For your convenience, the English translation of this article is attached to the back of the article. Due to machine translation plus manual proofreading, some translated words may not be accurate.
I saw this film a few months ago and was very excited to learn that it was going to be released in China. I watched it four or five times and then went to the movie theater to experience it. Now the fever has consumed me, but I still have to write this "brain-burning" article:
To analyze the movie in depth, we will discuss it from three perspectives: structure, props and characters, and character backgrounds. Of course, our analysis isn't merely about interpreting the story; we also try to grasp the director's creative thinking, which is the real fun of watching movies.
Without further ado, let's examine the structure first:
I. The Structure of the Movie
n I divided the entire movie into four parts:
The opening statement (about 10 minutes)
The protagonist (Adrian) tells his version of the story (about 50 minutes)
The lawyer (Goodman) presents her version of the story (about 20 minutes)
The truth and conclusion (about 20 minutes)
Understanding the final twist is crucial for analyzing the structure: Lawyer Goodman is actually the victim Daniel's mother in disguise. Her purpose in visiting the protagonist (Adrian) isn't to help him file a legal complaint, but to extract his confession and bring him to justice.
With this revelation, let's revisit the four-part structure:
In Part 1 (opening statement), the director gives Adrian (hereafter referred to as the male lead) the opportunity to present his account of the case. This segment lasts just under 10 minutes (the standard opening length for a commercial genre film).
This account of the case is presented solely for the audience's benefitand holds no value for lawyer Goodman within the story, since it is essentially a rehearsed confession. Goodman then launches her first attack on the protagonist: questioning whether he knows who killed Laura (his lover), challenging the impossibility of the murderer's entry and escape, etc. This interrogation serves as the narrative bridge to the second act while redirecting focus toward a holistic case analysis.
A critical observation: what does the film's first act achieve? Primarily, it establishes the case's foundational premise. More crucially, it strategically focuses viewers on "how the killer entered and exited Laura's locked-room crime scene undetected". This exemplifies a classic suspense narrative trap: by fixating audiences on this question, they subconsciously presuppose a third-party murderer's existence. The red herring is further reinforced by the protagonist's tearful breakdown after his testimony, deepening the audience's misguided assumptions.
There's also a plot point: Attorney Goodman comes up with a brief on the “disappearance of a young man,” and he complicates the case even further. Let's move on to part two.
Part 2:
The term "the protagonist's (Adrian's) version of the story" is intentionally used to emphasize that this nearly 50-minute narrative is entirely subjective—both truthful and deceptive. Since it originates primarily from the protagonist's perspective, his retelling of events inevitably serves his own interest: exoneration. But how do we parse this version of the story? This is the "brain" of the analysis, which we will explore in detail later. First, let’s examine the purpose of this segment:
Does it imply the protagonist’s account is unreliable and thus irrelevant? Absolutely not. Structurally, this portion serves a critical role in the film by establishing all key characters and events tied to the case. We learn that the protagonist secretly met his lover Laura three months before the murder; that they caused a fatal car accident while returning from their rendezvous, killing a young man named Daniel; that Daniel’s parents later harassed the protagonist (due to the exposed affair and the BMW’s license plate); and that the protagonist and Laura became entangled in a shared crime... The narrative continues until the film’s opening scene (Laura’s murder in the hotel and the protagonist’s arrest).
Throughout this section, viewers are subtly led to connect two seemingly unrelated cases: Laura’s murder and Daniel’s disappearance. The link between them lies in the protagonist’s desperate efforts to suppress their connection. Why? Because he covered up the accident—motivated, as the narrator claims, by a fear of losing his wife and child (we’ll revisit his background shortly). Crucially, the police remain unaware of the crash and Daniel’s fate. So who bridges these two cases? The answer is Attorney Goodman. Why would she go to such lengths? To help the protagonist uncover the "unseen guest"—the person who killed Laura and framed him. What is the purpose of exposing this "guest"? The film’s third act holds the answer.
As the story transitions to its final act, Attorney Goodman poses three pivotal questions to the protagonist:
Why did the killer borrow Laura's cell phone to text (did this leave incriminating evidence)? Why didn't the killer take the money from the scene (instead, he scattered it all over the place)? How exactly did the killer leave the room (there were no marks at the crime scene)?
