Movie Review: A Most Violent Year

A Most Violent Year
Directed by: J.C. Chandor.
Written by: J.C. Chandor.
Starring: Oscar Isaac (Abel Morales), Jessica Chastain (Anna Morales), David Oyelowo (Lawrence), Alessandro Nivola (Peter Forente), Albert Brooks (Andrew Walsh), Elyes Gabel (Julian), Catalina Sandino Moreno (Luisa), Peter Gerety (Bill O'Leary), Christopher Abbott (Louis Servidio), Ashley Williams (Lange), John Procaccino (Arthur Lewis).

J,C, Chandor is just three films into his directing career, and he has already become someone whose next film I eagerly anticipate. Part of that is that all three of his films – Margin Call (2011), All is Lost (2013) and now A Most Violent Year are all excellent – perhaps he hasn’t made a truly great film yet, but all three are distinctive, well written, well directed and well-acted films. And part of that is because each film is so different from each other – you never quite know what he’s going to do next. Margin Call was more of a writer’s film than a director’s one – one seemingly inspired by Aaron Sorkin or David Mamet, with its large cast of characters, in one location, over the course of one long night and the next day, as a Wall Street firm decides to sell off all of its toxic assets before the rest of the market realizes just how bad they are. All is Lost is the exact opposite – just Robert Redford, alone, on a sinking boat for two hours, trying to survive – barely speaking a word. Now comes A Most Violent Year – a film that is obviously inspired by the films of the 1970s or early 1980s – something by Sidney Lumet (Serpico or Prince of the City) or the underrated Ulu Grosbard (Straight Time and True Confessions).

The film takes place in 1981 in New York City – one of the most violent years on record. It centers on Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) – who owns a heating oil business. The industry is well-known for corruption, and dishonesty – although Abel tries to run his business on the up and up (at least, compared to his competitors). But someone keeps hijacking his trucks, stealing its product, and beating up his drivers. The Teamsters want the drivers to be armed – but Abel knows that will just lead to trouble – and he already has enough of that. A D.A., Lawrence (David Oyelowo), has been tasked with cleaning up the industry – and he has Abel in his sights for an indictment. On top of that, Abel has just put down a large down payment on a new location – and needs to come up with the rest of the money in 30 days, or he loses the down payment, and perhaps his business. He has a bank loan coming – he thinks – but all the other problems could cause that to fall through.

A Most Violent Year is a slow burn of a thriller. There are a few masterful, suspenseful scenes – a car chase through a tunnel in particular. But for the most part, the movie just buries Abel slowly – brick by brick, as his morals fall away one at a time in order to survive. He is a man who wants to conduct an honest business – but if no one else is willing to do that, what chance does he have.

The performances in the film are excellent. Isaac, who delivered a star making turn in the Coen’s Inside Llewyn Davis, here channels a young Al Pacino. It is a magnificent, controlled performance of slow burning intensity. Isaac is matched by Jessica Chastain as his wife, Anna, who is not the normal shrinking violet wife we normally get in a movie like this. The film, perhaps, goes a little too far the other way with her character – she is basically Lady Macbeth, prodding her husband to do more and more immoral things – and sadly she disappears for much of the latter half of the movie. But in her great scenes – Chastain is as good as she has ever been (like when she faces off against Lawrence, with a calm, cool, polite aggression. Albert Brooks is nearly unrecognizable (it’s the wig), and wonderful as Abel’s lawyer – who tries to encourage him to be realistic about his options. And Oyelowo, while he has a small role, is excellent as the D.A., who is all about his own ambition – not justice.

The film is also brilliantly shot. Cinematographer Bradford Young channels the great Gordon Willis (frequent collaborator with Francis Ford Coppola), with his dark compositions – that get darker as the movie goes along, as Abel falls further away from the man he wants to be. Combined with his work on Selma, and 2013’s Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, it marks Young as one of the most promising cinematographers working today.

