Warfare (2025)

So it turns out that Alex Garland wasn't retiring from film making after 2024's Civil War. Comments were misinterpreted, people got confused, whatever. Maybe it was simply an opportunity for people to trot out the line 'if this is his swansong, what a way to go!' after critical swooning over his dystopian American nightmare, in which Nick Offerman's President offered audiences yet more Trumpian caricature.

Civil War was good- very good. But it wasn't the Orwellian masterpiece many claimed; (it wasn't Orwellian for a start) and personally, I still believe Garland's best film remains Ex Machina (2014). Warfare, however, may change that.

The film is a near-real time re-enactment of a battle fought during the Iraq war in 2006, in which a platoon of Seals are on a surveillance mission in the city of Ramadi, when they are attacked by armed insurgents. We're given no background to the platoon (featuring Will Poulter, Michael Gandolfini and May December [2023] breakout star Charles Melton) beyond the brief opening that sees them dancing to Erci Prydz's 'Call on Me'; the explosion of noise and camaraderie amongst the team is something that's going to be with us for the next ninety minutes.

But the cinematic emotion that has generally gone hand in hand with war films throughout the ages- perhaps pulling on your heartstrings or offering an astonishing tale that may stretch the truth- isn't here. This is raw. This is real.

Garland's portrayal of combat in Civil War was the most impressive element of the film, standing him in good stead for this venture. Warfare is also co-directed by real life Navy Seal Ray Mendoza, and the attention to detail and authenticity of the whole project is never in question from minute one. It simply feels like you're part of the ordeal rather than watching a film, and that's to its great credit.

We've seen plenty of impressive portrayals of war on screen- Ridley Scott's engrossing Black Hawk Down (2001), Kathryn Bigelow's Oscar winning fictional account of a bomb squad in Iraq in The Hurt Locker (2008) (loosely inspired by true events), and Edward Berger's astonishing All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) that walked off with the award for Best Picture at the Bafta's. As far as true stories go, one need look no further than Bigelow's utterly brilliant Zero Dark Thirty (2012), depicting America's hunt for Osama Bin Laden in which she was allowed access to restricted files and subsequently forged arguably her finest film. And people (almost always those who have never experienced war) of course will always cite the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan (1998).

Warfare differs from all of these films. The most pertinent comparison is potentially David Simon's mini-series Generation Kill (2008) which imposingly represented the mundanity of war- the time in between combat, and the wearisome parts of the job in incredibly tough conditions, as well as fighting an enemy troops were ill prepared for. It's also something that Sam Mendes' underrated Jarhead (2005) tackled. Garland's film addresses the other side of the coin, but with even more focus. It takes one specific combat incident, 'made using the memories of those involved' and launches you into an unrelenting and unforgiving situation, with no let up. Even when it finishes, there's no telling how deep the scars run.

I've heard some claim it feels like it's never going to end, such is the horror of what's unfolding- but I felt quite the opposite. Despite the fact that there are undoubtedly times in which you wish you could look away, the gripping nature of wanting these people to get out of the situation- even if only from a humanist perspective- meant that I was utterly gripped. Not from an entertainment point of view I might add, but simply because I was desperate for help to arrive, or for the mental and physical torture to end.

Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty was accused- wrongly in my opinion- of condoning torture. Some claimed it suggests that Bin Laden was only captured and killed as a result of torture (despite the fact that the torture in the film actually fails to achieve any results that lead to the capture), and the same people might (although one would love to hear the argument) protest that Warfare glorifies combat or, considering the current cultural topics of conversation, profess that it's somehow encouraging toxic masculinity. Warfare encourages nothing except a fuller appreciation of how appalling war is, and documents perhaps more fully than anything before it the reality of front-line combat.

It's incredibly difficult to actually give Warfare a mark out of ten; not that one really needs to. But what Garland and Mendoza have achieved here is really something quite astonishing; this is a cinematic reconstruction that offers an unalloyed glimpse of the abyss- and with the greatest respect to this incredible film- I'm thankful that I've never been party to it.

This is war-and it's fucking horrific.

But Warfare also might just be one of the purest forms of cinema ever released. 9.0/10