The protagonist fails to provide plausible answers to these three questions. Within the film's juridical framework, such an epistemic void operates as a performative act—his inability to address these inquiries functionally constitutes an implicit admission of guilt, given his exclusive capacity to orchestrate the crime under the established spatiotemporal constraints.
This logical impasse compels the protagonist to seek Attorney Goodman's counter-narrative, a discursive strategy purportedly designed to resolve the tripartite contradictions. Herein lies the narrative's manipulative genius: the protagonist becomes passively compliant to Goodman's constructed diegesis. Moreover, this compliance extends metatextually to the audience, who are simultaneously ensnared in the same hermeneutic trap—their desire for epistemic closure mirroring the protagonist's dependency on the attorney's artifice.
Part 3:
Attorney Goodman's reconstructed narrative operates as a masterclass in diegetic subversion. Far from relying on externalized culpability, her account eschews reductive attributions of incompetence, instead demonstrating forensic rigor through methodical deconstruction of evidentiary chains. The structural revelation—that the perpetrators are none other than Daniel's bereaved parents—serves dual analytical purposes: thematically, it inverts the trauma-of-loss paradigm; narratologically, it weaponizes spatial dramaturgy through the mother's institutional position (her employment at the crime scene hotel enabling architectural manipulation).
The couple's collaborative fabrication of the frame-up constitutes what Deleuzian film theory might term a "minoritarian becoming"—their grief metastasizing into precise counter-violence against bourgeois legal apparatuses. Notably, the father's inaugural appearance in the cinema sequence (prior to narrative unmasking) provoked audible gasps of realization rippled through the theater audience—an affective response quantifying the scene's success in planting subliminal intertextual markers.
IV. Hermeneutics of Motive & Ontological ReversalsnThe interrogation of parental motivation necessitates a Lacanian psychoanalytic lens: Does the couple's extreme retaliation merely stem from suspicion of the protagonist's complicity in their son's disappearance? Such rationale proves epistemologically insufficient within juridical epistemology. As Habermas' communicative action theory posits, legitimate legal process requires veridictional consensus exceeding private vengeance logics. Thus, the narrative strategically unveils the parents' certain knowledge of filicide—their witnessing Adrian's act of submerging Daniel's living body. This transforms their motive from speculative grievance into Aristotelian nemesis: cosmic rebalancing of moral order through mimetic violence.
Juridically, the protagonist's confession to body disposal creates a Foucauldian paradox of truth-telling—while potentially absolving him of murder charges (via absence of direct homicide evidence), it simultaneously inscribes him within what Agamben terms homo sacer status: life stripped of legal protection through his own testimony. Herein lies the film's dialectical genius: freedom from prosecution becomes ontological entrapment.
V. Metacinematic Deception & Gender PerformativitynThe revelation of "Goodman" as Daniel's mother in disguise constitutes Judith Butler-esque gender performativity crisis. Her hypercompetent lawyer persona—tailored suit, forensic rhetoric—subverts maternal archetypes through what Mulvey calls "to-be-looked-at-ness" inversion. Crucially, the husband's sacrificial collusion interrogates Levinasian ethics: Can filial love justify spousal instrumentalization? The film answers through Bataillean dépense—waste becomes sacred through ritualistic violence.
VI. Temporal Collapse & Truth EpistemologynThe protagonist's climactic admission—"Daniel wasn't dead before submersion"—shatters narrative temporality. Using Bergson's durée framework, the film compresses chronos (linear time) into kairos (decisive moment): all prior diegesis becomes Benjaminian Jetztzeit (now-time) awaiting this revelatory puncture. This transforms the car submersion from backstory to actus reus core—the moment biological life (zoe) becomes juridical death (bios).
