User reviews

I despise films that glorify war. The swelling strings, the slow-motion salutes, the valour-for-the-sake-of-it nonsense - it's tired and tone-deaf. That's why 'Warfare', the latest and arguably best A24 film I've seen in a long while, floored me. This isn't some patriotic puff piece. It's raw, visceral, and deeply uncomfortable in all the right ways.

Co-directed by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza (a former Navy SEAL whose real-life experience forms the backbone of the story), 'Warfare' drops you headfirst into the chaos of a mission gone sideways in 2006 Ramadi (Iraq). There's no time for character backstories or emotional flashbacks. You're in the dirt with these men, hearing the crack of gunfire, the ragged breathing, the frantic comms - every heartbeat of the film is felt in your chest. Real war, as this film so powerfully reminds us, isn't medals and glory. It's blood, guts, and a harrowing sense of hopelessness.

The cast - most notably D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Cosmo Jarvis, and Will Poulter - bring a haunting realism to their roles. You don't watch them; you endure alongside them. And that's what elevates 'Warfare' into something more than cinema. It's an experience. A brutal, brilliantly made, and emotionally devastating experience.

Any loss of life in war is a failure - of diplomacy, of leadership, of humanity. This film doesn't flinch from that truth. It holds your gaze and says: look at what we do to each other.

A masterpiece. Uncompromising and unforgettable. If you can, see it in a theatre. The sound design alone is worth the ticket - each echoing explosion and muffled breath immerses you deeper into the dread-soaked trenches of reality. 'Warfare' doesn't just show war. It makes you feel every awful second of it.

Spent 15 years in Army Special Forces. Most of the movie was decent. Cannot believe they did not immediately tourniquet those leg wounds. Screw the blood sweep / stop the bleeding first. Definitely some shell shock there. Tommy seemed to be completely confused and out of it. No one assessed mental capacity after explosions. FAILURE to use the M-79 Grenade launcher was HUGE. That weapon could have done a lot to clear adjacent rooftops instead it stayed in the guy's backpack. When they staged two separate times to evacuate the wounded they came out blazing but you don't see any targets / they're shooting to keep the enemy's heads Down... you DO NOT shoot unless fired upon per se / also the Bradley was taking those second floors ... why didn't they do that on the initial attempt to evacuate ...??

Regarding shooting... ok you return fire WHEN you have a target but if you have no target in your sector - don't fire...

They should have put some personnel atop the roof - that roof seemed to be higher than other roofs and it could have been used to suppress adjacent roof tops

One thing that was missing - the enemy most assuredly would have had RPGs - 110% yet none were fired into the house - they could have lost the entire platoon. RPGs are everywhere so it's sort of disbelieving that the enemy did not use RPGs. I lost two friends on Black Hawk Down - both Delta guys. The one friend .. Timmy Martin ... depicted at the end with Gary Gordon ... my other friend was taken out by an RPG below the waist... unfortunately like the guy in this movie he lost his lower extremity but "lived" for a couple of hours until he basically succumbed to blood loss.

Interesting flick - would have been a bit better with better weapons deployment / leaders doing personnel checks / ammo conservation /. NO TAC AIR is ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS- that should have an absolute guarantee before they went in that they TAC AIR on call. And then they have to get the Brigade CO approval - gimme a break. We once pulled my Heavy Weapons Sergeant from choking our BN CDR to death when he did not provide helo exfil during an exercise in Denmark. It was an exercise but the Sergeant had done three tours in Nam and said you never strand troops in the field after a successful attack in enemy territory..

Movie rating - B to potentially B+

It starts light. Almost like a joke.

Young soldiers, full of swagger, testosterone, and nervous energy, dropped into a foreign neighborhood with gear, guns, and no real plan. You think you know where it's going.

Then it tightens. Hard.

Alex Garland's Warfare isn't a typical war film. It's a mirror. A slow-burn portrait of occupation - show up, seize control, provoke chaos, and leave. It doesn't lecture. It just sits with you. Uncomfortably.

They're foreign soldiers holding civilians in their own home at gunpoint, surrounded by a community trying to push them out. Whether the locals are rescuers or rebels depends on your perspective - and Garland refuses to give you one.

