Warfare (2025)

It won't be one of my favorite war films, and it won't be one of the top films of Garland, whom I love very much. Apart from the magnificent sound design (which was simply amazing in the Civil War), there is probably little to cling to, because there is no history as such, and the horrors of war without the slightest element of inspiration have been shown more than once in other films.
I will be waiting for Garland's next works in other genres.

Director Alex Garland, who released The Fall of the Empire just a year ago, an undeservedly award–winning military thriller where former fellow citizens pointed machine guns at each other, decided to revisit the topic of war. But not through the eyes of journalists, but through the experience of real soldiers. To achieve near-documentary veracity, Garland joined forces with Ray Mendoza, a former Navy seal who had advised him on "The Fall of an Empire." Mandosa participated in that bloody operation in Iraq and intended to recreate every event, every sound and every color as accurately as possible. So he wanted to help a friend who had suffered a traumatic brain injury due to an explosion during that operation to restore his lost memories through a recreated film reconstruction.

If in "The Fall of an Empire" one could find a hint of provocation or a warning about what awaits a world that does business only with violence, then in the film "Under Fire" the director chooses a zone of neutrality: here it is not so important for him to bring out some kind of morality, as to show guys in real time who just want to survive. to get out of this hellish and chaotic meat grinder into which fate has thrown them. Joseph Quinn, Will Poulter, Charles Melton and Cosmo Jarvis play in such a way that it is simply impossible to distinguish them from real soldiers – every command they utter and the subsequent confusion feels real. The boundary between film and reality is also blurred because cinema freezes in one time interval: 95 minutes on the screen is 95 minutes in a war zone.

The film begins with a prolonged silence, consisting of a mixture of everyday life and waiting for soldiers in a hidden house – this routine process may seem prohibitively long for a military narrative. But even in these moments, Garland finds loopholes to keep the viewer on maximum alert in anticipation of any threat from outside. And when this threat arises, Garland cruelly blocks the opportunity to take a break from the heavy spectacle on the screen and checks for stress tolerance. Desperate screams, sharp bullet whistles, loud explosions, severed body parts – all this is so natural and creepy here that even an hour and a half of timekeeping seems crazy in its length. Garland has reached some incredible auditory and visual level, his movies are almost indistinguishable from reality. No soulful speeches, musical inserts and patriotic slogans, just a desperate attempt by a group of people not to lose themselves physically and mentally.

For me, Alex Garland is one of the few directors whose films you want to go to the cinema without a moment's doubt about it. To be honest, after Civil War, expectations were VERY high, but Warfare turned out to be a good picture, albeit somewhat inferior to its predecessor. Rather, it's not even a film for me, but a modern military newsreel embodied in the form of a film. One specific task from a series of days that didn't go according to plan. With all its mistakes, losses, horror, noise, silence and small funny everyday features of a purely male military team.
There is no message, conflict, or plot as such, it's simple... Heh, it's funny. It's a slice-of-life. A dark, military slice of life.

But one cannot help but say that this time Alex Garland shared the director's chair with Ray Mendoza, a participant in the events shown, and, as it seemed to me, even gave him all the resources necessary to embody his story. So it's more Ray's movie than Alex's. And this is an extremely direct depiction of military everyday life with all the necessary details, without focusing on good, evil, or even without this husk. Just heat, blood, death, gunfire, dust, and radio interference. It wasn't until the end that I realized that the combination of all these familiar fragments made me feel a little seasick, but not much, it's only been three years.

Warfare didn't come as a revelation to me, it didn't become one of Garland's favorite movies, and it wasn't as impressive as expected, but I'll definitely keep an eye on Mendoza's new projects and definitely review this movie in the future. It's a good movie and it deserves to be recognized.

About the movie? Who the hell knows. They're talking about a fight. We take a newspaper clipping, find the participants, interview them, and the plot is ready.

That's how it happens in life, of course. I was born, baptized, studied, enlisted in the army, and so we went, study, first day, second, third, week, month, and so we went to war, first day, second, week, BATTLE! And then the hospital circles. :-(

Of course, the participants have full pants of emotions. Until the end of your days, damn, you're going to replay this episode of your biography in your memory.

Censorship, of course. That would not teach. An ambush for an ambush. The total poverty of the enemy. Infantry fighting vehicles are running around the city. They visit the same address twice!!! And no anti-tank mines, no grenade launchers, no snipers that shoot out in the dust and the movement of the antenna on armored vehicles! A land mine at the fence made of charcoal for barbecues, mouse droppings and sawdust made from a magnesium disc. When firing, the armor actually just abandoned the infantry!!! And I wouldn't be surprised if there were three people holding them at the position! Maneuvers that are not clear to us, well-rehearsed, so as not to strain English brains.

