Ray Mendoza, ehemaliger Navy Seal, schildert seine Erlebnisse im Irak-Krieg.Ray Mendoza, ehemaliger Navy Seal, schildert seine Erlebnisse im Irak-Krieg.Ray Mendoza, ehemaliger Navy Seal, schildert seine Erlebnisse im Irak-Krieg.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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 *
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Super slow and quiet at the start then an eruption of chaos and gunfire without any kind of build up - typical Alex Garland films. Sound design and extra loud gunfire made it a very immersive experience. Some criticism of the film is that there was no story plot or character arcs but when the film ends, it's apparent that the Iraqis and the American soldiers are left with the trauma when everything suddenly stops and the violence has ended. Maybe gone are the days of entertainment war films and 'Warfare' makes people think about the nitty gritty details and what soldiers and civilians are left to deal with.
The 'Warfare' Cast on the Beauty of Boot Camp
The 'Warfare' Cast on the Beauty of Boot Camp
Joseph Quinn, Will Poulter, D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Charles Melton, and Kit Connor discuss their experiences during the three-week boot camp they attended to prepare for Warfare.
Handlung
WUSSTEST DU SCHON:
- WissenswertesNames of the real SEAL team members' were changed in the film to protect their identities as some are still serving in the military or preferred to remain anonymous. The only names that weren't changed in the film are: Ray Mendoza and Elliott Miller.
- PatzerThe vehicles portraying the Bradley IFV's in the movie were actually "vismods" (visual modifications) based on a turreted variant of the British FV432 designated the FV432/30 rented from "Armourgeddon Tank Driving Centre & Museum" UK.
The FV432/30 has the correct number of wheels, but the turret size, shape and position is the main visual giveaway.
- Crazy CreditsBefore the end credits, photos are displayed showing the cast on the right, and the true-life servicemen they portrayed on the left. Many of the left-hand photos are blurred to protect identities, including the last photo showing the Iraqi family whose home the Navy SEALs occupied.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Warfare: Tiempo de guerra
- Drehorte
- Irak(on location)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 20.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 25.230.374 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 8.317.989 $
- 13. Apr. 2025
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 31.506.229 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 35 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.00 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