There's no soaring score. No rousing speeches. Just dust, dread, a spectacle of force and the weight of presence. It's not about winning.

It's a loud reflection of the post-9/11 playbook: arrive with guns, destabilize everything, leave behind blood and rubble. Sound familiar?

True "edge of your seat." Think of the tension of the first 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan," but over an hour and a half. No spoilers, but I love the fact that the movie immediately drops you into the situation. We don't need to know why the soldiers are there, or what their objective/mission is, because that's irrelevant when the bullets start to fly. These are just soldiers going on a mission. Finally, as a patriotic American, I feel that before Congress & the President deploy any of our U. S. Service people into harms way, they and the CEOs of Raytheon, Blackrock, Vanguard, and Halliburton should be forced to watch this movie, as well as the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, before anyone is deployed. Also, the law should be passed that all of their children should be the first deployed, call it the "No Fortunate Son" law. I think we would have less wars if that happened.

There have been anti-bellicose films since the early days of cinema. You can trace a throughline from All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), to Paths of Glory (1957), and Platoon (1986). As the U. S. has extracted itself from decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, more reflective films have started to emerge on those conflicts. While we've seen some modern anti-bellicose films like The Hurt Locker (2008), the genre has more often leaned toward propagandistic works such as Lone Survivor (2013), 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016), or 12 Strong (2018). With time and distance, however, a more nuanced perspective is developing-one less interested in glorification or recruitment. We now see stories exploring overlooked aspects, such as the treatment of translators in Guy Ritchie's The Covenant (2023), and more recently, the visceral helplessness felt by soldiers in Warfare (2025).

Warfare attempts to recreate, as faithfully as possible, a harrowing day in 2006 during the Battle of Ramadi, when a platoon of Navy SEALs was pinned down in a building. The platoon includes commander Erik (Will Poulter), head of comms Ray (D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai), sniper Elliot (Cosmo Jarvis), and soldiers Sam (Joseph Quinn) and Macdonald (Michael Gandolfini), among others.

Directed by Alex Garland, following his similarly themed Civil War (2024), and co-directed by Ray Mendoza-one of the real soldiers portrayed in the film (played by Woon-A-Tai)-Warfare adopts a stripped-down, technical approach. There is no soundtrack to steer viewers' emotions, no hand-holding through military jargon, and minimal expository dialogue about the characters or their mission. We're dropped into a scenario where the soldiers are tasked with securing a compound as an observation post, and from there, the situation escalates-their primary objective quickly becoming sheer survival.

With Garland's sharp directorial style and Mendoza's commitment to authenticity, Warfare avoids portraying the U. S. military as a glorified, video-game-like experience. The first act centers on the monotony of war-our characters mostly wait, bored but hyper-aware. When combat finally breaks out, Garland keeps the camera locked inside the house, emphasizing a suffocating sense of claustrophobia. Brief drone thermal images occasionally orient the viewer, but for the most part, the firefight is disorienting and tense. The soldiers fire out blindly, unsure if their shots land, spending most of their time hunkered down. A significant portion of the film focuses on the gruesome injuries sustained and the frantic, desperate efforts of fellow platoon members. Ideology fades quickly, replaced by a primal will to survive.

However, Warfare does fall into a familiar trap of many American war films: it centers the suffering of U. S. soldiers while sidelining the pain of local civilians and collaborators. In the film, the platoon occupies the home of two Iraqi families, who are forcibly confined to a single room and largely ignored. Only in a final lingering shot do we see an acknowledgment of their experience, but by then, they feel like shallow afterthoughts rather than co-victims. Similarly, the local translators embedded with the platoon are given short shrift. Though the film briefly shows them being dismissed, berated, and even used as human shields during an evacuation, this disturbing thread is dropped and never revisited. It's a missed opportunity, especially when contrasted with Guy Ritchie's The Covenant, which centers its narrative around the complex relationships between soldiers and translators. The idea that Warfare is "only about the American soldiers" doesn't excuse this neglect-just a few more scenes could have offered a more balanced and humane perspective.

