Look for the blood and the smoke.

Warfare — 2/5

First of all — every five to ten years, every promising young male actor in Hollywood should be made to star in an ensemble war movie together, so that we may pinpoint a moment in time, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Secondly — with this, I think I have to give up on being excited for Alex Garland movies. 'Annihilation' and 'Ex Machina' and '28 Days Later' have engendered a great deal of appreciation for him at his best, and we can't always be at our best, can we. This movie feels like a counterweight to 'Civil War' — a movie I really enjoyed! That movie felt like 'there can be no objectivity in journalism,' we are choosing sides by what we choose to show. And this movie feels like 'this is what objectivity looks like' and boy howdy is objectivity pretty fucking boring. All there is is people in a place at a time, disconnected from larger history, separated from who they were and will be. I'm not against that fundamentally, it can have value. It's just I don't know that I disliked this movie so much as I didn't gain anything from it. I don't remember the characters' names. I don't have a larger takeaway. I don't think the characters have a larger takeaway, other than a loss of legs. It's never that exciting, never that tense, never that comedic, never that dramatic. 'This is a thing that happened.' Sure, but can you tell me your reason for choosing this thing that happened over the myriad of things that happen? Why is this one so important to you? The movie lacks authorial intent. It's objectivity as the height of mediocrity.