Latest News “Stay informed with breaking news, world news, US news, politics, business, technology, and more at latest news.

Category: warfare

Auto Added by WPeMatico

  • Every Alex Garland movie, ranked

    Alex Garland’s career in Hollywood goes back 23 years as the screenwriter of 28 Days Later, the zombie film that reinvigorated the genre. Since then, Garland has established himself as both a writer and a director in the industry. He’ll even be returning to his original franchise later this year with the release of 28 Years Later, the first in a new trilogy of sequels.

    This month, Garland’s latest movie, Warfare, hit theaters with an unflinching look at what it’s like to be in a modern war. To celebrate Garland’s prolific career, we’re looking back at every Alex Garland movie to date and ranking them from worst to best. The one movie we’re leaving out is 28 Months Later, since Garland only contributed uncredited rewrites to that sequel. Thus, putting it on this list wouldn’t be a fair assessment of his abilities.

    9. Men (2022)

    Men may be the Midsommar of Alex Garland movies, and not necessarily in a good way. The narrative is more than a little muddled while following a widower, Harper Marlowe (Jessie Buckley), as she visits a remote English village. Harper’s late husband, James (Paapa Essiedu), apparently committed suicide in the aftermath of an argument with her.

    One of the first men that Harper meets on her trip is Geoffrey (Rory Kinnear), the owner of the house she’s renting. And it’s impossible for Harper not to notice that every man she sees in the village bears a striking similarity to Geoffrey. That includes the enigmatic naked man who pursues her and the various faces that haunt her in the town. The setup was intriguing, but the payoff never quite justifies it.

    Rent or buy Men on Prime Video.

    8. Never Let Me Go (2010)

    Never Let Me Go presents an unusual love triangle between childhood friends Tommy (Andrew Garfield), Ruth (Keira Knightley), and Kathy (Carey Mulligan). But as conceived in Garland’s script, the world this trio lives in isn’t our own. In fact, it’s heavily implied that even their identities aren’t their own.

    The narrative doesn’t let the viewer see much of the world where humans can live to be nearly a century or older. It does show the strain on the trio’s connection when only one of the young women pairs up with Tommy while leaving the other alone without anyone to love. The bonds they have are the only thing truly real about the lives they’ve led, and it would be too much of a spoiler to explain more than that. It’s enough to say that their lives are destined to be short.

    Rent or buy Never Let Me Go on Prime Video.

    7. Sunshine (2007)

    Sunshine has a premise that’s pretty far-fetched even for a sci-fi film. Garland’s second script for director Danny Boyle imagines a world where the sun is dying, and the crew of the Icarus II has the desperate mission of guiding a special bomb to the star to reignite the sun. Cassie (Rose Byrne) is the captain of the Icarus II, but their mission changes when the crew discovers the Icarus I dead in space after failing to complete its mission.

    Sharing more about the story would require revealing the fate of certain characters. Boyle cast his 28 Days Later leading man, Cillian Murphy, as Robert Capa, with Chris Evans as James Mace, Cliff Curtis as Searle, Troy Garity as Harvey, Benedict Wong as Trey, and Shogun‘s Hiroyuki Sanada as Kaneda. That’s a fantastic cast, and having so many familiar faces makes it harder to predict who will survive.

    Rent or buy Sunshine on Prime Video.

    6. Civil War (2024)

    If there’s ever really another civil war in the United States, it probably won’t come down to California and Texas making a united stand against the federal government. That kind of makes it obvious that Garland is an English filmmaker and not an American director. Regardless, Civil War does offer a glimpse at how quickly humanity can be abandoned on the battlefield as atrocities abound.

    In what may be the closing days of the war, journalists Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), Joel (Wagner Moura), Jessie Collin (Cailee Spaeny), and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) undertake a harrowing journey through the warzone in the hope of interviewing the President of the United States before the conflict ends. That forces the group to examine the reality of the war around them, and there’s no guarantee that they’ll all survive the trip.

    Watch Civil War on Max.

    5. Annihilation (2019)

    Pay close attention when watching Annihilation. Garland doesn’t share a lot of exposition in this film, and it’s easy to be confused by the story. The short version is that something from another world has created the Shimmer, a portion of the Earth that is being changed into something alien and unfamiliar. Animals and plants within the Shimmer are being transformed, and a soldier named Kane (Oscar Isaac) is one of the few who managed to survive in the zone.

