User reviews

On the first of October, 1965, members of the Indonesian National Armed Forces launched a coup d'état. Although it eventually failed, the coup resulted in the deaths of six Indonesian Army generals and set the stage for President Sukarno's eventual displacement, ushering in General Suharto's autocratic regime. Under Suharto's rule, a staggering number of alleged communists- including Sukarno's supporters, members of labour and farming unions and Chinese Indonesians- were brutally killed. Backed by the U. S., the responsible paramilitary groups- namely Pancasila Youth- remain influential to this day.

Between the years of 2005 and 2011, director Joshua Oppenheimer traversed Indonesia, interviewing members of Pancasila Youth about the mass murders they partook in. He discovered a disturbing lack of remorse among them, with many recounting their deeds with unsettling nonchalance. Anwar Congo, a prominent figure in these events, as well as his right-hand man Herman Koto, collaborated with Oppenheimer to reenact the killings they participated in; a process with unexpected consequences for all involved.

'The Act of Killing' is a fascinating documentary, exploring a particularly dark passage in human history. Oppenheimer captures not just a vivid portrait of Indonesia, exposing how the gangsterism of Pancasila Youth is pervasive from the top down, but also examines themes that resonate outside of the film's context. He delves into the psychological impact of mass killings- of genocide- on both the perpetrators and society at large, highlighting the complex interplay between personal guilt, collective memory and national identity.

The film shows that the psychological effects of the mass murders extends far beyond the immediate aftermath, revealing the deep scars left on the psyche of the killers, manifested in a complex mix of denial, bravado and, at times, haunting remorse. Oppenheimer's lens captures the dissonance between the perpetrators' self-image as heroes and the brutal reality of their actions. As Congo and his comrades reenact their past violence, they begin to exhibit signs of moral injury- a term used to describe the internal suffering that results from doing something against one's moral code.

Furthermore, the documentary also touches on the broader societal impact of such atrocities. It shows how a culture of impunity and the glorification of violence can distort collective memory, leaving a nation to grapple with an unresolved and painful past. The chilling ease with which the killers recount their stories reflects a society still coming to terms with its history. Oppenheimer's work serves as a powerful reminder of the long shadow cast by acts of violence and the importance of confronting the truth for both individual healing and societal reconciliation. The reenactments become a conduit for the killers to face their own humanity and, perhaps, for the audience to reflect on the capacity for cruelty that lies within society at large.

The cinematic journey Oppenheimer takes viewers on is a stark reminder of the international political dynamics of the era, as well as the chilling ease with which such violence can become normalized. Moreover, Oppenheimer's film demonstrates the transformative power of cinema, as the recreation of past atrocities compel the killers to confront the reality of their actions, leading to unexpected moments of introspection and realization.

Cinema is shown to be a bridge between history and present-day, between reality and memory. Oppenheimer uses the medium not just to document but to provoke, to stir the conscience of both his subjects and his viewers. The reenactments serve as a surreal stage where the killers, often seen as larger-than-life figures within their communities, are confronted with the human cost of their actions. This process reveals the medium's ability to challenge perceptions, to bring the abstract horrors of history into sharp, personal focus.

As the killers step into the shoes of their victims, the audience witnesses a rare occurrence: the blurring of lines between perpetrator and victim, the collision of past and present. It's a testament to the power of cinema to not only tell stories but to also initiate a dialogue, to heal and, perhaps, to transform. Oppenheimer's documentary shows how film can be employed to navigate the complex terrain of human morality and to illuminate the paths towards understanding and redemption.

Central to the documentary are the figures of Anwar Congo and Herman Koto, whose chillingly candid accounts of their roles in the killings provide a human face to the historical atrocities. Congo, in particular, emerges as a complex character, at once remorseful and defiant, haunted by his past yet also strangely boastful. His journey reveals him to be a man grappling with the enormity of his actions, offering viewers a disturbing glimpse into the psyche of a perpetrator. Koto, meanwhile, serves as both a comrade and a foil to Congo, providing a contrasting approach to the reenactments. His demeanour oscillates between that of a remorseless gangster and a man seeking redemption, embodying the contradictions that run through the entire narrative.

Oppenheimer's cinematography is as bold and unsettling as its subject matter. The camera work is intimate, often uncomfortably so, bringing the audience face-to-face with the men who committed truly heinous acts. The use of vibrant colours and surreal staging contrasts sharply with the grim reality of the stories being told, creating a disorienting effect that mirrors the moral disarray experienced by the killers themselves.

