Quick synopsis: A surveillance mission goes wrong for a platoon of American Navy SEALs in insurgent territory in Iraq.

I’m still not entirely sure how I felt about Warfare (the movie, not the general concept). On the one hand, it is a superbly crafted experience, one that puts you in the shoes of those who were there, a real treat for those who are interested in modern warfare. On the other hand, it’s incredibly dull at times, and is so focused on being realistic and well-researched, it seems to forget that not everybody knows military terms.

I will praise Warfare (again, the movie, not the general concept, I’m not about to “big up” genocide, I’m not a politician) for how research permeates through the screen. People react realistically, and I will praise it for showing how even well-trained professionals still find it difficult to cope. This is the kind of masculinity that should be taught; the strength to know when you’re too fucked up and broken to be at your best, and how during those times you should relinquish leadership roles. They also have no qualms about screaming in agony and crying. Yes, this is natural when you’ve lost your legs. But think of how many films have shown people suffer severe physical damage, and don’t seem to emotionally respond to it. Warfare shows fear, and it shows pain. It’s disappointing that something so simple should be praised, but it should.

Sadly, that realism also means it can be difficult for people to “buy in” to the narrative. Army speak is kind of a code at times, people are referred to almost entirely by what type of soldier they are, and those names sometimes don’t give you a lot of clues as to what they actually do. Because everybody knows what they’re doing, they don’t explain it. So you often have someone say something like “okay, meet the Yorkshire Puddings at 06 to coordinate a Flipped Fletcher, and don’t forget your oily shepherd, you never know when you might meet a sleeping zebra”, but not give any clues what those terms mean (obviously not those ones, I invented them).

One of the most frustrating aspects is that it’s a war film without purpose. There are no moral quandaries or discussions. Which is odd considering they break into someone’s house and force the families who live there to let them stay there, pointing guns at their faces if they even look like objecting. Near the end, once the soldiers leave, the families are traumatised, and you know that there’s no chance the US army will compensate them for destroying their house, and they’re now targets for the Iraqis because they may be seen as helping the invasion. Despite this, we’re still supposed to support the main characters, because they’re the main characters. But outside of that, it’s difficult to feel more for them. They’re not given enough chance to show any personality, and most are interchangeable. Movies like this depend on personal connection to the characters, but Warfare is so insistent on telling its truth, it forgets to adhere to basic storytelling devices, which would allow us to care.

As a concept? This is fascinating. As an art project? Worthwhile. As a narrative feature-length movie to sit in a cinema and watch? Unfortunately, it’s difficult to recommend. Yes, it’s real, but there’s a reason most films don’t feature scenes highlighting a character pissing in a bottle.