Rob, I disagree with quite a bit of what you say. I think your comments, if not overly sanctimonious, were harsh and indicate extremely subjective opinion, as opposed to objective. I also think that anyone watching, focusing and listening for the story would "get it" sorry you didn’t.
Also, you have a firm grasp on the obvious. Benjamin had already stated: "- The tempo of the piece really slows down after the "tragedy" part. I wish I had used more of my own voice over to (parallel) the different stories, and had more B-Roll..."
 I watched part of the first section. To be honest, I had a hard time paying attention and I had a hard time figuring out what the point of the video is. (Pretty clear to me).I understand you have people telling their stories, but what do you want the viewer to get out of the video? (Pretty clear to me) Now maybe there is a point and I just didn't catch it or didn't get to it since I didn't watch the whole thing, (yup) but I feel I should have at least understood where the video was going by the time I got to the 7 minute mark. (I did, and I am NOT a qualified member of ANY elite intellectual society) So here is my crit:
 1. Right from the beginning, the viewer should know what the video is going to be about. Yes, I understand vets came back to Rhode Island and now they're telling their stories, but I should have understood right from the beginning why these guys are telling there stories. Are they going to explain why going to Iraq is a good thing? A bad thing? Is the video made to convince the viewer that wars are good or bad? What's the point? I should know right from the beginning. Use your narration to tell the viewer and be literal about it. (To a degree, regarding some "literal" narrative, but for the most part I think the BUILD was relevant to the presentation and subject)
 2. Use more narration altogether. Tom talks so slow and is so boring. (Not at all slow and boring, sounds like we're parroting B's own analysis) You need to take what he says, cut out the boring stuff, rephrase it into narration, then use smaller shorter soundbites of his interview to emphasize what the narration says. (Tighten, yes. General overhaul, no.)
For example, right at the 5 minute point, he starts talking about how one of his friends died, but that's such a boring section because he talks so slow and those fade to blacks are soooo long. (Tighten, yes. Fades were longer than short, granted, but not OVERLY so.) Use narration to explain the situation and that Tom is in for a big surprise or something. Then use his soundbite, "You don't know when you're talking to someone that it's going to be the last time" (One good suggestion so far.)
 3. Get more b-roll. (So stated by B) Yes, it's tough sometimes, but get creative about it. For example, he talks about getting fired while he was in Iraq. Well, have a shot of his of where he used to work or walking away from where he used to work. (So stated - more B roll)
 4. Cutting could be a bit smoother. You don't need to cut the interview right when the interviewee starts a new soundbite. (Good input here)
For example, right at 6:00 you have that text on the screen. Start his soundbite there so that there's a bit of a voice over. It will be smoother. (Good input here)
 5. Use 5-frame cross dissolves between audio soundbites to smooth out the cuts. (Goes with tightening/smoothing, but good advice.)
I think the most important thing is to get the story line established and use more narration to tell that story while using interview soundbites to emphasize. (OK)
"The tempo of the piece really slows down after the "tragedy" part. I wish I had used more of my own voice over to parallel the different stories..." Good self-assessment, Benjamin.
