Warfare: A Stark Take on the Horrors of Combat

LOS ANGELES, CA – Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza’s new film, Warfare, presents a visceral and unfiltered depiction of a harrowing battle during the Iraq War, specifically focusing on a Navy SEAL team caught in a firefight in Ramadi. Running for 95 minutes, the movie avoids traditional character arcs and emotional moments, challenging the notion that war films must inevitably glamorize combat.

Set against the backdrop of November 19, 2006, the film unfolds in real-time, immersing the audience in the chaos experienced by the soldiers. “One of the functions of this film is to hear from a veteran as accurately as possible,” Garland said during a recent Q&A session. “Taking away cinematic devices like music allows us to get something maybe more reliable.” This stark approach may serve to enhance the film’s authenticity, yet it simultaneously strips away context that many viewers might expect.

Despite a cast featuring talents like Cosmo Jarvis, Will Poulter, and D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, character development is minimal, making it difficult for viewers to connect with the individuals on screen. The focus remains on the immediate chaos of their mission, with relatable moments marked by fear and confusion rather than heroism or valor.

Garland’s intention to create a film free from narrative tropes may resonate with audiences looking for an honest portrayal of combat, but it also raises questions about its artifice. The film is devoid of conventional storytelling elements, choosing instead to present a fragmented view of warfare where soldiers remain largely anonymous, embroiled in an environment that feels simultaneously intimate and alien.

The dialogue consists largely of military jargon and frantic radio commands, heightening the film’s tension while keeping audiences at a distance. For instance, characters express their pain not through personal stories but through agonizing shouts and screams, underscoring the brutality of their injuries. “I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” one character utters as he is confronted by a distraught civilian, embodying the emotional dissonance that permeates the film.

Mendoza, who co-directed the film and served as a Navy SEAL, adds a layer of authenticity, allowing the work to reflect a chaotic moment from his own life. The film presents moments of quiet reflection amid the brutality, offering glimpses into the lives of the local families, but ultimately renders them secondary to the narrative of the soldiers.

The film’s focus on realism surfaces in compelling and jarring ways, as the audience experiences the disorientation of combat through smoke and sound design that oscillates between absence and cacophony. “When things go haywire, it’s not because the SEALs aren’t alert or are haphazard,” Coyle noted. “They’re extremely precise.” Yet in their precision, the film posits an unsettling reality: that the human cost is devalued amid military efficiency.

Upon its release, Warfare invites debate about the ethics of depicting war without engaging critically with its consequences. Garland’s relentless pursuit of an unvarnished portrayal asks viewers to confront the uncomfortable reality of their consumption of war-related media. With the tagline “The only way out is together,” the film underscores flawed camaraderie among soldiers while implicitly inviting critique of America’s military endeavors.

In this essential viewing, the lack of a defined political perspective mirrors Garland’s previous work, forcing audiences to confront what it means to engage with the violence instigated by warfare. The film is rated R for intense war violence and graphic images, with a runtime of 107 minutes.