---
title: "Warfare"
year: 2025
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/warfare"
fi1m_id: "warfare"
imdb_id: "tt31434639"
tmdb_id: 1241436
wikidata_id: "Q125217247"
fi1m_score: 76
critics_score: 77
critics_reviews: 23
published: "2026-09-09"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:37:51.675759+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Warfare (2025)

Directed by Ray Mendoza, Alex Garland · 1h 35m · MPA R · War, Action

## Identity

Warfare

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/warfare
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** warfare
- **IMDb ID:** tt31434639
- **TMDB ID:** 1241436
- **Wikidata ID:** Q125217247
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31434639/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1241436, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125217247

**Fi1m score: 76** · Critics 77 from 23 reviews

*In a sentence:* Ninety-five minutes in one house in Ramadi, no music, no speeches, and a ringing in the ears that followed us home

> Garland and Mendoza rebuild a 2006 Ramadi firefight in real time from the memories of the men who fought it, and it is the most convincing combat we have sat through in years. What it will not tell you is why anyone was there.

## Synopsis

Ramadi, Iraq, 2006. A platoon of Navy SEALs takes over a two-storey house in the dead of night, moves the family who live there into a back room, and sets up a watch on the street below. Ray (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai) works the radio. Erik (Will Poulter) is the officer in charge. Elliott (Cosmo Jarvis) has the sniper rifle. For a long while nothing happens; then something does. Written and directed by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, a former SEAL who was there, and told in real time from the memories of the men involved, with Kit Connor, Joseph Quinn and Michael Gandolfini.

## Review

Ray Mendoza was a Navy SEAL in Ramadi in 2006, and *Warfare* is his account of one day there, written and directed with Alex Garland and built, a title card tells us, from the memories of the men who were present. There is no score, no voiceover and no caption explaining the war. A platoon takes over a two-storey house at night, the family who live there are put in a back room, and a sniper settles at an upstairs window to watch the street. For a long stretch that is the whole film: men on a concrete floor, a radio, a jet passing low, and a long wait.

Then something does happen, and we will not say what. Because the film runs in real time and never cuts away, every minute the men spend waiting is a minute we spend with them.

David J. Thompson holds the camera at shoulder height in corridors and stairwells, so we rarely see more than the men can. Mark Digby’s house is a family home with the furniture pushed to the walls and a fine grey dust over everything, and once that dust is in the air we could tell the men apart only by their voices on the radio, since David Crossman and Neil Murphy have put every one of them in the same sand-coloured kit under the same helmet. Fin Oates cuts to a single rule, which is that time is not allowed to skip, so the lulls run as long as the firefights.

The sound is the film’s main instrument. A jet passes and the house shakes; gunfire outside is a flat crack, gunfire inside is a blow to the chest. When the worst thing happens the mix drops to a thin whine, as if we had been standing beside it, and then the screaming starts and does not stop. We were horrified. We sat for what must have been twenty minutes with our shoulders up round our ears. It is not the blood that does it, though there is plenty. It is that the screaming is treated like the dust, as a fact of the house that nobody on screen can do anything about either.

D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai plays Ray, the man on the radio, and spends most of the film reading grid references into a handset while his face does something else entirely; the film is built on that performance. Will Poulter’s Erik is the officer, and Poulter shows a man keeping his voice level while his eyes give up on him. Cosmo Jarvis, Joseph Quinn, Kit Connor and Finn Bennett fill out the platoon, and Michael Gandolfini arrives late as a lieutenant. Nobody has a photograph of a girlfriend or a story about home. We know these men by their jobs and their fear.

What it will not say is why. The Iraqi family are glimpsed through a doorway and barely spoken to, and the men firing at the house are never more than shapes. Garland and Mendoza have decided that the platoon did not know either, and that the film should know no more than they did. Most critics have taken this as the point and praised it; two have called the result empty. We are between them. For 95 minutes the choice works, because the fear on screen is convincing. Afterwards, in the car park, we knew exactly what the day had felt like and nothing about what it had been for, and we think the makers would call that the right condition to leave in.

Against Garland’s [*Civil War*](https://film.one/film/civil-war) (2024), this is the more disciplined film. See it in a cinema if you can, with the sound turned up as far as it will go; at home the walls do not shake and the film is a good deal smaller for it. The 15 certificate is stern and deserved. Do not bring anyone squeamish, and do not expect much conversation on the way out.

