But this does not prevent "Strategic Secret Service" from becoming a good movie. After 9/11, although Americans have made a lot of related movies, according to the stupid and monotonous model of mainstream Hollywood movies, it must be that the good guys will defeat the bad guys and save the nation. Even the world is in fire and water. The profit-oriented film industry does not welcome films that explore human nature. The big producers know how to boost the box office. Americans traumatized by 9/11 just want to watch American soldiers and agents slaughter terrorists in the cinema. Not many people care about those Why do youth, women and children become terrorists, and not many people care about whether the government violates human rights when dealing with terrorists. Leave these serious issues to the news media and parliament. All you need in the cinema is entertainment. In fact, at this point, the audiences of those big movie market countries are almost the same.
But American filmmakers aren't all mercenaries, and some are starting to reflect on what's going on in the war on terror, from Leonardo DiCaprio's "Body of Lies" to Matt Damon The starring "Green Zone" is exploring whether the US government can use national interests as a guise to violate human rights and even deprive people of their lives at will. However, the above two films are still presented in front of the audience in the form of blockbusters, and the sensory stimulation masks the problems that the films are trying to express. Compared with the two films, "Strategic Special Service Team" has done a very thorough job. All the torture scenes in the film are serving the promotion of the plot.
Young, played by Mike Sheen, is a very special terrorist. After he placed a small nuclear bomb, he almost surrendered himself to the US government. A former member of the U.S. military, his experiences in the Middle East have raised questions about the U.S. government's tactics in the war on terror. He has to confront those anti-terrorism officials whether it is the US government that is violating human rights and destroying humanity, or whether it is terrorists.
Helen Brody, played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and Henry Humphreys, a negotiator played by Samuel L. Jackson, represent the kind of force in the U.S. government that firmly believes in the inviolability of human rights and adheres to the According to the Geneva Conventions, even if the other party is an extremely dangerous and stubborn terrorist who knows that he has committed a heinous crime, he firmly opposes the use of violent means to harm his body and spirit. The latter puts the protection of the interests of the United States and the American people in the first place, and at a critical juncture, information can be obtained at any cost.
The film gradually unfolds in the entanglement of the three people. Due to Brody's credulous belief in Young's confession, 53 civilians were indirectly killed by the ordinary bombs he had prepared earlier. Brody used a scalpel under the condition of losing his mind. When he wanted Young to pay for his blood, the director arranged a scene of Young's roaring. The blood of civilians is nothing more than that these civilians are not Americans. Brody was instantly relieved. Compared with Brody's contradictions and entanglements, Henry Humphreys has long seen through the essence of this war on terror: no one's hands are clean, so they have to protect their own interests first. He has been officially dealt with for excessive use of violence before, but he knows that those are just superficial articles, and at a critical moment, people like him are still needed to do the dirty work. Unlike the "Xiaoqiang" Jack Ball in the American TV series "24 Hours", Henry Humphreys does not have a confession complex such as "I don't go to hell who will go to hell", he is very clear, once Young is like this If the terrorists succeed, it will bring disastrous consequences to the United States. So there is such a line in the play: What constitution, once the nuclear bomb explodes, there will be no constitution.
The performance in the second half of the film is cruel. Henry Humphreys finally tied Young's wife and children to the torture room, killed his innocent wife in front of Young's face, and prepared to torture their children. Forced to tell the whereabouts of the three nuclear bombs. The climax of the entire film occurs here, Henry Humphreys intuitively convinced that there is still a nuclear bomb, but Brody's compassion breaks out again, convincing his superiors to stop Humphreys' atrocities. The film gave the audience a heavy blow to the hearts of the audience with an open ending: Young committed suicide with a gun, Brody was entrusted to take care of his children, Humphreys was detained again, the three nuclear bombs were also disarmed, the situation Under the good conditions, the camera stopped on a counter, where the third nuclear bomb was stored, and the fourth nuclear bomb was hidden, and the film was closed at the moment when the counter reached zero.
No one knows if the nuclear bomb went off or not, and the ambiguity of the ending leaves viewers unable to decide which of Helen Brody or Henry Humphreys is right? Which method is really suitable for use on such a special battlefield as counter-terrorism? And whose life is more precious, is it really ethical to sacrifice a few people for thousands of lives?
View more about Unthinkable reviews
