(2013-05-21 05:08:12)

Another great film that should be watched several times.

This review is from: Restrepo (DVD) The footage of war shot by National Geographic gives us a look at war that is reality. The fear and the boredom. A great movie.

(2013-05-21 01:18:36)

Mandatory streaming......The real thing

Our young , brave , diverse soldiers with a camera or two on them during a 15 month deployment in a place most of us don't even care to read about . Truly fascinating and meaningful .

Deckard-16

(2013-05-18 11:09:10)

And I thought "The Hurt Locker" & "...Private Ryan" were intense.

After living (because "experiencing" is too weak a word here) this filmfor the last 2 & 1/2 hours (the DVD extras are equal to the feature) Iwill not be able to see another combat film for a very very long time.What Sebastian Junger & Tim Hetherington have captured with this docmay be the final word about soldiers in combat & their thoughtsafterword.Afghanistan has been called a place "where dynasties go to die". Themen shown here mostly don't give a flying f**k about history orpolitics. All they are concerned about is getting one day closer to theend of their 15 month deployment in the most dangerous on Earth AND theguys on either side of them.This is most clear-eyed view of fighting I've seen since (theexcellent) "Gunner Palace". Junger/Hetherington put their own asses onthe line getting their footage & wisely kept completely out of theirown picture. It drags at times because it shows that fighting is aboutburning their own human waste, building dirt barriers & killing timebefore the next kill --a kill they rarely see. The interviewsinterlaced among the field footage are as riveting as the fighting.BUT make no mistake the fighting is as hellaciously intense as "BlackHawk Down" & "...Ryan". However J/H pull back from the gore. There arePG-13 movies which are more graphic in their violence. The real"graphic" parts of this film are the emotions in the faces & the eyesof the men. Sometimes it is difficult to figure out what comes first:the man inside or the soldier outside.Buy the DVD. The extras are huge.

(2013-05-18 00:18:08)

The Most Dangerous Place In The War

For anyone who has read the book 'War' by Sebastian Junger, this documentary is the obvious closer. Junger and his photojournalist/Filmer followed a group of men for fifteen months during their time in the war in Afghanistan. Junger was embedded with the Battle Company for three months, and his book depicts that time. He and his Filmer returned to 'Restrepo' 5 times to continue filming these troops. What we have is a pounding realistic view of war, and the day to day trauma fighting up to 5 battles a day with the enemy. There was never a day without a fight.For fifteen months the Battle Company of the 173rd Airborne Brigade was stationed in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan-- CNN has said it is considered one of the most dangerous postings of the war. The soldiers of Second Platoon built and manned an outpost that they named Restrepo in honor of their medic, Pfc. Juan Restrepo, who was killed in action. This is their story. "The Korengal Valley--a rugged valley six miles long near the border with Pakistan--has become an epicenter of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. It was considered to be a crucial relay point for Taliban fighters moving from Pakistan toward Kabul, and several top al Qaeda leaders were thought to have used it as a base of operations. In 2005, Taliban fighters cornered a four-man Navy SEAL team in the Korengal and killed three of them, then shot down a helicopter that was sent to save them. All 16 American commandos on board died." from a Wikipedia report.Battle Company is led by Capt. Dan Kearney, whose plan is to establish an outpost, Restrepo. The men occupy the position at night and start digging, using earth to build fortifications. They catch the enemy off-guard. The successful maintenance of Outpost Restrepo. Kearney holds a weekly council with the local elders. One elder complains he has lost a cow. It's explained that the cow became tangled in razor wire and had to be put out of its misery. He is offered compensation: The cow's weight in rice, beans and sugar. He wants cash. The day to day survival of the villagers is interspersed with the day to day survival of the troops. No electricity and running water for a while, poop needed to be burned, food was rations and bottles of water are seen piled haphazardly in a large wired enclosure. If you did not keep well dehydrated in this climate, you would die or at least bring harm to your troops because you were lagging behind.The soldiers all speak with dread about an operation named Operation Rock Avalanche, fought through deadly country. They come under fire three, four, five times a day. There are many firefights in the film, but they all share one feature: We never see the enemy, and we never see the American targets. The film is so visual that we feel and smell the fear. The rugged mountain terrain is dusty in summer and so cold in winter. This is hard duty. How men can return from this kind of war and lead a 'normal' life, is not something to be understood. After the deployment, Junger returns to Italy where the troops are based and interviews each man. Because they have built up a special relationship after fifteen months, the men feel free to speak their minds and emotions. They dread sleeping at night because their nightmares are filled with visions of what they have been through. They say they will never get over their friends deaths. I believe them.This is a film for everyone to see. To fully understand the day to day lives of these young men we have sent to war. Is it worth it? Troops were removed from the Korengal Valley in April 2010, the area was thought to be too deadly for our soldiers. Bit it took at least fifty deaths to prove.Highly Recommended. prisrob 12-08-10WARFire