    Kane’s wife, Lena (Natalie Portman), and an all-female scientific expedition including Dr. Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh), Anya Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez), Josie Radek (Tessa Thompson), and Cassie “Cass” Sheppard (Tuva Novotny) enter the Shimmer to learn more about it. The answers they seek may also ensure that it’s a one-way trip for this group.

    Watch Annihilation on Paramount+.

    4. Warfare (2025)

    Warfare feels uncommonly real for a war movie because it’s based on the experience of Ray Mendoza, a soldier who co-wrote and co-directed the film with Garland. The film features D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as Mendoza, a communicator for a team of Navy SEALs during the second battle of Ramadi during the War in Iraq.

    Elliott Miller (Cosmo Jarvis) is badly wounded early on, and his fellow SEALs face overwhelming odds as insurgents surround their position. It’s a tense battle for survival that takes place in real time. A lot of unpleasant things happen over the course of the next 90 minutes. This is one of the most uncompromising war movies in years, and it doesn’t glorify what the SEALs went through.

    Warfare is now playing in theaters.

    3. Dredd (2012)

    Pete Travis may be the director of record for Dredd, but according to star Karl Urban, Garland directed the majority of this film. In the United Kingdom, Judge Dredd’s adventures in the 2000 AD comic are legendary, but the 1995 American Judge Dredd movie failed to capture the spirit of those stories. Dredd clearly has a lot less money to play with than Sylvester Stallone’s incarnation of the character, but Urban makes the role his own. And like his comic book counterpart, this version of Dredd never takes his helmet off.

    Olivia Thirlby also has a very compelling turn as Cassandra Anderson, a rookie judge with psychic powers. Anderson’s evaluation mission becomes more deadly than she or Dredd expected when the pair of judges are locked in a massive apartment complex by drug lord Madeline “Ma-Ma” Madrigal (Lena Headey). Almost everyone living there is beholden to Ma-Ma, and the judges have a huge price on their heads as they fight their way up.

    Watch Dredd on Max.

    2. 28 Days Later (2002)

    Garland and Boyle really hit a home run out of the gate with 28 Days Later. While the film does reveal the origin of the rage virus that turns humans into killing machine zombies, the setup of Jim (Cillian Murphy) awakening from a coma to find the world transformed is just about perfect. Thanks to some smart filming choices, Murphy really seems to be wandering the streets of an empty London.

    Unfortunately for Jim, it isn’t long before he runs into the infected. Only a handful of survivors are left who can assist him, including Selena (Naomie Harris), Frank (Brendan Gleeson), and Hannah (Megan Burns). The survivors’ only hope is a military blockade that offers the hope of a cure and sanctuary. But those hopes may be in vain.

    Rent or buy 28 Days Later on Prime Video.

    1. Ex Machina (2015)

    Despite Garland’s uncredited experience on Dredd, Ex Machina is considered his debut as a director. The film stars Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb Smith, a programmer summoned by his boss, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), to a remote location. The purpose is to see if Caleb can relate to Ava (Alicia Vikander), an incredibly human-like AI in a robotic body.

    Bateman’s first mistake was giving Ava a beautiful face and voice to go with her artificial body. Ava is not only aware of her beauty, but she also uses it to manipulate Caleb. Ava says that she desires her freedom, but what would the consequences be for unleashing a being like her into an unsuspecting world? Caleb may find out the hard way.

    Rent or buy Ex Machina on Prime Video.

  • Warfare: Alex Garland & Ray Mendoza discuss brotherhood in their immersive war movie

    As a writer and director, Alex Garland is used to inviting audiences into his distinct worlds, ranging from a zombie apocalypse (28 Days Later) and dystopian United States (Civil War) to a post-nuclear wasteland (Dredd) and an alien-infested environment (Annihilation). For his new war film, Garland entered a world that belonged to a former soldier, Ray Mendoza. The result was Warfare, an immersive new war film from writer-directors Garland and Mendoza. The film’s ensemble features D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai as Mendoza, with Will Poulter, Cosmo Jarvis, Joseph Quinn, Noah Centineo, and Charles Melton.

    Warfare follows a group of Navy SEALs on a surveillance mission in Ramadi in 2006. The team takes control of a multi-level house in insurgent territory and hunkers down. The mission goes horribly wrong, and the SEALs are ambushed from all sides as they must fight to stay alive. The movie is based on the memories of Mendoza and those who survived the mission. Told in real time, Warfare is visceral, loud, and relentless, a thriller that never eases up in its depiction of battle.

