No Nudity. No Sex (except 2 women kissing if that counts.)
There will be a big swim suit model poster on the outside of a gas station- It will be near main character’s head during scenes of conversation outside the gas station and also there will be a close up of a female with a crop top and tiny shorts on a poster.
At a club there will be women in skimpy short skirts and crop tops and there will be a close up of a woman’s legs dancing at the club- camera will go up on her.
At a nightclub, women dance provocative. Nothing explicit.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


What we should worry about in this era is not that there are so many murders, but that one day, the killer is right.

The power of this work surprised me. I would like to describe it as a tusk – short, strong, and can see blood in one bite. I can’t help watching it three times at once. Except that the last part is a typical Hollywood cliche and is not worth mentioning, it’s interesting until the car overturns.

To some extent, the film can be regarded as an irony. The killer’s dress is a typical professional manager. He works according to the contract and uses a tablet PC. before killing each person, he has to do a lot of “prep work” and accurately abide by the schedule. Even the whole set of philosophy he used in the face of emergencies is regarded as the standard by today’s business people – adapt to the environment, adapt to changes, and be ready to start plan B. If you strip away the “killing” itself, Vincent is a perfect professional manager. This reminds me of the author’s diagnosis of modern society in the book the end of Western Civilization: emotion is stripped out in the workplace. All “personal” behavior is considered “unprofessional” in the business environment. One of the great victories of modern rational discourse is the exile of emotion. Our era is an era in which sense overwhelms sensitivity. So Vincent is going to laugh at the sentimentality of taxi driver max. Vincent often says, “I eat on this!” I do this for a living. As an example mentioned in Sayid’s on Intellectuals: one of his students who killed people by flying bombers in the Vietnam War called his work “target identification”, and instantly washed away his moral responsibility through professional jargon. In fact, Vincent poses a moral problem for everyone: if your work is immoral, do you choose to follow “emotion” and give up, or follow “reason” and strive for professionalism? Perhaps in the extreme case of killing, it is easy for ordinary people to make a choice. But in another situation, for example, if a project of your company will damage the health of some consumers, can you make a choice quickly?

Even in the extreme situation of killing, the eloquent killer Vincent has pushed the conscience of every ordinary person to the foot of an embarrassing wall. If we don’t care about the fact that millions of people in Rwanda were slaughtered before sunset, why should we be angry that he killed an irrelevant person? Adorno’s famous saying “no poetry after Auschwitz” seems to have found a distant bosom friend. After Rwanda, can we still talk about murder?

If you and I are just a grain of dust lost in thousands of stars, what is the meaning of life? I find that I like this philosopher killer more and more.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here