*Fi1m score 76, published 9 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics agree on what Warfare is: a real-time reconstruction of one 2006 Ramadi mission, told from the soldiers’ memories, with no score, no backstories and no explanation of why anyone is there. The praise clusters on the sound design, the hand-held camerawork and the ensemble, and on how thoroughly the film strips out the usual war-film comforts.

The reservations cluster just as tightly: the same lack of context that impresses most critics leaves others asking what the film is for once the shooting stops. Little White Lies finds it colder and nastier the longer one thinks about it, and Sight and Sound finds it emotionally ineffective. The two outright dissents come from The Independent, which calls the violence unmoored without political framing or Iraqi perspectives, and Deadline, which finds the technique showy and the film empty. Otherwise the spread is narrow; almost everyone lands between good and very good.

## Straight answers

**Is Warfare worth watching?**

*Warfare* is worth watching for anyone who can sit through 95 minutes of real-time combat with no music and no explanation, and we scored it 76. It is the most convincing firefight we have seen in years, but it will not tell you why anyone was in that house, and we left knowing what the day felt like and nothing about what it was for.

**How long is Warfare, and what is it rated?**

*Warfare* runs 1h 35m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a war and action film.

**Where can I watch Warfare in the US?**

*Warfare* is streaming on HBO Max, The Roku Channel, Hulu and Amazon Prime Video in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $4.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Warfare, and is it suitable for children?**

*Warfare* carries a 15 certificate in the UK and an R in the US, and both are deserved; it is not for children. There is plenty of blood, but the worst of it is the sound, with screaming that goes on and does not stop for what feels like twenty minutes. Anyone squeamish should stay away.

**How does Warfare compare to Come and See?**

*Warfare* is the narrower film: one house, one day, told in real time by the men who were there, with no view beyond what they could see. [*Come and See*](https://film.one/film/come-and-see) follows a boy across occupied Belarus and is the greater work, the war film everything else is measured against. Both punish through sound; only Klimov's asks what the terror means.

**What should I watch after Warfare?**

After *Warfare*, try [*Come and See*](https://film.one/film/come-and-see) (1985, Fi1m 92): A boy in occupied Belarus, 1943; the war film everything else is measured against. Then [*'71*](https://film.one/film/71) (2014, Fi1m 82): One soldier lost overnight in Belfast; Jack O’Connell running through a city he does not know; and [*Civil War*](https://film.one/film/civil-war) (2024, Fi1m 70): Garland’s previous; more to argue with, less discipline, and Kirsten Dunst at her stillest.

