As the most influential film critic in the United States today, Roger not only has his own column in the Chicago Sun, but also is at the forefront of the times and has created his own personal film review website.

However, generally speaking, Roger will first write a column brief review for the Chicago Sun, so that readers can see the film critics' reaction to the newly released movies as soon as possible; relatively speaking, as a freshly tried website, the update will lag a lot, and Roger will screen out movies worth reviewing—either a bad movie or a great masterpiece. After careful consideration, write a detailed review and then update it on his personal website.

This time, Roger unexpectedly made a detailed comment on his personal website at 10:00 a.m. on December 3. Such abnormal behavior instantly attracted the attention of all media.

"It seems that everyone will say that choosing the former is a simple question; but in Strello's movie, it seems that this choice is always full of doubts.

The calm and slow shot is like a shark sliding across the sea late at night. The dangerous atmosphere in silence makes people frightened. There are dangers everywhere but no clues can be found. They can only be worried and anxious. The seemingly loose but actually tense atmosphere covers every corner of the picture, running through the entire viewing process like a shadow, like an invisible ghost sitting in the passenger seat. This is the overall impression left by the movie "Killing with a knife", but obviously, the surprises brought by this movie are far more than this.

Generally speaking, commercial films often choose standard three-act structures, beginning, subject and ending. But before the movie officially begins, the first two acts have already happened, and the whole movie is about the third act. Such a novel and bold structure also poses serious challenges - because this makes the story trunk very thin and the creation of conflicts becomes very difficult.

‘Killing with a knife’ tells a very simple story. Vincent is a professional killer who needs to kill five targets this night. He chose a taxi as a means of transportation to complete his mission. Under the arrangement of fate, Max became his driver.

Facing such a severe challenge, Strello once again made a bold choice, skipping the explosive scene of performing the mission, skipping the template routine of personal heroism, and choosing to use the confrontation between Vincent and Max to run through the entire "act 3", bringing this commercial-type movie to a new level.

When choosing Vincent and Max, Strello was undoubtedly thoughtful. The script from his own writing once again brought new ideas in character setting. Vincent represents evil, but Max is not the representative of justice - Prosecutor Anne represents justice, while Max represents a neutral faction between justice and evil, and at the same time, he is also the general public of society.

Vincent seems to be a typical criminal, cold-blooded, cruel, violent, and terrible. He regards killing as his job, and can kill a life through chatting and laughing. After his hands are covered with blood, he holds a bouquet of flowers in his hand and plays the role of a good friend. He uses the tragedy of "Rwanda" to defend himself, and tells the killings in a normal way, as if it is just an ordinary means of making a living.

Anne is a law enforcement officer with social standards, just, firm, wise and strong. Even when facing huge pressure of litigation, she is unwilling to relax at all. Her tense nerves demand herself with the highest standards, working day and night, hoping to achieve justice through the correct legal means. This is not only a job, but also a career and an obligation.

But what is interesting is that the vicious Vincent is a child abandoned by society. The death of his mother, the alcoholism of his father, and the abandonment of the foster care system have strangled the humanity in his character bit by bit. The loneliness and fragility between his eyebrows have tear apart at the last moment; Anne, who is like a hero, is a self-centered elite. She feels good about herself and has a hint of arrogance, but she is in a hurry when facing a real crisis. Even the "supporters" led by the Los Angeles Police Department are always late, and they are wrong in judgment, and they can't help at all.

Justice is not the justice in imagination, and evil is not the evil in the traditional sense. This is the first hint of the script.

Max is a neutral ordinary person, conservative, timid, ruled, and cautious. He holds dreams, but he never dares to realize them. He just talks about it, finds various excuses, and then sticks to his post in vain - silently kills his life, on the one hand, envys others, and on the other hand, he is afraid to make changes, and in the end he can only blame himself, blame others, and blame society. Mediocrity is Max's characteristic, but he has become a key figure in the direction of the story.

The one who plays the so-called "hero" is not the hero, this is the second hint of the script.

Instead of focusing the pen and ink on the entanglement and confrontation between justice and evil, the film confines justice, evil and neutrality into a narrow and closed space, testing human nature and tortures society.