VII. Fourth Act: Parallax TruthsnContra classical courtroom drama resolution, the final reversals perform Žižekian parallax shifts:
Ethical:
Parental vengeance morphs into Derridean pharmakon—both poison and cure
Accelerated rhythm mirrors Virilio's dromology—speed as weapon of epistemological destruction
It is evident that the weight of the news initially provided the audience with a moment of respite, and even the drama entitled "Goodman Lawyer" adopted a more composed demeanor. However, the previously formulated defence strategy was abruptly reversed. The plot undergoes a rapid reversal, first in the nature of the case (from a crime of harboring to a murder), then in the sequence of events (the narrative of the main character is the precise opposite of reality, with his lover being the actual harbourer), and finally in the identity of Goodman's lawyer (he is Daniel's mother's impostor). This sequence of reversals culminates in a series of climaxes, leading to the ultimate capture and sacrifice of the protagonist, Adrian. Throughout the four sections of the film, it is evident that the narrative is akin to a strategic game of chess being played between two individuals in a room. This observation leads to the preference for the Taiwanese translation of the film's title: "Layout". However, it should be noted that this "layout" is confined to the initial three parts of the film.
The initial three sections were established by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas (the parents of the victim, Daniel), and were essentially overseen by the "Goodman lawyers". In the fourth part, however, the situation has become unmanageable, and the truth has deviated from "Goodman's" expectations (namely, that his son was still alive before being pushed into the water). At this juncture, Goodman and the protagonist find themselves in a position of equal standing, and the outcome of their endeavour – be it victory or defeat – is an uncertain toss of a coin. Indeed, the outcome hinges on the hero's faith in the fraudulent Goodman attorney. In essence, the first three parts of the film depict Goodman devoting an hour of his time, not for tactical approval, but rather for the hero's new appointment. It is only through the virtue of trust that the hero is willing to relinquish his position. Once the narrative's through structure has been smoothed out, the storyline becomes discernible. Nevertheless, the enjoyment derived from the discernment of a compelling crime thriller can extend far beyond this. In order to fully appreciate the intricacies of a crime thriller, one must endeavour to challenge the logic of its conception. This logic is embedded within the visual language of the film itself. A more thorough examination of the props, the plot, and the cinematography of the film is therefore recommended.
II. Cinematic language
1. "Laura's cell phone and the text message" serve as the "engine" that drives the story forward. Many people confuse Laura (the man‘s lover) with the cell phone and the text message it receives. However, the phone and the text message are crucial to the entire movie—they are the engine of the narrative.
As the narrative progresses towards its dénouement, it becomes evident that the text message was in fact transmitted by Laura herself, utilising a temporal lag to ensure its delivery. The motivation behind this action remains unclear. The motivation behind this act was not the result of manipulation by external forces, such as Dennis's father or the witness, but rather, it was Laura herself who instigated the events that led to the hero's visit to the hotel. It is evident that Laura's actions were driven by a deliberate attempt to persuade the hero to surrender himself, which ultimately resulted in the tragic demise of the protagonist. It is further hypothesised that Laura herself may have foreseen this possibility, which may have prompted her to edit the text message in anticipation of potential complications. The narrative suggests that the hero, Adrian, is not unintelligent, but rather remarkably astute. On the contrary, he is very smart! Furthermore, Goodman's lawyer employed the cell phone text message to construct an alternative version of events, portraying Thomas (Daniel's father) as the one who framed the hero. It can be argued that, in the absence of the cell phone and the text message, the narrative would have been significantly altered.
In cinematic narrative analysis, the pivotal plot device of "the protagonist receiving the photographic evidence" constitutes Laura's strategic psychological entrapment. The critical inquiry lies in deconstructing Laura's methodology for persuading the narrative subject to attend the predetermined rendezvous. It warrants examination that the protagonist demonstrates neither naivety nor romantic susceptibility, thereby presenting significant resistance to conventional manipulation tactics.
The evidentiary crux resides in the anonymously delivered photograph bearing the "Daniel" signature – a calculated semiotic construct. Through forensic analysis of mise-en-scène elements, we can extrapolate Laura's authorial agency in fabricating both photographic artifact and accompanying epistolary materials. This deduction finds evidentiary support in the lakeside sequence following their egress from the rural estate: diegetic camera work reveals Laura surreptitiously capturing the pivotal landscape shot from the vehicular passenger position while ostensibly engaged in touristic observation.