The film's visual language is not just about aesthetic choices; it's a deliberate strategy to engage the audience on a visceral level. Scenes are framed in ways that force viewers to confront the banality of evil, to see the ordinariness of the men who carried out unthinkable crimes. It's a powerful reminder that history is not just a series of events, but a collection of personal stories, each with its own perspective and, indeed, pain.

Joshua Oppenheimer's 'The Act of Killing' is a seminal work in the landscape of documentary cinema. Reminiscent at times of Kazuo Hara's 'The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On,' or the work of Werner Herzog, it is a powerful piece that leaves a lasting impression. It pushes viewers to face harsh realities about humanity, prompting deep reflections on guilt and justice, while also using cinema to reflect and challenge, ensuring its lasting impact as an agent for understanding and change. It is, in short, a masterpiece.

While I recommend you see "The Act of Killing", the context for the film is missing. I think the filmmakers felt that it wasn't necessary but I am pretty sure younger audiences will feel a bit confused by what has happened. So, the retired history teacher in me will briefly give an overview that I wish had come when the film began: President Sukarno was the first president of Indonesia He was a strong nationalist who worked to gain independence from the Dutch. As the years passed, his administration forged closer and closer alliances with the left--particularly the communists. However, when Suharto deposed Sukarno in a coup, he ushered in an era of fascist-like repression. Suddenly, murder squads sprung up throughout the country and communists and the Chinese minority were targeted for extermination. During this period (mostly from 1965-7), approximately a million people were murdered--often very brutally.

Now, decades later, filmmakers have come to Indonesia to interview folks who were responsible for some of these murders. And, surprisingly, they find that not only are these folks rather unrepentant, but that the culture of murdering the opposition still thrives. For example, Pancasila Youth is a paramilitary organization much like the Nazi SS and SA. They were the folks behind the murders and today STILL are several million member strong--and they are proud of this. What's worse, the government is strongly aligned with them and the film shows the nation's Vice President talking to them and giving his assent for their violence. While the filmmakers did not get interviews with these higher ups, they did get others responsible for the murders to be interviewed and even recreate the killings for the audience! Oddly, they seemed very cooperative and smiled throughout--as if they were very proud of being mass murderers.

As far as the film goes, it is an amazing portrait of evil--especially since many of these folks look very ordinary. Monsters can have families, friends and even be pillars of society...but they are monsters. This is the great message of the film. And, because of this it is invaluable and worthy of receiving the Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature. It is worth seeing.

While I strongly recommend the film as it is brave and outstanding in what it achieved, it also is overlong. And, sadly, while the film shows evil up close, after a while it all becomes rather boring. Shortening it a bit here and there would have made it more poignant. Still, it is a must-see film. With a slight editing, I would have scored this film a 10.

By omitting the historical context behind the 1965–1966 Indonesian killings and letting the Indonesian death squad leaders tell their own story, watching The Act of Killing evokes the Nietschean idea of 'gazing into the abyss'. That if one were to 'gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.' The Act of Killing is a deep ocean of ideas, constantly reflecting the human condition. Every scene was like a wave, with an entirely different idea, crashing over the previous scene and provoked a new thought in me. My thought train spiraled and branched off into different directions.

At first, I thought about the brutality of man. Then it went to how history is written by the victor.

And then I thought about the nature of cinema and storytelling. That in the act of telling their own story, the death squad leaders became conscious of their past actions through the task of having to present it to an audience. The aesthetic distance, interestingly enough, ends up being the distance these death squad leaders needed to truly examine what they have done.

And then I arrived at the nature of how extreme ideas in society prevail, despite of how illogical or inhuman they may be. That logic is relative, anyone can easily manipulate logic to justify any action. One can make anything sound logical to do whatever they desired in a given moment.

And like that, the film kept on giving infinitely and its themes continually deepened. The Werner Herzog brand of the 'ecstatic truth' is at play here. Each audience member will have their own individual experience of the film's ideas and themes, because the film allows it so. Director Joseph Oppenheimer never puts these men on trial and instead of burrows for something deeper to reflect humanity at its core. These men, like anybody, are just human. And I cared and became invested into their emotional journey through how Oppenheimer displays their humanity, which was perplexing at points. I had to remind myself that they were still mass murderers.

