Warfare (2025)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.