If there is a problem with A Most Violent Year it’s that it leans too heavily on its influences – and that Chandor never really does anything new with it. It’s the third film from 2014 that was heavily inspired by the films of the 1970s – Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice does the best job, as it comes up with something different and unique. A Most Violent Year is more like James Gray’s The Immigrant (and, if we’re being honest, everything Gray has ever directed) – a film that looks great, is well written, well-acted, etc. – but never quite breaks new ground. That’s a small complaint in a movie that has this much going for it – but a real one. Three films into Chandor’s career, I’m still not sure who he is as a director – but I cannot wait to see what he does next.

Movie Review: The Overnighters

The Overnighters
Directed by: Jesse Moss.

Like a modern day version of The Grapes of Wrath, desperate men from across America (and even some from around the world) have flocked to North Dakota – where the fracking business is booming, and there are well paying jobs to be had. The problem, of course, is that there is not enough jobs to go around to everyone who shows up – and more dire, there is nowhere for the men who show up looking for work to stay. Lutheran Pastor Jay Reinke, who presided over a congregation in Willston, North Dakota, admits that he has trouble saying no – so would rather just say yes and deal with the consequences. This is how his Overnighters program started. He would let the men who showed up and asked for help to stay at his church – he has plenty of floor space after all, and once that was full, opened up his parking lot so that people could sleep in their cars. To him, this is the Christian thing to do – helping out your fellow man. But not everyone in town feels the same way. They don’t like all the newcomers, and want them to leave. They don’t want their RVs and campers parked in town, they don’t want them staying in the church, and they don’t want them around period. The local newspaper is also against the plan – and uses fear to try stir up passions against the overnighters. Some of this fear is warranted – there was a murder of a local teacher by a pair of men looking for jobs, crime has seen an uptick since all these men showed up in town, and some of the men have criminal records – including a number of sex offenders. Reinke doesn’t see it that way – he knows that if he closes the program, the problem won’t go away. Men are still going to show up looking for work, and if they cannot stay in the church, where will they go? The city and the newspaper don’t see it that way.

The Overnighters is an extraordinary documentary that tells this complex story, with some real life twists and turns that no one in the audience will see coming. The film spends the first part simply looking at the issue itself – interviewing many of the men who have shown up from across the country, explaining why they are here, and getting to know them and Reinke. Everything seems to be going fine. After this setup, the movie mainly focuses on Reinke himself – who is kind, affable, ever forgiving and optimistic. I’ve seen a few reviews refer to him as a real life Ned Flanders – and at first, that seems to be just what he is. He admits how hard everything has been on him and his family personally from him having to spend so much time at the church. He deals with complaints from his congregation – who do not like seeing their church turned into a shelter of sorts. He tries to combat what he considers to be unfair press attention by going door-to-door to the neighbors and making his case. He also goes in front of city council to argue for his program – and the rights of these men. He believes that a true, loving community should welcome these men – and if they do not, what kind of community are they living in, anyway?

The film gets darker as it goes along though. Some of the men, who are very complimentary of Reinke – even admiring in their words about him – turn on him, when Reinke turns their back on them because they have let him down. This leads to one of them going to the press about the number of sex offenders around – which threatens to derail the whole program. Reinke becomes increasingly exasperated in trying to keep all the balls in the air. Then, in a scene late in the third act, there is a stunning, personal revelation about Reinke.

Director Jesse Moss went down to Willston with his camera, and followed Reinke around for months to document this story. He could not have imagined the documentary he ended up with – as real life once again proves to be a little stranger, and more unpredictable, than anything a screenwriter could come up with. Reinke, at first, seems like a model Christian –the type who takes the duty of caring for his fellow man seriously, and wants to help out anyone he can. As the movie moves along, it never loses sympathy for Reinke, and is still a rather glowing portrait of him, but he does become more human, and all that entails, as it progresses as well. Something similar happens to The Overnighters program as well – what starts out looking like a hopeful place, becomes something much more complex as the film moves along. I don’t necessarily agree with the community – who is scared and wants things to go back to the way they were (they don’t seem to realize that is impossible) – but I have sympathy for their position as well. Would you want sex offenders living in your neighborhood? The stories of the men themselves – even those who find jobs – also turn darker as the movie progresses, as desperation gives way to optimism when they find work, and turns dark when there are consequences for them being away from home and family.