At a two and a half hour running time, the film is too long. It's hard to sit with such heavy material. There is a 115-minute theatrical cut that exists, which is 45 minutes shorter than this director's cut. Joshua Oppenheimer seemingly wants to cover more ground than needed and less definitely would have been more. I stuck with it alright because I was fascinated by the film's subjects, but it may test the patience of general audiences. That said, The Act of Killing is a great story told through subjects that I never ever want to meet in real life. It is an unsettling and powerful experience and is one of the best films of 2013, if not the most important.

For more reviews, please subscribe to my film blog at http://hkauteur.wordpress.com/

I cannot help the urge not to write something that I could say I truly know and familiar with. I was born in the exact city where this youth organization stronghold (Pemuda Pancasila) is based now and where all the killing had taken place in the past. I am no stranger to all the crimes they did back then or do now.

Back to where it all started on the 30th of September 1965, which marked the rebellion by the Communist Party. Seven of the highly ranked military generals were kidnapped, tortured and murdered then piled in an old well by what the history said to be the communist starting coup d état. (No evidences of torturing as accused, only military style execution resulted from the autopsies of the remains and also no evidence it was done by the communist party member till now).

The name Pemuda Pancasila (Youth of Pancasila) was then known since youth started to march on the street yelling Pancasila (our nation's philosophy) resisting and seeking for revenge by annihilating communism to its root. Both government and military gave full support resulted in uncontrolled anarchy mob led to man slaughter and in present day, an organized crime.

My Mother was 13 and witnessed their brutalities would tell me the horror with fears still could be seen in her eyes. Her brothers would run and hide for their lives in a rice field when Pemuda Pancasila arrived with machetes in military trucks yelling "Pancasila" as their slogan to find and execute anyone who was involved in communist. But all the communist excuses were biased and used only to do what they wanted and to kill whoever they think was communist mostly with no evidence at all.

She witnessed her neighbour accused as one of the member of "Gerwani", woman communist organization, being raped, then dragged to the street and beaten to death as an example for others who resist. They looted, ate, drank, and destroyed what they could not take in my mom's store. One word or eye contact showing disrespect would find her ended up beaten to death.

Dead bodies and body parts scattered everywhere on the street was a normal view. Not one day went by without anyone getting killed at night. Many were victims of the unproven accusation, poor farmers who received fertilizer or farming tools from the communist party would be considered communist while they did not even know anything about what communism is.

I felt really sick watching this movie yet at the same time I was very thankful finally the whole truth about how this crime organization started and is hiding behind a youth organization now be told. It disgusted me how they could live with such unbelievable crimes and told the story so proudly with no regrets and believed in their lies and excuses they made up only to justify their brutality in the past (except Anwar Congo). Some even considered themselves as heroes. Yet I pitied them for being very uneducated and shallow. Imitating what they saw in the western cowboy and Mafia's movies thinking they could be meaner and more brutal like it was just some scene in a movie.

Are they qualified as human beings?

Ps. If you are interested in finding more about their brutalities and violence, you can find videos in youtube recently, they are involved in a riot with other organization and Police.

It seems almost trivial to "rate" a movie that is this important but like some of the tothers i have given it a 10 because people need to see it.

I have never been as completely chilled by a film in my life, and I have seen plenty of brutal documentaries. The atrocities committed by the Indonesian death squads, and so vividly re-enacted, are not easy to watch and I expect that many people would rather just turn away and ignore them, but you owe it to yourselves to sit through them.

I have just finished reading Steven Pinker's excellent book The Better Angels of Our Nature in which he argues that humanity is far less violent now than we have ever been. That may be so, but if you are looking for a compelling counter-argument you can start with this film. I can assure that that you will never forget it.

I have *never* seen anything like The Act of Killing. It is a documentary of sorts about the Indonesian death squads who killed millions of 'communists' in the 60s. Director Josh Oppenheimer worked with the squad leaders to make a 'film' about their involvement any way they wanted to make it. The result is staggeringly, devastatingly honest. I watched almost the entire the film with my jaw on the floor and my heart in my throat.

The massacres are so impinged upon the collective consciousness of Indonesia, even today, that it appears to permeate every aspect of every person's life. These squad leaders are still feared and celebrated, and their actions are institutionally supported, so, as a result, they get to run around patting themselves and each other on the back for their atrocities. It's bizarre on the highest order, and, though I wouldn't have thought of it, there probably isn't a better way to treat the subject matter than the way this film does.

