I wasn’t sure what to anticipate from this film. The poster suggested a serious subject matter, and as someone who finds it upsetting even to watch lions preying on zebras in nature documentaries, I worried the film might contain excessively violent scenes. While fictional movies allow for some detachment, this was presented as a documentary, which heightened my apprehension. That’s why I initially disliked 'The Act of Killing'. The opening felt reminiscent of ‘Breaking Bad’, leading me to believe it would explore the workings of criminal networks from the perspective of those involved. However, everything shifted dramatically after about five to ten minutes, marking the true beginning of the story. The film centers on two main characters who share a common cause but are separated by an international border. The narrative explores how these men sacrifice their lives in battle against dangerous organizations that threaten peace, all while operating under different societies and governments. In a small town near the southern US border, a paramilitary team led by Tim takes measures to combat various forms of trafficking. Similarly, Dr. Mireles from Michoacan, Mexico, establishes a larger force with armed volunteers pursuing the same mission. The film unfolds in distinct phases rather than traditional chapters or episodes, shifting perspectives to cover different aspects of the story. The focus remains on these two men and their efforts. I initially felt it resembled a modern-day ‘The Magnificent Seven’, but on a much grander scale. Then came a twist that genuinely surprised me; I hadn't expected the narrative to develop as it did. > "I believe what I'm doing is good. > And I believe what I'm standing up against is evil." What’s this twist? One man operates largely on his own, with the assistance of a few others. On the other side, the actions of the second man become national and international news, gaining significant publicity. Such notoriety can alter a person’s fate, regardless of their allegiance. It's not so much about why they acted as it was about a fundamental aspect of human nature. I had assumed 'Heli' was fictional. After watching this documentary, I’m unsure how to judge any country based on its cinematic portrayals. Every nation has flaws, but I questioned why the Mexican government seemed so oblivious to drug trafficking, assuming the film accurately depicted events. The absence of federal law enforcement in those contested areas is a significant embarrassment for the government, especially now that the film is competing for Oscars. I don’t believe confronting these issues would necessarily destabilize the nation or its economy. I'm certainly not qualified to analyze or predict a country’s fate. My knowledge of Mexico is limited, but my curiosity about uncovering the truth motivated me to watch. As for the filmmaking itself, I have no insight into how it was produced. Documentaries typically rely on interviews and recorded footage; this one utilized live-action shots more akin to an entertainment film. Perhaps a director’s Q&A would provide some answers. However, it's clear that the production occurred at precisely the right place and time. This is a compelling documentary with a gripping storyline and well-developed characters. I don’t frequently watch documentaries, and honestly, I saw this one because of its Oscar nomination—to discover what made it special. While I doubt it will win, I can't entirely dismiss its chances given how far it has progressed. Anything is possible, so we'll have to wait and see. There were a few slow moments, like pauses in the narration or detours after the first half. However, the ending brought everything back on track, clarifying many doubts while still leaving some questions unanswered. Even aside from the Academy Awards consideration, it’s worth watching if you are interested in understanding why people take up arms to fight against forces that corrupt society. 8/10

Source on TMDB