(2013-05-17 10:07:28)

Be prepared to be moved

I was fortunate to be able to see this film at this year's Sundance Film Festival. I didn't really know what to expect, for the title doesn't really tell you much. It is difficult to put into words the impact that this film had upon me. It is too sparse to say that Restrepo is powerful for you will be thinking about this film long after the closing credits roll by.This film is unscripted and raw in its approach to taking you to what these soldiers experienced in the 15 months that they were deployed in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. The film moves back and forth between footage that was captured as events unfolded and the soldiers telling their stories after their deployment was complete. You see through their eyes, up close and personal, how living through this deeply affected these men.It is no suprise to me that this film won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance. Everyone that I spoke with at the festival had a similar experience as mine. The film was moving, powerful, uplifting, and sobering. This is truly a must see.I'm thrilled to see that the film will be released on DVD and it will definitely have a place in my library.

jake s

(2013-05-16 15:30:54)

awesome

this a realistic look at what happens in Afghanistan everything from the firefights to the boredom. It was a pleasure to see my fellow grunts battle these cowards over there. It gives a great look at the guys fighting and made me think bout my tours in afghanistan and iraq. INFANTRY KICKS ASS

prestonloyola

(2013-05-15 18:37:48)

interesting reporting? yes. award-winning documentary? no.

It's a sad commentary on contemporary journalism that a film likeRestrepo can win a prestigious award like the Grand Jury 2010 SundanceBest Documentary Award. Basically, the film-makers embed themselveswith a US platoon in Afghanistan, document the experience, andintersperse interviews of some of the soldiers (taken after the periodin question) throughout. There's no attempt to place the events in alarger context, no narrative to tie anything with the policy decisionstaken in Washington, all we get is a raw "life in Afghanistan" seenthrough the eyes of soldiers on the ground in a single location. Don'tget me wrong, it is quite interesting to actually see some of what isgoing on the ground in Afghanistan, after the thousands of hours of TVpunditry and miles of newspaper column inches that media heads havefilled with opinions, debates, tirades and justifications of the socalled "war on terror". But this is the kind of reporting that shouldbe omnipresent in our media, something you might see in a segment on 60minutes, or some other outlet for investigative journalism (of whichthere are fewer and fewer). Unfortunately, as we know, investigative journalism is expensive, andhas dramatically been cut down in our age of media mega mergers. It's alot cheaper to stick a few people around a table to mouth off on TV(and then cover the debate in the print media), then it is to ship truejournalists across the globe (and around the centers of power in theUS) who are not afraid to stir things up and take on the powers thatbe.And so something like Restrepo - which is a bog standard journalisticpiece - becomes an award winning documentary film. Examples of the kindof items that might be included in a wider scope documentary filmworthy of awards: - Restrepo like footage in multiple locations inAfghanistan - similar footage of the other side (Taliban/AlQaeda orwhomever is actually doing the fighting) with interviews on the reasons- interviews with the policy makers in DC explaining what the policiesare and why, what they are trying to achieve - compare these goals withwhat is going on the ground - facts and figures about how much money isbeing spent on the war (compare to how much is being spent on Afghanaid), start digging into which corporations are making the most profitout of it - look at the cozy ties between retired DoD personnel anddefense contractors etc, etc, etc you can just keep pulling at stringsforever really... Tie everything into a cohesive narrative, maybe startactually providing answers to the still unanswered question of what weare actually still doing in Afghanistan, and maybe we would have animportant documentary film worthy of an award. But a context free yearin the life of a US platoon - sorry guys, that just doesn't cut it.

