In terms of technical filmmaking, I’m not sure if I’ve seen a film that’s better than Warfare at capturing the sensations of modern war. When I say technical filmmaking, I’m specifically referencing cinematography, visual effects, practical effects, the depiction of military tactics, and (especially in Warfare) sound design.
In terms of recreating the minute-to-minute intensity of modern war, Warfare is among the finest of its kind. Warfare is essentially three scenes long, and the first two scenes are measured in a single-digit number of minutes. The third scene, which starts after the film’s late title card, is the entire rest of the movie. From that moment forward, Warfare plays almost exactly in real-time. Even scenario-based technically-driven war films like Black Hawk Dawn had to compress 18 hours of combat into roughly two-and-a-half hours with plenty of artistic license taken.
Warfare’s goal is to put you in the middle of a 2006 Iraq War scenario with precise detail. That is its ambition above all things, clearly the ambition of the directing duo Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza. Garland is quite famous for writing and directing films like Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Civil War, but chances are you don’t recognize Ray Mendoza’s name. He actually served in the Iraq War, along with witnessing the real-world scenario that inspired this film. Mendoza wants you to feel like you’ve experienced the hell he saw up close. Warfare succeeds at that ambition. The question is whether that’s enough to sustain a 95-minute movie that’s only three scenes long.
Google
Facebook