    In an interview with Digital Trends, Garland and Mendoza discuss the meaning of brotherhood, the movie’s distinct use of sound, and how they implemented long takes while filming.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Digital Trends: I wanted to start with one word — brotherhood. I feel like it gets thrown around a lot, sometimes to the point where it loses its true meaning. Ray, as someone who has served with the group, what does brotherhood mean to you?

    Ray Mendoza: It’s putting the brother, the relationship, and the team before yourself. It’s a very sacrificial group, right? There are different types of brothers. You can do it in sports; you can do it in anything. If you’re going to say brother, it means you’re putting that thing before yourself. You need to do what’s best for the team and not yourself. So that’s what it means to me.

    Alex, after making this movie, how have you looked at brotherhood differently?

    Alex Garland: There’s nothing I could add to what Ray just said. I think for me, a lot of this film was not really about what I thought or what I felt. It was about what Ray thought and felt. So my inclination is to say, “That’s interesting,” and try to understand it as best as possible.

    As a filmmaker, you’re used to inviting audiences into your worlds with the scripts you write and the movies you direct. You’re transporting people into a specific setting. For this movie, you’re being invited into someone else’s world. Did your approach change as a writer and director?

    Garland: It really is an extension of what I just said. My job on this film was to just listen as carefully as I could to what Ray was saying. After that, listen to other voices, other people who were involved in this thing, and fold their experience into it, too. It wasn’t interpretive. It wasn’t that Ray was saying anything that I needed to get at or unpack what was underneath it. It was all being stated. It made me realize that often the problem with listening is actually just not listening. It’s more to do with you than it is to do with what the other person is saying and their failure to communicate it. Ray was communicating everything perfectly. … It was almost zen in some respects.

    Ray, you said this is not only an immersive experience of warfare, but it’s a bridge of communication to talking about the subject of combat. When did you start to realize that you can communicate your ideas for a movie to tell a true story?

    Mendoza: I’ve always realized that it was possible. Some directors or filmmakers choose not to use it as a voice, or maybe they want to focus on something different. I wanted to focus on a specific thing. Some directors don’t focus on that. They focus on other things. I’ve always done that on every movie I’ve worked on in some way. I build these things for directors or stunt coordinators, but I don’t get to choose what they shoot. I don’t get to choose what they edit, and sometimes, they gloss over the things.

    Some of it is just ignorance, or just not knowing. They don’t know what to focus on, but it’s always there for them. Some people just don’t see it. He [Garland] was actually the first one to see it on Civil War. And I think that’s what separates them from other directors. It’s always been there for them. They just didn’t see it.

    How did it feel stepping behind the camera to direct and write?

    Mendoza: It was a breath of fresh air. It’s like starving for five days and someone throwing a piece of flesh in front of you. I just consumed it as fast as I could possibly consume it. It was just like, “Finally. Let’s f—— run. Yeah, we’re going to f—— run on this thing.” And we did.

    One of the biggest things that stands out is how sound makes this movie so immersive. The gunfire, the screaming from the soldiers, the silence in the aftermath of an explosion — sound is its own terrifying character. What were your conversations with the sound designers and the mixers?

    Garland: Well, I’m going to say that the conversations are broader than that. It’s not me in communication. It’s always at the very least me and Ray, or it’s Ray. The sound design team — I know them very well. I’ve worked with them for a long time. They also worked on Civil War. I’ve never not worked with them. They did the same thing, which was to listen carefully. Look, sometimes you get something wrong, and it gets redirected and reshaped.

    I would say, though, that where the sound design stems from, in a way, is the approach to the filmmaking. So if you remove all music, the sound design steps forward. It takes prominence in the minds of the viewer and in the experience of the viewer. If you take time compressions out of a film, you will get the same silences that you get in real life. All of this creates an unfamiliar sound landscape for people, which is above and beyond the specifics of an explosion happening, or a jet flying, or things that might be dramatic in that moment. It’s broader, more complex, and more ambient than that. It really comes from trying to do something accurately and in real time.

    Then there’s also the gatekeeper of the accuracy, which is Ray saying, “This is what the snap of a bullet sounds like. This is the difference between outgoing and incoming fire. No, don’t add that sub-bass to this thing to make it sound cooler; make it sound truer like this.”

    Not everyone gets to cast themselves in a movie. Ray, D’Pharaoh plays you in the movie. After filming, did you two share a moment and talk about what happened? I’m sure it wasn’t easy at times to see it.

    Mendoza: No. I had to wear multiple hats. Not only was I training them, but I was also directing them. I wore a lot of hats. With D’Pharaoh, that was a hard one because I was talking about things that I normally don’t talk about. I never really got to talk about what we all went through. It just got so busy. I never really had that dump of what he struggled with and what I struggled with. That’s a good question. I never did, but I think I should. Thanks for reminding me.

