In my opinion, this is a good movie. Although there is still a gap from the classics, this is entirely a matter of the film's own techniques and ideas, and has nothing to do with the rigor of criminal planning. Many friends mentioned some "flaws" in the plot, and thought that some practices of the hero were full of loopholes or illogical. Personally, I have always felt that there is no need to go into this dead end to enjoy such a movie. However, as a legal practitioner, I appreciate the careful design of this film "Using the judicial system to escape legal sanctions", so I still open a new post to briefly talk about my own views, hoping that the brothers who are dissatisfied with the plot can take it as a reference. Since we are talking about the plot, it is inevitable that there will be a plot exposed. It is strongly recommended that friends who have never seen a movie go to the movies before reading this article. Moreover, in fact, this article is not a film review at all, but a reply after I read some posts on the forum. Therefore, things like Anthony Hopkins playing a high IQ criminal again after The Silence of the Lambs are not mentioned. Let's get down to business. Instead, it uses the principle of "the fruit of the poisonous tree". Because that policeman has a special relationship with the victim and criminal suspect, he should not participate in the investigation and evidence collection of the case. The evidence he obtained cannot be used to identify the defendant legally. So as long as the police come in to deal with it, it doesn't matter whether he has a gun or not-the gun, bullet and confession he gets will be ignored by the judge-even if the shot gun is in the hero's hand. The most important evidence of a gun murder case was thus excluded-and the prosecution was completely ignorant of all this, thinking that this was a very simple case, and it was too late to supplement the investigation when it was discovered. The most famous practical case in this respect is Simpson's wife killing case-the most important material evidence was ruled out by the judge because of defects in the evidence collection procedure. However, the requirement of evidence in civil litigation is not as strict as that in criminal litigation, so the jury in civil litigation accepted the evidence and sentenced Simpson to be liable for compensation. There is also the famous "Miranda rule" to ensure the validity of criminal evidence-in addition, we have to go further. If you are interested, check the information yourself.