What happened at the 1974 National Liberation Day ceremony? The official announcement was simple: Mun Se-gwang, a Korean resident in Japan, tried to shoot the president, but the first lady was hit and killed. The government hastily announced that it was a “lone crime carried out under orders from North Korea and the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan.” But six gunshots rang out at the scene. The assailant’s gun contained five rounds, yet only four bullets were found. One bullet had disappeared.
Police officer Park Cheol-gu is troubled by this discrepancy. Jae-hwan, the head of the social affairs department at the newspaper company, and Young-il, a new reporter, also have the same questions. The three men begin to investigate the missing bullet. And in the process, they lose something. They lose their loyalty to the country, the future of the newspaper company, and their innocent passion. They know they are paying a price.
“Assassins” is not a film about finding the perpetrator. Regardless of the historical truth, it explores what humans lose and what they try to protect in the process of pursuing it. That is why this film is important.
Not news, but bullets. Not evidence, but questions
The film begins with a suspicion surrounding an official announcement. During the National Liberation Day memorial ceremony, six gunshots were fired. However, the perpetrator’s gun contained only five bullets, and only four bullets were found. Where did the missing bullet go?
Detective Park Cheol-gu cannot let this missing bullet go. Both Jae-hwan, the head of the newspaper’s social affairs department, and Young-il, the new reporter, share the same questions. Who fired that bullet? And why does the government’s statement not align with the reality of the scene? The film presents more than just a simple mystery; it exposes the gap between official records and the truth.
Three people begin to probe that opening. At first, little by little. Cheol-gu scrutinizes the evidence in his capacity as a police officer, Jae-hwan questions the logic of the news as a journalist, and Young-il trusts what he saw as an eyewitness. From their respective positions and in their own ways, each raises questions.
However, the very act of pursuing this question changes the three individuals. That is the fundamental question that the film truly asks.
The cost of questioning the state
Cheol-gu, following this line of questioning, is taken away by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. He is then subjected to violence. Upon his return, he refuses to pledge allegiance to the national flag. The film portrays this scene in a very understated manner. It is the moment when his loyalty to the state collapses.
Initially, Cheol-gu was a dedicated police officer. He was even able to prevent a criminal without proper identification from entering. However, the head of the presidential security detail suddenly changed the instructions, and Cheol-gu was forced to take responsibility. He had already been effectively abandoned by the state. Next came the Korean Central Intelligence Agency.
How did the cinematographer film the scene of Cheol-gu walking away from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency? The shot is taken from above, looking down at the sky just before sunset. It’s simply a scene of a person walking down the street, but within that frame, Cheol-gu appears very small. What has been destroyed is not his physique, but his pride.
How does Yoo Hae-jin convey this change? The actors’ performances are crucial in determining the film’s persuasiveness, and this is the key moment.
Imagine a scene: Cheol-gu is walking away from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. The cinematographer, Lee Mo-gae, is looking down from the sky, just before sunset. It’s just a person walking down the street, but within the frame, Cheol-gu appears very small. This is the style of this film. It doesn’t explain things with words. The screen conveys everything.
Imagine the scene: Cheol-gu is walking away from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. The cinematographer looks down from the sky, before the sun sets. It’s just a person walking, but within the frame, Cheol-gu appears very small. This is the way this film communicates. It doesn’t explain; the screen tells everything.
The tension created by the ensemble
In this film, what truly stands out is not the performance of a single actor, but the chemistry between the three actors. The tension created by the symbiotic relationship between Detective Cheol-gu, reporter Jae-hwan, and rookie reporter Young-il, who coexist symbiotically, like crocodiles and crocodile birds, to land scoops, is what keeps the audience engaged until the very end.
Yoo Hae-jin and Park Hae-il are actors who have known each other since the movie “The Moss.” That trust is evident on screen. Consider the scene where Cheol-gu and Jae-hwan first meet. The two characters do not exchange lengthy dialogues. Even with their brief conversation, one can sense their long-standing relationship. From that point on, they read each other’s movements. When Jae-hwan tries to investigate something, Cheol-gu notices his intentions. When Cheol-gu is in danger, Jae-hwan understands the gravity of the situation.