The cast features an ensemble of rising stars-almost like a who's-who list of "Top 10 Actors to Watch." Poulter, Quinn, and Jarvis shine with charisma despite limited character development. Charles Melton also impresses in a small but commanding role. Some of the other actors, however, feel a bit green: Woon-A-Tai seems out of his depth at times, and Gandolfini's range still feels confined to familiar "wise guy" territory. That said, the film's focus on physical endurance and survivalism means deep character work isn't central, and more instinctual, visceral performances prove effective.

Warfare is a compelling anti-bellicose film, grounded in technical precision and immersive tension. Its dedication to realism and its refusal to glamorize war are commendable. While the marginalization of civilians and translators remains a significant flaw, the film succeeds in offering a grim, unflinching look at modern combat-a soldier-centric, rightfully distressing experience.

Warfare isn't a war film. It's war.

Garland and Mendoza strip the genre of everything recognizable: no character arcs, no flashbacks, no patriotic overtures or emotional beats. There are no names to remember. No home to long for. No cinematic scaffolding to hold onto. What's left is the brutal machinery of combat - dry, immediate, procedural.

This is not the psychological descent of Apocalypse Now, nor the trembling humanism of Saving Private Ryan. It's more like being waterboarded with dust, sound, and confusion.

The camera is unflinching - tight, reactive, often handheld but never "shaky-cam" chaos. It moves with the soldiers, but never sentimentalizes them. There's no slow-mo. No meditative framing. Just bodies moving through smoke, clearing rooms, capturing buildings. The lens doesn't find beauty in destruction - it avoids it entirely. The few wide shots we get are just to show how small they are. How futile it all looks from a distance. The sound design is relentless: radios crackling over one another, gunfire echoing through narrow alleyways. There is almost no score, and when music does appear (Low's Dancing and Blood) it's droning, ghostly, anti-heroic. It haunts rather than elevates. The production design is chillingly effective. Everything feels lived-in and long-dead at the same time. You can smell the ash, feel the heat radiating off the concrete. The environments aren't stylized, they're decayed, abandoned, half-real. It feels like the war has already happened, and this is just the residue.

One of the final moments, set to the droning nightmare of Low's Dancing and Blood, shows a blurry portrait of an Iraqi family seconds before their home is destroyed. Not for shock. Not for plot. But because that is war-it happens, and then it's gone, and the image remains, smeared and indistinct.

Civil War framed the ethics of capturing violence. Warfare removes the frame entirely. There is no image here to interpret - just presence. Just event.

It's also one of the most immersive war films I've ever seen, precisely because it refuses to explain itself. The film doesn't care if you're lost. It wants you to be. Questions pile up. None are answered. Context is treated like luxury, one the characters (and audience) don't get.

By the final sequence, you feel exhausted - not thrilled, not moved - just emptied out. And then the film has the audacity to end on one word:

"Why?"

But it doesn't ask it to provoke. It asks it like a ghost would. Like a memory does. It's not a question. It's an echo.

Warfare is not a film you watch. It's something you survive.

9/10.

P. S Having experienced Warfare in Dolby Atmos, I must emphasize how sonically overwhelming the film's opening sequence is - a moment of almost euphoric surrealism, as the soldiers lose themselves in the pulsating rhythm of Call on Me, the bass resonating so powerfully it felt like the theater roof was coming down. It's a scene of unexpected levity and collective joy, rendered with hypnotic energy and tonal audacity. Precisely this striking contrast - between the almost absurd vitality of the prologue and the film's emotionally pulverizing, desolate conclusion - marks one of the boldest and most jarring juxtapositions in recent cinema.

As the invaded family ask of the US military. Why? Why did you do this? What was all this about? And it's a good question and not a criticism of the film in anyway. Maybe that was part of the point of it all. Although the congratulatory credits footage confuses that angle as we get to meet the real perpetrators of the events of the film.

I was on board with the who futility of war, the meaningless nature of the soldiers taking over a random house, smashing down walls and taking captive the innocent families that live there and then having to defend themselves from attacks caused by the act of taking over a random house, hey how about just don't take the house, right?