The Overnighters never answers the question of what is to be done to make this situation more tenable for everyone involved – probably because there is no answer. But what makes the film so great is that while it starts out as a social issue documentary, it becomes something much more human and complex because of the people – especially Reinke – who it portrays. It is a quietly moving – and devastating – documentary.

Movie Review: The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them
Directed by: Ned Benson.
Written by: Ned Benson.
Starring: James McAvoy (Conor Ludlow), Jessica Chastain (Eleanor Rigby), Nina Arianda (Alexis), Viola Davis (Professor Friedman), Bill Hader (Stuart), Ciarán Hinds (Spencer Ludlow), Isabelle Huppert (Mary Rigby), William Hurt (Julian Rigby), Jess Weixler (Katy Rigby).

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them is a compromised vision of what may be a far better film (or films). When it debuted at TIFF in 2013, it did so as two different films – The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Him and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Her – that could be watched in either order and it didn’t matter. The two films apparently told the same story, with scenes repeated from a different perspective, which gave them different meanings – one from his point of the view, and one from hers. So, as star Jessica Chastain explained, in the film Her, she was playing the real character, and in the film Him, she was playing his perception of that character – which isn’t the same thing (and the opposite is true). Harvey Weinstein bought the pair of films, but wanted to turn them into one film – the one I saw, Them – which cuts scenes from both movies into a single film. This was obviously done for commercial reasons – it’s a tough sell to try and get audiences to sit through the same film twice, back-to-back, from different perspectives – especially when the resulting double bill runs well over three hours. I am disappointed I wasn’t able to see the separate films – which is how writer and director Ned Benson intended (although, to be fair, he did the edit on Them as well). It’s now available on iTunes – but while I can rent the combined version, I can only watch Him and Her if I buy it – and I’m too cheap to do that. What I saw in Them is a mixed bag – but interesting enough that at some point, I still hope to see the other two films.

The film opens with a memory – a married couple, Conor (James McAvoy) and Eleanor (Jessica Chastain) are at a fancy restaurant – and then do and a dine and dash. The couple seem in love and happy with each other – which is why it’s odd that we soon see Eleanor jump off a bridge in a suicide attempt. In the aftermath of that, she moves back home with her parents (William Hurt and Isabelle Huppert), and her single mother sister (Jess Wexler). She decides to go back to school, and bonds with her professor (Viola Davis). Meanwhile, Conor is left trying to figure what the hell happened – he doesn’t know where Eleanor is, or the details of what happened. He, as well, moves in with his father (Ciaran Hinds) – as he tries to keep his struggling restaurant open.

Knowing how the film was conceived, and originally shot and screened, is helpful when watching this combined version – which I have to say is kind of a mess. The scenes where the couple are apart work the best – it’s clear whose perspective we are seeing, and how that effects what we see. But the scenes where the couple are together don’t work nearly as well – in part because we cannot be sure whose perspective we are seeing. Without knowing how the film was originally conceived, audiences may well assume that like most films, what they are watching is the “objective truth” of these characters – but that isn’t what is on screen. It’s really about how these characters view themselves – and those around them. That works when they are separate – not so much when they are together, and that opens a void that this version of the film cannot fill.

The film is never less than interesting however – and benefits greatly from Jessica Chastain’s top notch performance. In her scenes, she is aided greatly by subtle work by William Hurt and Isabelle Huppert – who at first seem like typical, clueless, aging hippie parents, but gradually take on more dimensions. She is also aided by a great performance by Viola Davis – who is so good, you can forgive the movie the mistake of including her character at all, since she doesn’t really fit in with the rest of the movie. But this is mainly Chastain’s show – and she is excellent as a grieving woman – a woman in her 30s whose world has crashed down around her and she is trying, slowly, to rebuild. McAvoy is also quite good – but his story isn’t as interesting, and neither are those around him, so he suffers somewhat.