Lee Min-ho portrays Young-il, a passionate rookie reporter who is also an eyewitness to the events. The ensemble cast, including Park Hae-il and Lee Min-ho, along with other reporters from the newspaper—Ryu Hye-young and Kim Dae-myeong—creates a vibrant dynamic. There is a rhythm where one person takes a step, and the next person pushes it forward.
However, does this intense tension maintain the same level of intensity from the beginning to the end? Audience reviews suggest that the pacing in the latter half fails to keep up with the speed of the first half. Why is this the case?
Yoo Hae-jin and Park Hae-il are actors who co-starred in “The Moss.” That trust is evident on screen. In the scene where Cheol-gu and Jae-hwan first meet, the two characters do not exchange lengthy dialogues. Even with brief conversations, they convey a long-standing relationship. From that point on, they read each other’s movements. When Jae-hwan tries to investigate something, Cheol-gu notices his intentions. When Cheol-gu is in danger, Jae-hwan understands the gravity of the situation. With the arrival of Lee Min-ho’s new reporter, Young-il, the rhythm between the three characters is established. When one person takes a step, the next person supports it. This is the force that keeps the audience engaged for 131 minutes.
What keeps the audience engaged for 131 minutes is the film’s rhythm. When Cheol-gu presents evidence, Jae-hwan anticipates where he will spread it. While Jae-hwan must endure the pressure from the newspaper company, Cheol-gu understands the weight of that pressure. The three characters never meet directly, yet they influence each other’s actions. This is possible because the actors have sufficiently embodied these characters, even beyond the confines of the film.
The weight of unanswered questions
The director stated in the interview, “It asks questions without providing answers.” However, the actual effect of the film is different. I believe that this film strongly implies the possibility that the Korean Central Intelligence Agency was behind the events, even though it does not explicitly provide answers.
According to the director’s explanation, he said, “If we say that Park Chung-hee ordered it, then a situation in which he himself could be shot is far too implausible.” That is why, he said, the theory that Park Chung-hee was behind it was deliberately left out. But how does the film deal with the Korean Central Intelligence Agency? he answered, “We thought it was plausible.” That difference is the problem. Instead of making a clear statement, it amounts to using implications to lead people toward a particular line of thinking.
The film unfolds through a structure that suggests the possible involvement of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. Why the evidence does not add up, the violence inflicted on Cheol-gu, and the truth hidden until the very end—all of these point in a specific direction. They are only hints, rather than explicit statements, but the audience is likely to accept those hints as the truth.
In reality, this is the point that the conservative camp has taken issue with. The perpetrator, Moon Se-gwang, made a statement in court and received a death sentence. The historical record has already been verified. However, the film leaves room for doubt, suggesting that “there may be another truth” behind that official verdict. Is it possible to strongly guide people’s thinking in a specific direction without explicitly lying? Or is this itself the essence of the act of pursuing truth?
The “records” of the journalists and the police are subsequent to that
What this film truly focuses on is not the event itself. In my opinion, the core of the film lies in observing what a person pursuing the truth loses and what they strive to protect.
Let’s follow Jae-hwan’s story. As the head of the social affairs department, he initially appears to be a reporter gathering evidence. However, as the film progresses, the focus shifts. The newspaper company faces pressure from corporations that place advertisements. The act of pursuing the truth is no longer simply a matter of individual conscience, questioning whether “this is a correct article,” but becomes a responsibility of the entire journalistic profession. Park Hae-il portrays this shift in weight, reflecting it in his facial expressions and voice. He transforms from an initial sharpness to a gradually more profound charisma.
How does Cheol-gu end? At the very end, he does not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the National Flag. It is a simple refusal. Yet it reveals how much this police officer has lost. He was abandoned by the state, subjected to violence, and lost his loyalty to the state in the process. But something remains: the conviction to protect what he has seen and what he believes in. How Yoo Hae-jin portrays this moment of refusal is important. It is not a refusal born of anger, but a quiet despair that he can no longer trust the state.
