At the end of the story, a good friend was arrested. However, it does not mean that a good friend is a killer. The director wants to say this. As for the last warm and big backlight lens, it seems that the story is actually a little comedy. However, the director still didn't say: the ending is not the truth of the story.
The killer's tactics were simple and neat, cutting the mess with a quick knife, but the good friends stubbornly tied the people up and dealt with them, which was completely inconsistent with the habit.
A lot of evidence was left at the killer scene, including poker foretelling a serial murder, and a car park enlarged movie, leaving a special symbol V, indicating that the killer has a perverse personality, does not care about being caught, and a good friend is cowardly and timid, and has no crime. Creativity is completely unlike its murderous tactics.
In addition, the male protagonist appeared accurately at the murder scene twice. If it were not the murderer, how would such a small probability event happen? There was another time when the victim appeared in front of him after being strangled to death. With such a good grasp of the time, how much awakening would he have?
In the end, the old man arrested a good friend. How can an old man who likes to talk nonsense on the spot, who is a heavy drinker, loves the hero and the mother, can judge the case? Cut paper from a few magazines on the refrigerator? Stop joking like that, okay?
In addition, I didn't even introduce whether the good friend had a car or whether it was paper-cut. I just used the ending confession to commit the crime. It was really sloppy.
Putting aside the above, I think the performance in the play is important.
Amy Little Angel, male lead, middle-aged woman Stephanie, old woman male lead and fucking, two idiot policemen, all the roles are very distinctive, and the performance is very good, I think this is the focus of the film?
View more about Some Guy Who Kills People reviews