    You went through a boot camp [with the actors]. Was it much easier to tell everyone else what to do and not really look at your own character in a way? You’re seeing it [the story] through other people’s eyes.

    Mendoza: Yeah, I treated them all the same. They’re all equally useless. [smirks] No favorites. There’s a base knowledge that they all needed to use. We’re using real weapons. Safety is the priority. At the end of the day, it’s still a movie. It’s not worth someone getting their face blown off. I had to treat everyone the same. We’re all starting from zero. We’re going to be doing it very fast. We’re going to be tired, and I need everyone to be focused 100%.

    For safety, that inherently makes the training stressful. I gave them a lot of autonomy, which I think was important. I wanted them to have ownership of it. Even for some of the rehearsals, we gave some parameters and objectives they had to hit. I created this hierarchy, which both functioned as ownership, but also somewhat blended into the movie. Organically, in the movie, there’s an officer in charge. There’s an assistant officer in charge, and so on and so forth. In the structure and training, I established that as well. I just thought it was important for them to have ownership of it.

    Even to the point where the PAs wouldn’t wrangle up the guys, but it was Will and Charles. They were like, “Hey everybody, it’s time to go to set. Finish up, chow. You got five minutes left.” They owned it. The PAs were like, “This is great. I wish every movie was like this. They’re wrangling themselves. It’s great.” They were always on time, early. They were always there supporting each other. They weren’t back at the trailers. They were always there, and that’s because of Will and Charles. Those guys were really enforcing and embodying the team component. I gave them advice and guidance, but they kind of ran with that. It was really great to see.

    With the extensive rehearsal process and the blocking of the scenes, I remember reading that you went through these long takes. It’s almost like theater. What were your conversations with the actors about how to treat each take? They can’t just be waiting for a cut. They have to go through this like they’re in a real battle.

    Garland: Well, it’s a real-time story. Often in a script, scenes might be half a page or a page and a half and in different locations. In a way, there’s no sense of a 15-minute take because the scene itself is only a minute and a half, so don’t do it. Because this was real time, every time we could string scenes together, we did. It gave us large blocks of time we could work with. Different people would be doing different things in different areas. You might have the snipers looking through a loophole in one room, and then you’ve got Ray [D’Pharoah’s character] and the officer next to him having their conversation. There’s Joe Quinn in another room, and so it goes on.

    What this film allowed us to do was to run everything concurrently. Because we had two cameras, we could have one room with the sniper group and a camera with D’Pharoah and Will Poulter in another room. As long as they weren’t catching each other in each other’s viewfinders, then all was good. So we did that a lot, and we would do these very, very long takes and string many scenes together and run them again and again and again.

    We started that in the rehearsal process. It varied, but typically in the second half of the day, we would start running scenes. The first half of the day would be training, and the second half of the day would be running scenes. That rhythm was established. It had a very good extra element to it, which meant that the cast did not splinter and return to their trailers. They were essentially required all the time. That reinforced the culture that Ray set up at the start of the training process.

    A24 will release Warfare in theaters nationwide on April 11.

  • Warfare review: an action-packed but somewhat hollow war movie

    Warfare review: an action-packed but somewhat hollow war movie

    3/5

    ★★★☆☆

    Score Details

    “Warfare is loaded with action…and not much else.”

    ✅ Pros

    • Unique premise
    • Dedication to authenticity

    ❌ Cons

    • Lacks story
    • Feels aimless

    Warfare is the latest film from A24, and its origins stem from 2024’s Civil War. I was lucky enough to get invited to a press screening for the movie that was attended by co-writers and co-directors Alex Garland and Ray Mendoza. At the screening, Garland said that when he went to make Civil War, he tapped Mendoza, a Navy SEAL veteran, as his war consultant. As they talked throughout the months-long production, Garland heard more of Mendoza’s war stories and got an idea to create a film based entirely on Mendoza’s memory of one fateful mission.

    That idea became Warfare. The film is shot in real-time, focusing on a mission gone wrong. In 2006, Mendoza and his team hunkered down in a house for a surveillance mission in Ramadi, an area of Iraq that had a heavy Al-Qaeda presence. The team was eventually discovered, and all hell broke loose, turning the surveillance mission into an extraction mission as the U.S. soldiers fought for survival until another platoon could arrive and assist with their evacuation.