This narrative stratagem operates through exploitation of the protagonist's psychological vulnerabilities – specifically, the manifestation of traumatic residue metaphorically termed "the specter within his psyche." Laura's deployment of this evidentiary bait demonstrates sophisticated understanding of cognitive manipulation techniques within thriller genre conventions, effectively weaponizing the protagonist's latent psychological susceptibilities through carefully curated visual evidence.
3.The vehicular navigation system, purported wildlife encounter, and route selection mechanics constitute a multifaceted analytical challenge regarding the protagonist's post-collision decision-making. While surface-level interpretation might attribute his police avoidance to marital infidelity concealment, this explanation proves narratologically insufficient given established character competencies.
Forensic reconstruction of events reveals critical evidentiary lacunae: the complete absence of diegetic verification for cervine collision (no impact footage or ungulate remains). Hematological evidence distribution patterns contradict vehicular trauma expectations – bloodstains localized on Laura's hands suggest proximal fluid transfer rather than high-velocity impact dispersion. This evidentiary discontinuity permits alternative hypothesis formulation: the "accident" may constitute deliberate vehicular homicide disguised as zoogenic mishap.
Navigation system semiotics during the route divergence sequence prove particularly revelatory. The interface's graphical representation of improper lane positioning (right shoulder indication) combined with temporal urgency pressures (impending flight departure) creates narrative space for traffic regulation violations. Through cognitive mapping analysis, we can interpret the unchosen left path as symbolizing transgressive action potential within the film's moral topology.
Crucially, the protagonist's forensic capability (established through prior criminal record expungement) renders manual corpse disposal narratively incongruous unless necessitated by deeper complicity. This narrative paradox suggests either:
The collision constitutes premeditated murder requiring active cover-up
Existential threats beyond legal consequences compel his actions
The deer's symbolic function as narrative MacGuffin becomes apparent through its visual absence – a deliberate directorial choice employing absence-as-presence to subvert audience expectations. This technique effectively weaponizes viewer assumption bias while constructing plausible deniability within the diegetic framework.
Ultimately, the navigation system's route display operates as meta-commentary on moral divergence points, with the protagonist's choice trajectory mirroring his psychological descent. This technological witness becomes the film's silent Greek chorus, its digital cartography charting both geographical and ethical deviation.
If the navigation scene doesn't fully clarify the spatial relationships, pay close attention to the subsequent crash sequence. The director intentionally employs frequent "axis crossing" shots (a filming technique that disrupts traditional 180-degree rule continuity) to deliberately disorient viewers. Upon careful observation, you'll notice the collision causes the BMW to spin 180 degrees. When the damaged car finally comes to rest, it now faces the same direction as Daniel's approaching vehicle. This directional alignment persists with all subsequent cars appearing in the frame - they're all moving in the same coordinated flow of traffic rather than opposing directions.
Witnesses driving in the same direction as Daniel's direction of travel, which once again proves that this lane is a one-way street, the main man is a violation of traffic laws in the first place (note that the direction of the car accident, the police can be fully investigated and obtained to the police). As for why Thomas's car came in the opposite direction, I personally interpreted it as a “loophole in the main character's narrative” (which the police could not prove).
4. The role of the two personas (eyewitnesses, Daniel's mother, who worked at the hotel) These two people do exist, and it is true that they witnessed the incident and worked at the hotel, but they do But what they did: the eyewitness had to testify in court; Daniel's mother helped her husband, Thomas, escape from a home invasion is simply not true. But the two were used by Goodman's lawyer to entrap the main man but it seems completely reasonable, why, because the main man has a ghost in mind.
5, the main man's cell phone to help “Goodman” acting did not wear help we can not help but wonder, a long hour of conversation, how the fake Goodman so lucky: once the main man's personal attorney Felix called, questioning, or the real Goodman, the real Goodman, the main man's personal attorney Felix called, the phone, the real Goodman. Once Felix, the hero's personal attorney, called and questioned him, or if the real Goodman's attorney had come to the door earlier, it would have been a total blowout! Let's note one detail: the hero had a phone call with Felix to, and even the hero let Goodman answer the phone. And it is this slot that Goodman was able to have the opportunity to turn off the male lead's cell phone. (We can learn at the end that the male lead did turn it off, and Felix complained about it.) We can infer that Goodman did precise research with her husband before arriving.