That seemed like a poignant message and if left at that then we've got ourselves a film with a solid message, but then we get the actual soldiers taking photos on the set with the actors and smiling, and the message about thanks for always answering the call" and well maybe we're all just imagining there's a lesson learned here at all. You can't have a sobering film on the brutal insensitivity of the US Military and the pointless damage it inflicts on the innocent around the world and then go all hugs for the military bros as the credits roll, can you? It was a confusing message.

It was a well made movie, fantastic sound design. I just don't know what I'm supposed to take away from it, and maybe that's part of the point, the world is full of contradictions.

But I really did feel embarrassed and ashamed for the cruelty inflicted on the families we hardly saw in this film.

A masterclass in tension and sound design. A visceral, gut wrenching, unrelenting war film experience.

This film absolutely deserves an Oscar nod for its sound design, my ears are still ringing, but in the best way possible. It's not for the faint of heart. Rarely has the raw horror of war been depicted with such intensity; I haven't felt this shaken since Saving Private Ryan. The theatrical experience is essential, this soundscape demands a massive screen. The gunfire alone rivals Heat in realism and impact.

Those expecting a conventional narrative should adjust their expectations. This isn't a traditional hero's journey, it's an immersive, boots-on-the-ground depiction of a team navigating a chaotic operation where, even when everything is done right, everything can still go catastrophically wrong.

Watching this, my respect for our military deepened tenfold. The courage it takes to step into such situations is beyond comprehension, and the professionalism of the operators is portrayed with remarkable authenticity. This film didn't just entertain, it inspired me to be a better leader, a better friend.

This is the film I wanted Civil War to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alex Garland felt the same. It offered a deeper understanding of PTSD and the brotherhood forged in combat. The emotional and psychological toll is palpable, yet never overplayed.

This is not just a film, it's an experience. I'm already planning to see it again in theaters. I'm genuinely curious if my heart rate ever dropped below 130 bpm. As a filmmaker who dreams of tackling a military story one day, I found this both intimidating and inspiring.

So. Well. Done.

Firstly the good bits.

The action is good, there's a real sense of tension and it comes across as a realistic account of what happened. It's well acted, well shot and gives you some idea of what it must be like to be in a dire situation.

It's a lot better than most of the films that have been released this year. There's no politics or judgment and stays clear of triumphantism or trying to glamorizing people getting hurt. Ultimately, nobody "wins" which is a good reflection of war.

That said, we never learn anything about the characters. The only insight is them all watching an Eric Pridz video together. It's hard to empathize with any of the characters because you just don't know them.

Despite the tension and gunfire, you never really learn anything about who it is they are fighting. From their garb, you would assume they are Fedayeen - but we never see any of them up close, much learn hear them speak. So it's hard to see them as anything other than shadowy figures firing guns. You also don't know how many there are, there's plenty of gunfire, but it could be 20 or 2000.

You also aren't told anything about the Seal's mission. They're providing security for another force who have a mission, but we never learn why. What the point of it was or whether it was successful.

If you aren't familiar with military parlance, then a lot of the dialogue, especially on the radio might not make a lot of sense.

It's a good film and worth a watch, but to be clear, this is not in the same league as Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, Generation Kill etc etc. If you haven't seen any of them, then I would highly recommend watching them instead.

I want to start off by saying GWOT (global war on terrorism) can be seen in a couple different periods of time and I personally fall into the latter having gone to Afghanistan in 2010. The former however was really a depiction of the Wild West with ROE (rules of engagement) and TTPs (tactics techniques and procedures); folks were learning this new environment that didn't exist. Admittedly I'm a little biased because I spent a number of years supporting operators in this community, but watching this movie really hit me. This movie completely understands what we as service members care about and potentially go through in horrible circumstances. The movie throws a middle finger to narrative and just gives you the story as a handful of men experienced that day with no real bias. As far as accuracy I have to say they really hit the nail on the head! Comms saying 0 and not O(the letter), blood sweeps, and taking a knee one someone if you don't have a tourniquet are so fundamental to us, and it's the little details we appreciate for remembrance. This isn't the modern day saving private ryan but it is the theatrical version of generation kill from HBO. If this was your time and conflict go see it.