Bo

(2013-05-15 10:18:20)

All Should See

Saw RESTREPO tonight. 5*! Sebastian and Tim accomplished what many directors and producers seek and few ever do--tell the story of combat without political slant or hidden agenda. As a retired warrior I salute these gentlemen for a beautiful, powerful and honest film about our soldiers fighting in daily combat at the tip of the spear.

(2013-05-14 15:46:52)

This is real.

I just finished watching Restrepo, which, as you probably already know, is a documentary made by Sebastian Junger about the 2nd Platoon, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd (Airborne) Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, during its tour of duty in Afghanistan. If you have not seen it, this movie is well worth watching. If you have Amazon Prime, it is also free. While I was watching it was one of the few times that I have ever wished that I was younger, about 25 or 30 years younger in this case. With a good, well-trained airborne rifle company or platoon, it could be a very interesting war Afghanistan. I do not mean to minimize what the guys in Afghanistan have done, or the danger inherent in any kind of combat, but the area they were working in, the Korengal Valley, was just tailor made for creative, light infantry, operations. The terrain is incredibly mountainous, and the ability to move and operate in that kind of terrain with those kinds of sighting distances, is part of what makes the idea so attractive. The idea of OP Restrepo is itself a great example of what I mean. In essance it was simply an OP. However, it dominated the Korengal Valley and also made Company B's position for all practical purposes both safer on a day to day basis and impregnable from all but the strongest attack. After OP Restrepo was in place, any enemy would be required to attack two places simultaneously if it wanted to defeat either. The enemy was never able to solve this tactical problem.This is exactly the kind of opportunity for creative thinking that I am talking about. The creation of the OP there, under fire, was game changing. In and of itself, it was a fairly small move, but the enhanced visibility it gave allowed the 2nd Platoon to dominate, without excessive exposure, the entire Korengal Valley. It also protected and offered mutual support to B Company's own base area. Really good, really creative, thinking on the part of the B Company Commander produced a tactical opportunity that he splendidly exploited at relatively low cost. Constant unsuccessful pressure by the enemy to remove it confirmed Restrepo's absolute value as a fighting-observation platform.Splitting the Company into two mutually supporting positions in a sense keeps the company's combat fighting power together better than keeping the company in one location would. While this is not at first obvious, splitting the company allowed more of the company to fight together, more of the time than keeping the company actually together would have since by being separate they would not get in each others way as they fought and it allowed the direction of more of the company's combat firepower on a weak area than would have been available for that area if the company had stayed together. Generally splitting your forces in the face of the enemy is not a good idea. In this case only by splitting his forces could the B Company commander bring B Company's full war fighting potential to bear on the enemy.Few things better in infantry operations than being strategically offensive and tactically defensive at the same time. (Which is why I have never understood why Lee overlooked/rejected simply side stepping Meade at Gettysburg, placing his army between Meade and Washington and thereby forcing Meade to attack him on ground of Lee's choosing? It was what Longstreet wanted to do, and Longstreet was right.) The creation of OP Restrepo did exactly that albeit on a small scale. It immediately reduced the attacks on B Company's main base camp, which was relatively much more vulnerable to such attacks than OP Restrepo and it thereby required the enemy to attack instead a position that was inherently both stronger and safer once it was fully in place. This was really good small unit tactical planning and execution. It is not simple to be a good infantryman, but it is immediately rewarding when you are. Secondly it was clear that the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are several years older than the ones in Viet Nam, and they have actual sergeants as squad leaders in their units. For various reason my unit had a fairly large number of experienced NCOs, but it seemed in the movie that they may have had even more real sergeants than we did, and we had far more than most units in Viet Nam. Because we were trained as a unit before we went to Viet Nam, we