I just want to give some details from a case perspective. 1. At the beginning, after the first female body was found, some men from Police A were questioned and recorded in the notebook. Listen to the questions he asked, not where you were at the time of the crime, what kind of grievances you had with the deceased, but rather nonsense questions. That little book is of no use after that, except for Police A to take it for the wizard to identify it. 2. After discovering the second female corpse, it is common sense to find the connection between the two deceased. But no. But hearsay caught the fool. To do a crime reenactment, it ended in a farce. (It should be for reporters) 3. It is said that the distance between the first incident and the second incident is 1,000 meters. No more text? Judging from the plot behind the crime, the murderer is basically a way of waiting for the rabbit. So the location of the murder is a very important clue. 4. When Police C (the one from Seoul) was busy looking for the third body, Police A and Police B were talking about group P while playing with woolen ropes. (The question of having been in school for several years caused by group P) This paragraph is the most ridiculous to me, as if those rape and murder cases were all jokes. 5. A lot of plots describe the disagreement between the two policemen, eating, singing, and fighting. I want to ask, the director, are you trying to imitate "LA Confidential"? 6. Let the female colleagues lead the murderer to commit the crime. (Police A and Police B actually ridiculed their female colleagues in the car, that's all.) I want to know, since the murderer committed the crime on a fixed-point basis, how was the location for the female colleague to be determined? At the same time, another woman was killed, and she took off her red jacket before going out. I laughed, this is an insult to the murderer's IQ, (the murderer has the highest IQ in the whole movie, because everyone else's is negative. ) 7. The pubic hair theory and visiting wizards. I really don't know if this is what the original novel was written or if the director deliberately put this effort into entertaining the audience. He just wanted to say that the police are idiots. 8. Catch the second suspect. (As usual, the murderer's personality and mental state should be analyzed at the beginning of the case. Well, they haven't studied criminal psychology.) The man who burns the boiler appears. How could they allow the scumbags to appear at the scene of the interrogation of the murder suspect? And the whole film keeps showing the murderer's method of killing, without any secrecy, hoping to be imitated? 9. The toilet freak leads out the woman on the mountain. I started to wonder how there were survivors, and the woman said: If I looked at his face, he would have killed me. 10. The third suspect was caught. During the interrogation, the handsome man never denied that he was not the murderer. Instead, he said, "Even children know that you are extorting confessions. I will not be one of them, never will." There is a very important detail. Police A has preached from the beginning that he can read other people's eyes. , but from the time he saw the suspect to the release of the suspect, he did not express his opinion on whether the person was the murderer. 11. Only at this time did I realize that the fool was an eyewitness. Another farce was triggered, and it turned out that the fool was dead and (guessed it) policeman B amputated. 12. Sperm found. The little girl was killed. Two women appeared on the same road where the murderer was squatting, and the murderer actually chose it. One is the wife of a policeman and the other is a schoolgirl. Usually a serial killer finds a family member of a police officer, and the murderer is just an "ordinary person". 13. Finally, Police C pointed the gun at the third suspect, (I was so excited about this, finally a gun appeared.) The suspect said: I killed it, you are satisfied. Then the DNA report came, (real time TM) Police A finally got to read the suspect's eyes, and the conclusion was: I don't know. (I got thunder again) I would like to ask in this paragraph, are you trying to imitate "The Seven Deadly Sins", director? (Plus the police's impulsiveness and the murderer's composure throughout) 14. Ending. The end tells us: Police A has changed careers (more reasonable, he is not expected to be a police officer) The little girl said that the murderer was an "ordinary person". This makes me wonder, what kind of people are not ordinary people? Is it necessary to have a face of sudden realization? Even if you know what the murderer looks like, you haven't caught anyone, you haven't caught it in the first place, and it's not that you caught the wrong person. People have been at large for more than ten years, what can you do? The three suspects 1. After the fool was caught, he sincerely said that he did not kill him, that he had seen the case, that the murderer was very handsome, that he had seen the murderer three times, and was burned by the murderer when he was a child. Handsome can also be understood as a fool who has low self-esteem and thinks that normal people are more handsome than themselves. 2. The case that the pervert told after he was caught was a "dream", made up by himself, plus the guidance of Police A plus "toilet rumors". 3. The third suspect's hand matched the murderer, but the DNA did not. Personality is also in line, very calm and skilled. There is no in-depth investigation of the background of the deceased and the suspect in the entire film. Boiler man, he is most likely the murderer of the last two dead, imitating murder. And change the method, put something into the body of the dead. I feel that what the director conveyed is that these four people may all be murderers. Kind of misleading the audience. This poster makes me wonder, why are two people laughing? Are there not enough people who suspect death? As a crime movie (or a true case), I don't know what the point of this movie is. No one insisted on finding the murderer, and it was over. Lots of inconsequential plots, no sense of compactness at all. Absurd case handling process, coupled with constant farce. Is this a subversion of traditional crime films?
View more about Memories of Murder reviews