When justice and evil appear at the same time, how do we choose? We should choose justice; but how will we choose? We will choose ourselves.

When Max realized that Vincent was a professional killer, his first reaction was to turn around and leave, and even repeatedly asked Vincent to find another driver. This could be interpreted as survival innocence, but also as escaping innate/energy - he was trying to escape, escape the opportunity to execute justice, and escape the responsibility to fight evil. This was not condemning Max's behavior, but rather stating an extremely simple fact: when faced with choices, we always choose ourselves.

This is also why hero comics and hero movies are so popular? We long for someone to save ourselves, not to save ourselves, nor to execute justice ourselves - because we have no superpowers.

Because I can't protect myself, I can only choose to escape; because I can't fight, I can only choose to avoid it; because I have a hard time, I can only swallow my anger; because I have a long dream, I can only imprison myself... Because I don't have time, energy, family bonds, financial difficulties, and life pressure... There are too many "becauses" in life. This is not only Max's choice, but also the choice of most people in social life.

Then what?

Because of danger, we can only defend ourselves; because we have no choice but to do so, we can only harm others for our own benefit; because of social reality, we can only face highs and downs; because of great dreams, we can only sacrifice others...

Then what?

Because the day is not safe, we can only trade our lives for life; because we are desperate, we can only die in the world; because we are the most important thing, we can only abandon our conscience; because we cannot eat, we can only eat human flesh raw...

This is precisely the core focus of Vincent and Max's confrontation. Vincent put a high-sounding reason for his murder - people in the world die every day, and even if they are not killed, others will kill others. Anyway, they just die a stranger; not to mention, it is not him who is carrying the sin of killing like a sea of ​​blood in this world, but those forces that provoke war.

But what is hidden behind the truth is only interests, or just emptiness. This is a ‘why’, not a ‘reason’; this is Rashomon.

This is the third hint of the script.

This reminds me of ‘City of God’, which is an excellent movie, without a doubt. Strello once discussed a very profound and realistic topic in that movie: What exactly is sin and what causes sin?

But the "City of God" did not give an answer, but was only left for the audience to think; and this time, he further discussed in the "Killing with a knife", but he still did not give an answer. What we ignore is not only a City of God, but also a Los Angeles, and an unrealistic space between Los Angeles and the City of God.

Of course, during the entanglement between Vincent and Max, Max followed the drive of inner morality, chose justice, and fought against evil - this is also the only positive value orientation of the entire movie that conforms to the commercial-type movie, but interestingly, the ending of the movie once again brought an accident.

It is not justice that defeats evil, nor is justice and evil end together, but the destruction of neutrality and evil. The faint light of justice is confined in the prison built by light and shadow, and cannot see the past or the future.

On the surface, this seems to be verified with Apao's going out in the ending of "City of God". Even if it is dark, it can eventually capture a glimmer of hope; but in fact, this is completely different from "City of God", because the surviving justice runs towards the confused unknown - without the support of witnesses, this case has no chance of winning, and all investigations have once again returned to the starting point, and only a tool and an innocent person have died.

From this perspective, evil seems to have won.

Combining the three hints of the script and then recalling the fragments of the movie, the several conversations between the two characters Vincent and Max are meaningful and triggering deep thoughts. They not only show the struggles and confusions of neutral characters in the face of crisis, but also bring out a sharp truth: in front of egoism and interests, people's values ​​are extremely fragile, and from good to evil is just a blink of an eye.

Because of fear, I chose to escape, because of self-protection, I chose to be indifferent, and because of loneliness, so the relationship between people gradually became alienated and cold, which made everyone seem to find a suitable reason for crime, and the boundary between justice and evil began to become blurred. So... what's the next step?

Because of crime, so commit crime?

This brings us back to the initial question, ‘How to choose justice and evil?’ Do we really know our choice? Or do we really make the right choice?

From ‘City of God’ to ‘Killing with a knife’, Strello explores a profound and important real social problem, and then leaves a question mark for us to think slowly. The shock and reflection that bursts out from the depths of the soul will not disappear with the end of the movie, but on the contrary, it has just begun."
Chapter completed!