Cinema about the American army can be divided into three categories. The first is about heroic heroes who save the world. The second is not all that clear. And here is an unplowed field for writers and directors. And the third is based on real events.
As a rule, fact-based films turn out to be rather dull, because the authors, in their quest to create a documentary atmosphere, forget that the film is fiction and must obey a number of rules. A coherent narrative, character arches, the representation of the main characters at the level of a living person rather than cardboard, the event and its consequences. If I want to know the story, check out Wikipedia or watch a documentary.
This film is not bad in terms of pictures, music and weapons with military equipment in the role of weapons and military equipment look good.
The actors are mostly little-known, which simplifies the perception, but the military look a little less than nothing. Although this is not a textbook, where the character has not yet reforged from yesterday's schoolboy. Where's the line? Where's the command voice? Where is the perfectly seated, but already battered in battle form? Where's the power finally? How do these slim boys even hold weapons? They'll be blown away to a nearby village with a helmet. There is no truth to life, some kind of theater.
As for the action, it's incredibly boring. In an hour of screen time, nothing happens at all, the authors do not tell the story through the eyes of one of the soldiers or an impartial outside observer. They simply demonstrate the cutting of frames conditionally related to each other. Here we fight, here we smoke weed, here we eat meat, here we talk about sex and genitals, and this is our new commander, he has a family, he is good. But here we are again fighting and not, it seemed. The commander is not good at all.
Through the writing, character development and motivation, I didn’t give a damn throughout the film. Characters in general and history in particular.
And the backstage explanation of what they wanted to show at all killed.
Dear creators, the movie is not a podcast or an article in the newspaper. He has several other tools of expression. And everything that you voiced behind-the-scenes in the final should have been shown initially.
Perhaps then your movie would be interesting and worthwhile, rather than a waste of time and film.
I do not like American films about their wars for democracy. They are, as a rule, completely false by definition and speak only about the misunderstanding of the American people of representatives of other religions and cultures. But an exception was made for the film The Killing Team directed by Dan Krauss, because, firstly, he is declared as Spanish-American, and secondly, popular actor of Swedish origin Alexander Skarsgard is involved in one of the main roles in it. The film describes the everyday life of soldiers serving in one of the units of the international forces in Afghanistan. Soldiers are looking for accomplices of terrorists among residents of the surrounding settlements.
I like the film because it is different from other films made in Western countries on the same subject. It does not have that peremptory confidence in their rightness on the part of the “democrats”, the characters of the film do not completely repeat this mantra that has become notorious for all about “saving democracy” or protecting their families. And in the role of soldiers here very young boys are something similar to the heroes of the “Ninth Company” Bondarchuk, and not the usual in other films pumped up uncles, who, nevertheless, in such films are usually almost pacifists. Everyone is probably familiar from numerous films such mercenaries-pacifists. And among the very young soldiers, quite ready, by the way, to the fact that they will have to kill, there is one who doubted the legality of the actions of his colleagues.
The events in the film were reminiscent of what we know about some episodes of the war in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other similar places. The sad fate of the heroic Colonel Budanov, whose methods in hot spots were also given mixed assessments, including by the justice authorities, was recalled. In all these wars, without a front line, but with real casualties, ordinary people with weapons in their hands always remain extreme. The film seemed to me very true and sincere precisely because the actions of the characters are shown ambiguously, the authors even rather condemn the methods of their “missionaries” in those wild lands, and the viewer is invited to decide on whose side he is on. There is almost no fighting in the film, it is more of a psychological drama, just its characters are involved in hostilities. The film is slightly lacking in dynamism, but this drawback is overshadowed by excellent acting. As a drawback, you can also specify the line with the parents of the main character, you could either specify it or even remove it from the film, the film would lose absolutely nothing.
Another American film on military themes, of which a huge number have already been shot. I personally like war movies and TV series on military themes, I can even name my favorite movies, but this is not about it.
This film I can not call impressive or in any way even outstanding, and in my opinion, this film is no longer about the war and about the fighting, but about the moral and psychological state of a young soldier in the war, when he has to make a choice and faced a moral dilemma, and besides the fighting in Afghanistan has been repeatedly covered in films, but I still paid attention to this film to understand it is made.
The director of the film Dan Krauss was not familiar to me before, as well as one of the acting characters of the film, actor Nat Wolf, who played the role of a young soldier Andrew Briggman, but Alexander Skarsgard (' Tarzan Legend') as a sergeant I already knew, and I even believe that in the film he had a stronger and more memorable role than everyone else. His sergeant can not be called a purely negative character, but also positive in some ways it can not be called, and if the character of Nat Wolfe is a young guy who was lost in the war and faced psychological problems, then the character of Skarsgard is a more complex character, he gave an account of his actions and in the end he paid for it.