There are some scenes that are actually hard to watch, too real, even when they're not. Watching Chinese immigrant shop owners getting shaken down by gangsters for money was particularly sad, as was seeing confused, scared children cry ceaselessly after participating in hyper- realistic reenactments of massacres.

Too often, when it comes to documentaries, people implore, "you have to see this one," citing its social, economic, personal, governmental, or scientific importance. Well this film is one everyone should see. It's really hard to believe sometimes that people like these death squad leaders really exist and travesties like this really have and continue to happen.

This film absolutely blew my mind. It is unquestionably one of the very best documentaries I've ever seen.

After over one-hundred years of cinema, it's pretty rare to come across a film unlike anything you've seen before, let alone one that begs the question: how the hell did they pull that off? Even though blockbuster films like Gravity try to do this by taking us to great heights (no pun intended) through technological / cinematographic advancements, we somehow end up bored with the result. Who really cares how long and complicated your opening take is if it feels like it lives inside the brain of a computer? Perhaps fiction has been done to death, perhaps we've advanced the tech behind fictional filmmaking so far that it's completely lost touch with reality. This is probably why, today, documentaries have never been more relevant and more capable of blowing your mind. The advantage documentaries have over fiction is that they can show us things so unbelievable they could only exist in the real world. Truth is truly stranger than fiction.

Joshua Oppenheimer's The Act of Killing is a very special documentary. What begins as a glimpse into the lives of a handful of former death squad leaders, Oppenheimer then invites them to help produce fictional recreations of their killings, recreations mimicking the style of the murderers' favourite Hollywood movies. As the fiction overtakes the lives of its subjects, The Act of Killing becomes what Oppenheimer has described as "a documentary of the imagination." Never before has such nightmarish and surreal terrain been excavated, revealing a chilling indifference to nothing less than unpunished crimes against humanity.

If you've ever tried to imagine what a Nazi conquered world would be like, this documentary might be closest thing we'll ever have to actually knowing. What we discover is that when history is written by the victors, we see something very frightening emerge: acceptance of brutality as not only necessary, but heroic. Aware of how it's so much easier to see the contents of a fishbowl when staring at it from a distance, The Act of Killing positions its viewers in a way that forces us to question our own perspective on how and why things really are in the world, not in the way we've been brainwashed to believe. The murderous thugs Oppenheimer immortalizes are not behind bars, or on trial for war crimes, or any of their crimes; these men are heroes in their native Indonesia, on parade to be adored by their hero-worshipping countrymen and women.

Considering Oppenheimer cast his subjects inside a surreal, hyper-stylized world of fictional recreations, it's impossible to argue The Act of Killing isn't manipulative. But it's the lengths Oppenheimer goes to -- the soaring heights of absurdity these staged recreations go to -- that confirm, whatever moral compass exists, it is not being directed by someone with a hidden agenda. Ultimately, the fictitious pageantry calls attention to how difficult it is for someone to have perspective when they're lost within a concrete belief system cemented by victory, history, and the applause of an entire nation. If you think you wouldn't have been swept away by the mass-hysteria/nationalism excited by the Nazis pre-WW2, then you're lying to yourself as much as you may have been for having bought into Obama's movement for 'Change.' I know I'm guilty of the latter.

Damning as it is, Oppenheimer's surreal world also acts as an arena for 'art' therapy, treatment both logical and plausible for men who've been playing roles their whole lives. Decades ago these gangsters were young, ego-driven, power hungry men who performed the most horrible acts imaginable...and now as old men, they've perfected their roles as heroic cowboys proud of having defended the homestead. But once the act is over and the veil lifted, these men are revealed to be victims of their own acts, sickened by what they've done, who they are, and the 'act' they've clung to in order to preserve their own sanity. To gain access to the minds of characters so repulsive and sinister is something even the best screenwriters couldn't fathom pulling off; to be able to humanize them, and make them sympathetic is a feat of filmmaking unlike anything I've ever watched before.

Something else I've never seen before is a film with one "anonymous" credit, let alone dozens of them, including one given to a co-director. The gravity of this reminds us the killings proudly re-enacted by the film's subjects are not just nostalgic, but very much a part of the today's way of doing business. By the time the credits scroll we realize the real culprit here, the one we cannot pardon, is Capitalism.