My biggest complaint about the movie is how it withholds information from the audience simply for the sake of withholding it – so it can reveal it at the most dramatic time possible. Everyone in the movie knows the secret – and they seem to be deliberately dancing around it, and only because Benson doesn’t want the audience to know yet. It can be frustrating.

 
But I admired The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them for everything it tried to do, even if it comes up short. If nothing else, it makes me want to see the two separate films, back to back, because I have a feeling it would better that way. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t – but I want to find out for myself.

Movie Review: Leviathan

Leviathan
Directed by: Andrey Zvyagintsev.
Written by: Oleg Negin & Andrey Zvyagintsev.
Starring: Aleksey Serebryakov (Koyla), Elena Lyadova (Lilya), Vladimir Vdovichenkov (Dmitriy Seleznyov), Roman Madyanov (Vadim, the Mayor), Sergey Pokhodaev (Roma), Sergey Bachurskiy (Stepanych), Anna Ukolova (Angela), Aleksey Rozin (Pacha).

Andrey Zvyagintsev’s Leviathan is a modern day take on the Book of Job – about a man who finds out the hard way that you cannot fight City Hall. It is a film about the corruption that is deep seeded in Russia, how the government can pretty much do whatever they want, how they hide behind the Russian Orthodox Church, and the little guy doesn’t have a chance. Early in the film, there is a scene where the main character, Koyla (Aleksey Serebryakov), goes to court to try and fight a land grab by the local mayor. The mayor wants the land, for reasons that aren’t very clear, but clearly have no real reason accept that he can, and he wants it, and is using the courts to push through an eminent domain ruling, that will allow the city to buy the land at a reduced cost. Koyla is in the right, but it doesn’t matter. The court reporter reads the verdict – at rapid fire speed, but still in a monotone voice, and it becomes clear that everyone just wants to get the hell out of there – and that they never really took Koyla’s case seriously. This scene, like much of the rest of the movie, is tragic in its way – but also darkly funny. The verdict is read for so long that it becomes funny with how ridiculous it all is.

Leviathan is clearly an allegory – and quite clearly aimed at the heart of Russian society, where the little guy is going to get crushed by those with power, and they have no chance to win. The film was selected by Russian for the Foreign Language Film Oscar race this year – and it may well win – but has also been condemned by the Russian government, who do not like the way they are portrayed (obviously). The Mayor, Vadim (Roman Madyanov) is an obese, drunken, profane lout – who is corrupt, and everyone knows it, but no one can do anything about it. He is good friends with the high ups in the Russian Orthodox Church – and meets regularly with an ornately dressed member of the clergy, who tells him not to worry. Koyla has tried to fight Vadim and his land grab through proper channels – and failed – so now his friend and lawyer from Moscow, Dmitriy (Vladimir Vdovichenkov), has told him it’s time to fight dirty. He has some dirt on the mayor, and goes to him to let him know that if he doesn’t pay Koyla a lot more for his land, that all his dirty laundry will be exposed. Vadim doesn’t seem all that worried – and the rest of the movie proves just why that is.

But as much as Leviathan is about modern day Russia, it is far from just a political screed, given to grandstanding and speechmaking – both of which are thankfully lacking in the film. It remains a very personal story about Koyla – and how much misery is visited upon him through the course of the movie. But Koyla is far from innocent in his own downfall – he’s as much of a drunk as Vadim is, and has a hair trigger temper that gets him into trouble. While the film may be a modern day take on The Book of Job – Koyla is hardly an innocent being tested from some largely purpose – he’s just a little guy getting screwed.

