Warfare – REVIEW

Charles Melton in Warfare


War movies usually aren’t my thing. I think that a lot of them do end up having the same message of “war is bad,” but there are certainly ones that I respect a lot. The big modern ones like Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, and The Hurt Locker are all great stuff, but I’d never go back to them personally. I’ve seen the recent remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, mainly because it was a big Oscar contender that year, but even then, war movies still aren’t my cup of tea. Alex Garland, however, has been someone I’ve at least admired. Even though Men is probably one of the worst movies of the decade so far, he’s got a really good track record as both a writer and a director. He’s directed Ex Machina, Annihilation, and the FX series Devs, as well as being a writer on Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later, who he’s reuniting with this summer for 28 Years Later. Garland’s last movie, Civil War, ended up stirring a lot of controversy with its depiction of a civil war in the modern U.S. through the eyes of photojournalists. It certainly has some incredible moments, but I really thought the script needed some work. I know that the intention was to keep why America was in a war with itself just out of reach, but the crumbs that were shown just didn’t go anywhere. Now, though, we have Warfare, with Garland on co-directing duties with Ray Mendoza. If you don’t know that second name, you most likely don’t. Warfare is his directorial debut, and is a former Navy Seal that served in Iraq. Mendoza does have a history in Hollywood, though, as he’s credited under multiple movies as a technical advisor or a military advisor. Warfare is the first time he’s ended up behind the camera and even screenwriting, with both him and Garland credited for writing. Much like Civil War, we know very little about what’s happening in Warfare. Based on a real mission that Mendoza was on, we’re plopped into Iraq circa 2006 with a platoon of Navy SEALs for a surveillance mission, and when it goes wrong, we sit through 90 minutes of… I’ll put it bluntly, 90 minutes of pure hell. The whole premise of the movie is based around memory, with a message at the beginning (even before the A24 logo appears on the screen) saying that this movie was put together by testimonies from Mendoza and his platoon that were given about this mission. And when I say “90 minutes of pure hell,” I mean it. Warfare is told in real-time, with 90 minutes passing in real life just as it is in the movie. The tagline for the movie, “everything is based on memory,” has never matched so well with such a haunting movie. This is what Civil War should’ve been: visceral, terrifying, and somehow… second-nature to the audience. While the lack of knowledge almost cripples Civil War, it’s a strength for Warfare, even if that means we know next to nothing about the characters in this movie. It’s like the platoon is its own character instead of each soldier, and the entire ensemble is excellent. I’d love to highlight D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Joseph Quinn, Michael Gandolfini, and Charles Melton as my personal favorites here, especially Poulter. Even Noah Centineo, whose previous work has come off as a continuing loop of “baby’s first movie,” ends up having his moment to shine. It makes for an absolutely incredible action movie and an even better horror movie, but I really only have one setback: the lack of characters. That’s more of a nitpick on my end, I didn’t really mind it, but I can imagine people who want good characters from Warfare not getting anything out of this. Other than that, this is a very disturbing war movie that I may not watch again, yet I can't get out of my head. Great stuff.


Ryan’s Grade: A