knew each other much longer than the men in other units. However, the men of 2nd Platoon, B Company appeared to have worked together and to have known each other for much longer than even we knew each other. This made taking casualties much more difficult for them. At least that is my expectation since they clearly reacted much more in the movie than we did to casualties. Of course, particularly during Tet'68 there simply were a lot more casualties, so that may have had some effect on our view. For some reason, at least at one point, in the movie they were carrying what appears to be a 90 mm recoilless rifle, or its successor weapon, on patrol. The gunner is also carrying a rifle. A 90 mm recoilless rifle is heavy enough to carry on the flat, it must be incredible to lug along with a reasonable supply of ammunition in that kind of terrain. I cannot figure out what they used it for in Afghanistan. While I was not a fan of the 90 mm recoilless rifle until Tet '68, after seeing what it can do in a street fight, I am now a believer in it as a truly great weapon for its appropriate situation. But in order to make it effective, you pay a very high price in terms of weight, both for the gun itself and for a sufficient amount of ammunition. I don't know what the situation could be in Afghanistan that would make it worthwhile to carry this kind of weapon, this kind of weight. I do not recall the movie showing the 90 mm in action, however I cannot conceive that they carried it just because it was on their TO&E. Therefore, there must have been a role of some sort for it?They also actually used a lot of whatever the current version of the LAW is, and that I do understand. I too used a large number of LAWs in Viet Nam. The almost instantaneous option of reliable penetration and opening up of an opposing prepared position that a LAW gives is very valuable in a firefight. Additionally, like an RPG, a LAW is an intimidating weapon as well. I could easily go thru a case or more of LAWs in a firefight. I always liked to shoot back with a higher caliber than they shot at me. In addition, after you learn how, a LAW can be used reliably at ranges well beyond their prescribed distances. Even at those ranges, it is accurate, and deadly. I was astonished at the number of times in the movie the 173rd's patrols, both motorized and foot, were moving on roads or well defined trails, even when they clearly did not need to. I have also noticed this regrettable approach in other news photographs of Marine patrols in Afghanistan as well. It is no wonder that the US armed forces have taken the number of IED casualties that they have if this is the general way of movement in a hostile environment. As I have said before, being a good infantryman is not easy. It requires constant vigilance at all levels of command, and none more so that at platoon level. A good infantryman just does not move on roads or trails because if you do you get dead, and it must be said, you deserve to be dead, because you are stupid.I simply do not understand why they used roads and trails. We would never do that in Viet Nam. I would have been relieved instantly if I had done what I saw them doing repeatedly in the movie and others doing in news photographs of units on the move in Afghanistan. I talked with a friend of mine, a retired major general and he talked of the necessity for showing the flag ops, etc. While this may be true, it is stupid to accept while doing that what appear to me to be eminently avoidable casualties, and this assumes the fact, unproven for me, that it is necessary "to show the flag." Moreover, even assuming that it is necessary to show the flag, I have always resisted the idea that it is ever necessary to do something in a stupid way and this seems to be one of those occasions.I think my point about the differences between good and not good infantry operations is that the Army withdrew entirely from the Kerengal Valley soon after B Company finished its tour. The Army did not have another unit that could with the same economy of force maintain the pressure on the enemy. Clearly the unit replacing B Company did not have the same ability, just as well at the beginning of the movie it indicates that B Company was replacing a unit that did not have its level of professionalism and therefore had not had its level of success. Being an infantryman is not easy and some do it better than others. Simply stated that is why they are still alive and the others are not. This short documentary shows some really good infantrymen at work. It is difficult, it is dangerous, and it is important. We owe it to the men and women that do it, to understand rather than just mouth platitudes about how much we support the armed forces.

Michael O'Keefe

(2013-05-13 23:10:58)

War: up close and personal.