The Act of Killing depicts capitalism at its darkest hour, in a special place where brutality and savagery are necessary and applauded. Immersing us in such a dark place, The Act of Killing shows us how difficult it is to identify the outlines of our own faces once the definitions of "truth" and "justice" are mutated beyond recognition. History asks us: How far removed are we from these crimes? Was it not our governments who supported these atrocities? Whether we knew it or not, we collectively turned blind eyes, condoning a genocide that took the lives of over one million people. These are the realizations we should be most sickened and disturbed by, but are we? We enabled these men to kill so who are we to judge, and if the results coincide with our politics, do we even care?

www.eattheblinds.com

Watching this film should be mandatory for every man, woman, and child in the world.

I would leave it at that but IMDb has a minimum of 10 lines of text to prove you "mean business" with your review.

This film was utterly astounding in every sense, most importantly in the way it just lets a strange, inexplicable, simple truth emerge on its own. It is not a film that makes you feel better about the world or yourself, but rather one that makes you remember, oh yes, all this is real, and it really matters.

Without providing a spoiler, the final scene also underscores why documentaries are made, and the very real, very important things that utterly cannot be faked with all the acting, special effects, and make up in the world. That life is real.

--

I wanted to make one other note to my initial impression, since this film remains my favorite film of the year and possible of a several- year. It is worth highlighting the fact that Mr Oppenheimer spent a good eight or ten years of his life making this film, spending his life in Indonesia with a camcorder and progressively greater levels of logistical and technical help (from what has been made public about the film). Films like this don't get made in a year. Not at all.

It is worth reflecting on the connection between the time you invest in something, and what you get out of it. You get the same impression when you read, for example, one of the major novels of a couple centuries ago, but it is rare to see artistic works this big made anymore. War and Peace wasn't made in a year either. I somewhat feel for Mr Oppenheimer and the expectations that will precede his next work, whatever it is. Nothing like this will get made in the next two or three years, and that makes me the more grateful for this work.

Mark Twain said "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." and in this film you are hit a raw and unbelievable impossible truth. You are left wondering how the hell the film makers got such confessions from such mass murderers who now seem more eccentric then evil.

" If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it" and I begin this paragraph with another famous but empty quote. But when you see this film you understand what that means. You may have read about political death squads, as I have, but I confess I never knew exactly what that meant. I thought they consisted of disciplined military units who targeted activists in a clinical way, and I thought that appalling. But death squads are unleashed thugs and these targeted communities, ethnic groups, communists and anyone else they wanted, to a tune of 2,5 million dead. This was another 20th century genocide and in the film the criminals still talk about "extermination" as if it was a good thing.

In such an ethnically diverse place like Indonesia politicians should not talk or hold in respect war criminals who participated in genocide and in this film they openly do. Do they realise they are sending a message out, that this behaviour is acceptable in certain circumstance, which generally means it will happen again. Also, the international community should insist these men are taken to account and brought to the court of human rights in The Hague, as "we" should also insist this is always unacceptable. I urge all to watch this film, it is disturbing, jaw dropping, and something you will never forget. After the last scene of the film and thinking about what I just seen I let the credits run and even there, a poignant message, the amount of "anonymous" from makeup artists, producers and even one of the 2 directors shout volumes.

Greetings again from the darkness. To some: a national hero. To others: a monster or war criminal. Co-director Joshua Oppenheimer's concept was either to re-examine history or study the dark side of human nature. Either way, this is one of the most disturbing, difficult to watch documentaries I've ever seen.

The film begins with this quote from Voltaire: "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets". We then read text that provides the only historical background provided by the film ... the Indonesian coup in 1965 that led to a year long slaughter of anyone deemed to be a communist. In reality, the definition was quite broad and basically included anyone who wasn't totally onboard with the new power structure.

To carry out the massacre, a death squad of gangsters was employed and Oppenheimer recruits one of the most brutal of these gangsters to an "art" project: recreate your most heinous kills in whatever film genre you prefer. Anwar Congo agrees and even arranges for his accomplices to join in. The result is the most bizarre mixture of classic Hollywood crime thrillers and even a surreal musical number with bold colors and a giant metal fish.

