporting operators in this community, but watching this movie really hit me. This movie completely understands what we as service members care about and potentially go through in horrible circumstances. The movie throws a middle finger to narrative and just gives you the story as a handful of men experienced that day with no real bias. As far as accuracy I have to say they really hit the nail on the head! Comms saying 0 and not O(the letter), blood sweeps, and taking a knee one someone if you don't have a tourniquet are so fundamental to us, and it's the little details we appreciate for remembrance. This isn't the modern day saving private ryan but it is the theatrical version of generation kill from HBO. If this was your time and conflict go see it.

Went into this expecting a military movie like those that get rolled out on Netflix periodically, however this is a huge step above. The fact it's a true story too also adds so much to the events shown. The filmmakers go out to put you in the middle of the action. It's a very intense movie that does an amazing job of making you feel the tension in the situation. Performances keep you locked in but the real star of the show is the sound. From the gunfire to explosions you feel every hit. The 'Show of force' they use NEEDS to be heard to be believed. I came out of the movie shaken tbh but really entertained and the time flew by.

Warfare was being touted by Fandango at Home as the next hot war movie, following some outstanding war movies based on true events like American Sniper, 13 Hours Benghazi, The Covenant, The Outpost, and Black Hawk Down. There is literally no plot in the movie at all. Some marines spend time in a house doing surveillance and then predictably they are attacked. While the movie is a true story and I certainly don't want to take anything away from the acts of bravery from the marines, there just isn't enough plot to make this anything but a slightly below average movie about events during the Iraq war.

I don't really know how to critic this movie since I just came out the theater and still feel shocked at how powerful it gets. Not sure if you will have the same feeling at home since the sound is key to the greatness of the movie. I'm glad A24 trusted Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland to do this film. From the opening scene to finish you can tell the focus on describing the facts and reality of ground operations. I've watched a lot of war movies in my life but this one you can really feel with your heart more than with character development or any sense of heroism. Loved every second of it ! * still in shock *

I enjoy war movies, but this one was a definite disappointment. While it clearly aimed for realism - and to some extent achieved it - that alone isn't enough to carry a film. There was little to no storyline, no clear plot, and certainly no sense of resolution.

A few key weaknesses stood out:

First, much of the film was visually difficult to follow. Whether due to the lighting, camera work, or setting, it was often hard to even see what was happening.

Second, rather than progressing anywhere, much of the movie is centered around soldiers reacting to the aftermath of an IED explosion. There's minimal combat, and most of the screen time is devoted to men milling about in shock, anguish, and confusion as they wait for help. Little actually happens.

In some ways, the film reminded me of Kilo Two Bravo, which dealt with similar themes. But unlike Warfare, KTB had a clear storyline, a strong sense of pacing, and an emotionally satisfying resolution. It was outstanding - this, unfortunately, left me frustrated.

For someone like me, who has even the faintest and smallest experience of war, watching war films is the scariest thing I can imagine-especially when the story is set in the Middle East.

Warfare felt so real with its visuals, sounds, and atmosphere that it was as if I was right there in the middle of the battlefield.

On the giant cinema screen, every explosion hit me like a punch in the face, and the loud Dolby sound shook my heartbeat with every gunshot and scream.

From the first third of the film to the very end, I sat on my seat with my knees pulled up-frozen, motionless-like I was truly trapped inside those scenes.

When the film ended, it took me a few minutes to pull myself together. It felt like the war was still going on in my head.

Damn every war-seeker-of any kind, for any reason, under any pretext, with any intention.

I applaud any attempt by Hollywood to break away from the endless cycle of comic book movies and franchise reboots. Alex Garland has done that successfully before-Ex Machina and Civil War were both bold and thought-provoking. But Warfare falls flat. In striving for an ultra-realistic portrayal of modern combat, it forgets to tell an engaging story. Where Civil War had a message that built tension and urgency, Warfare simply meanders. There's no emotional anchor, no narrative drive. If you want to understand warfare, go and watch a good Ken Burns documentary. It will do a better job-and probably contain more suspense.

