Overall this is a consistent war drama movie, exposing the war crimes commited by a group of soldiers during the afghanistan occupation. A young soldier believing in a greater good joins the US military and as his sargent gets killed by an IED a replacement sergeant approaches the things in the squad in a different way, changing the the structure and the patrol methods in interacting with civilians. Shocked by the authoritarism and manipulation of his friends the young soldier exposes the sergeant to the authorities. Don't let the low rating of this movie prevent you from watching it, american audience simply don't want to admitit the crimes commited in wars they were involved into. 7/10
Add a Review
-
jon_pratt1234521 February 2022This was a decent effort elevated by Alexander Skarsgard who plays low key menacing so well. There was a strong sense of the dilemma our lead young soldier felt as he wrestles between doing the right thing and fitting in with his team. The film feels very claustrophobic and it seemed like a realistic portrait of a powerless and lonely existence on the bottom rung of the US Army.
-
elyanamoradi30 October 2019By and large it was a really good movie,sadly but really impressive.in my opinion some people don't want to believe this movie is true and base on the true story.... Just watch it as a movie and don't judge it ...
-
random-7077818 August 2019Let me preface my remarks by noting I served three tours in Afghanistan during OEF. I saw Kill Team while visiting my sister who was in grad in Venice last spring. Anyone who has studied the history of crimes committed during war knows there are two general types: a) cases of systematic crimes and b) events of a crime.
These are two very different phenomena. "a" comprises things like Nazi systematical crimes; Japanese systematic war crimes in China, Korea, Philippines,; ISIL/ISIS crimes; systemic crimes by Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan including intentional stoning,burning of thousands of women and intentional mass murder of tens of thousands of villagers; mass murder in the post Yugoslav wars etc.
This is in deep contrast to isolated case of crim e that occur in EVERY, war, eg murder by Australians soldiers in WWII, direct murder of civilians by Union troops in the US Civil war, murder by British soldiers in initial occupied Germany, etc. The latter set do not generally characterize the conduct of the good guys, nor make the war against slavery or against Nazism or against Japaneses fascism, illegitimate wars.
At this point here is another IMDB user review, dated August 5 that is deeply ignorant and itself biased. It states the film represents "what America is, does, and stands for declining rapidly into harsh reality" and that it "shows us Americans the truths that we might not be willing to face, and it also show us the pent-up toxic masculinity and murky grey areas that come with our Army being stationed in hostile areas for long amounts of time."
That is simply not true. This is a case of an OUTLIER sociopath, who for a very short period of time, held non commissioned officer command over a small unit at a forward base and committed a first degree murder of three none combatants. He was fully prosecuted, conflicted and sentences to three life terms and is in prison and not getting out. The young solders in his command received long sentences as well for abetting him and obeying unlawful orders. There was no coverup, there was wide-scale REVULSION within the US Army at these murders -- and full prosecution.
Really the fact that this film is being pitched, and as a result, seen, as emblematic of the war is itself, is itself a crime. Since that is a baldfaced lie, it destroys the utility of the understanding the event and how we have to take care to insure that such events do not occur.
I spent four plus years in Afghanistan. We fought heavily armed personnel who were murdering teachers, we fought against forces that were going through villages and murdering parents who let their daughters become literate, and murdering people who played non religious music. We fought against Al Qaeda forces who were given free reign by Taliban -- both AQ and Taliban committed to putting Afghanistan into the dark ages, and exporting that as well. The vast majority of the people, in the cities and the countryside were deeply victimized by the forces we fought against.
We were not motivated by racism, "toxic masculinity' or any other such BS imagined by filmmakers and actors who never walked in our shoes. This filmmaker already botched the documentary he did a couple of years ago. It started out fine in examining the crime, and then went of into exposition and extrapolation not supported by the facts. this new "dramatized" version is even worse.
By the way I also had to see scores of basic and cringeworthy factual mistakes in procedure, uniforms, equipment and standard military interaction in this film. That is not my main critique, but it is also telling in that it shows that no adviser with military background was used. -
Lewis_Heather78728 November 2019Its small lesser know stories like these that can reassure you that there are real hero's out there standing up for what is right no matter the adversity!! I had never heard of this story before even though it only happened 10 or so years ago. However I suppose that the victors / "the good guys" write history and that is where cover-ups can be achieved by people that want all the glory but don't want all of the truth to come out! Unfortunately they don't count on incredibly brave and special individuals to stand up and say NO!