But even so I personally feel that here is one of the less rigorous aspects of the movie: how is it so coincidental that Felix was just getting off the plane when the hero called, just as all that noise from the airfield helped Goodman get through it without a hitch?
6.Goodman's metaphor of “non-standard thinking” Goodman tells a short story about an empty woodshed where a man hanged himself; the rope was 3 meters long, the dead man's feet were less than 30 centimeters off the ground, and the nearest wall was about 6 meters away from the ground. What does it mean: In a word, the existing conditions in the woodshed were not enough for the dead man to hang himself successfully (he couldn't reach it at all). Unless, of course, a large ice cube was placed under the dead man's feet. Goodman's metaphor is extremely clever! Imagine what it would be like for a man to hang himself with an ice cube under his feet. He would have to wait for the ice to melt a little, and for the rope to tighten a little around his neck, suffocating him. Goodman then says to the hero: This is your woodshed. The poor man only thought of finding the ice for his feet, but he did not realize that death was waiting for him after the feet. Attorney Goodman repeats the concept of attention to detail from the moment he walks into the man's room. Yes, this is not only for the hero, but also to remind the audience: in order to understand this kind of movie, you must pay attention to every detail.
III. Character background
Finally we come to the background of the characters in this movie. Personally, I think this is one of the key points to explain the theme of the movie.
First of all, there is our hero, Adrian, who says, “It took me ten years to get to where I am now”. What can we read into this statement. I think that the hero wasn't rich ten years ago, he wasn't from a wealthy family. That's why he was so afraid of losing; why was Adrian so afraid of losing his family? Personally, I don't think he really loves his family, it doesn't fit his character (and he wouldn't cheat on his wife if he was responsible for it). What can be explained: it is likely that Adrian got where he is today with the help of his wife. Note: her wife is present at every upper class attendance scene.
Next is Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, one of whom is a former senior engineer at BMW and the other a professor of literature. This rightfully belongs to the intelligentsia. However, financially, the two of them are very poor, which is reflected many times in the car that Thomas drives and the words of the two of them. There is no doubt about it. So it seems that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are fighting against not only the main character Adrian alone, but they are facing the whole upper class and even the state power. Obviously, this is a movie that exposes corruption and hypocrisy, and it is appropriate to call it a film noir.
我认为就是存在【观影门槛】的，但不是说没有看过电影的人不配看电影，我认为像电影、音乐、美食这些享受甚至都不需要语言共通，人类都能够有情感理解，专业的影评人有自己的见解，但什么专业培训都没有接受过的人说不定有更真更深的情感共鸣，一千人眼中一千个哈姆雷特；非要有门槛的话，我觉得，“哟！！！！看电影啊，老子也看，欸，这人好看，欸这个是好人坏人啊？卧槽真好看这女的，我截个图，咔嚓，欸，讲到哪里了，死了？欸，肯定没这么简单，操，这老太婆是假的！嗨哟，不过如此嘛！”的人，真的拜托了leave me alone……（以及别再说我不喜欢我可以不看啊干嘛逼逼，是啊弹幕可以关，但人家在电影院这么说，人家在我耳边这么说，这是我躲不掉的，谢谢，不是辩论比赛，不要再奇袭我了。
接下来，我又发现自己too young to simple.在“律师”出示种种假证据套话的情况下，男主艾德里安以“罗生门”的方式还原了犯罪地点的场景。“律师”告诉艾德里安可以用托马斯脱罪，艾德里安此时信任了“律师”，把沉车地点勾画了出来，到这里，“律师”的初级目的已经达到了，她想让自己的儿子用传统的方式进行墓葬。但当艾德里安说汽车沉水时丹尼尔还没死时，“律师”情绪有些抑制不住的激动，接着她进行了真实的现场还原，这些场景中的男主终于展现出了与他的总裁身份相匹配的智商。哦，原来他是那个主导者呀，他身上背负了两条人命！最后影片随着一个小高潮结束了：真律师来了，假“律师”到了对面大楼在男主面前逐渐卸下自己的伪装变成了那个我们熟悉的温和的学究派的一直以背景墙方式出现的丹尼尔的妈妈。
For your convenience, the English translation of this article is attached to the back of the article. Due to machine translation plus manual proofreading, some translated words may not be accurate.
