50 people just standing, no movement, all in a dark room, no decor but a few lights on the floor, no ceiling nor walls. Everything is just down to the minimum, and yet, it makes a very compelling movie.

One can't say anything really original happens either, once you got the idea - every two minutes one of them has to die, they can vote for which - it all happens as expected. Most of the characters and arguments are very cliche, and the cast has conveniently almost every topic needed to go through current societal discourse (just missing on the trans issue).

So who should die first ? Elderlies obviously, then who ? What should matter ?
- Ethnicity (incoming all the cliches about
- Single ? Married ?
- Have children ? How many ?
- Criminal ? Cop ? Military ?
- Gay ?
- Religious ? Atheist ?
- Kid ?
- Pregnant woman ?
- Banker ? Unemployed ?
- Good health ? Sick ? Was sick but is better ? Handicapped ?

It's also like a game, so what's the winning strategy ?
- Be a leader
- Make target t other people
- Be nice
- Don't play at all
- Be sneaky
- Who can you trust ? For how long ?

It is a very ancient ethical debate and yet so relevant today because current technology literally ask us to train machines to make these decisions.

We just go through all of it, in no particular order. It's not specially clever, but that's the whole point. People are not specially clever. This happens exactly how it would in real life. Some people with strong opinions will lead the pack, directing the group attention and hatred towards certain subjects. But two minutes later they will target the wrong person and be targeted instead. Most of the temporary leaders are arrogant assholes that don't even realize how wrong they are, and they get eliminated pretty soon by saying the wrong thing not long after. Some of those overstay an incredibly long time though.

Just one thing is a little weird. Everybody understands pretty quick that if any survive, there can be only one. So pretty much none of the strategy make sense. I mean, when they're down to a few people and beard guy tries to convince 3 people in a row with some "do you wanna live and see your family again ?", how can it work ? Specially as the two opposing sides are "kill the kid as soon as possible" against "don't do that". But I get the point. People are probably very easy to manipulate in this situation.

Interestingly, the movie is not _that_ predictable, because you pretty much know all the scenarios, and they could literally go any of these way without changing anything. The tension is maintained and the dynamics change as we go, starting from random behaviour to a few leaders of opinions to pure group strategy. So sure the winner is [spoiler]the smart guy that plays the nice guy and uses a very clever trick at the end[/spoiler], but it could really have been anything. Could have been [spoiler]they let the kid win and she steps into a very different world at the end[/spoiler], or [spoiler]one of the other assholes, a more obvious traitor could have made it to the end[/spoiler].

As a description of mob behaviour and the current state of society, that is very very good. However I'm just a little sad that is really is just that. I would have appreciated a tad bit on the why/how part. We're told very early "it's aliens", so ok. But why ? What's the goal ? Is it happening to other people (probably). Will there be other rounds ? Is there a winning strategy ? This is briefly evoked, but it quickly turns into who should we kill, and a little more thinking and scenario evolutions about what is happening could have beer very interesting. Or on this other end, be darker about how they came here and what happens after. See Cube.