The abuse of power that these soldiers and their staff sergeant carried out is appalling. Killing innocent and unarmed civilians for their own entertainment is the definition of abuse of power. The fact that after the events they celebrate back at their base as if their favourite sports team has just won, makes me sick! However it only takes one...........one person to burst the bubble and unravel the truth. Following the young recruit as he joins the unit and starts to go out out missions, realises that something doesn't add up. Then the moment of realisation hits him and he has to make the biggest decision of his life, what side of history does he want to be on? Its either turn a blind eye and join in, or stand up and say NO , no matter the consequences. Unfortunately with him not going along with the killing means that he has to witness and endure more of the torture. It culminates in him having to take part in a shooting of an innocent man just so he can stay out of the firing line of suspicion that he is the rat in the unit. The fact that the young recruit got 3 years in prison is hard to judge whether that is fair or not?? What is not hard to judge is the fact that the staff sergeant got life in prison.......justice served.
Alexander Skarsgard and Nat Wolf are both in particular extremely good in the film, I am quite surprised with this being an A24 production that their performances aren't getting more award buzz..........especially for Skarsgard who is haunting in his portrayal of the staff sergeant. Even when his character is not on screen his presence is definitely felt...........superb!!! Nat Wolf on the other hand is a very likeable guy so it is very easy to route for him in the film............even though it would be difficult not too. Definitely got me interested in what he does next!
Overall its 75% out of 100 it is very very close to being 80% but for one good reason. The film has everything , good direction, acting, story, pacing.............the only thing missing for me was more production to the film and would love to have seen some real news coverage of the real incident, maybe some court room reenactments??? At 1hr 30 mins the film doesn't seem fully finished if I'm being honest, got to be a few things were cut out here and there............its 3/4 of the way there. However 3/4 its not bad going..........extremely uncomfortable psychological horror that is called the truth! -
brianthomas-3566027 October 2019I don't want to give any spoilers so I'll just say this movie had the right story, the right actors, the right setting to be something special but the whole film came out shallow & flat imo. It just seemed like a paint by numbers production. The battle or military sequences could've been more broad or involved. They could've included the trials & news coverage or the impact this story had on the country or military but didn't.
When the movie ended & went to credits I said to myself: 'is that it?' Evidently it was & it just wasn't good enough imo. -
siderite5 February 2022There is a lot of tension in this film, as a young American soldier in Afghanistan finds that his sergeant wants to make his team do unacceptable things. There are issues of conscience, obviously, but the story also touches the difficulty of breaking rank, reporting anything above your superior officer, behaving differently than your teammates, the casual bullying in the army and the general apathy regarding due process or anything other than the blind discipline required of military people.
The story in the film is based on the Maywand District murders, about which the writer/director of the film also talked in a documentary from 2013 that he also directed.
But while the story is important, the movie is not that great. Alexander Skarsgård does his charismatic yet dangerous guy role, and Nat Wolff did a good job with the main character, but the rest of the plot felt either rushed, or disjointed or plain bland. It really felt like a prolonged dream sequence. I rather preferred the two actors in The Stand. The other actors had almost nothing to work with. There was very little characterisation, even for the two lead actors.
Sometimes it is hard to bring real life cases to the big screen and also make them entertaining. Perhaps there was not much to tell other than what was in the film, perhaps the respect of the author for the facts prohibited him to add the usual bull that people add to create tension, release it, bring humor, make greater than life characters out of ordinary people. In the end, though, I felt uncomfortable with the tension, disconnected from the situation and caring very little about the characters. -
SoundMuzak4 November 2019Current rating below 7 are wrong and unfair for me. This movie is good, is well acted and paced. I recommend it.
-
This film is supposed to be based on a documentary that is supposed to be based on reality, so here's the score:
The documentary itself is okay, it gives you the general events that took place, includes some very powerful interviews, and gives you one guy and his family's perspective on things. It is pretty much entirely one-sided, but it does that well enough. If you're too lazy to do your own research, watch the documentary.
That having been said, I'm not confident the people who made this film even watched the documentary, let alone actually researched the real events. If they did, they must have decided reality was too boring, because they changed pretty much everything.
I don't know if this is a good film as fiction, because watching it I was unable to divorce the farce from the real events it was supposed to be depicting.
I see a lot of the reviews on here arguing about politics and people's opinions about what the real soldiers did or were accused of doing (or making blanket declarations about America being evil or American being spotless and saintly), and I have no idea what any of that nonsense has to do with this film.
