There is a very interesting story in the plot of this movie: in the 19th century, a country caught a spy and organized a firing squad to execute them. Each team member would shoot the spy, but sometimes, the team members would fail , so everyone thought of a good method called "conscience bomb". Specifically, put an empty bullet in the execution gun. Everyone knows that there is such a bullet, but they don't know which gun it is. After that, during the execution, the firing squad was able to go ahead, because everyone would not have the feeling of "I killed him", but "we killed him", "we killed him collectively".
This story is very interesting, it reflects the annihilation of individuality in the collective, or that people justifiably do evil by shirking their responsibilities to the collective. Isn't that what our Cultural Revolution is like? When people of that era recalled that period of history, no one would think that they were responsible, but that it was the fault of the times and the country.
Originally, I thought this film reflected this theme. The protagonist opposed the indiscriminate killing of innocents, but finally participated in the killing of innocents, but the reason was not the above theme, but simply because the protagonist was afraid of being punished. He fell into the group of misfits, became an alien, and because he was afraid of being hurt or even killed by the group, he obeyed the group and became a member of the murderer.
There is nothing wrong with this, but the pattern is too small and too rough. Because his thoughts never changed at the moment he participated in the killing. He always believed that it was wrong to kill innocent people. The war did not distort him, and the collective did not distort him. What finally changed him was the fear of death, which was collective violence. result. This layout is smaller.
Moreover, if he insisted not to kill, would that group really pose a threat to him? Wasn't there a black soldier in the movie who reported the team for smoking marijuana and beating him? Isn't he living well too? That is to say, the threat of collective violence is not that great, and the final threat of the protagonist is more like cowardice.
This makes even less sense.
Also, the film depicts the alienation of a person in the collective. This "collective" should be a key character, but the film is very rough and pale in this. The protagonist's team collectively participated in the killing of innocents. How did they reach a consensus? Why is only the protagonist an outlier? The movie doesn't make this clear, it just uses some points (such as a black soldier's affirmation of the sergeant's actions, and the plot of a bombed soldier's final death), but it's not enough, because everyone in the group Lack of flesh and blood, not real enough.
All in all, this is a well-meaning, weakly expressed film. Every actor is very good, but because the script is weak, they have not made a good work.
View more about The Kill Team reviews