Zvyagintsev introduces some interesting plot developments in the second half of the film – many involving Koyla’s second wife Lilya (Elena Lyadova), who remains the most fascinating and ambiguous character in the movie – because Zvyagintsev doesn’t attempt to explain all of her behavior – much of which is what sets off Koyla’s downfall. She is younger than Koyla – and a beauty – but she’s working a horrible job at the fish factory, and basically raising Koyla’s son teenage Roma (Sergey Pokhodaev) with little help from him – since he’s always either drunk, angry or away – and sometimes all three at once. The movie is, in some ways, as much her tragedy as Koyla’s – and the film ends with a key mystery not finally resolved.

Leviathan is, in some ways, some fairly heavy going. The film clocks in and two hours and twenty minutes, and there are more misery in the movie than in most films you will see. But unlike some of Zvyagintsev’s previous films, which felt a little too heavy handed, a little too obsessed with all the misery, Leviathan finds the right mixture between that misery, its humanity, its allegorical content and some very dark humor. The film is a dark tragedy – but it also highlights the absurdity of it all. And it’s one of the best films of 2014.

Movie Review: Two Days, One Night

Two Days, One Night
Directed by: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne.
Written by: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne.
Starring: Marion Cotillard (Sandra), Fabrizio Rongione (Manu), Pili Groyne (Estelle), Simon Caudry (Maxime), Catherine Salée (Juliette), Batiste Sornin (M. Dumont), Alain Eloy (Willy), Myriem Akeddiou (Mireille), Fabienne Sciascia (Nadine), Timur Magomedgadzhiev (Timur), Hicham Slaoui (Hicham), Philippe Jeusette (Yvon), Yohan Zimmer (Jérôme), Christelle Cornil (Anne), Laurent Caron (Julien), Franck Laisné (Dominique), Serge Koto (Alphonse), Morgan Marinne (Charly), Gianni La Rocca (Robert), Ben Hamidou (Kader), Carl Jadot (Miguel), Olivier Gourmet (Jean-Marc).

The Dardenne brothers are perhaps the most consistent directors in the world right now. Every three years since 1996 when they made their debut, La Promesse, they return with another film, which almost wins a prize at the Cannes Film Festival, and almost always deserves to. They are the best of the neo-realists (neo-neo-realists?) working right now, and while many of their films are similar, they are each unique in their own way. Their last two films before Two Days, One Night played with genre a little bit – Lorna's Silence (2008) was a kind of film noir, The Kid with the Bike (2011) a kind of fairy tale. Two Days, One Night doesn’t do that – it isn’t a genre film in any way – and many will compare it to their Palme D'or Winning Rosetta (1999) – as both are about women desperate to work – but the two films share only this superficial similarity.

The new film stars Marion Cotillard as Sandra, who has worked at a factory building solar panels for years, but is now on the brink of being fired. She has been on medical leave recently – because of depression – and although she is ready to return, her boss may not want her. He has held a vote among the 16 other workers where they have to choose between keeping Sandra as an employee, or receiving their annual bonus – 1,000 Euros. The boss says that he cannot afford both. Its Friday, and the vote has come in 14-2 for the bonus – against Sandra. But apparently, there may have been some underhanded dealings, so the boss agrees to hold a new vote on Monday morning. This gives Sandra the weekend – and she goes around to see each one of her co-workers, and make her case for keeping her around.

With the film, the Dardennes have set themselves some interesting narrative traps that they somehow have to avoid. In many respects, this is a movie that repeats the same scene over and over again – Sandra goes to her co-worker by knocking on her door, explaining the situation (the same way), and asking for her vote. The scene only changes when the co-worker gets to respond. To the Dardennes credit, even though some agree to vote for Sandra, and some refuse, there really is only one guy who comes across as an asshole. The rest of the people who vote against Sandra are in need of their money – they feel sorry for her, and her children that she will not be able to support with her job – but they have kids of their own, or a divorce to get through, or a spouse without a job, or are stuck working another job on the weekend as it is to make ends meet. The movie is about worker solidarity to be sure – but also about the limits of that solidarity. The movie doesn’t mention the economic collapse – that has hit Europe even harder than North America – because it doesn’t need to. All of these people are struggling just to make ends meet even with a full time job.  The also set themselves a trap in the ending – because no matter what they choose, there is a danger that it will play like a cliché – either in sentimental triumph or sentimental defeat. The way the Dardennes avoid that trap is masterful – and turns the movie around on its lead character in an interesting way, but doesn’t quite give an answer.