Not a lot to this movie. Special affects? Doesn't explain the mission very well, target? Why the house with family, who leaked location....basically a lot of bad choices displayed. How did they not see IED planted? Not well scripted. A little difficult to follow. Other groups of soldiers , were they there on separate mission, rescue mission? It didn't flow. There was a mysterious base with a voice that never materialized. The acting was not matching up with the roles of soldiers in a developing event. Facial expressions , behaviors were strange. The story could have been developed further with more detail.

As a combat vet of both Iraq and Afghanistan I can't help but feel disappointed in this film. The characters feel unready, unsure and unprofessional in the fog of battle. Special Operations is the best we have to offer! Having Being part of some great light infantry units and working with these SF groups overseas, these characters are not it!! I felt like i was watching a reserve or untrained platoon as opposed to an actual Seal platoon. Any other combat veterans watching this film would also be able to tell you the same. It's the small details, such as positioning, muzzle awareness, first aid, movements etc. This is just my opinion from my own experiences over there. Could have been great!! 🤙🏼

I applaud any attempt by Hollywood to break away from the endless cycle of comic book movies and franchise reboots. Alex Garland has done that successfully before-Ex Machina and Civil War were both bold and thought-provoking. But Warfare falls flat. In striving for an ultra-realistic portrayal of modern combat, it forgets to tell an engaging story. Where Civil War had a message that built tension and urgency, Warfare simply meanders. There's no emotional anchor, no narrative drive. If you want to understand warfare, go and watch a good Ken Burns documentary. It will do a better job-and probably contain more suspense.

Went into this expecting a military movie like those that get rolled out on Netflix periodically, however this is a huge step above. The fact it's a true story too also adds so much to the events shown. The filmmakers go out to put you in the middle of the action. It's a very intense movie that does an amazing job of making you feel the tension in the situation. Performances keep you locked in but the real star of the show is the sound. From the gunfire to explosions you feel every hit. The 'Show of force' they use NEEDS to be heard to be believed. I came out of the movie shaken tbh but really entertained and the time flew by.

I don't really know how to critic this movie since I just came out the theater and still feel shocked at how powerful it gets. Not sure if you will have the same feeling at home since the sound is key to the greatness of the movie. I'm glad A24 trusted Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland to do this film. From the opening scene to finish you can tell the focus on describing the facts and reality of ground operations. I've watched a lot of war movies in my life but this one you can really feel with your heart more than with character development or any sense of heroism. Loved every second of it ! * still in shock *

Warfare was being touted by Fandango at Home as the next hot war movie, following some outstanding war movies based on true events like American Sniper, 13 Hours Benghazi, The Covenant, The Outpost, and Black Hawk Down. There is literally no plot in the movie at all. Some marines spend time in a house doing surveillance and then predictably they are attacked. While the movie is a true story and I certainly don't want to take anything away from the acts of bravery from the marines, there just isn't enough plot to make this anything but a slightly below average movie about events during the Iraq war.

For someone like me, who has even the faintest and smallest experience of war, watching war films is the scariest thing I can imagine-especially when the story is set in the Middle East.

Warfare felt so real with its visuals, sounds, and atmosphere that it was as if I was right there in the middle of the battlefield.

On the giant cinema screen, every explosion hit me like a punch in the face, and the loud Dolby sound shook my heartbeat with every gunshot and scream.

From the first third of the film to the very end, I sat on my seat with my knees pulled up-frozen, motionless-like I was truly trapped inside those scenes.

When the film ended, it took me a few minutes to pull myself together. It felt like the war was still going on in my head.

Damn every war-seeker-of any kind, for any reason, under any pretext, with any intention.

Set during November 2006 in Ramadi, Iraq, a team of US Navy Seals is tasked with providing cover for Marines from a captured civilian home as the boredom and tedium of surveillance gives way to explosive terror that leads to fight for survival.