Real things happened. This film barely depicts them, and gets pretty much nothing right. For that it earns a lowly 1 Star. -
donaldricco30 December 2019This movie starts out very strong, and the first half hour flies by! Feels like a documentary, and has a very realistic tone to it! And Alexander Skarsgård is absolutely amazing in his role as Sergeant Deeks! A fantastic acting job! After that first half hour, the film slows down quite a bit, and I think, dragged along by the terrible acting of Nat Wolff. He seems completely devoid of emotion, right from the beginning, and has absolutely no character in his face, or movements. A terrible performance, especially when he's on screen with Skarsgard. An absolute miscasting if ever there was. And I don't know if it's Wolff's horrid acting, or the writing of the character himself, but I felt no sympathy for him. Heck, I kind of wanted to take a shot at him myself! Still, a decent film about the madness of war, and what kind of terrible pressure these soldiers are under.
-
cwstone5 September 2021I deployed to Afghanistan twice with the 173rd Airborne. It's painfully obvious "The Kill Team" had no technical advisors or anyone even remotely acquainted with the Army involved in the production. It's distracting as hell when a film about a subject has no feel or understanding of the people involved. The endless technical inaccuracies aside, it's depiction of US soldiers is totally phony. These soy based actors don't talk, act, or carry themselves like Soldiers, especially guys deployed in a forward area.
As to the accuracy and veracity of the events depicted, who knows? We all know poorly led soldiers, yes even Americans, are capable of falling into this type of darkness. But once Army CID, plea bargains, and the top brass starts scrambling to cover their butts...the truth goes bye bye. The Army Judge Advocate crew are even worse than civilian lawyers. They will do anything to secure convictions. But they also receive the full blessing and support from the Pentagon to create narratives and railroad service members. Anything to get the spotlight away from them.
I spent a lot of time in the worst parts of Afghanistan and I never saw US personnel indulge in wanton acts of barbarism or murder.
The soldiers in question were in all probability the product of a breakdown in the command and control of a military unit in combat. If these morons deserve jail time then so do their platoon, company, and battalion leadership. A combat unit doesn't degenerate like this overnight, there needs to be a vacuum of leadership. When this occurs in the face of constant exposure to combat, the anger and resentment that can and does build inside fighting men boils over.
As previously mentioned, I never came across an outlier unit like this in Afghanistan. This was not a systemic issue but a tragic incident. I did however very often witness the systemic barbarism of the insurgents we were fighting against. Murder, rape, mutilation, torture...it was all in a day's work for them. When saw the aftermath of their crimes, which were so heinous and bizarre, I couldn't help but be awe struck by them.
I found myself often wondering: "What kind of human mind could conjure up THIS method of killing another human?" I'm not saying these soldiers don't belong in jail because they probably do. We don't take kindly to bad soldiers bringing dishonor to the uniform, it's simply unacceptable. But let's look at the big picture instead of posturing like WE were the bad guys over there. When I personally stack up what these guys did vs. The universe of suffering created by the Taliban and insurgents...how should I be expected to feel? A couple of fingers hacked off and the extrajudicial killing of some locals who were clearly aiding the insurgents? I'm sorry but I've stared into the abyss too long and too often to have my hair blown back by that. -
At what point does someone become a bad guy? Where is the line and when is it crossed? This film looks at those questions when it comes to the Americans and the people they're fighting. Some have their own line which they move for the sake of "making a difference". That can make sense to a certain degree, but when do you know when you've gone too far as you become desensitized and morally compromised. There's accounts of these cases in every war ever documented.
Alexander Skarsgård taps into his 'Generation Kill' persona and delivers a powerful performance. For the most part the film looked real and authentic. The moral dilemma in this setting is nothing overly new, so the film falls a bit flat and is only vaguely compelling throughout. -
frnklwis28 July 2021It started so good until that guy couldn't handle it and it just got worse from there he should have been shot.
-
Gordon-1111 November 2019This film tells the story of a young soldier who battles with himself on whether to follow the dubious orders of his sergeant.
The story is well told, as it highlights the battles of the young soldier. The intimidation by the sergeant is portrayed effectively, making the young soldier crack and fear for his own safety. It is very sad that the young soldier had to endure such an ordeal. -
pilot10092 July 2021I don't see this as an anti american film - all wars have cases where unjustified acts occur. You cannot judge soldiers from an arm chair and if you train people to kill they will and who's to judge whether they were 'justified' or not and I'm sure there are some phycho's out there but mostly they get filtered out and sometimes they are encouraged if not condoned. Blaming the soldiers for some of these actions is like blaming the gun for the bullets. This film was quite slow but it was well acted and had drama.
