Warfare
Spoiler context: Warfare is a real-time depiction of real events. The real Elliott Miller, to whom the film is dedicated, lost his leg and his ability to speak as a result of the events depicted. This is not entertainment in the conventional sense. It is testimony.
Full analysis belowNo trap. The film delivers exactly what the premise promises: a real-time, factually grounded depiction of a November 2006 Navy SEAL operation in Ramadi, Iraq. The film was made with the active participation of the real platoon members and is dedicated to one of them. It is the most respectful major studio military film in recent memory.
Spoiler context: Warfare is a real-time depiction of real events. The real Elliott Miller, to whom the film is dedicated, lost his leg and his ability to speak as a result of the events depicted. This is not entertainment in the conventional sense. It is testimony.
November 19, 2006. Ramadi, Iraq, during one of the most violent periods of the post-invasion conflict. Navy SEAL Alpha One platoon takes control of a residential house on a street in Ramadi, occupying the building to provide overwatch and protect a Marine unit in a nearby sector from elevated sniper activity. The family who lives there, father, mother, grandmother, children, is still inside. The SEALs try to be decent to them while conducting a military operation. This is the entire film. 96 minutes. No act breaks. No character introductions. No backstory. No political commentary. Just the mission, the men, and what happens to them.
Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza have made something genuinely unusual: a war film with no agenda beyond accuracy. The script was drawn entirely from the testimonies of the real platoon members who were present. Nothing in the film was invented. The men who lived it were involved throughout production. The film is dedicated to Elliott Miller, the SEAL played by Joseph Quinn who was catastrophically wounded in the IED blast that forms the film's most devastating sequence.
This commitment to accuracy is why Salon published a piece complaining that the film's apolitical stance is itself political. They are right, and they mean it as a criticism. From VirtueVigil's perspective, it is the highest possible praise. A film that shows American military personnel performing their duties with competence, courage, and genuine care for one another, without editorializing about whether the Iraq War was right or wrong, is making a political statement in 2025 simply by refusing to make one.
The film is structured as a real-time experience rather than a narrative. There is no setup. You are dropped directly into the platoon establishing its position. Characters are not introduced by name or backstory. You learn who they are the way you would in combat: by watching what they do. Will Poulter's Frank is the platoon commander, distinguished by his calm and his constant management of the space. Joseph Quinn's Elliott is distinguished by his evident competence and, eventually, by what happens to him. D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai plays Ray Mendoza, the co-director's on-screen avatar, who says almost nothing and watches almost everything.
The action sequences are among the most technically precise in recent war cinema. Garland and cinematographer Alejandro Garces film the firefights with a disorienting, immediate quality that places you inside the chaos rather than above it. You do not understand the full tactical picture at any moment, because the SEALs often do not understand it either. Radio communications layer over each other. Orders and requests pile up. The men respond to the information they have and adapt when they have new information. This is not stylized combat. It is depicted combat.
The IED blast is the film's defining moment. The sequence that follows, SEALs performing battlefield emergency medicine on their severely wounded brother, is the most harrowing sustained sequence in the film. It is also the most revealing about the film's values. These men are devastated. They are also professionals. They keep working. They keep talking to Elliott. They hold him and they keep working. The scene is extraordinary because it does not separate the grief from the competence. Both things are true simultaneously. They are destroyed by what has happened and they are doing their jobs. That is what military service actually looks like, and the film honors it without sentimentalizing it.
The Iraqi family presents a more complex element. The film does not dehumanize them or use them as background furniture. The father of the household watches what is happening with an expression that reads as a combination of fear and resignation. His family is in the middle of something they did not choose and cannot escape. The film shows this without commenting on it. When the platoon evacuates and the family walks through the wreckage of their home, it is not presented as an indictment of American action. It is presented as a consequence that exists alongside the other consequences, the wounded SEALs, the men who did not come home, the mission completed. Reality contains multiple truths at once. The film trusts its audience to hold more than one thought.
Conservative viewers should understand what kind of film this is before going. It is not a celebration of victory. It is not an action movie. It is a film about what it actually costs to do what these men do. The absence of political moralizing is not an absence of moral weight. The weight is everywhere. It comes from the facts, from the real men whose testimonies form the script, from the dedication to Elliott Miller at the end. Films that respect their audience enough to show them the truth without telling them what to think about it are rare and valuable. Warfare is both.
