“WARFARE” 2025
There is a place card positioned right before any images appear on the screen that notes the film is based on the memories of participants of individuals portrayed in the film. There is no documentaries to base events off of, no articles or books, just memories and as we know can be very messy.
It’s striking that the first images you see in a war movie, Alex Garland’s treatise on the War In Iraq, albeit an extremely focused one at that, are from the “Take On Me” video from the 80s, replete with young women, big pressed frizzy hair and wearing thongs instead of Skims, bending and moving their bodies to full effect and capturing the hearts and hormones of the audience. But these were the pre-Skims days and more important than the video are the armed men watching it, armed to the teeth, awkward yet comfortable enough with themselves and each other to be grateful for the entertainment.
It’s an odd way to start a movie of such pedigree and magnitude but we don’t have much time to think about it, as the jubilant mood of these young men quickly shifts back to discipline, as dust appears and the same men find themselves in Ramadi, Iraq in what imagines is a normal neighborhood. These are American soldiers, Navy Seals, the best of the best of the best and the bravest of the brave.
They march in formation, in close proximity and contact with one another. Their bond is obvious and striking. Their mission is unclear and we fear for each of them immediately.
Fear and quiet are used to full effect. Alex Garland, that intellectually challenging and intriguing writer and director of such fare as “Ex Machina,” “Men” and last years spectacular “Civil War” shares directing duties with real life hero and veteran Ray Mendoza. I found myself covering my ears almost as soon as their boots hit the sand.
The suspense is ratcheted up almost effortlessly. We know so little. We know they’re Seals. We know this is a platoon. We don’t know the mission. We don’t know why they are going to a very specific house or what their objectives are.
What we do know immediately is they are foreigners in an inhospitable land. Politics is not my concern and it shouldn’t be yours either when you watch this movie. What is the concern are the soldiers themselves.
The silence, the quiet, a sniper sweating over the stock of his rifle, nervous men communicating by radio with their superiors, exploring the apartment they have breeches and securing a small family. Keeping eyes on the street. Communicating intel. Trying to make sense of emerging information. Waiting. Agonizing waiting. An enemy circling. Getting closer and closer. Sitting ducks but with options. A plan. We hope.
When “Warfare” finally ignites, the film slows down. This feels real. The stake are high. They may or may not get help. What are they supposed to do? They even ask the question themselves and don’t come up with good answers.
When the bloodshed comes and it comes, the action slows down, not in a slow motion sort of way but in a way that illustrates the fog, frustration, the fear and horrors of war. Silence. Endless screams. Gunfire. You watch this with men who clearly take their roles portraying real life heroes extremely seriously and you feel the fear, the agony and their will to fight and survive.
While there is a reasonable debate to be had regarding whether the framework, the structure of this film is adversely affected by not increasing characterization, interactions with each other and keeping the mission so much under wraps, there’s a lot to be said for just letting the memories of these men unfold. While “Warfare” does not have the near epic feel of “Black Hawk Down” or “Saving Private Ryan” it never intended to be.
The result is a taut, harrowing, nerve shredding one hour and thirty five minutes that stays with you, haunts you long after the movie is over.
🧨🧨🧨🧨/🧨🧨🧨🧨
Leave a Reply