This war documentary is very well done and really not meant for thesqueamish or timid. Rough and raw language throughout includingvocalized descriptions of violence. Two filmmakers, Sebastian Jungerand Tim Hetherington, are embedded with a platoon in the deadliestvalley of Afghanistan. The two filmmakers spend a year with the SecondPlatoon as they battle al-Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in the dreadedKorengal Valley, where the fighting is crucial and surreal. Thesoldiers painfully push on with break-back effort, fierce firefightsand extraordinary precision in their battle with the Taliban. Thebesieged squad dubbed their outpost in the honor of their fallencomrade PFC Juan Restrepo. Every shot fired seemed to be of personalnature and each target hit a payback to Restrepo. Others in the SecondPlatoon: Dan Kearny, Aron Hijar, Miguel Cortez, Angel Toves and MarcSolowski.

(2013-05-08 07:46:31)

Unbelievable raw footage.

Unreal. After you see it, it takes one a little while to absorb it all in and process it. Then you wanna see it again.

(2013-05-07 16:48:30)

Love this movie

If you want to know what our life is actually like out there, this is it. Like or hate it, I don't really care

(2013-05-04 14:29:24)

Make Sure You Also Watch the Extras

Thus you should either buy or rent the actual disc rather than stream it in since usually extras are not included in the streaming version. During the "Extended Interviews" portion there were two memorable moments for me. One soldier ridiculed the notion that they were gaining the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people. Another said that the only justification he knew for them being there is Bush's nostrum that it is better to fight them over there than at home, but you could feel his skepticism. The obvious difference between the rich Saudi graduate students who pulled off 9/11 to avenge US support of Israel and the dirt poor Taliban who don't have much of a world view beyond Afghan borders shows what a poor reason that is. Another section was a followup on what the people in the film were doing in 2010. Surprisingly, several had reenlisted and were again in Afghanistan. I got the impression that except for the above mentioned, the subjects gave little thought to the justification for US policy.I found the whole blueray a powerful anti-war, anti-neocon document in an understated way.

(2013-05-04 01:21:37)

Brave soldiers in a war with no strategy, and the wrong tactics

True, the soldiers are, to a man, brave, in "Restrepo," which as other reviewers have pointed out is a documentary w/o voice over, but still highly edited, as it covers 15 months of engagement by the US Airborne in the Korengal Valley, a thin eastward jutting spit of land in Afghanistan. The film follows these forces as they are sent in to battle Taliban elements in an extremely rural and traditional area, sparsely populated. Judging from the maps they spend most of their time at around 2200 - 2800 meters.The individual soldiers are quite brave and endure substantial hardships. What is not mentioned is that the locals have been living like this all of their lives, generation after generation. The American soldier can tolerate it for just over a yea. The captain (?) who commands the men is ill-suited for the assignment. His first raid on suspected Taliban ends up killing a number of civilianz, and wounding women and children. And this, in essence, is the real point of the movie. The bravery of some soldiers is wasted as the strategy of the mission is un achievable ("win hearts and minds") and the tactics heavy handed. We feel that the Americans are good guys, but they look pretty bad if you are a local. And a good chunk of the populous is Taliban - the sons, husbands and brothers of the locals. What do the Amerians offer them in return? Jobs? They won't live long if they co-operate with the Americans. Beans and rice when they kill an Afghani elder's cow? That won't get the job done either. In the film we understand as little, and see as little, of the locals as the soldiers do, and I believe that is part of the film maker's purpose. The job the American army is doing in the Korengal is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack with a bulldozer. The outlook is not good. If we want to change the political environment in that part of Afghanistan, we had better be prepared to stay for many decades to come.

(2013-05-04 09:40:55)

Restrepo

This review is from: Restrepo [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I was there and there is no way to show how much sacrafice these men went through. This is an awesome documentary.