That's the best description I can provide. While I found myself unable to look away, this is not one that can really be recommended as a form of entertainment. There are some stunning moments here, but it's nauseating to recall. An Indonesian TV talk show host is giddy to have these "heroic" gangsters on her show. Congo gathers his grandchildren to watch a brutal re-enactment of one of his missions. Their discussions of how important movies were to their murderous activities could lead to further analysis of the role of art in violence, but instead it points out why Congo agreed to this project in the first place - his ego is such that he seems himself as a Bogart type hero.

Renowned documentary filmmakers Werner Herzog and Errol Morris are both listed as producers, but some of the crew is listed as "anonymous" and who can blame them? While there seems to be no regret and no guilt for previous actions, there is an odd, extended scene where Congo's guttural bellows and dry-heaving leave us wondering if maybe there is a crack in his facade ... or is he just caught up in his performance. I'm not sure and I hope to never watch this again.

I had been looking forward to this since first hearing about it. The subject would be deep and strange. It had involvement by Herzog in a project that seemed worthy of him. So I made a point to see the authorial version of close to three hours, hoping to land in a broader swim that goes out in search.

Kierkegaard said, "life can only be understood backward, but it must be lived forward". He means that life can only be made apparent in reflection but as you live it in the here and now it will be opaque. Conversely however, it means that if we hope to understand history in a significant way, so as to be able to recognize the forces at play in the here and now and not have to wait until later, we should try placing ourselves in it as something that was lived going forward.

So by way of history that we can understand backward we learn little here. A military coup in Indonesia resulted in the persecution and death of perhaps up to a million people - that was with Vietnam already underway the same year and driven by the same strategy of containing communism and shady American involvement. But that's another story to tell.

So how to begin to make sense in the here and now of a tragedy of unfathomable proportions? The filmmaker could have plainly presented a tapestry of facts and sought historians to explain larger swathes of context. It's not because he thinks the events will be fairly well known that he omits these, rather the whole point here is different.

The film is not a historic record that only finds its impetus in the murderers; it's an examination of delusion and ignorance now in this life. Not the fact of murder so much as how individuals carry it with them. They are asked to re enact events, the re enactments played back to them so they're both makers and viewers. How do they see themselves in what they see of themselves? What form does the memory take and what does it mean to live through it after the fact?

So these re enactments would be our focal point of entry into the self who lived through them, memory brought alive. Some of them are more fantastical than others. Some are just brutish and senseless, hemmed in by the brutish imagination of their makers. The most chilling thing however is that even the enactments of violent interrogation, in particular those, afford no realer apprehension; they look as banal as movie scenes.

Which is to say that there's a certain kind of artifice here that stands in our way and the actual filmmaker can't shed away. Some will say he achieves this in the finale and perhaps he does. But there's another nagging sense for me.

See, we follow two or three people, head executioners in their day, picked among dozens of others for the purpose of the film. It quickly becomes obvious why; they're each photogenic in their way, flamboyant and unabashed. It also becomes obvious that they think they're making a different sort of film, one that chronicles their exploits in a favored light. Not surprisingly; they have lived all their life within a state- sponsored narrative that sees events of that day as brave.

Now one of them has managed to build around himself something akin to a worldview that lets him escape any guilt. Is any other country innocent of much the same? Another is just a Jack Black looking dufus probably as capable of the same now. But the third one looks like he might be awakening to a more vital realization, the one we would perhaps like him to.

See, this is the whole thing. The film becomes about this man making the breakthrough to the kind of story we would like to see told, it's why the climax is reserved for him and not the one who is unrepentant. But this way have we penetrated artifice to get to the real stuff in a deep way? The scene where he retches in the same veranda where he garroted thousands, does it offer the realization we're after?

Suddenly it feels as contrived as a dramatized version. See, the whole thing can't be bogged down to whether this man is feeling pangs of regret now, it can't be a concern that he is, unless you're willing to buy the notion that ignorance and delusion have been chased away from him and he's now cleansed. This simply isn't how I'm prepared to leave this behind. Truth, or ecstatic truth like Herzog's kind, is always something you sculpt and this isn't particularly well sculpted truth.

What we learn about present day Indonesia was more chilling truth in its way. It becomes obvious that the political caste in power comes from much the same apparatus that exterminated people. A deputy minister openly hailing paramilitaries in a speech while wearing their jacket. A surreal TV talk show that would probably reach tens of millions of homes interviewing the murderers while the whole audience in attendance are paramilitaries. Everything here shows a deeply disturbing mentality that still gleams in the eyes of people.

