Warfare: Reviewed

Warfare [2025]

Film

A platoon of American Navy SEALs in the home of an Iraqi family overwatches the movement of US forces through insurgent territory.

Alex Garland's previous film, Civil War, depicted a dark dystopian America in the midst of a second civil war. The story is a nightmarish thought experiment or a kind of disconcerting cautionary tale about how extreme political rhetoric and polarization can dismantle society and lead to democratic decline. Upon its release, the film faced a myriad of backlash for its perceived political hedging and ideological fence-sitting. Hell, even I had some thoughts on this indictment after seeing it. Though I respected Garland's transgressive approach and his willingness to operate a bit dangerously, I criticized the film for using and abusing provocation as a filmmaking tactic, an over-indulgent approach that I felt undermined Garland's own thesis statement. Despite the controversy and contention, Civil War is still the most expensive film A24 has made with an estimated budget of $50 million; it is also one of the studio's most profitable releases, earning north of $127 million, $25.7 million in its opening weekend. With Garland's status as a writer-director cemented, I was curious to see where he would go to next as a filmmaker and whether or not he would continue leaning his tendencies as a provocateur.

While there is certainly some connective tissue to Civil War, Garland's new film, Warfare, rejects any and all temptation to pursue cinematic goading or thrill-seeking as a narrative device. Instead, he channels his energy into the sensory details and keeps any hint of social commentary under the surface, a choice that I believe packs a much harder punch in the long run. Warfare is the ultimate team effort in that it is co-directed and co-written by Ray Mendoza, a former US Navy SEAL who served during the Iraq War and worked as Garland's military advisor on Civil War. The film is based on his and his platoon's shared expereience and memories from a mission-gone-wrong during their time in Iraq circa 2006. Because this story isn't adapted or sourced directly from a text but is a fragmented retelling of a traumatic collective occurrence, so much of what happens in Warfare breaks from typical Hollywood storyelling and conventional filmmaking. This non-traditional approach leads to what I believe is a sharper and more wholly-conceived and fully-rendered project, a film with respect and reverence for the characters and their story that is void of exploitation and understands the environment and consequences of war in a way that very few films ever have.

Out of respect for preserving the film-going experience, I'm going to avoid getting into any plot details or story specifics. This is without a doubt a "less-you-know-the-better" situation. What I will say is that I really respected how Warfare resists the urge to spoon-feed needless exposition or provide unnecessary context to the audience. Of course, it has all the bells and whistles that modern cinematic filmmaking can afford - incredible visual effects that feel practical, a disorienting sound design, and first-rate editing. But all that you need to know story-wise going in is what you already know about the nature of war and the way in which war has previously been represented on screen. While Warfare is certainly in conversation with the long history of war films that have come before it, the film is not relient on its forebears and does not demand that its audience have an extensive literacy in them.

By focusing on true-to-life accuracy, no matter how gruesome or grim, Warfare is judicious in its scope and perspective, avoids hollow sensationalism, and manages to deftly balance style and substance. Experiencing this sort of firsthand combat and subsequent trauma does not lend itself to recalling such events in an airtight narrative structure. Garland and Mendoza are delicate but uncompromising in their quest for recreating what actually happened, and those who lived it (or died during it) must have buried the visceral horrors of what happened to them deep within themselves. It must have been indescribably difficult to reconstruct these harrowing events in a legible and linear fashion, and though what happens to these men feels familiar in its subject, this specific retelling is unique in its blunt delivery and has unflinching honesty.

Warfare is by design inherently apolitical but has an organic anti-war disposition baked into every scene and shot. A lesser film would overly annunciate its own intentions and indulge in the act of recreating this kind of violence. In keeping true to its subject and honoring those who served, Warfare is honest in its intention and effective in its execution. The film is vivid and immersive, meant to be felt first and interpreted after the fact. It is a purely human expression that interrogates the nuances of bravery, leadership, and brotherhood. There is incredible filmmaking craft at work and transformative performances that convince you what you're seeing is real (the whole cast is fantastic, including Will Poulter, Joseph Quinn, Charles Melton, and D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai). Sadly, for those involved in the actual events, this was real, and it is hard to leave the theater and stop thinking about what you just watched play out on screen. So yes, it's apolitical, but like I said, it is clearly a piece of anti-war performative art. I would contend that Warfare is a film that is meant to start conversations, not end them. In that regard, maybe Garland is still a provocateur at his core.

Froth

Here in Chicago, the cold weather is starting to lift and lighten up as spring arrives slowly but surely. This season of transition means a lot of things, but it also means that breweries are getting busier, their windows and patios are open, and they've got new things on the menu to try. One of my tried and true spots, Hopewell Brewing Co., put Shaker, an "90's Brewpub-Style Amber Ale" back on their menu (or maybe it's new?), and I was thrilled to give this one a test drive after hearing from the bartender that this is kind of a throwback take on a beer that is somewhere between a what-you-might-expect amber ale and the somewhat-defunct-but-making-a-return red ale. Shaker is auburn in color and sudsy in feel. A lot of times these kind of drinks or malty but also roasty and toasty... this one had a unique piney and bread-y thing going on, which might be why I was nursing it longer than I usually do with a Hopewell tap. Overall, I liked the beer and am always excited when a brewery I love goes back into the lab and tries to recapture a moment in time in a glass.