As with all of the Dardennes film, the lead performance is key to the whole movie. They often follow their characters, looking directly at their heads, as a way to get inside. Cotillard is inarguably the biggest star they have worked with – but she delivers on of her best performances – a more natural performance than ever before, that works perfectly in the Dardennes world. We feel sympathy for Sandra – but Cotillard doesn’t always make that easy. She is mired in depression – and although she has an ever supportive husband (one of the undercurrents of the movie is their relationship – which is being tested) – and does things that are somewhat self-destructive. Yet we feel for her anyway – because she seems so real.

That is the key to all of the Dardennes movie – that they don’t stray too far from reality. The characters are not always likable – but they are always real. Two Days, One Night is a difficult film to watch in many ways – Sandra is essentially setting herself up for embarrassment over and over and over again – but she dives in anyway. So do the Dardennes. That is why they are among the most consistent filmmakers in the world right now.

Movie Review: A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night
Directed by: Ana Lily Amirpour.
Written by: Ana Lily Amirpour.
Starring: Sheila Vand (The Girl), Arash Marandi (Arash), Marshall Manesh (Hossein), Mozhan Marnò (Atti), Dominic Rains (Saeed), Rome Shadanloo (Shaydah), Milad Eghbali (The Street Urchin), Reza Sixo Safai (Rockabilly).

Like many films by first time directors, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night wears it’s influences on its sleeve. It’s impossible to watch the film, shot in stark black and white in Bakersfield, California, and not think of the early works of Jim Jarmusch – like Stranger Than Paradise (1984) and Down by Law (1986). Or early David Lynch, like Eraserhead (1978). Or, in some of its shots, the work of Sergio Leone. Or the way in which the male lead is made to look like James Dean. Or the presence of a poor, young boy which reminds us of the Iranian New Wave, or even the post WWII Italian neo-realists. And on and on and on the influences go. Written and directed by Ana Lily Amirpour, the movie does lean too heavily on these influences at times – but I didn’t really mind it that much. Amirpour takes her influences it takes them in some new, different directions – making a very odd feminist, vampire, western set in Iran, which is like a lot of films we have seen before – and yet something wholly unique at the same time. I look forward to see what she does next – when maybe she will leave some of those influences behind.

The movie is about two main characters. The first is Arash (Arash Marandi), who works as a gardener and general handyman, has a sweet 1950s hot rod, and has to care for his drug addicted father, who has a weakness for prostitutes – Hossein (Marshall Manesh). He’s deep in debt to Saeed (Dominic Rains), a tattooed pimp, drug dealer and all around horrible human being, who takes Arash’s car as payment for his debts, and then abuses the (apparently only) prostitute in his employ – Atti (Mozhan Marno) – who at 30, is getting old for type of work. The other main character is known only as The Girl (Seila Vand) – a vampire clocked in a chador, who sees all, stalks the streets silently, and will kill repeatedly throughout the movie – but seemingly only men who prey on women. The Girl is odd in many ways – from her cold eyes, to her room, donned with posters and images from the 1980s, and listening to music from the same decade. The movie alternates between these two characters – Arash and The Girl, slowly bringing them together. And the girl isn’t the only one who sees everything – there is also a skateboard riding kid (Milad Eghbali), who knows everything that is going on.

