They are all complaining about the director and the screenwriter's blind filming. I felt the same way when I watched it. Obviously, when life and death are at stake, everyone's instinct will choose to tell the truth to get out of trouble as soon as possible, but except for the two girls and the two singing, Carl is in front of the rest. When people shoot at JC, they all choose to shut up, let JC enforce the law violently, and even shoot and kill their companions without opening their mouths. This is really illogical. To say that black people or Americans think differently from us, no matter how different, people's survival instinct should always be the same, right? Are there still few cowardly characters in Hollywood movies who are forced to confess their first words? But there is none in this movie. From beginning to end, only the girl mentioned a word to the soldier when he was rescued by the soldier, but the soldier also abnormally did not share this information with the police, and the black security guard who came to help and the black man in green clothes were looking for guns upstairs. , the green clothes didn't even talk about the starting gun to the only person who was holding a gun and was on their side. This is simply a logical loophole. To sum up, I think that there is no such thing as a starting gun, and there is no account of anyone being a physical education teacher or a referee. Why would you bring a starting gun on your body? Later, it is said that it may be a toy gun, indicating that there is no such thing as "Carl shoots the police with a starting gun" in the real case. If there is, how stupid is the lawyer not to use this point to fight the opposite side? So many witnesses have seen this scene, why didn't the trial mention it? The director chose to shoot this way, IMHO it is either stupid or bad. You can see the faces of the black and white actors in this movie. The three white police officers are all villains. The black actors, including the two girls, are very good-looking. From the beginning, I guided the audience and set the tone of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Coupled with the general direction of American political correctness, black people must be correct, and white people are discriminating against dogs, so I chose such a plot to insult the intelligence quotient of outsiders and audiences. The following is the irresponsible guessing part: The original case was that one of them had a gun and shot the police without his companions seeing it. Carl's prototype photo doesn't look too big, so I don't think he was the one who fired the gun. After the gunshot, he was the first to run down and die. After the police entered, they were questioned. In the deadlock, the only one who fired the gun would obviously not come out to deliver it by himself. They didn't push Carl to die when Carl died, which also showed that Carl did not shoot. In the end, the matter passed, and everyone got together to tell the story of Carl's starting gun, and this matter turned over. As for who it was, I didn't search much for the real case, so I couldn't infer it. It's so much messed up, let's just post a movie review. If anyone has information about the original case, please share and read it. This drama has too many logical loopholes.
View more about Detroit reviews
