In fresh years, the war theatre has changed its tone. alternatively of stories of heroism, national pride and fighting for good things, creators increasingly show war as what it truly is: hell.
From the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker. In the trap of war" Kathryn Bigelow, by "1917" Sam Mendes, after Edward Berger's "Unchanged West" – we see more and more brutal, anti-hero portraits of soldiers and battles. Their target? Not to praise courage, but to exposure the nonsense of war, fear, pain, and indescribable cruelty.
This trend perfectly fits "War" – the movie by Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza, which is 1 of the strongest, most uncompromising images of the war of fresh years. And it's no wonder that A24 is liable for production – a brand that has become synonymous with quality, first cinema in fresh years.
For unknown reasons, however, the movie "War" did not go to Polish cinemas, even though it made sound abroad and in the Islands (it is simply a British-American co-production). That's besides bad, but luckily, Prime Video went to its head. A small tip: watch Warfare on the top possible screen, it's worth it.
What's "War"? It's a war movie where there's no speeches or flags, but survival.
The "War" action takes place in real time and tells about one, circumstantial mission of the American Navy SEALs in Iraqi Ramadi in 2006. A group of soldiers, sent for reconnaissance, are trapped in a two-story building from which they watch Al-Qaeda's movements. Tension increases and then detonation occurs – virtually and figuratively.
Everything is based on facts – Ray Mendoza himself participated in this action. But War isn't just his communicative and memories. The movie was besides based on the coverage of his platoon colleagues. Hence this shocking realism, reinforced by an excellent staging of fights and a meticulous reconstruction of the full mission.
Alex Garland – the creator of the intimate sci-fi "Ex Machina" and loud "Civil War", in which he dismantled the image of Amryka in chaos – narrows the position even further. There's no narrator, we don't admit the character, due to the fact that there's no time. We won't have time to like or realize them. Dialogues are not elevated speeches about God and honor, nor talk about a bride waiting at home. That's mostly commands, radio screams, wounded groans.
It's a movie that doesn't give you a break. It doesn't explain, it doesn't offer context, it doesn't show the political background of the Iraq war. due to the fact that war is not a communicative of right or idea. It is 95 minutes in the mediate of hell, where there is no area for reflection – only 1 thing matters: to survive. And the camera doesn't look away. erstwhile a grenade explodes, we not only hear a bang – we almost feel a shock wave in the body.
That's what makes this movie hit so hard. We just end up in the mediate of a war apocalypse. Garland and Mendoza remind us: actual war leaves no area for history. All that matters is the reaction and saving of life – yours and the 1 next to it.
The cast of "War" is excellent, but this is not "The Company of Brothers"
Mendoza confessed in 1 of his interviews that making this movie with Garland was therapeutic for him. And you can see that in all minute due to the fact that realism is crushing. Blood, amputations, screams – everything played so that the viewer involuntaryly tightens his fists. Especially this 1 scene with Joseph Quinn – his pain howling takes so long that in another movie it would be considered an exaggeration. Not here, here it's true.
Alex Garland's movie does not request deep intellectual portraits, but the celebrity cast is awesome anyway. Will Poulter as commander on the verge of a breakdown, Cosmo Jarvis – silent veteran, Charles Melton – focused leader, Kit Connor – idealist who does not yet know what war is. And D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai, embodiment in young Mendoza, becomes a average – his gaze carries memory, pain and silent rebellion.
It is simply a squad cinema (really well played), but not about "brotherhood of arms". The bond between soldiers is real, but not romantic. It's not "The Company of Brothers" and "Szeregoviet Ryan", although the first scenes may be associated with him. Closer to "Go and see" and mentioned "In the West of Change" and "Hurt Locker" – the full decay of humanity.
So "War" is another proof that A24 is not afraid of hard subjects and experimental forms. Garland and Mendoza go completely against the current and make a movie that in no way is entertainment. Yes, at times it is hard to even call it a feature film, due to the fact that it resembles a realistic documentary.
Is it worth watching Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza's movie?
"War" is not a movie for everyone. It's not a movie you like – it's an experience. Physical, traumatic, painful.
The images created by Garland and Mendoza (unfortunately) stay in their head long after the final credits. Like all those scenes from another war movies we don't want to remember, but they come back anyway. It's hard to get them out of your memory, like that terrifying minute with the dying enemy soldier in the trench in "The West No Change"...
"War" won't like those who are looking for a classical war movie in the Hollywood edition. due to the fact that there's no area for eect and patos. There's severity. alternatively of heroic monologues – silence. alternatively of answering questions. erstwhile 1 Iraqi asks an American soldier, "Why?", silence falls. And erstwhile soldiers effort to comfort the frightened household by saying that nothing will happen to them, their voices sound false – they do not believe it themselves.
It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to watch War twice. Not due to the fact that it is simply a bad movie – on the contrary. It's a movie besides good, besides real, besides human in its cruelty. besides drastic. It's not an anti-war charm, not a moralite. It's a scream. And the echo of that scream is long after the séance.
