I think this is an interesting story. The boss of the gang, Zhang Dongshu, was stabbed by a random serial killer by chance as the target of the crime, and the gang was disgraced. When the culprit was unsuccessful, he had to cooperate with the policeman Zheng Taixi, who was also struggling because he could not catch the prisoner. The black road and the white road go into battle together, and all legal and illegal tricks are used.
But it seems to be limited to this. I always feel that under such an interesting story background, the film should have done better. But there seems to be a lot of unreasonable things in the logic of the plot alone: as a famous gang boss, Zhang Dongshu's old nest is tampered with by his opponents, and he and Zheng Taixi are even asked to fight against dozens of small thugs; The murderer who couldn't find any clues suddenly "changed his career" to kidnap, and was caught by Zheng Taixi who was unintentionally handling the case. For a prisoner who did not commit the crime for a specific purpose such as money, such a sudden change is really a kind of " At the end of the film, because there is no evidence, the prisoner who has been caught cannot be sentenced, but at least, he has no time to destroy the evidence after he finally assassinated Zhang Dongshu's second-in-command, at least when Zhang Dongshu rushed into the ktv He was threatening the guests with a knife at the time. Even if the wind blows, it will leave breath, how can a person with blood on one hand wipe it clean.
If this aspect is not good enough, it is good to make up for it elsewhere. Just like the film had the opportunity to explore higher-level propositions, some propositions about the division between good and evil, and about equal life. It has almost touched the boundaries of these discussions. In the film, Zheng Taixi is the one who represents the good, but in the extreme situation of the gang scuffle, he also accidentally killed someone, and his position was vague and helpless at that moment. If you want to say that this is a case of self-defense, then remove this premise. When there is no head-on conflict between the two sides, if the people in the justice camp punish the "sinner" in the form of lynching (as in Japanese criminal investigation films such as Suspect x and so on) The plot that I love to deduce very much: the desperate oppressed uses violence to suppress violence, sending the perpetrator to hell and throwing himself into prison.) How should a judgment be made for such a "just crime"? If Favoritism may send a message of "we encourage lynching", and the result is bound to be chaotic. Most of the time, mass trials are always biased and intensified. But severe punishment seems inhumane. But the psychological picture of Zheng Taixi's entanglement was only swept away, and there was no more explanation for the wicked people who died in the melee. In addition, Zheng Taixi's method of handling the case is obviously not in line with the regulations. Although it is very majestic and swaggering into the police station with the prisoner in the end, this is just a positive ending in this story, what if it is not? What judgment should be made about the means of taking shortcuts to do the right thing because of the cumbersome process of the due process?
I think these social issues would have had the opportunity to be explored, at least put forward more bluntly for thinking, even if it's set in a crime movie. As long as the plot or depth of the villain is better at any point, it deserves four stars. Of course even if it didn't do it, out of love for the accompaniment, I gave it four stars (yes, I'm unreasonable ˙Ⱉ˙ฅ
View more about The Gangster, the Cop, the Devil reviews
