Warfare review: a thrilling yet somewhat superficial war film

      **Warfare Review: An Action-Packed Yet Somewhat Empty War Film**

      "Warfare is packed with action...but not much more."

      **Pros:**

      - Original concept

      - Commitment to realism

      **Cons:**

      - Lacks narrative depth

      - Feels directionless

      "Warfare" is the newest offering from A24, inspired by the 2024 film "Civil War." I had the opportunity to attend a press screening featuring co-writers and co-directors Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza. During this event, Garland mentioned that for "Civil War," he enlisted Mendoza, a Navy SEAL veteran, as a war consultant. As they collaborated throughout the months-long production, Garland was captivated by Mendoza’s wartime accounts, which inspired him to craft a film based solely on Mendoza’s recollections of a pivotal mission.

      This concept transformed into "Warfare." The film unfolds in real time, depicting a mission that does not go as planned. In 2006, Mendoza and his team took shelter in a house for a surveillance task in Ramadi, an Iraqi region notorious for its significant Al-Qaeda activity. Eventually, their cover was compromised, causing chaos as the soldiers shifted from surveillance to a fight for survival while awaiting reinforcements for evacuation.

      Due to its real-time format, "Warfare" lacks background details, exposition, character development, or overarching themes. Viewers are thrust directly into Iraq alongside a team of Navy SEALs combating Al-Qaeda. Just as abruptly as it begins, the film wraps up once the conflict concludes.

      The outcome is a film that provides entertainment but ultimately feels rather empty, especially for those unaware of its background and distinctive premise.

      **Strength of Warfare’s Unique Premise**

      A24

      The film has a runtime of about 90 minutes and was filmed in real time, with every moment arising from Mendoza’s memory or those of his team members. Garland aimed for authenticity, conveying that during the press screening, there was a rule that neither he, the actors, nor the studio could alter any details; they were restricted to the soldiers' accounts.

      This dedication enhances the film's impact, as the war genre is already saturated. We've encountered the "War is Hell" narrative in "Saving Private Ryan," the camaraderie of "Band of Brothers," and everything in between. However, this hyper-realistic technique, based entirely on veterans’ memories, provides a fresh and intriguing perspective on the war genre.

      The issue arises for those who lack awareness of the movie's background and its respect for the soldiers' memories. Without that context, "Warfare" may not come across as particularly engaging or different. It resembles an abstract piece of art where understanding the artist’s insight is necessary for appreciation. Lacking a solid plot, "Warfare" feels like it’s missing a crucial element, leaving it appealing primarily to dedicated war film enthusiasts or those seeking mindless action.

      **Action-Packed Warfare**

      A24

      As a war film, "Warfare" features an abundance of combat. It’s ideal for viewers who enjoy action or the tension and strategy tied to military narratives. Garland, well-known for his loud and jarring portrayal of battle in "Civil War," does not shy away from delivering an intense auditory experience during combat scenes.

      The stylistic execution is effective. While you cannot immerse audiences in combat directly, the film strives to evoke the heart-pounding chaos a soldier endures. That aspect is executed flawlessly. However, the absence of a substantial storyline renders "Warfare" feeling incomplete, akin to stepping into a climax lacking prior context.

      **Concerns About Substance**

      A24

      Overall, I appreciate that "Warfare" immerses viewers immediately in a military operation without spending time on exposition. Having seen numerous military films, I’m grateful the movie avoids tired clichés aimed at eliciting character sympathy, such as trite declarations of bravery or predictable backstories like a soldier's desire to return to his pregnant wife. I feel the film is stronger without these elements.

      Yet, considering the film is set against the backdrop of the Iraq War, its choice to focus solely on that singular hour and a half comes off as rather convenient. The Bush administration led America into the Iraq War under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Over time, it was revealed that these claims were unfounded. In a period of fervent desire for retribution, misinformation from the White House fueled a misguided approach to the Iraq conflict.

      It's difficult not to reflect on these realities while watching a film set during the Iraq War, particularly one released two decades afterward, when all the facts have emerged. The film's concentration on soldiers without addressing broader implications feels awkward. Although the concept is intriguing from a narrative standpoint, the avoidance of historical realities leaves a strange impression. The setup feels like a calculated choice by Garland to sidest