MellowMuslim

(2013-05-03 22:20:47)

"Restrepo" and "Taliban"

Last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper presented excerpts from “Taliban” documentary while questioning whether the documentary was a propaganda tool for Taliban. He told its producer, Norwegian freelance journalist Paul Refsdal: "Some people will think you're trying to humanize the Taliban.” Refsdal countered that his work "is an important piece of the war.”Like “Restrepo,” another documentary shown few months ago in movie theaters, “Taliban” raised a more important point: how to reconcile between the US fighting a secular war and Taliban fighting a religious oneIn 2009, Refsdal daringly talked a Taliban commander in east Afghanistan into letting him embed with his group. But, during the nine days Refsdal spend waiting for skirmishes, only once did the fighters fire on a far away U.S. military convoy moving along the region's only road. And there was no immediate response, most probably because the convoy was not hit. With no real fighting, the fighters spent most of the time praying, chanting and just fooling around. But, this seemingly eventless part showed how Taliban has been waging a religious war and raised an important question about how to reconcile that with the US secular war. Apparently with the American soldiers in mind, the Taliban fighters chanted:"We have decided to make them cry. We have put on the belt of holy war." The Taliban group leader, Darwan, was accompanied by his 12-year-old son who was carrying a machine gun nearly as large as he was. Refsdal explained to Cooper that Darwan believed that “his son will come to heaven when and if he dies in this war."Dawran himself said: "We fight for our freedom, our religion, our honor and we fight for our land." He questioned the US and its ally’s motives: "For what purpose are they fighting us? … Are they oppressed? Have they been treated unfair? Are they living in a dictatorship?"Refsad told Anderson:"Taliban are like most Muslim insurgents. When they have spare time, they read the Quran. They don't train. From what I could see from the firing they were not very accurate"Restrepo," produced by journalists Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington, is about the life of a military platoon whose one-year mission was to build an outpost in the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan's most dangerous territory. But, the larger strategic goal became elusive, abstract and, at the end, a complete failure. Last year, two years after the film was shot, the US Commander in Afghanistan ordered a pull out of Korengal.In “Restrepo,” cries of “Allahu Akbar” were heard as the Taliban fighters shoot at the American soldiers or hurl rockets towards them; the “Azan” (Muslims calling for prayer) echoes across the towering mountains five times a day; and “Alhamdulilah”(thanks to God) and “Inshallah” (God willing) sprinkle the Afghanis conversations. During meetings between the platoon’s commander and the Afghan village leaders, religious words and expressions seemed as a contrast to military jargons. During one meeting under a tent, when the Azan called, the village leaders went outside to pray and the few Afghani soldiers accompanying the Americans joined them – leaving the Americans waiting awkwardly or it seemedOn the other side, I don’t think I ever heard so many F-words in one movie, all by the Americans. A review of the movie in “Christianity Today” magazine noted: “Profanity is abundant, including f-bombs and misuse of Christ's name. In one scene, the platoon captain delivers a profanity-ridden motivational speech, and then leads the troops in silent prayer.”Of course, the platoon’s soldiers didn’t have to be religious, to believe in God, to be atheists, to be secular, to have faith, or to have no faith so they could fight courageously and patriotically in Afghanistan. But, I couldn’t but noticed the contrast between the two sides in this important matter of faith and religion. Despite the absence in the movie of any talk about religion and faith on the part of the Americans, Jungar, the co-producer, in a book about the movie, freely wrote about the subject. “Religion gives a man enough courage to face the overwhelming, and there may have been so little religion at Restrepo,” he wrote. Why? He answered: “Because the men didn’t feel particularly overwhelmed. Why appeal to God when you can call in Apache?"

mike

(2013-05-03 05:47:12)