This is the best film I've seen this year... and it is not even close. I'm not sure where to start as I haven't left the theatre with so many emotions in a long time. The movie flys by. There's no time to think or breathe. I'm stunned by the acting and the raw emotion and the film accomplishes exactly what it set out to do... to transport you to hell on earth. The camera work is superb and you can tell every meticulous detail was thought out and planned... fairly obvious considering the director lived every moment. I can't stress enough how important it is to see this movie and if you have the ability, see it on the largest screen possible. I was transported to a place I hope I never have to experience and have even more respect for the men and women that defend our country. This will sit at the upper echelons of war adaptations... Dunkirk, Hurt Locker, Band of Brothers... too many to mention, but I guarantee Warfare will grace the list, too. Thank you to the all the men depicted in this film and thank you for the directors and actors for portraying this small snippet of their lives. Absolutely incredible.

Firstly the good bits.

The action is good, there's a real sense of tension and it comes across as a realistic account of what happened. It's well acted, well shot and gives you some idea of what it must be like to be in a dire situation.

It's a lot better than most of the films that have been released this year. There's no politics or judgment and stays clear of triumphantism or trying to glamorizing people getting hurt. Ultimately, nobody "wins" which is a good reflection of war.

That said, we never learn anything about the characters. The only insight is them all watching an Eric Pridz video together. It's hard to empathize with any of the characters because you just don't know them.

Despite the tension and gunfire, you never really learn anything about who it is they are fighting. From their garb, you would assume they are Fedayeen - but we never see any of them up close, much learn hear them speak. So it's hard to see them as anything other than shadowy figures firing guns. You also don't know how many there are, there's plenty of gunfire, but it could be 20 or 2000.

You also aren't told anything about the Seal's mission. They're providing security for another force who have a mission, but we never learn why. What the point of it was or whether it was successful.

If you aren't familiar with military parlance, then a lot of the dialogue, especially on the radio might not make a lot of sense.

It's a good film and worth a watch, but to be clear, this is not in the same league as Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, Generation Kill etc etc. If you haven't seen any of them, then I would highly recommend watching them instead.

This is my first and will be my only IMBD movie review. I saw this movie with my husband who served 12 years in the USMC and was part of The Battle of Fallujah. This movie was exactly what I needed to see in order to even begin to understand what my husband has seen and been through. From the clever use of sounds throughout the movie, the screams, the muffled chaos, to the over whelming chaos, every second is pure adrenaline and fight. This movie does a fantastic job of making you feel like you are right there with those men. You have to remember, a lot of our service members are young. Mine was 21 when he served in Fallujah, and this movie really helps transport me from my imagination of the stories he has told me to what was his reality at such a young age. I'm thankful for everyone that worked so hard to bring this movie to life for those who want a better understanding of what our loved ones have seen and been through. I truly believe that everyone should see this movie to gain a better understanding of what some of our service members go through.

Created on the basis of memories of a war veteran, Warfare is a crafty movie that is raw and intense while not being truly aware of what's next after the traumatic experience.

Yes, the direction by Alex Garland is commendable. The movie feels a mix of documentary and bodycam footage, while the cast were comfortable in their respective roles.

While the production and cinematography was very good, the real problem is that there's no context to the story or any empathic connection shown between the characters whatsoever. Warfare delivered the horrors of war but failed to deliver the reason or the backstory of the war and characters, both. This is not a bad movie at all, but there are much better war films that I have watched.

3 stars for "Warfare".

Watching this movie made me truly feel sorry for the Iraqi people.

As always, they're portrayed as faceless, ominous enemies-yet they are actually the resistance fighting back against invaders.

It's the American military that involves local civilians, destroying their peaceful lives and homes.

And yet, as is always the case with Hollywood war films, it laughably tries to paint them (Americans) as the victims.

Showing a token Iraqi family with a bit of sympathy doesn't make this a "anti-war" film.

