THE STORY – A surveillance mission goes wrong for a platoon of American Navy SEALs in insurgent territory in Iraq.
THE CAST – D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Charles Melton, Joseph Quinn, Cosmo Jarvis, Kit Connor, Michael Gandolfini, Noah Centineo, Finn Bennett & Taylor John Smith
THE TEAM – Ray Mendoza & Alex Garland (Directors/Writers)
THE RUNNING TIME – 94 Minutes
Around this time a year ago, we had a big-budget war film distributed by A24 from Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Alex Garland in theaters. “Civil War,” despite what many think pieces would say, was an interesting departure for Garland, whose bread and butter as a director has been sci-fi films (and “Men“) operating on a far more cerebral level. Garland, who mentioned in 2024 that he would take a break from directing in the foreseeable future, clearly didn’t mean anytime soon, as his latest venture is teaming up with former Navy SEAL Ray Mendoza to bring his life story of his time deployed in Iraq to the big screen. If you didn’t think Garland would continue to play around in a “Civil War” mode, then I’m sorry to disappoint. “Warfare,” albeit far more simplistic in its ideas conveyed, excels in constructing, or in Mendoza’s case, reconstructing the terrors that derive from war itself.
It’s 2006. An elite unit of Navy SEALS is deep in insurgent territory in Iraq. They’re holed up in a position to aid a Marine Spec-Ops mission by providing daily observations through a man-made sniper’s nest. The SEAL team, which Mendoza was a part of (depicted on screen by Emmy-nominated actor D’Pharoah Woon-A-Tai), soon witnesses their mission escalate from a simple intel reconnaissance to a full-blown evacuation operation. What proceeds is, as the title suggests, warfare. Audiences are subjected to a vast array of tactical shootouts as these soldiers struggle to survive in real-time, with plenty of bullets, blood, and bombs that bombard our senses. Mendoza and Garland’s approach to “Warfare” from a story perspective is somewhat modeled in the vein of Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” in that it takes more of a macro look at this event, rather than a micro one with deep characterization.
Mendoza, with the aid of Garland, is attempting to turn his tumultuous memories into a cinematic experience, and for the most part, they succeed; however, there’s little time allotted to fleshing out this merry band of troops played by a who’s who ensemble of some of the most talented young actors working in Hollywood today. The closest we get to these men developing their bond beyond simple glances or having each other’s backs in the heat of battle is the opening scene, where they are all huddled around the tiniest of TVs, vibing out to the music video for Eric Prydz’s “Call on Me.” It’s a fun moment for a film that’s not short of instilling a relentless amount of anxiety onto those brave enough to sit through what comes after.
It doesn’t help that it gets difficult to put names to faces, not just due to the massive number of characters in the film but also due to them becoming coated in blood and dust for a large majority of “Warfare’s” runtime. Despite this, everyone in the film is delivering solid work, especially Joseph Quinn and Cosmo Jarvis, both putting themselves through the wringer with an endurance test of agony-acting that never lets up. The real star of “Warfare,” however, is the direction that strives to engross audiences through its tangible elements and immerse them in an experience that wants to differentiate itself from other war films. Mendoza’s memories and Garland’s tactility as a filmmaker make for a combination that proves to be quite effective. Garland, who showed his ability to create tense and well-executed battle sequences in “Civil War,” doesn’t show any sign of slowing down and Mendoza brings his real-life expertise through the terminology used or the practices depicted by these soldiers with a certain degree of emotional authenticity imprinted onto those in the film experiencing what’s unfolding in front of them.
In an auditory sense, what’s achieved in “Warfare“ is bar none the gold standard of the year, setting the mark for everything else coming out. The sound work in “Civil War“ was otherworldly, so it only makes it far more impressive that the sound team for “Warfare“ (a majority of whom returned for this project) takes it to another level. Bullets ricocheting off concrete structures, IEDs detonating, and the way static communications from comms radios are interwoven over the yelling of our protagonists are just some of the things blasted through audiences’ ears to fully envelop you into the experience. Its consistently rapid pacing helps make “Warfare,“ a relatively shorter film, feel like an eternity when viewers are witnessing these troops in the middle of the action with never a moment to breathe. Time is slowed, just like how it would be if we were put in these soldiers’ shoes.
Of course, there will be those unpersuaded by what Mendoza and Garland are trying to present here, desperately attempting to pull something from “Warfare“ that simply doesn’t exist. The opinions brought on by Garland’s previous feature inspired some of the more meaningless conversations that never tackled what actually doesn’t work with “Civil War.” “Warfare“ is, on the other hand, exactly what’s directly presented to audiences. Maybe there can be an argument made about a brief commentary on the overtly masculine “oorah“ nature associated with military men, let alone those in the early 2000s. If so, it’s displayed in an incredibly slight manner here. There’s no real sense of overtly displayed hagiography in “Warfare,“ maybe besides the end credits, which display the real-life counterparts of the characters and give them a notable send-off in a title card.
We could go on about the semantics of pro-war propaganda in Hollywood filmmaking, which exists on all levels from independent filmmaking to big-budget studio productions, but what is the point, especially for a film that’s not at all inherently glamorizing? This isn’t anywhere as egregious as something like Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper“ (or as sloppily made). If we wanted to classify “Warfare” as an anti-war film, then that term should be loosely applied. “There is no such thing as an anti-war film,“ according to the great French filmmaker Françios Traffut. He may be right because intention can always be lost in what’s ultimately presented in the film itself. What we are presented with here is Mendoza reliving some of the darkest moments of his life with as much accuracy as possible. There is an honesty in that, whether it’s something to be celebrated or not. Can a film, even recreating real events, be any less entertaining if what’s occurring is morally egregious? This isn’t a decision one can easily make, but it’s the closest Mendoza gets to bringing his trauma to life, not only for himself but for those deployed alongside him. It’s also damn entertaining and impeccably crafted as well.
