Warfare (2025)

​“Warfare” stars D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis, Kit Connor, Finn Bennett, Taylor John Smith, Michael Gandolfini, Adain Bradley, Noah Centineo, Evan Holtzman, Henrique Zaga, Joseph Quinn, and Charles Melton.  Released on April 11, 2025, the film follows a group of Navy SEALs surviving in insurgent territory.

The film was written and directed by Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland.  Garland is known for directing “Ex Machina”, “Annihilation”, “Men”, and “Civil War”, while Mendoza is a former U.S. Navy SEAL.  It is based on Mendoza’s experiences during the Iraq War.  It’s no surprise that war is an absolute hellhole, especially when you’re fighting on one of the most dangerous continents in the world.  Many soldiers have been through hell and back to endure the never-ending violence and bloodshed caused by their enemies, with some surviving to tell the tale.  One of those survivors, Ray Mendoza, lived long enough to reflect on his grueling experience during the Second Battle of Ramadi.  The best part?  He got to work with one of the acclaimed filmmakers, Alex Garland, to bring his perspective to the big screen.  That’s undoubtedly another accomplishment for someone who served as a Navy SEAL, but was it worthy of delivering another riveting cinematic experience in the war genre?  Let’s head into enemy territory and find out.

The story follows a platoon of Navy SEALs, Alpha One, including Ray Mendoza (Woon-A-Tai), Officer in Charge Erik (Poulter), lead sniper Elliot Miller (Jarvis), and leading Petty Officer Sam (Quinn), with the narrative displaying the events in real-time.  The group is sent on a mission to take control of a multi-story house and stake out the insurgent territory during the final stages of the Second Battle of Ramadi.  Unfortunately, their seemingly calm surveillance assignment quickly becomes a war zone when the SEALs are trapped by enemy fire outside the house.  As a result, the group must tend to their injured allies and survive until help arrives.

I enjoy war movies the way I like modern action films: gripping, violent, and consistently entertaining.  Bonus points if they are genuinely emotional in their themes and characters amid the violence.  I may not watch many films involving a specific war, but I admire some that offer more than just a never-ending barrage of gun battles regarding their storytelling and filmmaking qualities.  The last war movie I watched was last year’s “Civil War”, which Garland and Mendoza previously collaborated on, with Mendoza serving as the military supervisor.  In case you haven’t read my review of that movie, I thought “Civil War” was a marvelously haunting portrayal of war journalism that’s also captivating in its war action and storytelling, making it a massive improvement over Garland’s heavily divided “Men”.  My experience with “Civil War” made me genuinely excited for Garland’s latest, and possibly last, directorial effort, which seeks to be more of a realistic reenactment than a story-driven movie.

Many of us asked ourselves what the cinematic experience meant, and we often conjured up different answers.  Some may say that it means seeing a film at the cinema for the first time, enhanced by the crystal clear imagery on the big screen and the immersive surround sound.  In other cases, it could be revisiting a classic movie in the theater, offering a unique perspective we can’t copy from watching at home.  There are also some occasions for the term “cinematic experience” where filmmakers utilize their craft to thrust audiences into a scenario the characters are in.  This creates an authentic and raw depiction that makes them believe they’re right in the middle of the action but with a comfy recliner and a large tub of popcorn by the side.  Regardless of the narrative's existence, these experiences illustrate the art of realism present in our everyday lives.  This can be displayed in a hopeful or unnerving manner, depending on the topic.  Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland’s “Warfare” is that type of cinematic experience that powerfully depicts this occurrence, and on a filmmaking level, it was pretty darn astounding.  

