WARFARE

'Warfare' is technically impressive, from the sound design to cinematography. The cast is a showcase of many of the best young actors out there, and they are doing a great job with what they are given. But that is where the praise ends. The film plays out, for the most part, in real-time, and because of that sacrifices were made to character development. We never learn who these men are, and that makes a lot of the emotion of the situation fall flat. Yes, there is emotion that comes from the wartime setting, but when you're making this a very claustrophobic, real-time film where I'm stuck in a house with these Navy SEALs, if I don't know anything about them why should I feel any kind of emotion when watching this?

This is kind of the problem with Garland's last films; his point of view. It is more than fine to tell these stories, especially in this current climate, but why is 2025 the time to tell this story? While I am not the most knowledgeable on the Iraq War and the role of the U.S. in that, and because the film gives no context, my takeaway wasn't that these men are heroes, but why are these men even in this situation. They raid a family's house and turn it into a war zone, this family who seems to have no part in this war other than living in Iraq. That is who this story should be about, these victims whose lives changed because of the actions of others, held hostage against their will and forced to see men die.

'Warfare' may be technically impressive, and bringing on a Navy SEAL who was there provides a realness to the action, but that stunts the story and characters. In 2025, if you are making a film about war you have to have a point of view. The moving picture is about being thought-provoking, about making me laugh or cry, I need to feel something to be engaged - and 'Warfare' left me with nothing.