Onslaught Review: Adam Wingard's Military Slasher Explores War's
· culture
The Fractured Identity of Onslaught: A Movie About War’s Many Faces
Adam Wingard’s latest film, Onslaught, is a genre-bending exercise in tension and spectacle. As a military-infused slasher thriller, it checks all the right boxes for fans of high-octane action and horror, but beneath its polished surface lies a complex web of themes and ideas that challenge viewers to confront the brutal reality of war’s many faces.
On its most obvious level, Onslaught is a film about the intersection of military violence and domesticity. Adria Arjona shines as Celeste, a tough-as-nails sniper-turned-manager who finds herself at odds with her well-to-do ex-husband and his innocent daughter. As the plot unfolds, it becomes clear that Celeste’s life is inextricably linked to the darker world of covert military operations taking place just off-camera.
The film’s use of Operation Paperclip as a central plot point is a nod to the historical context of the Cold War-era military-industrial complex, where scientists like Dr. Hans Kammler were recruited to develop new technologies for the US government. This adds depth to Wingard’s exploration of war’s consequences on individuals and society.
The racial undertones that permeate the film are another key aspect of Wingard’s examination of war’s many faces. The super-soldiers created in Kammler’s bunker experiments are depicted as Black and sociopathic, raising uncomfortable questions about the exploitation of marginalized communities by those in power. This theme echoes throughout the film, from the black-and-white memories of Celeste’s time on the battlefield to the sinister presence of Cyrus, the hit man with a penchant for sadomasochism.
Despite its attempts at nuance and social commentary, however, Onslaught ultimately succumbs to the limitations of its genre. The delayed gratification of the eponymous blitz allows Wingard to build tension and create proximity between Celeste and the viewer but also forces the climactic standoff to rely on repetitive beats.
This raises questions about the role of war movies in contemporary culture: are they simply meant to entertain and distract from the brutal realities of conflict, or can they also serve as a platform for exploring the complexities of human experience? Onslaught suggests that it’s possible to do both, but only if filmmakers are willing to take risks and push against the boundaries of their genre.
Wingard’s film is a messy, often frustrating exercise in tone and style. However, it’s also a reminder that war movies don’t have to be simplistic or reductionist. By embracing the fractured identity of Onslaught – its many faces, its contradictions, and its ambiguities – viewers may find themselves confronting something more profound than a mere thriller about military action and horror.
As the summer movie season comes to a close, it’s worth considering what this film says about our current cultural moment. Are we still capable of grappling with the complexities of war and its aftermath, or are we content to simply consume the spectacle of violence without thinking critically about its implications? Onslaught may not provide all the answers, but it’s certainly a conversation starter – one that’s long overdue in an era marked by endless conflict and social upheaval.
Reader Views
- PLProf. Lana D. · social historian
While Adam Wingard's Onslaught adeptly weaves together disparate threads of military history and horror, its most striking aspect is often overlooked: the blurring of lines between victimhood and culpability. The film's treatment of the super-soldiers as both monstrous creations and unwitting pawns raises crucial questions about agency in the context of war-induced trauma. Wingard's attempt to subvert traditional slasher tropes by making the victims complicit in their own exploitation is an intriguing one, but it also highlights the risks of fetishizing the experiences of marginalized communities for the sake of narrative shock value.
- DCDrew C. · cultural critic
While Wingard's ambitious attempt to subvert genre expectations is commendable, Onslaught ultimately falters under the weight of its own symbolism. The film's fixation on the Kammler Operation as a metaphor for the dehumanizing effects of war feels heavy-handed, neglecting the complexity of historical context in favor of cheap thrills and sensationalism. What's more, Wingard's exploration of racial undertones risks reducing complex social issues to exploitable tropes, perpetuating the very power dynamics he purports to critique. In its haste to make a statement, Onslaught sacrifices genuine nuance for shallow shock value.
- TSThe Society Desk · editorial
While Wingard's attempt to tackle the complexities of war is commendable, Onslaught falters when its slick action sequences overshadow the very real horrors it purports to examine. A more nuanced exploration of Operation Paperclip's legacy could have also delved into the role of women like Wernher von Braun's wife in facilitating these clandestine operations – a crucial aspect of history often glossed over in favor of bombastic military set pieces. The result is a film that, despite its good intentions, ultimately reinforces the very notion it seeks to challenge: war as entertainment.