A dead naked teenage girl is shown lying face down. Her butt is visible. She is portraying a minor.
A scene of a brutal rape is seen as a series of flashbacks during a state execution. No nudity.
Sexual innuendo on a few occassions.


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


Imagine that one day, a young man and woman were dating in the woods in the social edition of a portal website. Suddenly, two bad youths brutally beat the young men and shot them to death, gang raped the young women, and then stabbed them for more than 20 knives. How would you respond? I think the message must be “animals”, “thousands of cuts” and so on. Indeed, in the face of vicious crimes, we are always stunned and angry. In the film “death row walk”, two evil young people have indeed been tried by the law, and one of them will face the death penalty. This was another routine punishment for crimes until the appearance of sister Helen, Let us see from more angles the suffering and pain, crime and punishment of different people after a vicious case.

Sister Helen was a kind woman who did good in the black community until one day, she received a letter from Matthew ponsler, one of the perpetrators of the above-mentioned crimes, and decided to visit the prisoner waiting for the death penalty at any time. We can see that Helen has been under great pressure since the beginning of her visit. As a criminal who has committed a vicious case, although Matthew is still respected and protected to a certain extent in the legal process, in fact, he has been abandoned by the mainstream of society. In people’s eyes, he has been equated with “animals”. He committed a heinous crime and his death is more than worthy. Therefore, even a priest can’t understand why Helen visited the villain, Remind her to “be careful to be used”. In his opinion, such a person is vicious and hard to change and is not worth saving.

Matthew’s statement of his “grievance” to Helen initially made the film seem to have a turning point. It seems that this will be another story of an unjust case. After that, there will be a frank lawyer, a wonderful debate in the court, and finally ended with a generous speech by a just lawyer and the rehabilitation of the enemy. However, the connotation and difference of this film is that it does not focus on sensational stories. There are very few scenes in this film and even the trial. It is more about Helen as a “guide” to explore the hearts of different people from her eyes. As a criminal Matthew, at first his grievances made people feel pity for him, but with the deepening of the plot, we know that it was more his sophistry, or the last fight of his survival instinct to see his death approaching. He did not personally kill the couple, but he participated in gang rape. He watched his companions brutally kill others. He was an accomplice. He was not “innocent”. He was guilty. We can see that Matthew himself is a person with extreme thoughts, a racist, violent, and has a fragile and sensitive heart. Although he tries to be strong on the outside, he wants to be relaxed and calm. However, it is worth thinking about why Matthew was sentenced to death while another criminal was exempted from death? From this point of view, Matthew had “grievances”. As his defense lawyer said, “the rich children have never been sentenced to death”. Maybe he had a little more money and could be saved from death by hiring a better lawyer at that time, but unfortunately, he had only a tax lawyer designated by the government to defend at that time, and even the lawyer did little in the trial at that time. This is what is worth thinking about, an irrationality under the appearance of procedural rationalization, an invisible discrimination and difference, and an individual tragedy under institutional loopholes. As a film adapted from a real story, this film also realistically shows the powerlessness of personal efforts in the face of a defect in the system and social environment. Finally, Matthew was executed.

Helen’s greater dilemma is that she also tries to appease the victim’s family in this case, and tries to find a compromise route in the psychological appeasement of the perpetrator and the victim. This is an idealistic effort, but it is doomed to be extremely difficult. When Helen faced the victim’s family, she was questioned, “sister, I’m a Catholic. Why can you sit next to ponsler without talking to us and understanding our feelings?”, “Why do you (as a nun) worry about criminals without considering that maybe we need you?”. In the face of such doubts, Helen is painful and confused. Especially after she found Matthew’s racism and other characteristics, she is confused about whether it is right or wrong to “help such a person”. However, she bravely went into the victim’s family and listened to their feelings, but was misunderstood as changing her attitude and supporting the victim. When the victim’s family found that it was not the case, Helen was more criticized. This is a very realistic problem, that is, for many problems, we always look at them resolutely and oppositely, always with the vision of “dichotomy”, either black or white, or good or evil. Either you are punished or I am in pain. Matthew has actually been deprived of all rights by most people because of a serious crime. He doesn’t deserve to live, communicate with others, and be defended by lawyers. Anyone who helps him is either “helping the tyrant”, or “being used”, or short-sighted. They are drawn to a front with Matthew, Therefore, it has also been questioned and despised by the angry public. If we find that it is an obvious unjust case, we will call for procedural justice and someone to help him, but once we find that the other party has committed a heinous crime, we will scream hysterically. Even if the other party makes a reasonable defense according to the procedure, we will lose patience. At this time, the public’s psychology is often to go to the fucking legal procedure and sentence the bastard to death earlier, So as to calm the people’s anger. Therefore, I hate the behavior in a crime. I understand the anger of the victim’s family. I also admire people like sister Helen for sticking to some bottom lines and making their efforts in the public anger and in the emotional social environment. Helen also condemned Matthew’s crime and refuted Matthew’s sophistry. At the same time, she also comforted Matthew’s mind, let him reflect on his crime and embark on the yellow spring road as calmly as possible.

The film also involves the discussion of the death penalty. Personally, I don’t believe that the death penalty can prevent and guard against crimes. If so, many times of severe punishment in China should be peaceful and prosperous. I think the death penalty is mainly an act of “revenge” under the compulsion of the state and the restriction of the law, which comforts the families of the dead and vent the public’s emotions, that is, the effect of calming the people’s anger. Therefore, the way of death penalty and the public’s attitude towards death penalty will change with social changes. The debate on the preservation or abolition of death penalty has been reflected in the film. Of course, those who abolish death penalty are at a disadvantage, especially in the context of a vicious case. However, I think, because the death penalty is irreversible, the procedure should be as reasonable as possible, and prudence should be the bottom line. For example, although Matthew in the film has been despised by the public, some people still insist on allowing him to defend under the procedure as reasonable as possible, and Matthew’s death by injection also reflects the change of the way of death penalty.

If someone asks me, if you are violated by illegal and criminal acts, will you look at the perpetrator calmly? Will he not be in a hurry to be punished? I will say, yes, not to mention serious criminal acts. Even if a person beats me, I will curse him angrily and may find someone to take revenge; If someone cheated me a few hundred dollars, I would be angry and hope that person would be “copied” and poor. However, it is precisely because the individual’s response to illegal and criminal acts is easy to be extreme, emotional, uncontrollable and arbitrary. Therefore, we need the constraints of the law and the establishment of order. Otherwise, the society full of lynching will be more terrible. The value of Helen and others is here. They explore the neglected corner in the public anger and appeal for forgiveness and reconciliation alone but firmly. Therefore, at the end of the film, we see that the family members of a victim who was dissatisfied with her at first also had a touch. Although it was only a slight touch, it was enough to comfort Helen, What they do is to let everyone touch and think when their emotions reach the extreme of one direction. This is a difficult and small effort, but it deserves my deep respect.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here