Warfare

Warfare tells the real story of a platoon of American Navy SEALs who get trapped in insurgent territory in Iraq during a surveillance mission gone wrong. But I use the term “story” loosely here since the movie basically functions as a 90-minute reenactment that takes place in real time. So, Warfare is not so much a “movie” as it is a forensic, documentary-style recreation of events. 

There is no story, no basic narrative structure, no character development of any kind, no context as to why the soldiers are where they are, no examination of the geopolitical climate during the Iraq war, no look at the consequences that followed this event or the greater conflict in general, no moral or ethical questions being asked here, and no thematic statements being made one way or the other. And this makes the movie is similar to Alex Garland’s last feature, Civil War, in the sense that it doesn’t really take a defined stance about war. 

Sure, the brutal depiction of violence - and the trauma that the soldiers experience - could lead one to believe that this is an anti-war film with a message about how “war is bad,” but the depiction of brave United States soldiers who come together to function as a single unit against an unseen and unnamed enemy - along with the celebratory closing credit sequence - could lead one to believe that this is a glorifying portrait of events. 

But the movie isn’t really trying to say either of those things. It’s actually not trying to say anything at all. Warfare doesn’t have a discernible message of any kind, and that left me confused about the way I was supposed to feel while watching this movie. As a matter of fact, it gave me conflicting feelings about the film as a whole.  

Now, don’t get me wrong, Warfare is an incredibly well-made film. The camera work is great. The performances are outstanding. The sound design, in particular, is fantastic. Everything is in service of creating a grounded, immersive, and realistic experience. But without anything to say about it, Warfare is a visceral experience that is devoid of any meaningful substance.  

I mean, the most interesting part of the movie is probably the final shot of the film, which takes place after the American soldiers have evacuated the area they were in. Civilians and insurgents alike walk out into the street, and there’s a harrowingly empty feeling. As if they, along with the audience, are left to wonder, what was it all for? 

I don’t know and it’s possible that nobody knows. The movie doesn’t provide an answer for us because it definitely isn’t interested in providing us with an answer. The movie just is what it is. 

But, considering how boring and tedious the first half of the film is - which is followed up with a second half that consists of nothing but chaos, and bullets flying everywhere, and constant screaming, and a nonstop barrage of blood and dust - I couldn’t wait for this whole experience to be over. Which is probably the point; I wanted to get out of that hell hole just as much as the solider did. So this was the closest thing that I’ll ever experience to actual warfare. But while I do commend Alex Garland’s ability to depict war in such a realistic manner, that realism didn’t necessarily make for a narratively satisfying movie. 

And I’m someone who definitely falls in the the war-is-hell, what-is-it-good-for?-nothing camp, so I didn’t really need this movie to tell me that war is bad. Meaning that the lack of story, substance, depth, fully fleshed-out characters, made for a really frustrating experience. 

So, despite all of the rave reviews that it’s been receiving, Warfare would, unfortunately, not get a recommendation from me.