| Trope | Category | Location | Authenticity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Military Brotherhood | TRADITIONAL | Throughout — the platoon's relationships are defined by mutual trust, shared risk, and genuine care; the IED response sequence is the film's most complete expression of what brotherhood means | Authentic. Drawn directly from the testimonies of the real men. This is not a Hollywood construct. It is what actually happened. |
| Professional Excellence Under Pressure | TRADITIONAL | Throughout — the SEALs manage the operation, the Iraqi family, the sniper fire, and then the medical emergency with the competence of people who have trained for exactly this | Authentic. The script comes from the real men's testimonies. The competence depicted is the actual competence they exercised. |
| Courage in Impossible Circumstances | TRADITIONAL | The IED aftermath — every man who continues working after the explosion, who holds their position, who treats the wounded, is exhibiting a kind of courage the film honors without naming | Authentic. Real events. Real men. |
| Duty Above Self | TRADITIONAL | Throughout — none of these men chose to be in this house on this day for their own benefit; they are there because it is their job and they take their job seriously | Authentic. The most fundamental military value. Honored by the film's refusal to let the men be anything less than fully committed to their duty. |
| Honoring the Fallen and Wounded | TRADITIONAL | The dedication 'For Elliott' — the film's most explicit traditional value statement; the entire project exists as an act of witness and honor for the men who were there | Authentic. The dedication is not a marketing gesture. It is why the film was made. |
| Truth Over Narrative | TRADITIONAL | The film's fundamental structure — no invented characters, no invented events, no composite scenes; the script is testimony transcribed | Authentic. The highest form of documentary respect: allowing the truth to carry the weight without editorializing. |
| Apolitical Military Respect | TRADITIONAL | Entire film — the absence of anti-war messaging, political commentary, or moral judgment about the Iraq War; the film treats the SEALs as men doing their jobs, not symbols of anything | Authentic. The most politically courageous choice the film makes. |
| Grief and Competence Coexist | TRADITIONAL | IED response sequence — the men are visibly devastated by Elliott's injuries while simultaneously performing emergency medicine; the film does not separate emotion from function | Authentic. This is what military medical care looks like in the field. The real men confirmed it. |
| Humanized Enemy Context | WOKE | Iraqi family throughout — the civilian family whose house is occupied are shown with dignity and humanity; the father's expression during the final sequence is the film's most morally complex image | Organic. The real platoon dealt with a real family. The film shows what actually happened. This is honesty, not progressive editorializing. |
| Casting Adjustment (Minor) | WOKE | D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai (Indigenous Canadian) plays Ray Mendoza (Mexican-American); Charles Melton (Korean-American) plays a character whose real identity is protected by alias | Borderline. The platoon's real diversity is protected by the alias system. Woon-A-Tai's casting involves a racial adjustment but not an ideological one. |
Director: Alex Garland & Ray Mendoza
NEUTRAL (Garland) / TRADITIONAL (Mendoza)Alex Garland is the British writer-director of Ex Machina, Annihilation, Men, and Civil War. His work is politically complex and often unsettling, but not straightforwardly progressive. Civil War deliberately refused to identify which side was right in its fictional American conflict. Garland has explicitly described his stance as apolitical. For Warfare, he co-directed with Ray Mendoza, the actual Navy SEAL on whose experiences the film is based. Mendoza provided the tactical authenticity, the emotional truth, and the moral framework. The script was drawn from the testimonies of the real platoon members, and the platoon was involved throughout production. The result is a film where the military conservative voice shaped every detail of the content, while Garland provided the filmmaking craft.
Writer: Alex Garland & Ray Mendoza
The screenplay is constructed entirely from the testimonies of the real platoon members who were present at the November 19, 2006 operation in Ramadi. Garland and Mendoza did not invent dialogue or situations. Everything in the film is drawn from the recollections of the men who lived it. This is the key fact about the film's ideological authenticity: the people most harmed by false or politicized portrayal of the military were the people who made it.
Producers
- Andrew Macdonald (DNA Films) — Scottish producer whose credits include Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Never Let Me Go, and all of Garland's directorial work. Long-term Garland collaborator. No strong political signal beyond his association with Garland's distinctly apolitical-to-liberal filmography.
- A24 (A24) — The defining American prestige studio of the past decade. A24's output leans progressive but is primarily quality-driven. They have produced films across the political spectrum when the work is strong. Their distribution of Warfare is a commercial and aesthetic choice, not an ideological endorsement of conservative military values.
Full Cast
Adult Viewer Insight
Conservative adult viewers, especially those with military service or family in the military, will find Warfare to be one of the most honest treatments of combat service in recent cinema. The absence of political commentary is not an oversight or a dodge. It is the film's most important artistic and moral choice. Garland and Mendoza have made a film that says: these men were here, this is what happened, this is what it cost. The audience can decide what to make of it. The frustration of progressive critics who wanted anti-war messaging is itself instructive. When Salon writes that an apolitical war film is 'impossible' and that the film's refusal to condemn the Iraq War is itself political, they reveal the assumption that the default stance of war cinema should be anti-military. Warfare rejects this default by simply showing what happened without judgment. That rejection enrages critics who believe depiction of military competence requires justification. The real Ray Mendoza, who co-directed the film and whose experiences are its source material, made the film because he wanted the truth of that day preserved. Not a political argument about the Iraq War. Not a celebrity movie about heroes. The truth of what it was like to be in that house, on that day, with those men. That project is entirely compatible with conservative values about honoring military service: you honor them by telling the truth about what they did and what it cost them. This is a hard film to watch. It is also an important one. See it.
Parental Guidance
Warfare is rated R. The content is severe and the rating is fully justified. Violence: Very strong and realistic. The film depicts a real combat operation, including sniper fire, an IED blast, and extensive battlefield medicine on a seriously wounded soldier. The injury depiction is not gratuitous but it is unflinching. The sounds of war, the concussions, the screaming, the radio chatter, are as affecting as the visuals. Language: Strong throughout. Military dialogue. Consistent with the genre and the reality being depicted. Sexual Content: None. Substance Use: None. Thematic Weight: The film's most important content warning is psychological. This is a depiction of real events that left real men permanently changed. Elliott Miller's injuries are not fictional. The grief depicted is not fictional. Viewers who have served or who have loved ones who have served may find the film especially intense. Age Recommendation: Not appropriate for viewers under 17. For adults, this is a genuinely important film that merits the discomfort it creates. Discussion Points: Why does the film refuse to take a position on the Iraq War? Is an apolitical war film possible? What does the film say about military brotherhood through what it shows rather than through dialogue? The Iraqi family sequences: what are we meant to feel, and why doesn't the film tell us?
Community Discussion 0
Subscribe to comment.
Join the VirtueVigil community to share your perspective on this review.