The heroine has seen the gangster with her own eyes. Isn't this kind of robbery a homicide? The heroine later went to the police station and said the name of the gangster, why couldn't they find it? Is there no criminal record? Well, let's recognize someone. The police should show the hostess the photos, no matter what, they should go to the residence to check. This attitude is too perfunctory, the heroine is someone who has seen the gangster with her own eyes! I'm very puzzled about the whole case. Even if I can't find the instigator, why can't I catch the robber, and I don't seem to have any idea to investigate.
It seems to be the inaction of the police, so the male protagonist can only do it himself. This, in our opinion, also gets us bloody, doesn't it? I think it would be better if the weapon of law could be used to bring the murderer to justice. However, the police did not seem to have any idea of scrutiny, and could not hear the opinions of others.
In the end, the heroine called the police, but the police never came. There were only three people in the room at that time, and one died. How to explain the other two?
I don't know if it's because of the difference in culture and times. I'm very confused about the laws in the United States at that time. Did the police do such inaction? These are some of the questions that came up when I watched this film?
View more about Ghost reviews