' The Killing Team' is a film not about the war itself, but about what brutal acts soldiers can do in war and about their inhumanity, the film is endowed with psychology and deep meaning, if you look closely at it and understand its meaning.
Another war drama about the fighting in the Middle East made it to the screens. The film by Dan Krauss partially refers to the legendary Stone Platoon, revealing the obvious problems in the armed forces located in hot spots.
Nat Wolfe plays the role of Andrew Briggman (a prototype of Charlie Sheen’s character from Platoon), who faces the brutality of his commander and war crimes committed right in front of him (Andrew) in front of his eyes. Torn by internal contradictions, the guy understands that either he will “howl at wolves in a wolf pack”, or he will have to become an outcast.
In the 80s, the Platoon caused a rustle, because Oliver Stone was one of the first to show the reverse side of the Vietnam War, telling the world about the atrocities of American soldiers. There is no such brutality in the Killing Team, but war crimes, including murder, plus drug use, take place. Dan Krauss clearly hints that people who carry weapons in their hands, at some point begins to tear down the tower and they feel like those who can and have the right to administer justice.
Moral decomposition on the face - mania of their own greatness and self-importance cause serious dizziness, which blurs the line between law and permissiveness and of course there is a sense of impunity.
In this image appear several soldiers surrounding Andrew Briggman and Sergeant Dix, played by Alexander Skarsgaard. In general, the actor fit into the image well and played at the level of himself from “Straw Dogs” in 2011. The same icy look that seems to rush into you, but at the same time permeates through and makes you look for shelter. The same concise and limited movement, as if his hero knows exactly what he wants and how to achieve it. I'm not saying Skargaard played badly. He performed his part qualitatively enough to see in him a cynical and tough warrior.
Along with war crimes, Krauss explores ideals and stereotypes. The example of the hero Nat Wolfe can be judged that not always expectation flows into reality. The first scenes of the film tell the viewer about a young guy who is eager to join the army, who on an emotional uplift talks with his father and shares his expectations from the upcoming service. However, reality quickly overturns him and puts him on the shoulder blades, because the army and service in the combat zone is not so romantic. And primarily because there, in the war, a person has to adapt and even trample moral principles into the dirt. Andrew gets a severe slap when he begins to understand where he is. And at this point, you can look at him as a mama's son who would rather stay at home, or as a person who is malleable and flexible, able to get used to a new model of the world around him.
The film is based on real events and, to some extent, smacks under the throats of the American government, whose “democracy” in the Middle East looks like doing justice the way it wants. In fact, it’s cool – directors, screenwriters and other filmmakers can and, most importantly, make movies on topics they feel they need to shoot. They show not only the brilliant side of the medal, but also its flip side (well, just like Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight). From the point of view of the further development of the film industry, this is not bad. This rejects one-sidedness in the presentation and digestion of information.
Overall, Killing Team is not a bad movie. There is not enough dynamics in it - the emotional anxieties of the protagonist and his location in this war come to the fore.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
American cinema often looks back at its historical past and tries to tell its individual pages as honestly as possible. This is most often manifested in the rich military past of the United States. From the participation of American soldiers in World War II, to the Vietnam War, to the actions of American soldiers in Iraq. This film was no exception and the director Dan Krauss, who decided to investigate the actions of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
The plot of this film revolves around a young American soldier Andrew Briggman, who along with his friends and comrades is serving in Afghanistan. After the death of the squad commander, Sergeant Deeks is appointed to lead him. However, the longer Briggman stays under Sergeant Dix, the more he begins to doubt the wisdom of the cruelty of his commander and his service in general.
The authors of this tape managed to tell a very strong story in my opinion. Something close to this, but already in other time intervals was told in 'Military losses', 'Platoon' and a number of other paintings. But because of this, the emotional and ideological strength of this tape does not weaken at all. Not at all. The authors of this tape very subtly sum up another line under the reflections on how war can turn a person into a murderer not only involuntarily, but also directly. At the same time, adequately demonstrating these transformations and the fruit of moral and ethical principles on the example of the main character of the film. Doing it so effortlessly that you can easily feel yourself in the place of the main character and even think about what I would do personally.
The director of this film Dan Krauss was also pleasantly surprised. Despite the fact that this film became a full-length debut in the work of Krauss, he showed himself on the screen above all praise. Perhaps his work lacks a certain subtlety and he approaches his chosen topic a little literally at the level of cinematic language, his work still produces a strong emotional response and touches the living. Allowing you to see the film with your eyes, how much to feel it. It’s like you’re a part of the show.
