Warfare

I say this as a compliment and not as a criticism, I wanted it to end.

What if you stripped away all the hooky plotting typical of military dramas, and just put an unembellished skirmish from a real war on-screen? Would it still work as cinema? The answer is yes.

If a movie can be elegant and brutal at once, this one is.

But by choosing to skip over such traditional narrative strategies as character differentiation... the filmmakers leave out an element that is crucial to the viewer's engagement.

While it's admirable Mendoza and Garland stitch together this agonizing portrait of the perils of war, its demands on young soldiers, and the merciless reality of combat, I was unsure how to feel about it.

Undeniably one of the most immersive and visceral war movies ever made. I was dazzled by the cinematic craftsmanship and marveled at the displays of brotherhood, but was also left utterly shattered by the reality of modern warfare.

The result is a film that's effective but hard to recommend. Is it well made? Incredibly. Is it strongly acted? Indeed... Should you rush to the theater? That depends. It will undoubtedly make you feel awful … but that's also sort of the point.

A nerve-wracking jolt to the system, though one that is all but devoid of political context. The film's not really like most Hollywood war movies... Warfare is just warfare, calibrated as a cinematic show-of-force.

It's understandable that war causes filmmakers to take sides; "Warfare" is a triumphant example of how a war movie can leave you breathless with awe when it doesn't.

The filmmakers do achieve what feels like genuine authenticity in their depictions of combat, both when it comes to direct engagements and the long, uncertain periods of standing around and waiting between such engagements.

"Warfare" is a viscerally impressive work. Your body feels it. But you may come away from it wondering what the larger point is, other than the fact that it happened to someone.

The only agenda in Warfare, in other words, is to give you a sense of not just what happened but how everything felt while it was happening. A tall order, to be sure, but one that Garland, Mendoza, their cast and the crew pull off shockingly well.

A taut and terrifying portrait of courage under fire.

It is, rather, a purposely sad, angry movie, and as much a lament as a warning.

"Warfare's" mission, should audiences choose to accept it, is 95 minutes of tension and occasional release without conventional catharsis or hooyah triumphalism.

As a depiction of the futility of conflict from those who fought, Warfare is far from ambivalent.

What's ingenious about it is that it is not a mindless rah-rah, gung-ho war movie, but a sobering look at what truly happens in battle, and the valor and courage of those in uniform as well as the loss of limbs and life incurred.

"Warfare" wants to live in the dictionary shoehorned between war cry and war hawk. This short and gripping thriller nails its Oxford English definition - "the activity of fighting a war" - while stripping away the clichés

You've never seen war on-screen quite like this, and you've never heard war on-screen quite like this.

Mendoza and Garland have made a film with remarkable cinematography and astonishing sound design.