    Because of its real-time story, Warfare has no background, exposition, character development, or overarching themes. Audiences are simply dropped into the middle of Iraq with a team of Navy SEALs as they fight Al-Qaeda. Then, just as quickly as the movie starts, it concludes after the fight ends.

    The result is a mostly entertaining movie that unfortunately also feels really hollow, especially for viewers who aren’t aware of its origin and unique premise.

    Warfare’s main strength is its unique premise

    US troops engage in combat in Warfare
    A24

    The movie is about 90 minutes long and was shot in real time. Every single moment comes from the memory of Mendoza or someone else from his team. Garland was clearly shooting for authenticity, and during the press screening, he even told the audience about a rule where he, the actors, and the studio weren’t allowed to add, remove, or alter anything. They could only follow the soldiers’ memories.

    That really helps add some heft to the movie because, let’s face it, there’s no shortage of war movies and series out there. We’ve already seen the “War is Hell” trope with Saving Private Ryan, the “honoring their heroism” camaraderie of Band of Brothers, and everything in between. But this hyper-realistic approach, composed completely from the memories of veterans who were actually there, feels like we finally get a new and interesting twist on the war genre.

    The problem is that this really only works for those who know the movie’s background and its devotion to the soldiers’ memories. If you go into Warfare without that context, I doubt it would feel like an interesting or special movie. It’s like an abstract painting, where you have to know the artist’s interpretation to get it. Without a real plot to anchor it, Warfare already feels like it’s missing something, and without knowing the film’s premise, I can’t imagine it being interesting for anyone other than viewers who seriously love war movies or people who want mindless action thrown at their face.

    Warfare is loaded with action

    Joseph Quinn stars in Warfare
    A24

    Being a war movie, there’s (obviously) a lot of combat. So it’s a great movie for people who love action or the tension and strategy that often accompany war stories. Anyone who has seen Civil War knows Garland isn’t afraid to be loud and abrasive when he depicts combat. If he wants your ears to ring to show the deafening blur of conflict, he will, and that’s shown in full force during Warfare.

    Stylistically, it’s a great approach. You can’t actually throw audiences into combat, but you can do everything possible to make them feel the heart-pumping, eardrum-bursting madness that a soldier would. That part of the film was executed perfectly. The problem is that there’s no real plot or reason for the movie, which makes Warfare feel incomplete, like you stepped into a movie during its climax without any context to go along with it.

    The movie’s lack of substance can feel a little too safe

    A soldier in Warfare movie
    A24

    For the most part, I like that Warfare throws you right into a military mission and doesn’t focus on exposition. We’ve all seen enough military movies to know the sappy, cliché tropes that are too often thrown in our faces to make us care about the characters, like hokey lines about bravery or eye-rolling nonsense like, “He just wants to get home to his young wife … who is pregnant!” I’m thankful Warfare didn’t make me sit through any of that, and honestly, I think the movie is way more powerful because of it.

    But considering that the film is set during the Iraq War, its decision to simply ignore everything other than that singular hour-and-a-half feels a little too convenient. The Bush administration helped push America into Iraq by claiming they had weapons of mass destruction and were helping the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. But it turned out that neither of those claims was true. At the time, America was so hellbent on revenge for 9/11 that its vision was clouded, and receiving misinformation from the White House only fueled the misguided vendetta that became the Iraq War.

    It’s hard not to consider those facts when you’re watching a movie about the Iraq War, especially one released 20 years later, after all the information has come out. It’s then even more suspicious that the movie has conveniently decided to be hyper-focused on the soldiers and not shed light on the bigger picture. Again, I like the idea behind this movie, and I think it makes it way more interesting from a storytelling perspective. But at the same time, reality and history exist, and Warfare’s decision to ignore that leaves a weird aftertaste. The film’s setup just feels a little too opportune, like Garland knew it was an easy way to not ask bigger questions or attempt to provide bigger answers.

    Warfare | Official Trailer HD | A24

    This was made especially obvious during the end credits, where the movie shows side-by-side photos of the cast and the real soldiers they portray. Over half of the real soldiers have their faces blurred out. Garland was asked about this at the screening and gave a vague “they all had their own reasons” response. He also admitted that some of the soldiers never even returned his calls. Is it possible that over 50% of the real soldiers are just shy? It’s possible, but if we apply Occam’s razor, that seems highly unlikely. It says a lot when over half of the real soldiers in your story don’t want to be associated with it.

    But for most viewers, that won’t matter. Most people watching a movie called Warfare know why they’re watching it … they just want to watch warfare. And this movie absolutely delivers on what it’s promising.

    A24 will release Warfare in theaters on April 11.