### Reviews we read (27)

- **The Telegraph** (5/5): The critic calls the film an astonishing and honest depiction of modern combat, the most harrowing and truthful on screen, reconstructed in real time from the soldiers' memories. They single out its evocation of the fire, fury, and boredom of battle, along with strong performances that convey the chaos and lack of easy resolution in war. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza/)
- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (90/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's intense, visceral real-time recreation of a 2006 Iraq battle as one of the most forceful depictions of combat in recent cinema, comparable to Saving Private Ryan and Come and See. They highlight its stripped-back approach that rejects conventional war movie tropes like moral messaging or character backstories, focusing instead on the raw experience of soldiers in action and the futility of war. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/apr/20/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza-iraq-war-2006-will-poulter-d-pharaoh-woon-a-tai-joseph-quinn-cosmo-jarvis-kit-connor-charles-melton)
- **Empire**, Alex Godfrey (85/100, inferred): The critic describes the film as respectfully gruelling and cinema’s most effective pure anti-war film, commending its lean storytelling, lack of score or sentimentality, and immersive depiction that makes war look anything but cool. They highlight the real-time structure and focus on the texture of combat from the soldiers’ memories. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/warfare/)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, David Rooney (85/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's unflinching realism and visceral real-time depiction of combat as a nerve-shredding hell that leaves viewers shaken. They single out the rigorous authenticity drawn from co-director Ray Mendoza's firsthand experience, along with the immersive sound design and ensemble performances. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/warfare-review-ray-mendoza-alex-garland-a24-1236171767/)
- **The AV Club** (B+): The review calls the film a tense, sobering, and ugly snapshot of combat that wages tight filmmaking against war's disregard for life. It singles out the real-time claustrophobic and frenetic camerawork that maintains the soldiers' perspectives throughout the ordeal. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/warfare-review)
- **Evening Standard**, Martin Robinson (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the film as a technical triumph and visceral real-time immersion into a Navy SEALs operation, highlighting the astonishing sound design, hand-held camerawork, and strong ensemble performances. They note it focuses purely on human experience in hellish circumstances without engaging politics. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/warfare-review-film-b1219403.html)
- **Little White Lies**, Hannah Strong (2/4/2): An evocative but empty war film that is compelling and technically accomplished in its raw, tense recreation of events yet nastier and colder the more one thinks about it, lacking political depth or engagement with the 'why' of war. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/warfare)
- **Slant Magazine** (80/100, inferred): The review highlights the film as a harrowing, obsessive forensic recreation and formidable technical showcase whose formal limitations become meaningful in themselves. It singles out the grounded ensemble performances and the way the imposed constraints pose questions about war without providing easy answers. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza-will-poulter-charles-melton/)
- **The New Yorker**, Justin Chang (80/100, inferred): The critic describes it as a hyper-exacting realist rebuke of war-movie conventions, with rigorous focus on process, real-time logistics, and sensory detail rather than personalities or glamor. It singles out the sound design and the directors' fusion of formal skill and lived experience for praise. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/14/warfare-movie-review)
- **Time Out**, Ian Freer (4/5): A forensic, immersive and brutally visceral act of remembrance that catapults viewers into the heat of battle with intense authenticity and delivers a powerful gut punch, though it avoids character development or political points of view. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/warfare-review-2025)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Amy Nicholson (75/100, inferred): The critic calls it taut, terrifying, and scrupulously realistic, noting how it reenacts a real 2006 Ramadi incident to argue against war while avoiding specifics. It praises the verbal shot-list narration and immersive recreation of combat's sights, sounds, and smells. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2025-04-10/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza-will-poulter-joseph-quinn-cosmo-jarvis-charles-melton)
- **Vulture** (75/100, inferred): The critic views the film as an admirable attempt to create a genuine you-are-there account that counters the glamorization of combat by stripping away character and conventional storytelling. They single out its achievement of authentic depictions of both intense engagements and the uncertain waiting periods in the hellish 2006 Ramadi mission. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/article/review-warfare-a-you-are-there-account-of-the-iraq-war.html)
- **IndieWire**, David Ehrlich (70/100, inferred): The critic describes the film as a hyper-intense Iraq War simulator that achieves striking authenticity through its narrow, forensic focus on one mission. They single out its stubbornly ambivalent approach and technical command while noting it can feel limited by its emphasis on realism over broader storytelling. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/movies/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza-iraq-1235111675/)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Matt Zoller Seitz (70/100, inferred): The critic calls it a viscerally impressive 'you are there' war movie that immerses viewers in combat's noise, blood, and chaos without glorifying the subject. It praises the sound design and clinical realism but questions the point beyond documenting what happened. [Read](https://rogerebert.com/reviews/warfare-a24-film-review-2025)
- **The Independent** (40/100, inferred): The critic argues that the film offers only violence stripped of context, making it feel unmoored, though its narrow focus on the immediate sensory experience of conflict is its most successful element among Garland's recent works. They single out the lack of backstories, political framing, or attention to Iraqi perspectives as a key shortcoming. [Read](https://independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/warfare-review-alex-garland-kit-connor-b2735246.html)
- **Screen Daily**: A visceral, immersive real-time retelling of a Navy SEAL mission gone wrong that offers an unflinching, sharply authentic snapshot of combat focused on desperation, fear and survival rather than honour or glory. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/warfare-review-alex-garland-co-directs-tense-iraq-combat-drama/5203432.article)
- **Sight and Sound**: The film is a powerful, intense depiction of combat that conveys the immediacy of being under attack but is emotionally ineffective, offering little space for the audience to connect with or identify with the characters. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/warfare-reconstruction-iraq-war-mission-gone-wrong-intense-emotionally-ineffective)
- **The New York Times**, Manohla Dargis (Critic's Pick): The critic praises the film as a tough, relentless, purposely sad and angry movie that serves as a lament and warning rather than entertainment. It highlights its refusal to thrill or explain the mission's rationale, focusing instead on the grim reality of a SEAL platoon in Iraq. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/movies/warfare-review.html)
- **Collider**, Aidan Kelley (9/10): The critic praises the film's real-time tension and authentic depiction of combat through sound design and focus on the present moment, but notes limited character development as a potential drawback for some viewers. [Read](https://collider.com/warfare-movie-review-a24/)
- **The Wrap** (90/100, inferred): The critic praises the film as one of the most viscerally powerful stories about combat, lauding its authenticity and immersive real-time narrative without Hollywood tropes. It singles out the unvarnished view of war and the avoidance of romanticization for praise. [Read](https://thewrap.com/warfare-review-alex-garland-navy-seals-iraq-movie)
- **Digital Spy**, Ian Sandwell (80/100, inferred): The film delivers an intensely immersive and authentic portrayal of war's horrors without romanticization, focusing on sensory assault and realism, though it may leave viewers questioning its broader point. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a64452206/warfare-review/)
- **/Film**, Jacob Hall (8/10): The critic describes it as a disturbing, riveting nightmare that redefines the war movie as a purely experiential, real-time descent into chaotic hell without traditional plot, judgment or rousing moments. They single out its commitment to messy authenticity and immersion in the soldiers' terror and tedium. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/1820979/warfare-movie-review/)
- **Film Stories**, Ryan Lambie (80/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's unsparing, detailed depiction of combat's physical and psychological toll, focusing on the human vulnerability of soldiers rather than politics or heroism. They single out the intense sound design and realistic portrayal of pain for praise, comparing it to Come and See. [Read](https://filmstories.co.uk/reviews/warfare-review-the-human-cost-of-war-laid-bare)
- **NME**, Lou Thomas (75/100, inferred): The review highlights the film's gripping, unflinching, and honest depiction of war as hell, commending its accuracy from the soldiers' perspective but noting it's only one side of the story; it recommends it as compelling viewing against warmongering. [Read](https://www.nme.com/reviews/film-reviews/warfare-review-alex-garland-ray-mendoza-3855904)
- **The Playlist**, Rodrigo Perez (70/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a visceral, harrowing boots-on-the-ground experience that powerfully conveys the intensity of combat and brotherhood but notes it has little to say beyond the punishing tension of battle itself. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/warfare-review-ray-mendoza-alex-garland-boots-on-ground-thriller-is-visceral-harrowing-a-little-empty-20250328/)
- **Deadline**, Gregory Nussen (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the film full of bombastic aestheticism that leaves viewers feeling empty, criticizing its lack of context and characterization while noting its effective sound design. It singles out the tactile filmmaking and gunfire sounds for praise but condemns the overall glorification without substance. [Read](https://deadline.com/2025/03/warfare-review-alex-garland-1236353077/)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (3.5 out of 5): The critic praises the film's visceral, real-time depiction of chaos and confusion in war, noting its brutal honesty and lack of traditional thrills or answers, but finds it artistically less satisfying due to its anonymity and lack of emotional depth. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/warfare-review-alex-garland/)