I heard this movie wasn't propaganda, but in the end, it turned out to be just another typical Hollywood movie.

Set during November 2006 in Ramadi, Iraq, a team of US Navy Seals is tasked with providing cover for Marines from a captured civilian home as the boredom and tedium of surveillance gives way to explosive terror that leads to fight for survival.

Warfare is the latest film from Alex Garland which reteams him with Military Veteran and Advisor Ray Mendoza who worked with Garland on the previous year's Civil War. Garland worked in tandem with Mendoza (with Garland stating he was mainly there in a supporting capacity to Mendoza). Based on the Mendoza's first hand experiences during a 2006 battle in Ramadi, Iraq, the film is told in real time and based entirely on the memories of the soldiers who were there during the event. In terms of filmmaking and craft Warfare certainly is admirable on a technical level, but substantively there's little more here than the old History Channel docuseries Shootout.

If there's anything to be said about Warfare, it's certainly in placing you in a "boots on the ground" experience in terms of what the modern warfare experience is. If you ask former veterans of any war, much of the time they will emphasize the nature of the experience is strings of continuous tedium occasionally broken up by chaotic terror. During the opening 20 minutes there's very little that actually happens as the unit we follow takes a sniper position in a civilian home and looks over a marketplace where very little actually transpires and they can't talk or do anything to kill time because they need to stay alert to stay alive. Once the "action" actually does start, Warfare delivers on the ugly chaos that defines warfare. The transition from quiet tedium to bombastic terror happens on a dime and it certainly is well captured in its brutality and ugliness.

In terms of technical craft Warfare is second to none, but during the films brisk roughly 90 minute runtime I felt myself become more indifferent to what was happening with not much reason to care. As a way of subverting the expectations of other war films, Warfare foregoes many of the scenes used to build character such as the soldiers bonding over "what's back home" or "why they enlisted" and while those elements are common tropes of the genre dating back to the earliest war films of cinema they are necessary in order to make sure the audience has a reason to care. With Warfare it's very much a case of "throwing the audience in the deep-end" because outside of text establishing the Navy SEALs mission of "providing support to the Marines" there's no real sense of purpose here to this story nore are there any characters as there's no real scenes of fleshing out the characters to the point I couldn't really identify anyone by name. It could be argued that the purposelessness is part of the point particularly with the ending and how the Iraqi insurgents are rarely ever seen with no possible road to victory serving as a commentary on the pointlessness of war, but the movie takes such a detatched view of events that it feels like (if you'll pardon the cliché) "sound and fury signifying nothing".

Warfare isn't without technical merit, but that's really all it has going for it. You probably get more from an average episode of the History Channel show Shootout because at least there the talking head interviews from people who were there provide some character and investment, whereas here, it's more violent and polished than what you get on TV but if you're point is "War is hell and pointless" (which I've heard some argue isn't necessarily the point) that doesn't really justify why we're told what's barely a story.

Am Iraqi, and I lived through such days in Iraq at the time, and when started watching the movie I was instantly shocked by the level of details! This gotta be the most accurate warfare movie ever made, I mean foreign watchers don't even have to know such level of details in the accurate accent, the vehicles user at the time, the plate numbers, the curtains, the interior, the stairs, the doors, windows, floor, even the painting on the walls, the dress of the citizens even matching "Al Ramadi", which the events take place in, not Baghdad or any other place, well done... especially on not sugar-coating the way US soldiers treated Interpreters and civilains...

You should see this movie, it's very good because i felt that overall it displayed how our people/friends put their lifes on risk, sometimes ruining them, taking irreparable damage in their bodies without acomplishing much.

This movie will make you feel somekind of despair and adrenaline after all you see everything from the 'heroes' perspective, you want them to succeed

Acting is great and the only thing i didn't understand was the mission itself, the main objective for all the events that took place

Sounds and effects are superb, some of the explotions made me jump out of my seat because i wasn't expecting them

If you liked civil war, you should try Warfare.