‘Warfare’ Is a Jarring War Thriller That Rattles the Core

Before you or I were ever a thought, General Sherman said, “War is hell,” and the best war films test and prove that theory. The films that fail are the ones that promote valor and propaganda while ignoring the human toll of death and destruction, or where deep understanding of pain and despair are sacrificed for the sake of heroes, patriotism, and big explosions. In short, war films can be pro or anti-war. But what happens when a film tries its hardest to be neither? Is that even possible? Warfare tests if a war film can be an action spectacle while avoiding any political murkiness.

Warfare follows a Navy SEAL platoon during the Iraq War in 2006. While details and the goal of the mission were withheld, we follow a group of about 20 soldiers as they traverse enemy territory. They split into two factions, take hold of two separate local homes, and set up operations. Primarily, we stay with one group as they monitor the potential danger in their area, led by Erik (Will Poulter, Death of a Unicorn), as Ray (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Reservation Dogs) is in charge of communications. The house they occupy is still, and they keep loose by exchanging jovial quips. Their interactions are small, but each person’s personality begins to show. Tensions build when snipers spot groups of Iraqi men starting to converge. When one of the Iraqi men produced a gun that was as big as a horse’s leg, danger became imminent. Slowly but surely, the SEALs begin taking heavy fire via automatic guns, grenades, and IEDs. The premise of the film becomes crystal clear: Can these men survive and make it out of the house alive?

The story is based on a real-life incident that co-writer and co-director Ray Mendoza experienced. While being the military supervisor on Andrew Garland’s Civil War, Ray pitched the story to Garland. In pitching the film to A24, Garland wanted assurance they could tell Mendoza’s story as close as possible to the actual details. Warfare is being promoted with the tagline “Everything is based on memory” because, in crafting the story, Mendoza contacted the surviving SEAL members to get their account of the event. From the accounts, Mendoza and Garland had to sift through their collective memory to make their film. In doing so, Mendoza wanted to tell the story as evenly as possible. Mostly, this works, though it is fair to question if the film is propaganda by its nature. 

Though Civil War was a hit with audiences (generating $127 million at the box office) and with critics (currently sitting at 81% on Rotten Tomatoes), those critical of the film believed its nonexistent political views were tone deaf to the moment, particularly when America was gearing up for a critical presidential election. Warfare works for the reasons that Civil War does not; it being apolitical is actually a strength and removes the burden of asking endless questions. Garland may have underestimated how fervent audiences would question Civil War’s political makeup, but Warfare may dodge the same barbs. The politics of the moment, then or now, do not matter to its story; just will these people survive. That cuts to why Warfare is compelling beyond the multitude of political ideologies the audience will bring to the table.

Though it is in the vein of Sam Mendes’ 1917, Warfare does not come with video game action and story beats where you feel like you are on a predetermined adventure. It’s gripping, confined, and suffocating. Every choice that is made, no matter how big or small, continually ups the stakes. A person walks by an open window, and you immediately begin to wonder, “Is this how this person gets killed?”

Even though the SEALs are the story’s protagonists, there is not a singular hero or leader in the traditional sense. Tom Hanks is the face of Saving Private Ryan. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Full Metal Jacket is iconic because of Vincent D’Onofrio’s powerhouse performance as the private that was pushed to the deep end. Warfare emphasizes the ensemble nature of this kind of storytelling. Audience members can find individuals to attach themselves to, but the story is not forcing you to do so. With a deep slate full of our next generation of burgeoning stars (Will Poulter, Joseph Quinn, Cosmo Jarvis, D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Charles Melton, Michael Gandolfini, etc.), each character is exactly what the film calls for when the moment is needed; fluctuating between youthful innocence to harrowing action and soul-crushing drama. At certain points, between the bomb smoke, blood, and dirt, it is difficult to tell which SEAL is which. The film’s poster of the man’s face covered in soot and debris foreshadows what the audience is in store for.

By the end of Warfare, we are left to reflect on the jarring experience. Gun and tank fire will rattle you to the core, but the experience is deeper than that. You are left thinking about the fighters but also the displaced Iraqi families from this violent episode. While being politically neutral in this film works, I do take caution that this is the second film in a row where Garland side steps in taking a stance. There is a benefit in trying to be as balanced as possible, but there are certain things where neutrality is either harmful or a waste of time. While the violence in Warfare shows the dangers of battle, there could be audiences that ignore that message and only focus on the heroism of the SEALs as the thing to walk away with. Ultimately, you should stand for something (even if you reject everything, that is still a stance!). It is fair to question what Garland stands for while appreciating what he co-created with Warfare. 

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars