I watched the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" a few days ago. The loopholes in the judicial system and the collusion between the prosecution and the bandits made the real culprit go unpunished. The male protagonist wanted to avenge the rape and murder of his wife and daughter. He had been brewing a revenge plan for ten years. Step by step is the main culprit, and then step by step to challenge the US judicial system. The main culprit is the climax of the whole play, and the next performance is a bit eclipsed: I thought he would use the loopholes in the judicial system to carry out high-IQ crimes, and use his own way to return to him, but the plot is based on his professional knowledge. High-tech crimes are not only unpredictable, but also involve many innocent people (in the protagonist's thinking, they are not innocents but accomplices of the system, but I think the evaluation standard is too strict). Of course, the protagonist also thinks that this is a kind of "returning the same way", using murder as a bargaining chip to ask the prosecutor to make a deal, step by step to let the prosecutor fail, in exchange for the final prosecutor's sentence "I will not Make a deal with the murderer again.” The protagonist finally let go of the knot he had ten years ago.
There is a feeling that the fire is missing. Using online comments to say, "If you want to criticize the system, you should let the protagonist make full use of the loopholes in the system and open such a fierce plug-in?"
But if you don't ask for an anticlimactic, this film is still very enjoyable to watch, especially revenge. The plot of the main culprit. The difference between enjoying it or not is whether I can fall asleep smoothly on the night of watching it or whether the scene lingers in my mind for a long time.
I don’t have the courage to watch horror movies and suspense movies (suspense novels are acceptable, because the pace of reading is slow, and the sense of fear does not come suddenly but has a prelude. I can prepare for throwing books in advance, but the horror Films and suspense films are usually frightened before they can close their eyes or windows), let alone bloody scenes.
So in fact, when I saw the "unrated version" in the title, I should have been alert and hesitant to watch it, but there was still a voice in my heart, "I want to see how violent and bloody an unrated movie can be. !"
So in fact, I was really shocked when I saw him kill himself for the first time: "So people can kill like this!" This is one of the cruelest killing methods I know!
The strange thing is that although I was scared, I was more excited when I saw it.
One is that this film awakens the inherent evil in my heart, a potential bloodthirsty nature, perhaps the animal nature that all human beings have, but it has been diluted in the evolution of civilization. For a few bloody scenes, I was more excited than scared.
The second is the thrill of revenge, I hate you, so I will destroy you. Simple and rude destruction is definitely not enough. When I destroy you, I want your pain to be more painful than Ling Chi. When only hatred remains in life, everything is but a tool.
When these two points made me happy, I had the space to think about some other issues. A lot of people combine it with Twelve Angry Men to talk about justice. Whether procedural justice or justice itself is more important has always been a topic of debate. In fact, the collusion between the prosecutor and the bandit party in the movie cannot be said to be "collaboration" in the true sense. In the case of insufficient evidence, the prosecutor made a deal with the principal: you are the tainted witness of the accomplice, and I will punish you lightly. For the prosecution, or as a last resort, it is very likely that the prisoner will be acquitted. But the male protagonist is unacceptable. He would rather see the prosecutor fight for the final acquittal of the prisoner on his own merits, rather than accept the fact that the prosecutor directly negotiated the conditions with the prisoner without making any effort to determine the outcome. The prosecutor is a reserved person, and I can't guess what he really thinks, but there must be a selfish desire to maintain a high conviction rate on the professional record.
As an ordinary person who has no understanding of the law at all, even if he understands the fur, it is more difficult to understand the similarities and differences of the laws in China and the United States, and even less able to change the legal environment. What I am more concerned about is whether we can use proper means to protect ourselves own means to solve the problem? Is it sensible to fight back with tit for tat, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? This has been a widely discussed topic.
At a time when child abuse by kindergarten teachers was on the rise, I discussed this topic with others. There is a news that a teacher picked up the child's ears and let the child hang in the air. Later, a large number of child abuse photos were found in the teacher's space. I thought at the time that the official solution to this matter must be relatively mild, focusing on mediation and harmony. In China, corporal punishment of minors is not considered a serious matter. There are too many corporal punishments. In my elementary and middle school years, such incidents appeared endlessly. If a teacher treats my child like this, I will definitely not place my hopes on the authorities. I will definitely find a way to hand or hire someone to maim the teacher, and I will bear the legal responsibility. Later, after the limelight of the news passed, I thought back and calmed down a lot. Considering that I may be sentenced to prison or pay huge sums of money, it will seriously affect the quality of life of my children. Maybe I should not use violence to deal with violence. But how can a person be so calm, when I do something on a whim, I can't tell.
Of course hitting someone is wrong, everyone says so. But can people control their anger? There are very few scheming and meticulous retaliators. Most people vent their anger immediately, especially when it touches their core interests, it is not easy to hold their blood. Fed up.
I suddenly thought that when I was in elementary school, I had a teacher I liked very much. He also liked me very much and was very kind to me, but he was very violent towards his disobedient male classmates. Then one day he was beaten. It was rumored that he was beaten by the parents of the students (in fact, I can't confirm it until now), and he was admitted to the hospital. The school organized us to visit him in the hospital. At that time, I was still relatively young, and my impression was rather vague. I only heard that he was beaten by the parents of the students. Now think about it, should this teacher beat people like this? In fact, after so many years, I think, if I like someone very much, but they hurt others and get revenge, which side should I stand on? Suddenly I feel that it is not very easy to tell what is right and wrong.
At the end of the writing, I remembered that when I was on Weijing, the teacher mentioned the economics of crime: some people doubt the role of the law, everyone knows that killing people is punishable by death, but there are still people who want to kill people, and the law cannot prevent crime.
The teacher said that from the perspective of criminal economics, the law has never been designed to prevent crime. It is just a menu, clearly marked with a price, and you can pay for what you want.
Everyone has to pay for their actions. Then it seems that it doesn't matter whether the problem is solved in a legal or illegal way, if you feel that breaking the law is more cost-effective than abiding by the law.
View more about Law Abiding Citizen reviews
