This is a movie starring De Niro in 2008. At first glance at the title, I thought it was another very popular action movie. But if you look at the English title again, it is "Righteous Kill", which literally translates to "justifiable murder". The difference between the two names is so big, it is estimated that some modern translator wants to lead the masses into the ditch. From the beginning to the end, except for a few simple shooting scenes, there is neither a "line of fire", let alone a "special attack". Call me an ethical film more properly. Slightly disappointed.
The film reflects the conflict between laws, rules and fairness and justice. Take a look at the case described in the video first. Randall raped and killed a ten-year-old girl, and forced the girl's mother to testify that he was not there or threatened to kill her. The court had to release Randall due to insufficient evidence. Police Thomas was so angry that he framed Randall for his possession of weapons, which resulted in him being eventually sentenced. In real life, this method of framing can be used by good cops and bad cops. If a bad policeman is used, it can lead to huge unjust cases, but if a good policeman is used, it may not be able to seek justice for the victims. Because murder and unlawful possession of a weapon are not on the same scale. The consequences of doing so not only offset the felony with the misdemeanor, lightly spared the criminal, but also caused spiritual damage to his partner David. David thought, "Randall lost his freedom because of the sin he didn't commit. And I lost faith." What is this faith? It is the trust in social fairness and the law. If a policeman responsible for maintaining the dignity of the law loses this idea, he will use the power in his hand to become a knight or a demon.
Thomas said: "My job is to keep 99% of the population away from the other 1%. The problem is that we spend most of our lives dealing with the other 1%. The better things are handled, the more the 99% feels that we exist. There's no need." In these words, there is some love for the cause, but also a trace of melancholy. The job of the police is to deal with criminals. The longer I work, the more I understand the darkness of this society. The sight is full of criminals and crimes. Over time, people who lack concentration a little will join in with the darkness, or view society through the eyes of criminals. The few remaining idealists are eager to use their own power to maintain social justice and become the guardians of justice. David is such an idealist. And this ideal vision is also limited and narrow. As he himself said: "Where I grew up, in addition to guns and badges, hard hats and hammers." Therefore, the best he can think of is to be a character like Superman and Batman.
Well, even if you are superman, then what you think of as justice must be justice? Lei Gang (Wudou, Pan Hu) in "Du Juan Mountain" thinks that he kills the rich to help the poor, doesn't he also beat the long-term workers of the landlords? Doesn't the "Joker" in Batman's punishment list also have his kindness and helplessness? People only judge right and wrong from what they see and feel, so what they do sometimes is really fair, but there are also some misunderstandings, just believing that "what you do is just" has been Far from enough. The reality is often far from what you see and feel, and there may even be some psychological personal grievances that affect the judgment of right and wrong. In many cases, evil is born in this way. For example, what David did to Karen in the film, it's hard to believe that this is justice. Relying on one's own opinion and the violence that comes with it is not a good way to promote justice and fairness. People still trust the morals, laws and rules that have long been accepted by the majority. Of course, sometimes there will be dark corners that the law cannot reach, and there will also be corruption and perversion of the law. At this time, it is still a question worth considering whether to rely on the law, violence or mutual dependence.
Check out the reviews for this movie. Many friends still struggle with the metaphor behind the film. For example, David is taking the blame for Thomas. Proof that the Russian mafia was not killed. I don't think so. The Russian was not killed, but after that, David wanted to enter the hospital again to kill him, which means that it was entirely David's accidental mistake. Before that, David had also acted crazy towards Karen, just because he felt that the end was coming. If he could not escape, he would rather die. This was followed by a request to prevent Thomas from calling an ambulance. Furthermore, the film is aimed at a broad general audience, not a psychoanalyst. There is no need to fiddle with so many mysteries for such a film.
This isn't the first time De Niro and Pacino have worked together. The cooperation of the two veteran actors is perfect. My own viewing experience is from the characters to the actors, from the plot to the acting, not the other way around. First, I felt the hearts, actions and plot development of the two characters Thomas and David, and what kind of thinking the director tried to bring to the audience, and then the acting skills of De Niro and Pacino. If the motivation is simply to appreciate the performances of De Niro and Pacino, it's a bit of putting the cart before the horse.
I feel that the film has two major flaws, which are also the main reasons for the low rating of the film. One is the portrayal of Karen, which is a bit nondescript. Karen seems to have some mistress complexes. Second, after the battle, Thomas went to guide the children's exercise, is it superfluous?
My rating: 6.0.
View more about Righteous Kill reviews