Warfare is the latest film from Alex Garland which reteams him with Military Veteran and Advisor Ray Mendoza who worked with Garland on the previous year's Civil War. Garland worked in tandem with Mendoza (with Garland stating he was mainly there in a supporting capacity to Mendoza). Based on the Mendoza's first hand experiences during a 2006 battle in Ramadi, Iraq, the film is told in real time and based entirely on the memories of the soldiers who were there during the event. In terms of filmmaking and craft Warfare certainly is admirable on a technical level, but substantively there's little more here than the old History Channel docuseries Shootout.

If there's anything to be said about Warfare, it's certainly in placing you in a "boots on the ground" experience in terms of what the modern warfare experience is. If you ask former veterans of any war, much of the time they will emphasize the nature of the experience is strings of continuous tedium occasionally broken up by chaotic terror. During the opening 20 minutes there's very little that actually happens as the unit we follow takes a sniper position in a civilian home and looks over a marketplace where very little actually transpires and they can't talk or do anything to kill time because they need to stay alert to stay alive. Once the "action" actually does start, Warfare delivers on the ugly chaos that defines warfare. The transition from quiet tedium to bombastic terror happens on a dime and it certainly is well captured in its brutality and ugliness.

In terms of technical craft Warfare is second to none, but during the films brisk roughly 90 minute runtime I felt myself become more indifferent to what was happening with not much reason to care. As a way of subverting the expectations of other war films, Warfare foregoes many of the scenes used to build character such as the soldiers bonding over "what's back home" or "why they enlisted" and while those elements are common tropes of the genre dating back to the earliest war films of cinema they are necessary in order to make sure the audience has a reason to care. With Warfare it's very much a case of "throwing the audience in the deep-end" because outside of text establishing the Navy SEALs mission of "providing support to the Marines" there's no real sense of purpose here to this story nore are there any characters as there's no real scenes of fleshing out the characters to the point I couldn't really identify anyone by name. It could be argued that the purposelessness is part of the point particularly with the ending and how the Iraqi insurgents are rarely ever seen with no possible road to victory serving as a commentary on the pointlessness of war, but the movie takes such a detatched view of events that it feels like (if you'll pardon the cliché) "sound and fury signifying nothing".

Warfare isn't without technical merit, but that's really all it has going for it. You probably get more from an average episode of the History Channel show Shootout because at least there the talking head interviews from people who were there provide some character and investment, whereas here, it's more violent and polished than what you get on TV but if you're point is "War is hell and pointless" (which I've heard some argue isn't necessarily the point) that doesn't really justify why we're told what's barely a story.

This is the best film I've seen this year... and it is not even close. I'm not sure where to start as I haven't left the theatre with so many emotions in a long time. The movie flys by. There's no time to think or breathe. I'm stunned by the acting and the raw emotion and the film accomplishes exactly what it set out to do... to transport you to hell on earth. The camera work is superb and you can tell every meticulous detail was thought out and planned... fairly obvious considering the director lived every moment. I can't stress enough how important it is to see this movie and if you have the ability, see it on the largest screen possible. I was transported to a place I hope I never have to experience and have even more respect for the men and women that defend our country. This will sit at the upper echelons of war adaptations... Dunkirk, Hurt Locker, Band of Brothers... too many to mention, but I guarantee Warfare will grace the list, too. Thank you to the all the men depicted in this film and thank you for the directors and actors for portraying this small snippet of their lives. Absolutely incredible.

I'm ex-SF, SAS. Been on numerous joint missions with various Seal teams. I found it hard to believe these were trained operators. Complete lack of situational awareness under pressure, lack of discipline and organization when it's most needed. If this is the standard of US SF god help us. Otherwise the movie was okay. Worth a watch if you want to learn how increase your odds of getting KIA.

I have been to Iraq and drove the streets of baghdad. Luckily I didn't experience any combat, i came back unscathed. That said this movie give you that feeling of being there. I was taken back to Iraq and how miserable it was there. The opening scene gives you a peak into the mindset and culture of being in the military. How a provocative music video, boosts morale.

If your looking for a movie with a plot, with a beginning, middle and end, this isn't it. It comes off as a documentary and won't be for everyone. I tried watching 'The covenant with Jake Gyllenhal and had to turn it off, it was not authentic. Warfare is 100% authentic.