This is a very visual film – Amirpour doesn’t have a lot of dialogue in the film, and doesn’t really need it either. Everything she does is told visually, with some great flourishes (like the way The Girl uses that chador like Dracula uses his cape). The film is set in the fictional town of Bad City – presumably in Iran, since everyone is speaking Persian – but a desolate and lonely place, where there doesn’t seem to be too many people milling around at any one point – most likely a budgetary constraint, and a symptom of shooting a movie set in Iran in California, where Iranian extras were most likely in high supply. The film looks like it was shot on the cheap – and I don’t mean that in a bad way. Like those early Jarmusch and Lynch films, Amirpour uses her low budget to great effect – capturing memorable images throughout. The film is more a genre exercise – but one that crosses genres all over – than a sociopolitical statement about modern Iran – although the feminist bent to the movie does feel pointed and on target (but not just about Iran).

The film is one of the more striking debut films of 2014 – without ever quite being great. The movie drags at times – its 99 minute runtime is a little too long to support what is essentially a bare bones plot. But there is so much style here, that I didn’t much care. The film marks Amirpour is a director to watch. I cannot wait to see what she does next.

Movie Review: The Kill Team

The Kill Team
Directed by: Dan Krauss.

The Kill Team is a powerful, disturbing documentary that unfortunately feels somewhat incomplete. It is about the Maywand District murders – killings that the US Army contends were the work of one rogue platoon who murdered at least three civilians (including a 15 year old boy) in cold blood, then planted weapons on them to make the killings seem like self-defense. The film is told largely from the point of view of Adam Winfield – who wasn’t quite 18, and was roughly 100 pounds when he entered the army. He saw what was going on with his platoon – lead by the cold blooded Sergeant Gibbs – and was both disturbed by their actions, and complacent in them. He started sending his father Facebook messages telling him what was going on – and his father tried to call different Army personnel back home to try and protect his son, but never got anywhere. When another soldier, Justin Stoner, did what Winfield did not – and actually blew the whistle on what was happening, Winfield found himself one of the soldiers charged with the murders.

The Kill Team is a fascinating documentary, as it examines the thin line that exists in war between justifiable killing and cold blooded murder. When soldiers enter a war zone, they are expected to kill if necessary – and are celebrated for doing that – but sometimes they cross that line. The Army wanted everyone to know that this platoon was one rogue outfit – not representative of the army in general. And perhaps they weren’t. But in the words of Stoner, they weren’t the only ones doing this – they were just the ones who got caught.

The movie is a standard issue documentary – mainly made up of talking heads explaining what happened. This by itself is disturbing enough – as we hear Winfield, Stoner and other members of the platoon (some who ended up in jail for murder) describing what happened in grisly detail made all the more disturbing because of how monotone, and matter of fact their voices are. This is true even describing the most heinous of things – like how Gibbs was collecting the fingers of his victims so he could make a necklace out of them. Most, if not all, of these soldiers are clearly suffering from some sort of post-traumatic stress disorder.

But they are also, it must be said, guilty of murder. In their own words, they talk about how they killed three people who had done nothing wrong, and then planted weapons on them to make it look like self-defense. They saw all Afghan in inhuman terms, which is why they were able to do it in the first place. There are photos in the movie of the men – including Winfield – posing with the bodies of their victims.

All of this is disturbing – and this story is clearly an important one to examine in detail. What is frustrating about the documentary is that at only 79 minutes, it feels somewhat incomplete. Gibbs was interviewed at all for the documentary – and the portrait we get of him through the other soldiers paints him as a one dimensional, inhuman monster – and the movie leaves it at that. Although Winfield has the most screen time in the movie – and his family is well represented as well – the movie perhaps goes a little too soft on him in its effort to paint him in a sympathetic light, instead of pushing him a little harder.

 
What we are left with in The Kill Team is a very good documentary that could well have been great – but needed the filmmakers to dig a little deeper, and push a little harder. Perhaps they tried – and just couldn’t get there. If Gibbs didn’t want to be interviewed, there’s not much you can do there. Since the movie admits off the top its relationship with Winfield, and his family, perhaps they also couldn’t push any harder than they did. The Kill Team remains an important documentary – yet another damning portrait of the War on Terror – but it’s not quite as good as it could have been.