This Danish-British-Norwegian documentary exposes the chilling history of Indonesia in the mid-1960s during which about half a million people were murdered by a movement started by the Indonesian Army. The main targets were Communists and ethnic Chinese. Some of the gangster-murderers are interviewed and asked to use actors, props, and settings to re-enact the murders they undertook.

This sinister approach has some interesting payoffs. The thugs, who were never persecuted, believe that they and their history are being glorified. The paramilitary organization in which they continue to take part is exposed as radical, subversive, and dangerous.

For me, the initial shock of being in the presence of such evil wore off after about twenty minutes or so. Then, the interviewees became dull and uninteresting which could only be expected from those who badly lack conscience and soul.

The ending is quite riveting and makes it almost worth having waited the two hours for it. However, two hours still seems like a long ride for a journey that feels grueling.

It is a good history lesson but not for the faint of heart. - dbamateurcritic.

Watching this movie was perplexing and upsetting experience. It somehow manages to create an impactful experience through multiple intertwining elements that have no business blending as well as they do: experimental filmmaking across multiple genres, gory re-enactments of atrocities that are all too real, depressing exploration of systemic corruption, and brutally honest studies of some of the most evil human beings on the planet. We follow several paramilitary leaders as they go about their daily lives (extorting local business owners, orchestrating explicitly performative political rallies, cozying up to both journalists and local politicians, passing vile life lessons onto the children around then) and detailing, often with pride and relish, stories of the thousands of murders they committed against the government's political enemies. These men are eccentric, colorful, and often seem to enjoy the simple things like dancing to music and watching movies with their loved ones; and in the same heartbeat they will describe assaulting and murdering people in the most horrid ways imaginable. In spite of everything, there is a surprising amount of cognitive dissonance in this study of evil; many of them are remarkably self-aware of their crimes, yet also deeply in denial. We see people compartmentalize and repress their true feelings about their crimes, justifying it by the power and material wealth they reap, and yet also reporting nightmares and discomfort at close viewing of these re-enactments. It was truly shocking seeing someone who could be your grandfather go from doing a little dance in a bar to reenacting how he killed a baby in front of her mother. It was also horrifically upsetting to see how this behavior, this brutal form of martial law enforcement, is not only tolerated by the government (people speak pretty freely of murder and don't mince words) but is celebrated and glorified. The most shocking scene to me is when our cast of characters went on a talk show to discuss their murders and methods, all while the host and audience smiled enthusiastically saying "Yes, excellent work, death to communists!" A truly grim but fascinating viewing experience into a world governed by fear and the people who enforce their status quo.

I am wont to hand out 10/10 reviews.

TAOK is an expertly crafted documentary telling a truly essential story for the sake of humanity. I am not sure how Joshua did it, but, when Anwar Congo heads upstairs to the scene of his atrocities I actually felt sympathy for him (Anwar). It made me realise that the punishment for the unspeakable horror he'd committed, was the realisation of what he'd done, what they had done. His prison is hell on earth and any form of execution is too easy a way out.

Fair warning though, the content, although not overtly graphic is psychologically harrowing, particularly the scene in the village where actual atrocities were carried out by the Pemuda Pancasila. In this scene they reenact the violence between the PP and the villagers, and as has often happens in the film, the distinction between method acting and the real murdering gets blurred.

Just watch it, but be prepared.

That once seen cannot be unseen. Still relevant as the time in which it came to the theaters, still gut-punching and still extremely well directed. Don't miss it for any reason.

This film is mildly recommended.

The Act of Killing is an off-putting but compelling documentary that examines the amorality of mass murderers. It is a rather bizarre experiment that rambles on to tedium, long after the killers' many confessions about their murderous reign of terror. The film plays more as a psychological thesis on abhorrent human behavior than a real documentary. Directed by Joshua Oppenheimer (and co-directed by Christine Cynn and Anonymous), the film is difficult viewing. Filmed in Indonesia, the film takes former death squad members and has these stone-cold killers perform and stage their gruesome acts of genocide as a theatrical presentation.