In the year 1974, the two individuals uphold different principles. Jae-hwan, as a journalist, fulfills his duty to record events, while Cheol-gu, as a police officer, adheres to his belief that he can no longer pledge allegiance to the state. Both represent a very small act of resistance against a larger power. I believe the film’s ultimate message is clear: what matters most is not who is behind the events, but rather what choices humans make when faced with the truth.
Human choices over historical truth
This film does not reveal the identity of the perpetrator until the very end. It also does not definitively confirm whether the Korean Central Intelligence Agency was involved. However, this does not mean that the film is irresponsible. On the contrary. What the film addresses is not the truth of the event itself, but rather what humans lose and what they try to protect in the process of pursuing the truth.
Detective Park Cheol-gu was initially a loyal police officer. He is taken to the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, where he is subjected to violence. Ultimately, he refuses to take the oath of allegiance to the national flag.
The character portrayed by Yoo Hae-jin is not expressing anger. It is a quiet despair. It signifies that he has been abandoned by the state, subjected to violence, and has completely lost his loyalty to the state. All that remains is his conviction to uphold what he has witnessed.
Jae-hwan is the head of a newspaper’s social affairs desk. He begins as a journalist who gathers evidence and digs out the truth, but as the film progresses, the emphasis shifts. As the newspaper comes under repressive pressure through advertising, his choices become a matter not of personal conscience but of the professional duty of a journalist. Park Hae-il gradually transforms from the sharp journalist of the opening scene into a man who bears the weight of state power.
The weaknesses of this film also stem from the same source. It hints at a specific direction without providing a definitive answer. This is because the audience is likely to accept those hints as truth.
The changes in these two characters determine the film. Regardless of the truth, what humans choose when faced with it is far more important. I agree with that conclusion.
However, the latter half fails to maintain the same tension as the beginning. The sudden appearances of guest actors disrupt the immersion.
Who is it recommended for? People encountering the 1974 Liberation Day incident for the first time or questioning the official historical narrative. It is well worth watching for audiences who enjoy fast-paced mystery films but also want food for thought. Knowing the historical background reveals more layers, but even without that knowledge, the film works well around the question, “If the evidence doesn’t add up, someone has to pursue the truth.”
People to avoid: Those who absolutely refuse to question the official narrative. Audiences who demand clear-cut answers. If you strongly dislike ambiguous endings, this film will waste your two hours.
It is interesting to compare this work with other works in the same series, such as “JFK” (1991) and “Namasanui Bujangdeul” (2020). While the previous work focused on “the psychology within power,” this work clearly contrasts by focusing on “an individual who pursues the truth from outside of power.”
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Is it based on actual historical events?
The film, produced with inspiration from the August 15, 1974 assassination attempt on President Park Chung-hee and the Dong-A Ilbo advertisement suppression incident that occurred from December of that year to the beginning of 1975, begins with a subtitle stating, “Specific events have been partially adapted.” The names of the perpetrators, the police officer Park Cheol-gu, and the details of the incident are either fabricated or altered.
Does the movie explicitly state that the Korean Central Intelligence Agency was behind it?
It is not. The film presents evidence that contradicts official statements and on-set accounts, suggesting the possibility of involvement by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, but it does not explicitly state this. The director stated in an interview that the film “asks questions without providing answers.” However, due to the film’s structure, it is easy for viewers to speculate in a particular direction.
There has been controversy regarding whether this film distorts history.
The conservative camp raised concerns, citing the fact that the actual perpetrator, Mun Se-gwang, testified in court and received a death sentence as evidence. The production team explained, “The film does not designate any specific individual as being behind the incident.” This highlights a difference in perspectives on how to approach the subject matter.
Is it easy to understand for someone seeing it for the first time?
Even if you are unfamiliar with the events of the August 15th incident in 1974, the film works well. If you understand the basic premise that six gunshots are fired but no one is hit, the reasons why the three main characters are pursuing the truth become clear. However, understanding the historical context allows for a deeper appreciation of the film.
How is the acting?
The ensemble created by the three actors, Yoo Hae-jin, Park Hae-il, and Lee Min-ho, is the greatest strength of this film. In particular, Yoo Hae-jin’s scene of refusing to pledge allegiance to the national flag and Park Hae-il’s powerful charisma were highly praised. The actors’ trust and chemistry maintain a tight tension throughout the film.