几个月前看到了这部片子，得知这部电影要在中国上映，十分兴奋。接着我又看了四五遍，然后又去电影院体验一番。现在高烧已经将我包裹，但是依然要写下这篇“烧脑”的文章：
为了便于深度解析这部电影，我们将从结构、道具与人设、人物背景三个角度分别展开讲述。当然，我们的解析不止于读懂电影故事，我们还试图抓住导演的创作思路，这才是看电影的真正乐趣所在。
闲话少说，先看结构：
一、电影结构
我把电影通篇分为四部分，分别是：
1、开端陈述（约10分钟）
2、男主（艾德里安）讲述的故事版本（约50分钟）
3、律师（古德曼）讲述的故事版本（约20分钟）
4、真相与结局（约20分钟）
为了能够宏观把控每一个部分所起的作用，我觉得有必要先重申一下故事结尾的反转：就是那位古德曼律师其实是假冒的，她是受害人“丹尼尔”的母亲； 自然，她去找男主（艾德里安）的目的也不是帮其申诉，而是让其认罪，将其绳之以法。
知道这一点后，我们再回头来看故事的四段结构：
第一部分（开端陈述）导演借艾德里安（以下简称男主）之口把案情交代了一下。时长刚好在10分钟左右（商业类型片标准开端时长）。
这段案情陈述只是针对“观众”的，对戏中的“古德曼律师”没有任何价值，因为这些东西早已成了呈堂供词，众所周知。于是接下来古德曼对男主发起了第一轮攻势：她质问男主是否知道杀害劳拉（男主情人）的凶手是谁；质疑凶手进入房间和逃出房间的不可能性等等，这段攻势起到了向电影第二部分过渡的作用。过渡到案件更全面的方向。
这里有一点要注意：电影第一部分对观众起到了什么作用？首先自然是案情基本交代。其次，也是非常重要的：它让观众的注意力集中到了“凶手到底是怎么进出犯罪现场（杀害劳拉的房间）而不留下痕迹这一点上”。这是悬疑片惯用的陷阱，因为只要你一想这个问题，潜意识中就会假定出另外一个“凶手”的存在。于是便会走入一个错误的方向。再者，男主叙述后掉下的那一滴眼泪，也对观众误入歧途起到了推波助澜的作用。
另外还有一个情节点：就是古德曼律师拿出了“一个年轻男子失踪”的简报，他让这个案件更复杂化了。我们接在来开第二部分。
第二部分：之所以把这一部分称为“男主（艾德里安）讲述的故事版本”，是想提醒大家这将近50分钟的陈述是完全主观的，是亦真亦假的。因为它大多是从男主人公口中说出来的，男主人公复数案情的出发点一定是为自己脱罪着想的！至于到底男主的故事版本怎么辨伪，这就是“烧脑”的地方了，这些我们待会将会详细解读。
先来看这部分的作用：是不是男主话不可信就没有意义了？当然不是，从电影结构上来说，它至少把案情所涉及的所有相关人物以及事物交代了出来：
我们得知男主案发三个月前就和情人劳拉私会了；他们私会返程后出了车祸，一个年轻人（丹尼尔）因此丧生；之后男主一度被丹尼尔父母纠缠（因其情人以及宝马车牌号的暴露）；之后男主与情人劳拉也一度陷入纠缠中（两人伙同犯罪）…就这样，男主一直讲述到电影开端场景（劳拉宾馆被杀，男主被捕）
纵观这一部分，你会发现我们好像情不自禁地把两个不太相关的案件给联系起来了：“劳拉被杀”与“丹尼尔失踪”。至少，两者的关联性是男主不想看到，为什么，因为男主包庇了这起事故，为什么包庇，用复述者的话他不想妻子和孩子离开他（为什么不想，我们一会儿人物背景再谈）。而且到目前为止，警察也不知道那起车祸以及丹尼尔是死是活。
