Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Warfare is worth watching if you want a war film that puts you inside a single, sustained combat situation and you can accept less character development and context in exchange. Its craft is the strongest argument for it. Its stripped-down storytelling is the main reason some viewers will find it hollow. Both reactions follow from the same design choices.
What the film is
Warfare is a 2025 film written and directed by Iraq War veteran Ray Mendoza and Alex Garland. A24’s official description sets it on an American Navy SEAL platoon that shelters in an Iraqi family’s home while watching US forces move through insurgent territory. The film unfolds in real time and is based on the memories of the people who lived through the incident. The cast includes D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis, Kit Connor, Finn Bennett, Taylor John Smith, Michael Gandolfini, Adain Bradley, Noah Centineo, Evan Holtzman, Henrique Zaga, Joseph Quinn, and Charles Melton. The running time is 95 minutes, or 1 hour 35 minutes, according to A24 Shop and Rotten Tomatoes.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Warfare | $29.49 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
X-Men Origins: Wolverine | $15.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Cruel Sea | Buy on Amazon | |
| 4 |
|
Flight of the Intruder | $3.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Wind That Shakes the Barley | Buy on Amazon |
The real event behind it
According to reporting by the Associated Press (Lindsey Bahr, April 9, 2025), Mendoza’s own experience was a November 2006 surveillance mission in Ramadi Province, Iraq. The SEALs were discovered and attacked with a grenade thrown through a sniper hole, and an IED exploded while the team tried to extract wounded members of the platoon. The film is dedicated to Elliott Miller, a medic and sniper who was severely injured in the incident and has no memory of that day.
That origin matters for how you read the film. It is not a documentary and it does not claim to show everything that happened. AP reports that the filmmakers reconstructed events from first-hand accounts, and that conflicting recollections sometimes forced them to leave out details or choose one version over another. The film is therefore best understood as a reconstruction built from testimony and memory, with the gaps and disagreements left in place where the filmmakers could not resolve them.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
- Alex Garland
- Ray Mendoza
- D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai
- Will Poulter
- Cosmo Jarvis
How the film is built
Three structural decisions define the experience, and each one is documented in the reporting on the film.
- Real time. The story runs continuously through the incident rather than cutting between timelines.
- No scaffolding. AP reports that the filmmakers avoided editorializing, sentimental music, flashbacks, and news reports that would supply historical or political context.
- Participant memory as the source. Events are filtered through the people who were there, so the film’s perspective is limited to what they experienced.
Garland explained the approach to AP in these words: “If someone’s telling you something as honestly as they can, it has a power. And it’s a power that cinema doesn’t typically exploit.” He also described how the conflicting memories raised a question for the filmmakers: “It really makes you confront what the relationship is between memory truth and film truth.”
Rank #2
Preparation and physical stress
AP reports that the cast completed three weeks of training based on a SEAL program meant to prepare soldiers for intense stress and fatigue. Mendoza also gave the actors playing leaders difficult tasks and tight timelines. The reporting does not describe this as military selection or operational training, and it should not be read that way. It does explain why the performances convey exhaustion and group strain so directly. Mendoza described the team’s earlier days this way: “It kind of became a ritual. We were just silly. And it was a way for me to show, I think, how young we were.”
Where the intensity comes from
The film’s strongest case rests on sensory immersion and craft. Critics’ consensus on Rotten Tomatoes describes it this way: “Narratively cut to the bone and geared up with superb filmmaking craft, Warfare evokes the primal terror of combat with unnerving power.” Read that as the critical majority’s view rather than a settled judgment of the film.
Rank #3
In practical terms, the real-time structure and absence of music or flashbacks keep the viewer in the same position as the men in the house. You do not get a reprieve to understand the stakes from a distance. For viewers who want war cinema to feel physical and unrelenting, this is the appeal. The approach also means that tension builds through duration and shared confinement rather than through a sequence of climactic set pieces, which is one reason the film may feel more like an extended ordeal than a conventional action movie.
Where it feels hollow
The tradeoff is equally direct. A film that removes context and flashbacks also removes most of the means by which audiences usually come to care about individual soldiers. You learn who these men are mostly through how they behave under pressure, not through backstory or arc. The political situation around the mission, the Iraqi family’s perspective, and the larger strategic stakes are largely outside the frame.
Rank #4
This is where the “somewhat hollow” reading gains traction. Viewers who expect character-led storytelling, emotional payoff, or historical framing may feel that the film delivers pressure without much meaning beyond it. A critical counterpoint in a Sydney Morning Herald review excerpt on Rotten Tomatoes makes this exact argument from the other side: “While conventional entertainment value may not be the film’s strength, Garland and Mendoza have taken some impressive risks in throwing many of the rules of drama out the window.” That is one published critic’s assessment, and it is useful because it accepts the trade-off rather than denying it.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Critical reception
When accessed in 2026, Rotten Tomatoes showed a 92% Tomatometer from 238 critic reviews and a 92% Popcornmeter from more than 2,500 verified audience ratings. These figures are changing snapshots, not fixed measures of quality, and they can shift as reviews and ratings accumulate. They also tell you little about the specific complaint in the title. A high score is consistent with viewers who admire the craft while still finding the story thin.
Best Value
How to decide
Use the trade-off to choose your viewing night:
- Watch it if you want an immersive, physically demanding war film, if you are interested in how memory shapes a true event, or if you admire restrained, unsentimental filmmaking.
- Skip it, or wait, if you need a strong protagonist, clear political framing, or a story with an emotional arc that resolves.
- Consider it carefully if you are sensitive to graphic combat violence, because the film’s realism is the point of its design.
Is it a true story, and how realistic is it?
Warfare is based on a real incident, but it is not a literal record. The filmmakers reconstructed the events from the memories of participants, and AP reports that conflicting accounts meant some details were dropped or chosen. Whether it is “realistic” depends on what you mean. The film aims for experiential realism, meaning how the situation felt to the people in it, rather than an exhaustive account of tactics or outcomes. The training described above supports the physical portrayal, but it did not make the actors SEALs.
Home video editions
If you want to own the film, A24 Shop lists a standard HD Blu-ray and a 4K UHD Blu-ray. Both include a commentary with Ray Mendoza, Alex Garland, and military consultant Brian Philpot, a 29-minute featurette, and six collectible postcards with behind-the-scenes photography by Alex Brockdorff. A24’s film page links to Amazon for Blu-ray purchase, but seller, stock, region, and price vary, so check the listing before you buy.
| Feature | Standard HD Blu-ray | 4K UHD Blu-ray |
|---|---|---|
| Runtime | 95 minutes | 95 minutes |
| Presentation | 2:1 | 2:1 |
| Audio | English, Dolby Atmos | English, Dolby Atmos |
| Subtitles | English SDH, Spanish | English SDH, Spanish |
| Extras | Commentary, 29-minute featurette, six postcards | Commentary, 29-minute featurette, six postcards |
| Playback requirement | Standard Blu-ray player | 4K TV and an HDR-capable 4K Blu-ray player; incompatible with standard Blu-ray players |
The HD edition plays on any standard Blu-ray player. The 4K edition needs the equipment listed above to play in 4K UHD HDR.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
