Warfare Review: Less Messy Than Civil War, But Also Less Interesting

by

The concept for the movie titled “Warfare” originated from discussions between director Alex Garland and military advisor Ray Mendoza during the set of “Civil War”. Mendoza, who had long harbored a desire to create a film about an intense mission he was involved in as a NAVY Seal during the Iraq War, found Garland willing to collaborate on this project as co-directors. Despite the fact that “Civil War” is a science fiction production and “Warfare” is based solely on the recollections of Mendoza and his comrades, they both emphasize the intense sensory depiction of war rather than delving into broader historical or political contexts.

I enjoyed ‘Civil War’ overall despite some confusing and comical elements in its science fiction setup. The film had profound insights about the essence of journalism that were quite striking. Compared to it, ‘Warfare’ is more polished in terms of production quality, but I found it less engaging. It successfully conveys a realistic portrayal of 90 minutes of contemporary warfare, yet its purpose or impact remains unclear.

The film prioritizes physical pain over character depth

In “Warfare”, an impressive ensemble of rising stars have been gathered by A24, such as D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai (“Reservation Dogs”), Will Poulter (“Death of a Unicorn”), Cosmo Jarvis (“Shōgun”), Joseph Quinn (“Stranger Things”), Kit Connor (“Heartstopper”), Noah Centineo (“To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before”), Michael Gandolfini (“Daredevil: Born Again”), and Charles Melton (“May December”). However, despite their presence, I can hardly recall any of the characters they portray after watching the movie. The only names that stuck with me were Ray (Woon-A-Tai), since he’s one of the co-directors, and Elliot (Jarvis), because he received the film’s closing dedication. The only notable acting aspect I can mention is Joseph Quinn’s skillful screaming. Due to the fast pace of the movie, there’s little opportunity for character development.

As a gamer immersed in the world of “Warfare”, the movie starts with a brief moment of brotherhood, the last soothing melody echoing before the action begins. For about half an hour, it’s eerily silent. We, a team of SEALs, find refuge in an Iraqi home, chatting in tech-speak and readying our sniper rifles, peering through windows, waiting with bated breath for the perfect moment to strike. Suddenly, chaos erupts, and I’m drawn into a symphony of sounds from various directions. Each gunshot echoes, vibrating through my IMAX seat as if each round was fired right next to me. And then, an IED explodes, shattering the silence with a deafening roar. In “Civil War”, I found the sound design overwhelming, but in “Warfare”, it’s spot-on. Instead of developing emotional connections with characters, the audience is thrust into the brutal reality of war, and that reality hurts – literally.

According to previews and negative experiences with other films about the Iraq War, some individuals worried that “Warfare” might be a pro-military advertisement. However, I don’t believe that’s the intention behind this film. Unlike many movies about the U.S. military, it doesn’t seem to have been supported by the Department of Defense. Moreover, it avoids any glamorous portrayal of its mission. Instead, the real-time approach emphasizes the grim reality; it focuses on every detail of caring for wounded soldiers, which is intended to make the horror vivid and overshadow any potential excitement. While it’s uncertain if everyone will walk away with an anti-war sentiment from this film – as François Truffaut once said, “There’s no such thing as an anti-war film,” and American media literacy isn’t always the best – it’s safe to say that recruitment officers won’t be promoting this movie.

Who was this made for?

Although the film “Warfare” effectively portrays war as a horrific experience, one might wonder if many people would be inclined to watch it. Despite its heavy subject matter, it seems to offer very little entertainment, which is not surprising given its grave theme. However, films that are not primarily focused on entertainment should still provide some unique perspective, and I’m uncertain if “Warfare” delivers enough to keep viewers engaged. As a potential deterrent for 18-year-olds considering enlistment, it may have an impact, but those who already understand the concept of war being hell might find little motivation to purchase a ticket.

The film doesn’t develop its characters or provide enough historical context, which hinders its ability to evoke deep emotions like great war movies do. During a Q&A after the screening, Alex Garland defended the absence of context by saying, “If you need context, the context is history.” However, it’s reasonable to ponder whether adding more historical detail would have made the film more impactful. As for propaganda, while “Warfare” doesn’t support war, it mainly focuses on the suffering of American soldiers rather than those in the countries they invaded. A brief minute at the end highlights Iraqi viewpoints, and I wonder if a film with a greater focus on their perspectives would be more enlightening.

The film “Warfare” appears to be tailored towards Elliot, a friend of the director Ray Mendoza. This is because Elliot sustained such a severe concussion during a mission that he lost his memory of the event itself. Therefore, “Warfare” serves as a means for Mendoza to help Elliot recall the mission, which is an incredibly moving purpose behind creating this movie. It’s worth noting that even though I am not part of the intended audience, I can still appreciate the significance of art designed specifically for someone else.

“Warfare” opens in theaters on April 11.

Read More

2025-04-09 02:01