Review: Warfare

Image courtesy of A24.

If nothing else, director Alex Garland's "Warfare" is an example of impressive execution. The film, based on the actual experiences of co-director Ray Mendoza, throws you right into the melee of being under fire in an intense standoff between American forces and Iraqi jihadists in 2006. As such, it's a gripping experience that is likely to make you queasy.

But much like Garland's 2024 film "Civil War," another example of an impressively executed scenario, the film is lacking in other areas that might have made it even more compelling. In the case of the previous film, I thought that the director took a disturbing scenario that has clearly been on the minds of many Americans and made an intense thriller out of the material without providing much insight or perspective. 

Likewise, "Warfare" is gripping because of the nature of what it's about and due to the execution of the scenario, but it provides little in the way of context - or even characterization. We hardly know any of the characters' names or much else about them. We certainly don't see the jihadists firing upon them, at least not much more than brief glimpses. We don't know how or why the scenario unfolded, other than that this group of NAVY Seals is cornered in a house and is nearly blown to tatters by people firing on the house.

Now, there's some argument to be made that doing so is a way of refuting Francois Truffaut's assertion that there's no such thing as an anti-war movie. That comment was made to point out that by investing audiences in characters set against war backdrops and the exciting nature of such stories glamorize the experience. "Warfare" does no such thing. We know little about the individuals involved and the scenario that unfolds is merely horrifying - and not exciting in the traditional manner in which a war movie might be presented.

As the film opens, the group of Seals, led by a character portrayed by Will Poulter, bust into an Iraqi home in the middle of the night. They argue that they're there to protect the family inside, although it really comes off as more of a hostage situation if we're being honest. The first 30 minutes of the picture does a solid job of capturing the occasional boredom of participating in a war. The men mostly sit around the house, looking through rifle scopes at the streets outside and listening in as they receive information and direction from their superiors via radio.

At one point, a soldier spots some men entering a house across the street holding weapons. Shortly thereafter, a grenade is thrown through the window into the house and an attack ensues. A tank is called in to rescue the men, but is blown up, critically injuring two of the men (played by Cosmo Jarvis and Joseph Quinn), who spend much of the rest of the film bleeding and screaming as the others try to hold their wounds together.

A second platoon is sent in as a rescue mission and the final quarter of the film involves the two groups of men trying to extricate themselves from the house while firing upon the mostly unseen assailants surrounding it. The film has a "you are here" style of pseudo-documentary filmmaking that is effective and unrelenting.

But what "Warfare" ends up being is mostly an exercise. It's an effective one, but it's nothing more and nothing less than watching a grueling wartime scenario play out in real time. Both "Civil War" and "Warfare" deserve praise for their execution - but unlike some of Garland's previous works, such as the screenplay for Danny Boyle's great "28 Days Later" as well as the solid "Ex Machina" and "Annihilation," there's not much deeper under the surface. It's an example of a well-made portrayal of things that happened without much in the way of context, characterization, or perspective.