The main gem of the picture was Alexander Skarsgard. Alexander Skarsgård got a very complex and ambiguous character, which cannot be called a straightforwardly negative character and one hundred percent positive for sure. At the same time, he, like no one else, managed to perfectly demonstrate this gray morality of his character and dissolve in him in the usual form. I was once again pleasantly surprised by Nat Wolfe, who continues to grow in my eyes as an artist. Of course, periodically he misses the role and fakes as in the relatively recent "Video Recorder" & #39; but in most cases "Woolf" maximally penetrates into his roles and in this tape he very convincingly demonstrated the emotional, psychological and moral pressure under which his hero found himself.
8 out of 10
The Killing Team is another reflection on the horrors of war. But not at all on the example of brutal warfare, but rather on the example of the cruelty and inhumanity of soldiers in these very wars. The picture turned out to be very strong emotionally and deeply. Allowing you to watch the movie, how much to feel what is happening on the screen. Not to mention the chosen topic and morality that really makes you think.
The Killing Team is a film based on real events that tells the true atrocities of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is correct, sometimes it is necessary to give a tough answer to American “coca-col patriotism”, proving that they also have a stigma in the cannon. Only in order to raise such a controversial topic you need to have a certain talent. As a result, “The Killing Team”, despite all the passion of storytelling, turned out to be a meager film – it does not leave the impression that it clearly wants to leave.
The fact is that the film, which focuses on unique events that occurred in a particular time period, takes the form of other films about war crimes. For some reason, "The Killing Team" knowingly and unknowingly quotes "Military Loss" and "Uncensored" by Brian de Palma, as well as "Platoon" by Stone. The plot tells the story of a young private Andrew - an energetic soldier who falls under the spell of a quiet and dangerous sergeant. As a result, the hero is forced to take part in the cover-up of war crimes of his detachment. Yes, this is a real case where the US Army killed civilians and tried to hide this case from top officials.
It seems that the Killing Team was created over the sleeves. Casting, for example, is successful, but the actors do not try. This reduces the impact of many tense situations, as either the actors can not convey the intensity of what is happening, or the director did not understand what he wanted to invest. The biggest disappointment was, suddenly, Alexander Skarsgård, who portrays a killer with an icy heart, but often looks just out of place.
The lack of details eases the uncomfortable undertones of Killing Team: the same Afghans are represented... well, they are not represented at all – talking puppets. The motivation of the characters is scant and it remains unclear what effect the director expected. “Team” does not want to delve into the topic of the banality of evil, which makes the picture pale in comparison with other projects about the missteps of the war on terror – “Dangerous secrets” and “Report on torture”.
5 out of 10
“The Killing Team” is not a film about some special squad of American thugs capable of tearing apart entire flocks of enemies, or a team that specializes in physical elimination of objects. This is the story of a group of soldiers in Afghanistan who, under the leadership of their senior sergeant, killed local civilians in 2010, and director Dan Krauss, after his documentary work in 2013, decided to shoot a war drama in a full-length format.
The main character is a young guy with an impressive level of patriotism, whose father also served as a marine in the past, goes to a military base in one of the regions of Afghanistan. Having lost once after a combat mission of his sergeant, the leadership sends to replace the experienced sergeant Dix (Alexander Skarsgård). The odious commander, in addition to his vast military experience, including in Iraq, immediately brings new inspiration to young soldiers and bribes these very young people with audacity, determination and his charisma.
The story is told through the eyes of that young man, who obviously had much greater career or academic prospects than serving in the military, but his conviction of the idea of US military peacekeeping around the world convinced him of the need to serve his country. The idealism of a young man passes very quickly when, after each of the sorties with his group, the actions of soldiers appear less and less within the limits of law, even according to the laws of war.
The Killing Team had great potential and a cast, but I think Dan Krauss used the resources he was given to do a mediocre drama about war killing and punishment. For some reason, I remembered the hit of the end of the last century “Military Losses” with the participation of Sean Penn and Michael Fox, the theme is the same, except for the events that occurred in the work of Brian De Palma in Vietnam.
Dan Krauss does not have an epilogue, in addition to a few lines in the final credits telling about the fate of the main characters, the viewer would like to see whether the director could understand the motives of such actions, and even more importantly, the ability of the heroes to repent. And strange, because the director understood this topic perfectly when he shot the original documentary many years ago. Perhaps he was only unable to put on screens in a full-length format such a complex and unpopular topic among Americans.
5 out of 10