Although Al Pacino is not the only star in the film, it looks like a one-man show. All the time is because of him, men and women surround him. Fortunately, it is not his own film, otherwise this arrangement is somewhat narcissistic.
In fact, from another point of view, trailers are actually movie killers. I believe most people will be deceived after watching the feature film, because trailers are often more provocative, more enjoyable, and more attractive than the feature film. Many years ago, someone made a fuss about the limitation of movie space, shooting a suspenseful movie "Sniper Phone Booth". The protagonist was basically confined in a small phone booth, and the plot was unfolded in a limited space. The film is to play the game in time, 88 minutes, in the time almost synchronized with the movie, several clues are intertwined together, and a series of plots are set up. The FBI's psychologists were not only threatened for life soon, but also entangled with serial murders. All the people around him were suspects, putting everyone at risk. Of course, in a dangerous situation, he finally got rid of his grievances and was able to bring the bad guys to justice.
Unlike Holmes, Polo and others’ methods of handling cases, most of the suspense films in the United States now work hard on the plot setting, which seems to have a sense of suffocation that oppresses the chest cavity-of course not all films are very successful. . Personally, both American movies and American TV dramas today directly focus on "who". One case happened, as long as you know who it is, the others are omitted. From Richard Jinbo in "The Fugitive", which is familiar to Chinese audiences, to Clares in "The Silence of the Lambs", they are all looking for the question of who the murderer is. Most of the bizarre deaths in the original detective films have been replaced by the bizarre deaths. It is hardly mainstream to analyze the possibility of killing people in secret rooms like the kind of secret room that Japan is keen on. More people are dead, who did it? Without asking "how?". The so-called analysis of the case is also based on establishing the connection between the case and the unknown murderer. We have seen such scenes countless times: when we thought that when everything came to light in the world, there was always an afterthought, and we found clues in the details, able to connect a person who is out of sight with the case. At this time, the real murderer couldn't bear to start preparing to kill his mouth. The ending is either over impulsive digging one's own grave, or unspoken words. Almost no one asked Conan, "Proof of alibi," and then worked hard to break the "perfect alibi". This film is a typical example of "Who is the murderer?"
We see a lot of precise grasp of time in the film: the countdown of time, the right phone call, and the timely grasp of the "prey" by the black hand behind the scenes. All these methods used by the director to appetite us all prove the shrewdness and wisdom of the "black hand", and just right to set off the mysterious atmosphere and sense of urgency of the entire film. What a terrible thing it is to be manipulated by someone other than God with obvious means, especially when one's life and death are in the hands of others, this sense of urgency becomes even stronger. However, the director cannot explain the formation and possibility of this "manipulation". So when I watched this film, I obviously felt the regret of anticlimactic. The film never explained how the criminals communicated directly with the protagonist on the phone without making a phone call, nor did it explain how to leave threatening text when everyone hurriedly left the classroom. The real culprit had leaked his feet as early as the beginning. After the first victim was exposed, only the name was revealed, but the details of the crime were not described. However, the murderer asked in the dialogue "Is it halothane?" Was it the murderer who killed Dale?" He knew the details of the crime very well. But it does not directly constitute the protagonist's suspicion.
It seems that in the eyes of Lao Mei, no matter how it is done, it can be proved, but the question of "who did it" is very difficult to answer. There are many explanations for a person's DNA left on the scene. Even if the blood is left on the murder weapon, it may have nothing to do with the case. Therefore, the evidence at the scene only establishes the relationship between the suspect and the case, and the final conviction is because this relationship clearly shows the fact of the crime. Therefore, evidence collection, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing are all done in installments and in batches. Before declaring guilt, everything is almost objective, only conviction and sentencing are subjective. When the jury is persuaded, no matter what the truth is, it will be of no avail. So sometimes it seems ironic. The so-called "evidence" can firstly become "evidence" itself, and secondly, it needs a persuasive explanation. The Simpson case stopped at the first threshold. A "physical evidence" that could confirm his guilt was "obtained" illegally, and therefore did not have the requirement of "evidence", so it could not be used as "evidence" for correction. Most of the movies in the movie skip the first threshold, because it seems that all criminals are not satisfied with their scapegoat being caught. Once they find that they are connected with the case, they can't sit still and attack again. Perhaps it is for this reason that the logic and reasoning of the crime subject matter is not as ingenious as some court dramas.
After all, there are not many classic detective plots and clever murderous designs, and the ones that can be used have been used, and the ones that have not been used are afraid of being learned by others, and detective films are difficult to shoot.
View more about 88 Minutes reviews
