Start with the villain Krus.
His goal: to enter Pioneer (different letters with different translations, I’m looking at iQiyi) through Roger, Norway’s number one headhunter.
His methods: 1. Get acquainted with Roger's mistress. From the subsequent plot, this mistress and Klers belong to the same company. Of course, this move failed. It is conceivable that if this method is used, Klers is in The meeting with Roger will be the same as the first interview scene in the movie. Roger criticized him for recommending himself without any performance.
2. Explained Roger's wife Diana by claiming to have a famous painting in the family. This method can be said to be quite effective. Kleis is also comfortable when facing Roger, and his performance is calm and relaxed, making Roger feel that he is simply a custom-made CEO for Pioneer (Roger is an art thief, But he also has to do business in his life. He can steal the homes of a few prospective CEOs through headhunting opportunities, but he can't steal them all. He must introduce a CEO seriously.)
Looking down, it’s a coincidence , Roger, in an economic crisis, heard about the famous paintings in Klers’s house and decided to steal them. Here comes the first loophole. Many people think that Klers deliberately seduce Roger to steal the painting and omit evidence of smuggling.
Correct answer: Kles didn't know that Roger was an art thief, and it was because of this that he was cheating on him. It is also impossible for him to put Diana's cell phone by his bed, because it is impossible for him to predict that Roger will call Diana at his home. This is the ironclad proof of Diana's derailment. (Even though I saw the back at the beginning, I think Diana’s innocent eyes and her love for Roger in the end have turned her into a fan. I even thought that she was not cheating, but was framed by Kellers. ) The quarrel about whether or not to have a child may be the inducement that forced Diana to cheat. In short, she must have cheated.
The camera continued to move down, and Roger fiercely prevented Klers from finding a job in Norway. Many people believe that the villain's pursuit of Roger from start to finish seems purposeless and the motive is very unclear.
Positive solution: The motive is clear here. As a commercial espionage, Kellers is one step away from Pioneer Company. At this time, Roger, who is acting as an intermediary, can get him into the job with a letter of introduction. Even Roger is indifferent at this time. Klers, who has been in contact with Pioneer, can also enter the company on his own. But the bad thing is that Roger secretly painted to break the adultery, and now he is going to be reversed to prevent him from joining. This is really a bolt from the blue for him, because joining is his biggest goal and hindering this goal, isn’t it? Damn it?
The camera moved down, so he used a concealed killing technique, a poisonous needle, and unfortunately, he struck Aowei. After some entanglement, Roger killed Aowei. Klers should have discovered through nano tracking that Roger was not dead (the murder has already been made, and the assassination may not be easy to succeed). So I followed up and wanted to talk. But he is not God, not Holmes, and he doesn't know what happened. Roger, who had already killed Aowei, was a frightened bird at this time. There was no room for negotiation, and he ran away. At this time, you are Klers as an audience, what will you do? When a person sees you so panicked, in all likelihood, he has mastered your deepest secret, and he will be afraid that you will kill you. Klers is also instinctively to track, anyway, no matter what the situation is, as long as Roger dies, his plan will be successful, and the secret will not be revealed.
*Actually, Roger didn't know the purpose of Klers until he was at his mistress's house. Prior to this, Roger simply believed that his wife had an affair with Klers and wanted to get rid of him, and Klers's purpose in chasing Roger was just to prevent Roger from hindering his entry into the Pioneer Company. This is exactly where it differs from the plot setting of Hollywood blockbusters. In traditional Hollywood blockbusters, there is always one side of the decent and the villain who knows the other side well, and there has never been a certain degree of misunderstanding of the development of the plot by both sides. Because I said that people who are used to watching blockbuster movies will feel that the male protagonist and villain will make some abnormal behaviors. This shows that the director has chosen to let the characters have their own perspective completely.
For example, in the scene of killing a mistress, the audience may think that Roger is a person with love in his heart, not a cruel heart. He has already poured water for his mistress. Why did his mistress be desperate to kill Roger and cause himself to be killed? What if you are that mistress? What would you do? You were strangled by a man in the last second, with the finger of a gun. You don’t know this man like the audience, you only know that he is a decisive person, and he will do it when his life is threatened. Take many drastic actions to protect yourself. And from the perspective of the development of the plot, after Roger calmed down and analyzed the situation, killing his mistress who deceived himself and might report to Klers at any time was also a very reasonable choice. The mistress obviously wanted this. Her backhand strike was reasonable.
Finally, there is a ""loophole"" in the film, and he is the detective! This detective, his temperament, his demeanor, it feels like he can be used to play a leading role. This is another point where I think this movie is grounded. Reality is different from movies. In movies, the protagonist and villain are often distinguished from the male two, three, four, five, and six by temperament. And the detective in this film is a male number four with the temperament of a male protagonist. The audience is often deceived by his temperament, thinking that he has obviously let go of many loopholes, which is hard evidence of the existence of bugs.
Positive solution: This supernatural detective is a man of fame and reputation. He is strong in the outside world and has a strong sense of utilitarianism. His insight is slightly better than that of ordinary police officers. He faces Roger's contemplation in the opening of the film, and then meets Roger in the morgue. Contemplation, as well as his repeated doubts about the peanuts (Roger's hair) in the morgue, proved to be a little capable, but none of these doubts and contemplations allowed him to understand the key points of this case. This is really true. Extremely realistic. In reality, there is no such person as Holmes. No one can infer the cause and effect of the matter 100% through some details. Only the confession of many suspects after being arrested can make many investigators understand the motives and methods of committing the crime. This superintendent is such a person, he is slightly capable, but nothing more. And Roger is a more capable person. Through his grasp of other people's psychology, he staged a comeback in the last scene. He planned everything, bet on his wife, and blamed everything on Klers. He did leave a lot of loopholes. For example, Aowei estimated that it would be three days after his death, which is not the same time as the death of Klers. For example, in the cliff car accident, he used a policeman to top his bag, and the policeman also disappeared. There must be an account. Wait, wait, but it doesn’t matter, it’s because of the detective. He faced a TV interview and the host made a very illogical speculation (Did they kill the farmer to celebrate the success of the theft?), the detective With a look of constipation, he knew that was not the case, he was puzzled, but he thought about it again and again, for his own reputation, for the sake of himself, he nodded and said, yes. This is another portrayal of real life.
View more about Jo Nesbø's Headhunters reviews