One participant even boasts that his body count exceeded 1000 lives. He is the film's central character, Anwar Congo, a heroic messiah who relishes in his own cruelty. After meeting him and his gang of cronies, the film takes its best (worst) foot forward with its let's-put-on-a- show approach to their real life murders with a variety of film genres. These make-believe snuff films are faithfully recreated as Congo and his killing crew play dress-up, direct their actors, and demonstrate their "acts of killing". But it is the killers' matter-of-fact re-telling of their horrific crimes that creates an uneasy feeling for any moviegoer and gives the film some gravitas.

As they present their re-enactments of their grisly deeds for the camera, there is an odd twist to the proceedings. They are asked to direct and film the murder scenes in the style of their favorite film genre. Film Noir, horror, musical, or western, the resulting surreal effect is chilling and simultaneously repulsive and gimmicky.

The Act of Killing does provoke outrage and effectively captures some chilling moments of profound absurdity, mostly due to the braggarts' inane comments and their lack of remorsefulness for their actions. But Oppenheimer and the other filmmakers' decision to show no blood letting or graphic violence downplays this grotesque charade of multiple killings. By playing it safe, the documentary loses its initial impact and desensitizes the extreme murderous actions of those involved, making this film a needless exercise in hyperbole. While the subject matter is important and needs world-wide exposure, the execution of the film (and the staged executions themselves) is heavy-handed, talky, and tiresome.

Monotonous rather than truly shocking, The Act of Killing is stunt casting at its worse. The film effectively shows a country filled with amoral people whose lack of respect for human life is disturbingly common. Yet it also unfolds as just another creepy film with a lack of respect for its movie-going audience as well. GRADE: B-

Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com

ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: [email protected]

Usually, documentaries about atrocities focus on the victims, featuring interviews with people who describe the horrors perpetrated on them. "The Act of Killing" takes an unusual approach: this Academy Award-nominated documentary focuses on the perpetrators. Specifically, it features interviews with people who carried out mass killings across Indonesia in the wake of Suharto's seizure of power. These goons were perfectly content to describe and even reenact how they slaughtered anyone who posed a threat to the New Order; they knew that Indonesia's government would protect them. What the viewer also notices is how casually these murderers talk about their crimes, but how casually they live their lives. We may hear a lot about those who do good for the world, but there are plenty who do evil and go about their lives.

Over the decades that followed, Suharto turned Indonesia into Nike's sweatshop, and invaded East Timor, where he slaughtered almost a third of the population, all with the support of the US (the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991 turned opinion against support for Indonesia, eventually leading to a cessation of aid in 1999, after which Indonesia withdrew its troops from East Timor; East Timor became a country in 2002). Suharto resigned in 1998 but never got brought to justice, nor have the people who carried out the killings.

The moral that one might interpret from the documentary is that even the most "normal" person can commit unspeakable deeds and then feel as if it was a perfectly ordinary thing.

Such a unique docu. I think this truely captered lightning in a bottle. And you can see that the diretion was very hands off. And the people just acted out of own will. So all in all, the premise is enough to give this docu a chance.

7/10: interesting.

It's hard for me to comprehend the majority of praise this documentary has received. Yes it is different and at times uncomfortable to watch, but that doesn't mean it's great or even good.

For a film that is about actual political murders detailed by the murderers themselves, you wouldn't think it could be boring, but it was. I could barely get through the first 30 minutes and it never compelled my interest - I had to force myself to keep watching it. When you have a bunch of ignorant and ill-informed men self psycho-analyzing, using incorrect culture references and base human non-emotion to smugly explain or rationalize how and why they killed, and then to reenact the interrogations and murders in a cheapo Bollywood style, well it's ludicrous, not revolutionary. I mean if the message is that even morons can kill and in time film cheesy reenactments about it, then I guess I understood the message and then I asked, so what did that prove? The end scene, where one of the killers becomes ill for an extended period of time, might be looked at as redemptive, but even if perceived in that way it's out of place, message-wise, with the rest of the film.

From the reviews I read I thought there were going to be elaborate and amazingly bizarre and unique recreations of various crimes against humanity and from that I might learn something about the most terrible crimes against humanity. But the film's scope is not that historically vast and only a couple scenes have elaborately stylized the atrocities. Generally the recreations are mostly small scale, cheesy and repetitive. What is almost more distasteful than the actual historical killings themselves is the filmmaker's concept, asking the killers to recreate their crimes with such callous disrespect to the lives taken. Yes it may have been therapeutic for the participants (as if killers deserve therapy?) and all this is supposed to pass for brilliance? Brent Chastain - Top3Films.com