What is the message of the film? An article in the newspaper? A report from the scene? But I do not know.

Do you want a movie about the fight? Look.

Immersively fucked up, but I won't review it, that's for sure.

I can imagine what the script looked like for Joseph Quinn: 5 minutes of conversations, half an hour of heart-rending screams.

Well, this movie is generally average
It doesn't seem to be that bad or that good.
There's something, but I don't know what.
There's nothing to cling to and at the same time I liked everything
A twofold feeling
Yes, the harshness of war and all that
But I didn't understand the film's glasses or what it was made for.

It's terribly scary to watch, my ear still rings from how Joseph Queen screamed.
There is no plot, shooting in a moment, in a situation.
Nobody tried to "entertain" us with this movie.
There is no music, no soundtrack. Except for the first minute of the movie where the guys are watching TV.
In short, this movie consists of noise, hysteria, fire and tears.

Do I like movies like this?
To suit the mood.
Garland knows how to shoot the loudest scenes in silence.

It is a very peculiar film that leaves two impressions and an interesting aftertaste.
a film showing all the military operations as they are. there are no special slogans and excessive pathos.
everything is done realistically and spectacularly, sometimes cruelly. all the horrors of war in colors and without much embellishment.
Thanks to the good camera work, the combat scenes really look exciting.
The movie really isn't that bad. There are both strengths and weaknesses.
It's at least worth a look.

Well, it didn't cause a wow effect, and I can't call it heartbreaking in the style of the fall of the black hawk either. I kind of looked at it, but that's fine.
P.S. We were pleased with the sub-filming at the end…

Well, that. There is a dive. It looks great in one go.

On the other hand, it seems like a real battle, but again, the brave seals do everything without losses — they came, shat themselves, left. Bradley is like riding down the avenue. Did anyone from the RPG try to disassemble them? The luminaire burns from the carrot for one or two.

It's strange, I can't quite believe it.

But the movie is not bad. Like an inoculation for brave youngsters.

It was difficult for me not only to watch this movie, but also to evaluate it. This is not so much a movie about the Iraq war as an American war drama focused solely on the trauma of a soldier, and in a typically Hollywood manner: the war is shown as an abstract hell, while its causes, victims among the local population and the political context remain behind the scenes.

I really liked the atmosphere and realism of the battle - Garland masterfully conveyed the absurdity and chaos of the war, making me physically feel the tension. The camera work and the sound literally draw you into the firefights, creating a presence effect.
I read that the director wasn't trying to make a political movie—he wanted to show the subjective experience of combat, and he was good at that. But I personally didn't have enough context.

I think the film wasn't bad, but it was very selective. He perfectly conveys the horror of war for a soldier, but offers neither analysis nor repentance. This is not the truth about the war, but the truth about how America is experiencing it. 
If you're waiting for a deep analysis of the conflict, that's not here, and that's not what the director was thinking about. If you want to immerse yourself in the subjective experience of combat, Garland has shot a strong military drama.

The film tells about how several American soldiers defend themselves in a house from an insurgent assault. There is no usual plot and character disclosure in the film, we just watch the characters experience these 1.5 hours in real time. At the same time, there is no propaganda or political background. It's just a difficult situation through the eyes of ordinary soldiers. They show us how the wounded are screaming and how the living are trying to keep their composure.

Actually, I'm not a fan of films about military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. I always find them very boring because of the dreary decorations. But I must admit that "Under Fire" is the least boring of them all, because the battle was shot quite juiciously and immersively, and the vibe and atmosphere were conveyed very well. And the actors played convincingly. But whether it's worth spending 1.5 hours on a film about the defense of the house is up to you to decide. Anyway, you won't lose anything if you don't watch it.

It's complete crap. Right now, dozens of hours of real-life GoPro footage are absolutely free on any video platform, which is a million times more interesting, dramatic and authentic than this ridiculous flickering.

And why the hell would Garland shoot this stuff? All his previous projects were distinguished by some kind of fiction or unusual visual, but what about this? Is there no music for the whole movie? Blowing up transport with subsequent imitation of temporary hearing loss, as in every part of the deck?

Some kind of maximally basic bitch cinema, shot for nothing and for no one.