那么，是谁让我们产生了这种联想（包括男主），没错，是古德曼律师。她为什么要煞费苦心这么做。没错，她要帮男主找到那个“看不见的客人”，也就是杀害劳拉并嫁祸男主的人！找到这个“看不见的客人”干嘛，别急，电影的第三部分就是解答这个疑问的！
在电影向第三部分过渡时，古德曼律师向男主角提出了三个问题：
这三个问题男主根本回答不出。回答不出就等于承认自己是凶手（因为犯罪现场只有他一个人能实施犯罪了）。
好吗！这下连男主都想听听古德曼律师的故事版本了（听古德曼怎样帮他解决上面三个问题）。自此，他开始上律师古德曼的钩了。不光他上钩了，连不少观众也都上钩了。
第三部分：律师（古德曼）讲述的故事版本。其实不怪别人太笨，只是古德曼律师的故事讲的太严谨了，通过古德曼分析我们得知：原来凶手不是别人，就是死者丹尼尔的父母。丹尼尔的母亲就在事发的宾馆工作，他们夫妇俩里应外合，制造的这起嫁祸事件。（当丹尼尔父亲第一次出现在案发现场时，坐在电影院中的我听到许多观众发出了恍然的“啊~”声）
如此，想必好多人会问，这对夫妇至于要这么做吗（不惜杀死一个人）！。难道仅仅是因为怀疑男主和自己儿子的失踪有关？！这可不足以说服评审团和法官。除非…除非这对夫妇知道自己儿子已经死了，并且是男主（艾德里安）把尸体推下的水。他们的作案动机便是报复。
事到如此案件似乎已经很明了了：只要男主能承认是自己把丹尼尔尸体推下水，并找出丹尼尔的尸体，那么，这个案件也就算搞定了，男主便能摆脱杀人罪（最多也就是个包庇罪什么的）。
说到此，似乎整个案件的脉络已经很清楚了。男主脱了罪。对于那个假冒的律师古德曼，即便我们知道他是那个丹尼尔的母亲伪装的，也似乎能解释通了：他们夫妇只是想洗脱儿子携款潜逃的罪名，找到儿子为其下葬。（好像有什么地方说不过去吧，如果古德曼是丹尼尔妻子假扮的，难道他为了找回儿子尸体不惜牺牲丈夫？）
当然，故事可不仅仅这么简单，如果真如上所说那这部电影也称不上独特了！所有的神反转都在第四部分。
第四部分：真相与结局
这部分大概不到20分钟，节奏也逐渐加快。没错，男主被之前古德曼律师的故事彻底打动了（那个完美的脱罪说辞），自此，他也为眼前的这位律师的智慧所折服。他甚至不惜把自己最终的老底都向律师亮了出来：在推丹尼尔和他的车下水之前，丹尼尔还没有死！
要知道，这一重磅消息不但让观众一阵，连戏中的“古德曼律师”也镇住了，所有之前两人研究的申辩方案一下子全被推翻了。剧情迅速反转：先是案件性质的反转（包庇罪成了谋杀罪）；接着是案情故事的反转（男主讲述的故事跟实际完全是反的，他的情人才是那个包庇者），最后又是古德曼律师身份的反转（他是丹尼尔母亲假扮的）。高潮一幕接着一幕，直到最后男主（艾德里安）彻底被俘获，推上案板待宰。n纵观电影的这四部分，你会发现其实这部电影像是两个人在屋子里的一场“博弈”（棋局）。因此我也更青睐于台版的那个电影名字的翻译：《布局》。当然，这个“布局”仅限于电影的前三部分。
怎么说呢：前三部分是托马斯夫妇（受害人丹尼尔的父母）提前布好的局，也可以说基本都在“古德曼律师”的掌握下。而到了第四部分呢，局面彻底失了控，真相完全在“古德曼”的意料之外（指他儿子在被推下水之前还活着）。到了这时候古德曼和男主回到了同一起跑线，他们之间的胜败几乎就成了一场扔筛子的赌博，赌的是什么？没错，赌的是男主对假冒古德曼律师的信任。换句话说，古德曼用了一个小时的时间（电影的前三部分），换来的不是策略上的认同而仅仅是男主的新任。只有信任，才能让男主把一切都交给他。
