However, from the beginning of the movie, it was a climax scene, a woman who even needs a minute to make a child. Whoever wants to say that she is not a strong woman, I am anxious, the opening show of affection with her husband Tom is purely to pave the way for Tom's lawsuit later, this is too obvious. There are also two thieves. I said that the two of them really came into other people's homes to smash the glass. We can be professional as thieves. Then he won a lawsuit with an unjustified argument. On the surface, Claire's personal ability is superb, but the fact is the loneliness and incompetence of the judicial system. If I have to say that this is a judicial film, it is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. The film actually talks about the American judicial system. However, many fragments of illegal means interfering with normal judicial channels are interspersed. To what extent can a society’s legal system play a role? The original intention of the law is to protect the interests of citizens in society. However, what should be the problems encountered in the implementation process? How to deal with it. Whether fairness can be resolved through judicial channels. But when it comes to American justice, judicial independence, public defense attorneys, and jury trials, these familiar and well-considered theories have long been known under countless film interpretations and media propaganda. However, all the above conditions all point to the same result-judicial justice. Therefore, most foreign people think that every case in the United States has been given a fair trial. The American judicial system is simply a perfect combination of justice and fairness, and it is the benchmark of justice in the world.
Tom should have been punished but was free under Claire's intervention. Assuming that the Department of Defense did not carry out administrative intervention, would the matter be settled fairly. Why can the Ministry of National Defense interfere with the normal trials of military courts? If it is a country governed by law, is such a right unconstitutional. The President has no right to interfere with judicial decisions. Why is the Ministry of National Defense OK? I think the director can't tell how much the interests are involved. Laws that are supposed to be fair and just exist in name only before the Ministry of National Defense. This is universal because the law is a tool for oligarchs to fool and control the people, and all legal provisions can be changed at will before them. This is the ill of the laws of all countries. The law can be invalid in the face of oligarchs of power. Therefore, the mutual trust between countries cannot be permanent because every leader knows that any laws and regulations are determined by man, and whether it is abided by or not depends on the mood. It was pure accident that Claire cleared Tom's charge, and this accident also exposed the corruption and injustice of the judicial system. At the end of the movie, Tom discovers Claire's deep investigation and discovers his secret, and he is murderous. When Claire is tied up, the atmosphere enters an American-style tense scene. The heroine is on the verge of death. Suddenly a passerby who doesn't know where to come out to ease the plot. Appeared and shot and killed Tom. The atmosphere of Claire's rescue eased, and Passerby quietly exited. Such a snake-tailed ending was disappointing.
Our current rule of law and laws are not perfect, but they are still growing in people's hearts.
View more about High Crimes reviews
