From the beginning, the film came with a scene of wiping the net in tennis. And whether this ball has crossed the net, we don't know. But common sense tells us that if such a ball is played, it is a lucky ball. In this way, the key word "lucky" of the film was introduced. The director seems to be telling us, consciously or unconsciously, that the most important thing in life is "lucky". The protagonist finally escaped the punishment of the law by virtue of good luck. He realized the meaning of good luck firsthand, so he hoped that his newborn baby would also have good luck. He is a murderer who killed two people. We must never forget that one of the victims and the old woman in sixties are absolutely innocent victims from any angle. She just acted as a tool to cover up the murderer's motives, and it was the murderer's deliberate act.
The biggest shock of watching this film is the psychological feelings of the viewers after the actor kills. I don’t know what others think, whether they want the police to solve the case and bring justice, or think that the actor might escape punishment. Let me talk about my own experience. In the last 20 minutes of this film, I have a heart for the murderer. I just strongly hope that he can successfully escape the sanctions of the law. When the ring could not be thrown down the river, I also squeezed a sweat for the murderer, thinking that the ring would become evidence of his guilt. I didn’t expect that it was the ring that was the reason why he was acquitted, even though he was guilty of it. I don't know anything. Why do I strongly hope that the perpetrator will escape the sanctions of the law? This is the most interesting question this film brings to me.
Is this my feeling of watching a movie for the murderer's impunity, which is exactly what Woody Allen pursues? Was he secretly smug because he had expected this effect a long time ago? These questions can only be asked to himself, and we cannot get answers. Reason tells me that the murderer is a person who combines with the daughter of a rich man for money, and also a person who acts wantonly in order to chase lust. But when there was a conflict between lust and money, he made an extremely crazy move and killed his lover and innocent neighbor. He has no love, and even less love between him and his beautiful and sexy lover, he is an admirer of materials. It is such a role, why would I give up the principles of morality and law for his destiny? Perhaps deep in my heart, I think his approach is forgivable. Maybe I am, like him, a person who is willing to give up love for the sake of supplies. From a moral point of view, partiality to the murderer means sympathy for what he has done, and at the same time putting aside the most basic moral principles and unwilling to pursue him for killing innocent people for his own benefit. This shows that morality's restraint on me is sometimes very weak. Compared with the contrasting power of desire, it may be vulnerable. Maybe morality is inherently fragile, so we need the democratic system to restrict the evil inner nature of individuals. I have to talk about law. I have studied law, and I am still studying, and I am also engaged in a profession that is closely related to law. As far as this film is concerned, the law failed to control the last pass. The guardian of the law gave up the investigation of the real murderer because of a wrong guess about the validity of a physical evidence. Sometimes, the law is just so pale. And this is the result I expected while watching the film. People may have the impulse to commit crimes and the passion to escape punishment and gain pleasure in the subconscious mind. This may also be the psychological reason why "violent aesthetics" has so many fans.
I still want to say more about this movie, but I feel that it is difficult to be organized in expression. Finally, I just want to say: Love is a luxury, but also a fragile product.
View more about Match Point reviews