-
antmacs22 January 2020The topic has been tackled before with the likes of Charlie Sheen and Michael J. Fox covering the main character's role. This time the narrative is more realistic and, frankly, more believable regarding how a young man thrown in the midst of such a scenario could react. As pointed every time before, it all boils down to whether you betray the unquestionable loyalty the pack (you want to be a part of) expects from you, or ignore your conscience. This time the latter choice is also backed by the seemingly incontrovertible logic the Sergent tries to drill into our guy's mind - when it tells him that the US Constitution considers guilty of Treason whoever gives aid or comfort to an enemy, a crime punishable by death (Art.III Sec.3 is real, even though it might be argued that Treason doesn't apply to citizens of another Country, but that's beyond this review).
As the story rolls on, the atmosphere and characters development are supported by pretty good acting and cinematography. Where the movie falls short, imho, is in devoting a bit more time to depict the kind of mental and, possibly, physical abuse a young guy in that situation probably has to endure. That would put his actions and the whole unfolding of the story in a more complete perspective, giving the viewer a better chance to identify himself with the character and decide whether to be more or less sympathetic.
In any case, good food for thought and definitely recommended viewing. -
SnoopyStyle30 October 2019American soldier Andrew Briggman (Nat Wolff) is an innocent new recruit sent to serve in Afghanistan. His sergeant tries to win hearts and minds but gets blown up by an IED. His new leader is Sergeant Deeks (Alexander Skarsgård) who is ruthless hunting for the bomb maker. A suspicious killing of an Afghan happens and Briggman suspects Deeks of directing the illegal death.
This is adapted from the doc of a true story. I didn't see the doc and I'm not judging this on its accuracy. In fact, any accuracy may hinder the drama of the movie. I also don't want to judge this based on how this makes the military look. As a story, the fact that Deeks catches Briggman so early makes the intensity of the drama half as high. Part of the intensity is not knowing whether Deeks knows. The fact that he's shown to know lessens the drama. Also, Briggman is too stupid in pursuing the investigation. He obviously gets discovered and gets diminished as a thinking character. Overall, there is some good drama and good acting but it's all rather less than optimal. -
lavatch30 October 2023"The Kill Team" was an earnest film drawing upon the essential structure of Joseph Conrad's famous novel "Heart of Darkness." Francis Ford Coppola drew upon Conrad for the epic "Apocalypse Now!" as an allegory of the War in Vietnam. "The Kill Team" is a much more modest version applied to the war in Afghanistan.
The crazed military figure of Col. Kurtz from Conrad was the basis for the demented Sergeant Deeks, who is able to brainwash nearly every member of his small brigade for atrocities committed against civilians in Afghanistan.
In his twisted mind, Deeks likely saw himself as a patriot. He called himself a "warrior" and tried to inculcate that vision in a group of young men. It was only Andrew "Briggsy" Briggman, who resisted and ultimately blew the whistle on Deeks.
The minimalist approach to the filming with barren deserts and unpopulated villages did not quite work in the film. In the recent film "The Covenant" there was a much more detailed evocation of the environment that was the basis for "door-to-door" searches for the American invading force.
Still, the film succeeded in its intensity and the believability of the rogue band led by the sergeant who can only be described as evil. The film is a testament to an utterly futile war that lasted for two decades and accomplished nothing. -
juneebuggy11 April 2020Starts out strong, following Private Andrew Bregmann just before he deploys to Afghanistan. He's a kid dreaming of glory and wartime adventures. There are few surprises once in country, shock explosions as Brigmann becomes second in command to Sergeant Deeks. The movie then gets a bit dry and meandering as the young soldier becomes suspicious of his relentless leaders decisions, he debates following his moral compass. Alex Skarsgård does a great job with his role and is probably why I stuck with this. Nat Wolff was decent too.
The ending is one of those, what that's it? With a few blurbs to tell you what happened in a third person way. As a whole this didn't leave much of an impression. Maybe including parts of the trial would have made more of an impact as I came to learn this is based on a true story.
There's a documentary of the same name which is meant to be good. -
v-ley13 February 2020I am so sick of these movies detailing true life but no one wants to BELIEVE it! This crap happens and yes, with our soldiers, both men and women. Too many higher ranking people take their jobs OVER the line to just kill. It's about time the industry shows this. Our Military is not perfect, that's a fact! We civilians can say "thank you" as often as we want but there will be "bad apples" no matter what. Thanks for showing this.
-
I am sadly accustomed to bad guys in movies being solely bad and evil without any explanation. But where is the contrasting good guy in this film? The message appears to be simply that soldiers are evil, murderous thugs. If you didn't get the message in the first half of the movie, the second half is a subtle ball-peen hammer to drive the message home.