## Details

- **Director:** Ray Mendoza, Alex Garland
- **Director:** Ray Mendoza, Alex Garland
- **Writer:** Alex Garland, Ray Mendoza
- **Cinematography:** David J. Thompson
- **Editor:** Fin Oates
- **Production design:** Mark Digby
- **Costume design:** David Crossman, Neil Murphy
- **Producer:** Peter Rice, Andrew Macdonald, Allon Reich
- **Cast:** D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as Ray; Will Poulter as Erik; Cosmo Jarvis as Elliott; Kit Connor as Tommy; Finn Bennett as John; Taylor John Smith as Frank; Michael Gandolfini as Lt. MacDonald; Adain Bradley as Sgt Laerrus
- **Runtime:** 1h 35m
- **Certificate (MPA):** R
- **Release (the US):** 11 April 2025
- **Genres:** War, Action
- **Budget:** $20 million
- **Box office:** $35 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JER0Fkyy3tw

## Where to watch in the US

- HBO Max: streaming, uhd
- The Roku Channel: add-on, hd
- Hulu: add-on, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: add-on, uhd
- Amazon Prime Video: rent $4.99, uhd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $19.99, uhd

*Checked 2026-09-10.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PL, PT, RO, SE, TR, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *Come and See* (1985), Fi1m 92: A boy in occupied Belarus, 1943; the war film everything else is measured against. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/come-and-see.md)
- *Lebanon* (2009): The 1982 invasion seen entirely from inside a tank; ninety minutes of gunsight.
- *Restrepo* (2010): A year with one platoon in Afghanistan, filmed by two men who kept going back.
- *'71* (2014), Fi1m 82: One soldier lost overnight in Belfast; Jack O’Connell running through a city he does not know. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/71.md)
- *Civil War* (2024), Fi1m 70: Garland’s previous; more to argue with, less discipline, and Kirsten Dunst at her stillest. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/civil-war.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/warfare