Rating: 4/5
Synopsis:
Director Alex Garland teams up with war veteran Ray Mendoza to bring us “Warfare”, a hyper realistic look at modern combat. The film follows a platoon of Navy SEALs who are operating in Ramadi, Iraq. As they recognize a threat approaching, they must band together and operate under extremely cruel circumstances. What follows is a harrowing glimpse into the horrors that combat veterans face.
Positives:
When I heard Alex Garland would be teaming up with an actual SEAL veteran to craft a realistic depiction of war, I knew we were in for an experience. The more I watch Garland’s work, the more impressed I am. He has an undeniable craft to his films, managing to immerse the viewer within the setting he creates. His technical expertise and storytelling combined with Ray Mendoza’s memories make for a chilling experience. Garland’s approach to the film mirrors his presentation of “Civil War”, where taking a side in said conflict isn’t the priority. Instead, he and Mendoza focus on the perspective of the characters in this conflict. This allows audiences to feel the intimacy and tension the soldiers are experiencing. “Civil War” did this with war journalists who were in the middle of the chaos attempting to educate the public on the state of the country. There is no ideology or agenda being pushed, rather a visceral look at the events unfolding. I admire Garland’s approach in this matter, allowing audiences to experience these events for themselves.
The story isn’t character driven but it showcases the abilities of the cast. Will Poulter and Joseph Quinn are the biggest names attached, but the rest of the supporting cast do great work here. It’s easy to see Mendoza’s influence on the story, instructing the performers on how his team handled these events. They convey strong facial expressions and body acting as the performances are largely circumstantial rather than fleshing out their personal lives. I appreciate that Mendoza doesn’t center the story around himself, but highlights the unwavering sense of loyalty and connection that his team shares. Each person matters and every life is worth saving. This is a great and realistic approach that makes the story more powerful. The technical aspects are incredibly strong. Garland brings the crisp visual style and sharp sound design from “Civil War”. This enhances the experience for the viewer as the explosion of the grenades and shots of the rifles rumble through their seats. The sound and visual experience are unlike most other war films, where viewers will understand the confusion, chaos, and unpredictability of the situation these men faced.
Negatives:
There’s not much “wrong” with the film, but due to the specific presentation of the events it may not feel like a full movie to some viewers. It’s more like a quick snippet into a greater conflict. For me, this was a unique approach that provides more context to these types of situations. Due to this presentation, the pacing ebbs and flows at times. There are slower periods which quickly transition to high octane battle sequences. It’s a bit jarring but I understand the approach from a realistic perspective. If audiences are looking to connect with the characters, they likely won’t. This isn’t a character driven story, rather a circumstantial look into the horrors of war. Just something to know going in.
Conclusion:
I enjoyed the unique approach of “Warfare”. It puts viewers in the driver’s seat, where the chaos swallows them whole. It manages to create an experience that is more immersive than most due to the great sound design and visual representation. The story moves efficiently but does have a few areas of inconsistent pacing. I’d recommend seeing the film due to the craft and realistic presentation. But be prepared because some of the imagery is intense.