The feeling after watching is neither fish nor meat... There was such a fuss before the release, I thought something was coming. It'll do for once. A lot of chatter. It's cool. The cast is awesome. Glad to see the little Gandolfini.

So it all started with the ridiculous evacuation of the scratched one, which they didn't even bandage? Maybe this is realism, apparently the stereotype of a brave sea fearless seal is putting pressure on me.

You can't do more than that at a time...

Ugh, how unexpectedly tough it turned out. A top movie.

(dude drains for 15 minutes from wounds in his legs)
-Commander, can I put a turnstile on him?
🤔

Pretty weak.
The combat scenes are of dubious quality, to put it mildly.

The movie is so-so... You can do a meme where a person causes a show of force. And throw it in case of important negotiations😄

The strangest thing about the film is the ending, why compare real people and actors at the end if more than half of the real people have their faces smeared 🤔

Badger George Bush.

When I downloaded this movie, I subconsciously prepared myself for what would be an endless meat grinder. It turned out that in an hour-and-a-half film on this subject, you can make a very long storyline. I didn't get any action, so I turned it off.

Actually, what they shot, I thought there would be cool shootouts like The Fall of the black Hawk, but that wasn't it, in this movie soldiers are playing war, and the enemy is not visible. It's also amazing that they don't run out of bullets. Don't look, you're wasting your time.

It's an absolutely stupid and boring movie about nothing. It does not reach anyone in its genre and style. Another heresy about "heroes-peddlers of democracy." A delusional scoundrel, nothing more.
For those who write that this is a film about the "realities of war", etc. - watch the classic films of the peddlers of democracy about the Vietnam war - they will be much better and better shot than this slag, plus there are quite good films about this conflict.

Alex Garland goes through all sorts of sore points of American society, from civil disputes to military conflicts, and here, in a methodical frame, he examines the scariest work of military units in Iraq without political overtones, opponents remain outside the window, and the whole action is strictly inside the US military unit, as if we were documentaries with a camera around them or part of the unit.

This clearly had to be watched in a 4K cinema, from the columns of smoke cutting through the ducts of the blowhole to the dust blinding with its yellowness, everything here works for the textured atmosphere of the final stop in a modern war with a rocket launcher or grenade, everything is like in reality, it's not for nothing that the picture was restored chronologically piece by piece by veterans and participants of the events, if If you die, it's not from a direct collision rambo, but from a shrapnel wound or an explosion, and even then, back in 2006, rescue armored personnel carriers misfired, but it's still an effective way to pick up your own in some kind of good condition. Mendoza/Garland is my new dream bunch of directors, I hope they will create something like this together and add another important trace!

Meat, drama, adrenaline — everything is in place. The shooting is bombed out, the sound presses down as it should, and when the melee begins, you just squeeze into the chair. At the same time, there is a plot, and not just bang-bang. 4★ — because it catches and leaves an aftertaste. Like — for nerves and style.

Well, as usual, elite American women took a shit, came to a foreign country, killed a bunch of people, destroyed the house of ordinary people where they were sitting, but what not to build and dumped under cover. They consider themselves heroes, but in fact, murderers are finished and nothing more than trash!

A breath of fresh air (if you can even call it that) in the field of "American soldiers howling in the Middle East." Violent and beautiful, built entirely on explosions, screams and gunfire. If you hold your breath when watching a movie like this, it means you realize that there is no more tacticianism here, you don't want to fight, and the film has done its job.

there is a feeling that [cod: modern] warfare was not necessarily filmed as propaganda, just as (these particular) guys most likely went to Iraq without malicious intent, but it turned out what happened with the war, and with the film - the geiger counter on it scales towards "with the support of the US Army" - even if they didn't pay a penny, but the brave 18-year-old Kentuckian, on leaving the gym, probably wants to "fuck around Tehran" together with the brave tennis player, without leaving a friend in trouble in the middle of the street - after all, this is "the business of real men."

well, Garland was amazingly quick to switch from the restrained neutrality of the "civil war" to the intoxicating "pro-army" here. I can't say that this is a conscious desire, but this movie without a soundtrack (but with David Guetta) simply lacks "flight of the valkyries" on supersonic flight through the dust to concentrate military pathos. Even generation kill, being Simon's weakest work, has x10 self-reflection compared to this work.

"Sir, they've got a machine gun!" What for?
"They're probably going to shoot at us!"
- Great, then I'll go pee! And you watch there.
- Sir, I see that a grenade flew into the hole of the observer!
A curtain...