The familiar saying about war being hell certainly holds true, and there's ample evidence to support that idea. However, few people would describe war as boring—though that might be an accurate assessment of how it’s presented in this new film from writer-directors Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza. This story, based on actual events, follows a Navy SEAL unit tasked with assisting a US Marine operation in Ramadi during the Iraq War in 2006. Shot as if unfolding in real time, the movie attempts to place viewers directly into the middle of this urban combat zone, which culminates in an ambush by insurgents using grenades, guns and IEDs, resulting in deaths and several injuries that put lives at risk. The ensuing need for evacuation then places the rescue team in significant danger as fighting escalates around them, a hazardous battlefield depicted through a carefully staged recreation of what actually happened on the ground. Yet, while portraying this conflict, the filmmakers make a serious misstep by rendering it incredibly tedious; its approach is so detached and procedural that there’s no real connection with the audience—there's no character development, no emotional investment, and almost no explanation as to why any of this is happening in the first place. The narrative essentially strips away all context surrounding this incident, making the film feel like a large-screen version of a video game. It leads you to question its purpose and why viewers should even care. To make matters worse, the movie’s lengthy opening sequence, which details the preparation and intelligence gathering leading up to the main action, seems to go on indefinitely, leaving audiences wondering if anything will ever happen. And when it finally does (predictably, a trait that defines the film overall), the story devolves into an endless barrage of gunfire, explosions, and soldiers in agonizing pain. Is this supposed to be enjoyable? At that point, “Warfare” becomes more of a test of endurance than a worthwhile cinematic experience. It makes you wonder about the motivation behind making it. If the goal is misguidedly celebrating combat, it doesn't do much to make a convincing case. And if it’s intended as an anti-war statement, it oddly seems proud and self-satisfied with its success in capturing the authentic look and feel of conflict—qualities that seem to undermine such a message. Even putting aside these philosophical concerns, the film’s narrow focus on battlefield footage causes it to fall short even as a conventional war movie when compared to numerous earlier examples, including films from World War II and the Vietnam era, as well as more recent releases like “Black Hawk Down” (2001), “The Hurt Locker” (2008), “Good Kill” (2014) and “Eye in the Sky” (2015). Considering everything, this release has so few redeeming qualities that it’s hard to understand why it was made—or why anyone would actually want to see it.

Source on TMDB