sallykeller-51142

Critics of every variety now rush to say their point of view wasn't represented in a genre film, especially when it comes to war. But what do we actually expect from film today? Is it still about entertainment, or is it now meant to educate, moralize, or correct history?

In Warfare, Ray Mendoza offers a stripped-back, immersive experience-documentary-style with minimal narrative-intended to plunge us into the horror of jungle-based, guerrilla-style combat. It does this well in sensory terms: the mud, the panic, the screams. But the film doesn't try to represent every element of warfare, nor should it be expected to. Still, the question remains: does that limitation make its storytelling any less valid?

Cultures have always told war stories for very specific reasons: legacy, national identity, and sometimes, to justify sacrifice. The antiwar narrative is a valid one, but we should admit that it rarely offers the kind of balance with which history records battle. For every Saving Private Ryan, there's an Alamo, a Thermopylae, a Gallipoli, a Warsaw Uprising-stories of noble failure and moral endurance. They form the bedrock of patriotism, recruitment, and collective memory. Even the most intimate or critical war films can't fully escape that weight.

'Warfare' seems determined to avoid those tropes. No clear hero, no sweeping score, no high-minded rhetoric. But in avoiding myth, it sometimes lapses into monotony. The 25-minute stretch of screaming; initially jarring and provocative, eventually becomes numbing, almost annoying. Is that the point? Perhaps. But the line between visceral realism and one-dimensional storytelling gets blurred.

Mendoza's film succeeds in capturing a raw moment of combat trauma, but in doing so, it also highlights the limits of the genre itself. Can a war film still be compelling without drawing on the traditional arc of conflict, courage, and consequence? Warfare makes its case, but whether that case holds depends on what you believe a war story should be-and what you think it's for.

A great surprise, suspense, light hearted drama, romance, business, sardonicism and satisfying plot twists.

A justice-filled story of an art history major who knows her stuff and finds her people. That there is enough caption to give this a shot.

Very few named actors makes it risky but even more pleasing when you see the casting stick the landing. The stereotypes can come off over the top but they serve a purpose to tell the story well.

For those that enjoy the fine arts you'll fantasize about the predicament that young Anna finds herself in and when you add a plot B love story then its a big fat win.

So many lower budget films flot, even more romcoms that feel like they have been done to death, so to find something that works is a great feeling.

I lasted 5mins before I had to do the honorable thing, you'll see.

From the outset you have to deal with a premise of Adult middle aged men that want to go back to being teenagers. Except watching someone else other than yourself do it is cringe beyond all expectations.

There's the alpha, the geeky short sidekick, the token black dude and the relatable all-rounder.

There is no nostalgia, no dead bodies, no funny banter, what you get is spitting over a bridge onto oncoming cars by someone that's just sealed a high power merger on the same day.

There's 1 star for seeing some scenic Manhattan area codes and another for the miracle of this going from script to screen.