Editors: lower my rating please. -
leedesi5610 January 2020There's a lot of squawking here about the message of this movie, and frankly i don't understand the outrage. As a Navy veteran, I can attest to the fact that most of our servicemen and servicewomen are decent and honorable, but there is sometimes the soldier or sailor who is there for the wrong reasons.
Why would good soldiers defend these indefensible monsters?
In the news these days is Chief Edward Gallagher, an example of such a monster, who has brought dishonor to Seal Team Seven. These heroes have been punished for daring to speak out about Gallagher's crimes, and the Secretary of the Navy has resigned in the aftermath, because a draft-dodging phony of a president sides with that psychotic murderer.
As with the police, the good actors need to expose the bad actors.
As a possible war with Iran looms, people need to see this movie. -
marisofigia9 June 2021If you like war films, this is a good one. The story is not original, no one is reinventing the wheel here. A rookie enlists in the army with dreams of finding a calling and a purpose, only to end up finding instead violence and cynicism. The actors do a great job, the production is solid, a few moments of suspence. No need to overthink who was right and who was wrong in Bush's war. After all, the main point here is that in times of war, the thin red line gets blurred.
-
Stephan_fr2 August 2023Tldr: this feels like a very cheap and amateur attempt at a fictionalised representation of the US army from the feverish mind of someone who does not understand anything about the events but use them as an excuse to push a certain agenda. Horrifically inaccurate, an insult to the memory of the victims, and cinematically well below average.
This movie wants to cover in a fictionalised way the Maywand District murders. This is on the back of an existing documentary and already raises the question as to - what more could they present here that has not been covered at length by every main stream outlet?
I'll tell you what: this gives the movie maker a perfect opportunity to present completely inaccurate and vastly misleading representation of the behaviour of US troops on the grounds in Afghanistan. The Maywand District murders DID occur. But not in that fashion. A simple check of the Wikipedia page indicates that they happened directly as a result of oversight from senior management, leading two isolated individual attempt at forming a disturbing sports killing team, operating completely underground and unknown to anyone else on base. The movie however, makes it appear as if this was the way the entire base, and even the entire US army operated. It's so deeply unfair to those that have served honourably, it's insulting.
In addition, anyone with a modicum of understanding has to how these bases operate, will immediately notice that no military advisor was hired to provide consulting on language, operations, how briefings are given, and even the equipment. There are so many errors that even the untrained eye will spot them. As full of vehicles there are all CGI and extremely badly rendered with no historical accuracy whatsoever.
The movie is bad enough on its own, but what's absolutely puzzling is why a24 would land its name to something like this. It's not just a bad fictionalization, It's a bad movie too. It's all around bad and I can't believe that the company that produced the mind-blowing 'enemy' or 'under the silver lake' and even scored an international hit recently with 'EEAAO', would stoop so low.
It would be comically bad if it was not so offensive. -
lor_19 October 2019I attended two films in a row suffering from exactly the same flaw: the main protagonist left at the climax with no choice, cancelling out any previous drama in the story. First up was "Mickey and the Bear", where the heroine was faced with choosing between staying with her messed-up war vet of a father to care for him, or getting on with her own life by going away to college.
Then came "The Kill Team", a standard-issue anti-war movie whose hero is faced with becoming a whistle blower and putting an end to the murderous activities of his squad in Afghanistan, or becoming part of the killing team. As directed by Dan Krauss, who previously treated the same material to a documentary feature, we can identify with the kid put in a tough situation, but the real-life plot twist after the film's climax robs him of choice, making this just another slice-of-life reality downer.
There are many important issues raised along the way, especially how the military is designed to dehumanize young recruits in order to get them to carry out dangerous missions, as well as numerous side issues like bullying, indoctrination and even the strong effects of violent videogames on an impressionable youngster's psyche, but the crisis of conscience at the center of the story is presented more like a rat in a trap than a potential profile in courage. Worse yet, the key scene involving the killing of an innocent old Afghani civilian is staged so poorly that I couldn't follow clearly exactly what happened, only to witness the hero becoming implicated in the evil around him.
Alexander Skarsgard is fine as the nominal villain of a ruthless squad sergeant, while Nat Wolff as the hero remains a blank throughout. It's a role reminiscent of many that Tom Courtenay delivered brilliantly in the 1960s,/70s, ranging from "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner" to "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", his tortured expressions conveying his situational pain as perhaps no other actor could. But even though we can vicariously, from the safety of our cinema seat far from war, identify with Wolff's Andrew Briggman, by film's end this is just another piece of escapism, in which the viewer can go home with a "Whew!", thanking God that one doesn't find oneself in Briggman's predicament.