Despite being the only person who saw it in the theater, I was unsurprisingly impressed by the craft and dedication the directors took to authentically reflect the Navy SEALs’ perspective of the profound horrors of war.  At the same time, it’s also a tight and consistently gripping ride that never lets up the tension until its final minute.  However, much like other war films, “Warfare” won’t be for everybody, especially those who’ve gone through this experience as a Navy SEAL.  But, the real reason it won’t be loved by everybody is its narrative or lack thereof.  The central premise of “Warfare” is that it serves as a practical reenactment of Alpha One's dilemma in Ramadi, diverging from the traditional Hollywood narrative that typically establishes the context for that event.  We only see the soldiers performing their duty as told by the platoon members’ testimonies of what went down, ranging from their surveillance to tending to the wounded while taking cover from enemy fire.  There’s no big emotional speech for some characters to give out, no big-budget effects, and especially no explosive finale.  This is an authentic and raw imagining of real-life Navy SEALs doing real Navy SEAL stuff.  Unfortunately, with the lack of story surrounding its scenario, the film didn’t offer much room for any character development, deterring its chance of providing a narrative as emotional as its depiction.

Fortunately, this is one occasion where it didn’t need a traditional Hollywood story to make a highly intense war movie.  Mendoza and Garland’s screenplay compensated for almost all of its minor setbacks by reflecting the physicality and mental state of the soldiers through actions instead of dialogue.  Along with the authenticity of the soldiers’ line of duty, the script carried the film the same way the SEALS carry the wounded: safely and dangerously enthralling.  However, the real MVP of “Warfare” regarding the filmmaking craft was the direction.  Again, Garland provided a keen sense of vision and immersion through his brief exploration of the soldiers’ emotional stress and approach to David J. Thompson’s cinematography.  Through the use of panning shots, close-up angles, and meticulous framing, the cinematography effectively conveyed a haunting atmosphere and captured the gunfight sequences with both subtlety and clarity.  The best part is that it avoids high-budget violence and shaky camera movements seen in other action movies to maintain the excitement of being immersed in the action.  

I will also credit Ray Mendoza for his commitment to accurately portraying the Navy SEALs and the practical nature of their operational roles, including surveillance.  But, the most crucial ingredient that provided an accurate depiction of warfare was the flawless sound design.  Whether it’s for the gunshots occurring outside the house, the temporary loss of hearing from an explosion, or a jet engine roaring past enemy territory, the sound editing conveyed the unsettling feeling of actually being trapped by enemy fire in the dangerous streets of Ramadi.  This movie could be an early contender at next year’s awards season just for the sound design alone if none of the others reach that particular height.  Oh, and probably the cinematography, too, if possible.

In addition to its first-rate filmmaking craft, the film’s cast also made a strong effort to step into the shoes of the Alpha One team.  D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, who was last seen in “Hell of a Summer”, effectively captured the subtle intensity of Ray’s anxiety about being contained under enemy fire.  With this and “Hell of a Summer”, Woon-A-Tai is another up-and-coming actor with a promising career on his hands, though I think his performance in “Warfare” was better than his role in the summer camp slasher comedy.  Will Poulter continued to dominate in the A24 realm with his performance as Erik, an officer in charge left traumatized by the incident that trapped the soldiers in the house.  I would even say that Poulter superbly illustrated Erik’s understated but profound emotional trauma with clear conviction.  Cosmo Jarvis and Joseph Quinn were also excellent in their roles as Elliot and Sam, respectively, with a dedication to Elliot being a suitable touch to his line of duty.

Overall, “Warfare” is a well-crafted, hauntingly gripping depiction that’s bold enough to gun down its traditional storytelling trappings in favor of genuine authenticity.  This is another example of a film that’s best looked at as a cinematic roller coaster ride instead of a conventional story-driven movie, primarily when referring to its screenplay.  That’s exactly what I did when I walked into the theater, and I came out instantly satisfied with the results.  Would I say it’s better than Garland’s previous war film, “Civil War”?  Well, story-wise, the latter had more of a thematic impact with its portrayal of war through journalism.  But, I still appreciate “Warfare” as an immersive and enthralling cinematic experience fueled by its intense violence and gripping dialogue-driven scenes.  The cast was outstanding in their roles, the direction marvelously depicted the incident through realism and immersion, and the sound editing was excellent for making me feel like I was in the war zone myself.  As a result, Alex Garland is officially two for two in the war genre.  If you’re into war films or enjoyed Garland’s other works, especially “Civil War”, I highly recommend this one.

A-