Alex Garland has been behind two critically-acclaimed war movies in the last calendar year, drawing natural comparisons between the dystopian thriller Civil War and the gritty, immersive combat drama Warfare. Civil War was a major hit for A24 in 2024 thanks to its frighteningly realistic dystopian setting and the gut-wrenching drama surrounding a major domestic conflict. Warfare, on the other hand, imprinted the physical and emotional toll of modern combat on its audience by dropping them right into the middle of an Iraq War operation gone sideways.
Alex Garland’s filmography as both a writer and director is loaded with high-quality movies, which has of course yielded rankings lists and comparisons for years. Civil War and Warfare are different in plenty of ways, but they are similar in that they are celebrated additions to lists that include cinematic triumphs like Ex Machina, Annihilation, and 28 Days Later. They are closer in kind than any other two Garland projects though, leaving fans of Garland and modern war movies in general to decide which is truly the better movie, regardless of Rotten Tomatoes score records.
Warfare’s Story Compared To Civil War
Warfare’s Retelling Of An Iraq War Operation And Civil War’s Authoritarian Future State
|
Warfare – Key Details |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Release Date |
Budget |
RT Tomatometer Score |
RT Popcornmeter Score |
Metacritic Metascore |
Metacritic User Score |
|
April 11th, 2025 |
$20 million |
93% |
92% |
76 |
6.7/10 |
When it comes to the movie’s respective stories, Warfare doesn’t actually aim for drama, at least not in a story-telling sense. It aims for accuracy in the retelling of a military operation, with the drama being born out of things going sideways for the characters and the very real danger they’re in every single second. The story isn’t something to even really approve of or disapprove of–it’s simply what happened.
Civil War, on the other hand, is an incredibly detailed and well-thought-out examination of what would really happen if the United States fractured and dissolved into open war. The emphasis is not on the political conflict that bred the war, but on the people impacted by it, the men and women fighting in pointless (in the grand scheme of things) skirmishes across the country, and the individuals like the journalists whose mission it is to ensure that the reality of war’s hellish nature is communicated. It’s a brilliant yet devastating story that mines true drama at every turn.
Warfare’s Cast & Characters Compared To Civil War
Warfare’s Navy SEALs And Civil War’s Journalists
Both movies shine in developing their characters within a limited timeframe. Civil War is set at the end of not only the ongoing conflict, but the end of the career of Kirsten Dunst’s war pH๏τographer Lee Smith. Her personality, along with those of her companions, is fully realized by the movie’s beginning, and each character develops in leaps and bounds over the course of just a few days (in the timeline of the movie), which is an impressive feat in itself. Their varied perspectives juxtaposed against each other help to tell a more complete story.
Warfare occurs in real time and is meant to retell the minute-by-minute specifics of an incident, making the task of fleshing out dramatic characters supremely difficult. However, Garland and his co-writer and co-director Ray Mendoza managed to paint the soldiers in different lights in just about 90 minutes’ time. For example, D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tie’s portrayal of Ray Mendoza identifies him as calm and collected in the face of unspeakable devastation and danger, while other characters clearly communicate their fear and pain. Once again, it helps make the story feel real and complete.
Warfare’s Realism Compared To Civil War
Warfare’s Real-Time ᴀssault On The Senses And Civil War’s Gritty Exhaustion
Warfare is based entirely upon the memories of the soldiers (including Ray Mendoza himself) who experienced the operation at the movie’s center. That gives it a nearly unparalleled level of realism when compared to other movies about the Iraq War, as there is no manufactured drama, political maneuvering, or big emotional monologues; there is simply the furor of combat. Mendoza’s perspective makes the experience feel undeniably real, and as a result, undeniably intense.
Civil War, on the other hand, is based on a fictional future, yet it isn’t lacking in realism in any way. The reason that Garland and Mendoza collaborated on Warfare was because they worked together on Civil War, with Mendoza acting as military advisor for the battle scenes. The modern combat depicted in Civil War, therefore, plays out exactly as it likely would if such a conflict were to take place today. The best example is the storming of the White House, which is ultra-realistic in how soldiers would ᴀssault a fixed position, given that Mendoza himself directed the scene.
Warfare’s Action & Intensity Compared To Civil War
Warfare’s Iraq War Attack And Civil War’s Domestic Skirmishes
Civil War has some incredibly intense scenes, to be sure. When the journalists are pinned down by the sniper, when they’re held at gunpoint by Jesse Plemons’ character, and the real-time ᴀssault on the White House all come to mind based on the tension and proximity of death for the characters at each moment. Those scenes are undoubtedly impactful, but they happen sporadically in the movie, with other more intimate and quiet scenes mixed in.
From the first grenade explosion-on, Warfare never lets its foot off the gas, yielding an unrelenting, pulse-pounding experience for the viewer.
Warfare, on the other hand, doesn’t let up on the action and intensity as soon as the soldiers of Ray Mendoza’s platoon identify incoming hostiles. The combat action sees them take on grenades, intense gunfire, and the gruesome mᴀss devastation of an improvised explosive device (IED). From the first grenade explosion-on, the movie never lets its foot off the gas, yielding an unrelenting, pulse-pounding experience for the viewer.
Why Warfare Is Better Than Civil War
The Immersive Intensity Of Warfare Is Unrivaled
While it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison between the fictional Civil War and the ultra-realistic Warfare, I would argue that Warfare is a better movie. The sheer intensity of the cinematic experience is simply unmatched. A real-time examination of an Iraq War urban attack, which recreates the physical devastation, disorientation, and desperation of an IED explosion and its aftermath, is one of the most ambitious concepts in the last few years, and it’s executed near-flawlessly. Civil War is still a terrific movie with intense imagery and a valuable message, but Warfare is a superior cinematic accomplishment.