A great documentary

This was an excellent film! One of the best documentaries of what ishappening in Afghanistan today. It is produced in the true nature of adocumentary as it makes no apologies for the negatives and mistakesparticularly when it comes to some of the collateral damage. It showsthe soldiers experience as it is and is extremely captivating. Somescenes are definitely not for younger audiences or anyone who is notprepared o see what war is, as close to the eye of a soldier as you canbe.and to the two morons who have an agenda when they watched this andbrought their politics to this review, you missed a good movie.truecrimsondeath - "none of which is shown, BTW" Are yo kidding?Showing the collateral damage they inflicted onto a village showing theinnocent dead? Children permanently disabled in their parent's grievingarms? And then the commander fully assuming responsibility andacknowledging the horrible loss? It even shows him having the ballz toface the village elders in the wake of the mess. Did you even watch themovie? Well I guess they let anyone review these things. That is thetrue crime.alexbrasiler - I am pretty sure you are free to leave the country anytime you like, the door is open. This country was founded by greatAmericans like these. I am proud of them and their ability to facedeath on a daily basis for what they believe in let alone be part ofthis film. In sharp contrast to someone hiding behind a computer andtaking anonymous shots at them because they are enjoying playing avideo game or laughing in the few moments in their deployment thatsomeone is not trying to kill them.

(2013-05-03 02:11:00)

Great

An incredible insight into the lives of the soldiers in Afghanistan. The language was a bit rough, but I felt like it really conveyed what they went through.

(2013-05-01 01:08:21)

Bold and intriguing concept. Restrained execution

This sort of documentary should slap people in the face with the reality of war, not hold their hand through it.For trying to place the viewer into the world of the troops and make him/her understand what it is like, I feel the film restrains itself too much to do so effectively. It would have been more effective if the events documented were simply played out through even more candid footage captured by the troops. While the interviews allow the viewer to hear the retrospective incite of the surviving members, these segments also remove the viewer from the situation he/she is supposed to be witnessing and reacting to, placing him/her back in a safe place instead. Likewise, the footage itself is nothing more candid or shocking than we citizens can see on a regular basis through the news etc. This could also just be a sad testament to our desensitization and disconnection from reality in general.Don't get me wrong. I'm not downplaying the events themselves, nor the troops, and I'm not trying to sound morbid either. I simply think the documentary could have done a much better job of placing the viewer in that setting in order to drive the message home and invoke a deeper empathy than the viewer had before. As it stands (as terrible and unfortunate as it is) there are fictional war films that invoke a greater sense of empathy and respect for our military than this documentary is able to. All of that had to do with how it was put together and edited. I think it would have been much better to simply follow the troops from a to b, minimum editing, minimum interviews (if not just voiced-over, or even none at all). That would have put the viewer right there, and driven home the intended impact.Sorry if it sounds like I'm tearing this apart. I'm not. I was definitely moved by it in many ways, but I have quite a few friends who've thankfully made it back from the war (some multiple times), and their stories have had a far greater impact on how I feel than something like this ever could. I went into it wanting to learn more and be better informed, but I don't feel that. I almost feel like I've walked into a tribute film that wasn't meant for me to see.I feel sad for the troops that were lost, and for their friends and family who have to bear the memory of that loss. Though, I'm not sure if I could honestly say it was worth watching for any other reason than out of respect for those people I've just mentioned. This is why I feel the documentary fails to deliver. It's left me with an awkward feeling of empathy, mixed with an already present feeling of respect, and a strong sense of "I should really go now. I don't think I'm supposed to be here."In conclusion: Despite what many comments suggest, this is not something everybody needs to see.

(2013-04-30 10:25:16)

And they said real journalism was dead

Despite all the critical accolades, I avoided watching this film for the longest time, because I have developed a block against any documentary dealing with America's current military involvement(s) in the Middle East (the mere mention of the subject tends to make me very, very, angry). But when it popped up unexpectedly on the National Geographic Channel recently, I thought I'd give it a go (especially since I was alone at home-where I wouldn't make a public scene should I be compelled to yell at the screen). Guess what? There was no yelling. I was too riveted. Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington's no-frills portrait of one year in the life of a platoon deployed in Afghanistan is the most gut-wrenching and uncompromising piece of combat journalism I've seen since "The World of Charlie Company" (if you're old enough to remember that one). There are no politics or voiceover narration to distract; just day-to-day life for a bunch of guys who want to do their duty, serve their tour and not get their butts shot off along the way. Saving Private Ryan and Platoon pale by comparison-this is the real deal.