 |
| Warfare (2025) |
This film has two directors attached. I’m wagering a guess on how this film was broken down. I assume that director Ray Mendoza, who has no directing experience but wrote the screenplay and based it on his own experiences, directed the actors on what to do and how to perform as soldiers, and co-director Alex Garland, obviously very experienced in directing, oversaw the technical aspects of making a film, directing the cinematographer on camera placement, how the characters should move relative to the camera, etc. My guess the series of events was that A24 came across a script written by ex-military technical advisor/stuntman Ray Mendoza based on his own wartime experiences, noticed that Alex Garland did a war movie last year, and felt the dots connect. Because there being two directors, I’ll break down the directing into two categories: how the actors perform, and the technical aspects of directing.
The acting in Warfare is solid. Everyone in the movie performed their mimicry of soldiers very well, and they already seemed like battle-hardened and experienced soldiers as soon as they appeared on screen. The choice to cast reasonably unknown actors, minus Will Poulter as the group’s commanding officer and May-December’s breakout star Charles Melton, was smart and adds realism to the story. Because of this, we’re not sure who’s going to live and die, a very smart casting choice. However, we never learn anything important about these soldiers. What are their fears, joys, loves, hates, or passions? Nothing about them is elaborated upon other than one being young and inexperienced, Tommy, I believe (but all the characters are so generic it could be any one of them). There is a brief scene at the beginning where the soldiers watch the erotic music video for “Call on Me” by Eric Prydz. The intent of the scene is to show the soldier’s humanity before it’s stripped from them in death. However, it comes across as the film begging its audience to understand that these soldiers are “just like us.” Sure, they’re surrounded by death and destruction, but they are also slightly sexually repressed in this highly intense environment.
The sound design is powerful, and something which war films seem to excel at. I wouldn't say that the cinematography is particularly exciting, though it does have a few short moments that stood out. The firefights, though brief, are punchy enough to hold their impact, and the special effects and make-up were realistic enough to drive home the film’s message, which is the same message as every war film: war is bad. However, I question the need to have Alex Garland specifically involved in this project.
As someone who’s watched co-director Alex Garland’s career go from ambitious to overwritten, it’s remarkable that A24 continues to give him work. I imagine that the success of Ex Machina, a movie I consider wildly overrated, and Annihilation, alongside Garland’s previous writing prowess for sci-fi classics like 28 Days Later, Sunshine, and Dredd, keeps him within their good graces. I can’t deny that Garland is, or at least was, a very good writer with a real knack for one-track-minded stories, but I have immense doubts about his directorial abilities. His last film, Civil War, was an uncoordinated mess of flashy visuals, lackluster characters, and a contrived (and terribly overwritten) plot.
The plot is so simple that it comes across as a parody. In fact, the whole film plays like a scene in another film stretched to 95 minutes. During the Battle of Ramadi in Iraq, a group of U.S. soldiers is trapped in a house they commandeered and surrounded by “bad guys,” the film refuses to call them anything else. After one of the men is badly wounded, they attempt to evacuate. However, those crafty “bad men” have foreseen this and fire a rocket at their evacuation vehicle, leading to more injured soldiers and being trapped in the house once again. Allow me to list some of the questions and answers I would normally put in a plot synopsis: Who are our main characters? A group of nameless, faceless soldiers. Why did they decide to take this one specific house? Because it’s the most secure building, apparently. How will they escape? They’ll do the same thing that got them into this situation again. The plot is unbelievably simple, and while simplicity does not inherently mean lack of depth, Warfare is as shallow as a war movie can be.
I will be the first to admit that I am not a huge fan of war movies. I’ve seen the classics and maybe even a little more, but I wouldn’t say that I choose the genre over other genres. That being said, I know a good film from a bad one. When I watch a war film, I want to have a better understanding of humanity by the end of it. However, I understand the interest in a “kill the faceless enemy and save the day from terrorists” kind of movie, too. As someone who’s seen almost every James Bond movie, I get the appeal. Warfare is neither of these things. It’s thoughtless, toothless, adds very little to the discussion of war (and what it’s good for), and never makes me care about its characters or the situation they’ve put themselves in. What it did make me feel, and I understand this to be the antithesis of what the film was intending to show, was a real hatred for the American armed forces for upending the way of life for so many Iraqi citizens. The house which the soldiers take over is occupied by two small families who are left with a pile of dust and surrounded by violent terrorists, who may think they supported the Americans. The two Iraqi soldiers who accompany the American soldiers and act as translators are treated as cannon fodder as they use them to scope out enemies and generally treat them with disrespect, even when they both admit that they’re incredibly scared for their lives. But life is cheap, I suppose, and these characters won’t have the chance to write a movie about their experiences because they’re killed with extreme cruelty.
I felt nothing while leaving the theater. My walk back to my apartment was left without anything to avoid or any strange events going on. Effectively, I glided from the theater back to my apartment without so much as a thought. Just going through the motions. I realize that feeling was like watching Warfare. There could be an overall story, and some may argue the Iraq War is that story, but drifting through the motions of a story without providing much of anything is the definition of substanceless, and Warfare is substanceless.
0 Comments