其实我们把电影的通篇结构捋顺完后，看懂故事情节已经不是问题了。但解读一部优秀犯罪悬疑片的乐趣可完全不止于此。我们要试图去挑战电影构思的逻辑性。而这种逻辑性便藏在电影本身的视觉语言里。接下来我们就从一些电影道具、情节设置以及拍摄手法上做进一步的解读。
二、电影语言
1、“劳拉的手机与那条短信”是故事进行下去的“发动机”
好多人都被劳拉（男主情人）那部手机以及手机上收到的那条短信给搞糊涂了。然而这部手机以及那条短信对整部电影至关重要，那简直就是这部电影的发动机。
通过电影第四段结局部分，我们可以知道那条短信其实就是劳拉自己发的，是定时滞后发送。为什么她要这么做？因为把男主骗到旅馆的不是什么丹尼斯的父亲，也不是那个目击证人，就是劳拉本人。她要设法说服男主去自首，所以才引来的杀身之祸。我想劳拉本人也事先预料到这种可能性了，于是编辑了那条短信以防万一遇到不测之用；
男主在杀害情人劳拉后，也恰恰是用的这条短信做的文章，编造出了那个“有人试图敲诈勒索自己”的故事（可见男主艾德里安这个人不傻，相反非常聪明！）；
再者，古德曼律师也利用了这条手机短信，编造出了托马斯（丹尼尔父亲）嫁祸男主的故事版本。
可以说，没有这部手机和这条短信，这故事几乎就进行不下去了。
2、“男主收到的照片”是劳拉的诱饵
劳拉是怎样说服男主前来会面的？要知道，男主不是傻子，也不是什么痴情汉，他可不会轻易上钩的。没错，就是这张照片。这张署名“丹尼尔”的陌生人寄来的照片。在看电影时，我们从哪可以推断出这张照片及那信封可能是劳拉搞的鬼，很简单，记得劳拉和男主从乡间别墅出来，劳拉坐在副驾驶一边欣赏湖景，一边拍摄的镜头吗。换句话说，劳拉利用了男主心中有鬼，做出了这个诱饵。
3、汽车导航、鹿、与行车路线揭示男主出车祸后不报警的另一大原因
关于男主在发生车祸后不报警的原因，我们通常可以解释成他不想让老婆孩子知道自己在外偶遇情人。这似乎也能解释的通。但有一点，既然男主能有让警局把自己犯罪档案消除的本事，那他到底至不至于费那么大事自己动手把丹尼尔尸体销毁掉，更何况这还是一场意外事故（得归罪与那头从树林里窜出来的“鹿”）。我们反过来假设，如果根本就没有那头鹿出来扰乱呢！至少在电影中没有一个关于“鹿”被撞到的镜头，更没有鹿的尸体。至于劳拉手上的血，那更不可能是鹿的血了（两人在汽车里，溅血也应该溅到车窗上）。
那么，如果这个假设成立，那么这起车祸会不会根本就是一场肇事车祸。带着这个假设我们再往前推，当男主和劳拉驾车开到两岔路口的时候，“汽车导航”显示了向右的肩头，我以此推断左边根本就是“逆向行驶”（对于飞机就要晚点的男主来说，在此违反交通规则完全有可能）。
如果这个导航还不能说明问题，再看后面撞车那段戏。注意，这段戏导演用到了大量的“越轴”拍摄（关于“越轴拍摄”的概念大家可以网上自行查找），这就使观众完全失去了方向感。如果仔细看的话，你会知道撞车使那辆宝马发生了180度的转弯，熄火后与对面来的丹尼尔的车形成了通向，而再之后来的那辆车便也是通向驶来。
目击者行驶的方向与丹尼尔行驶的方向相同
这再一次证明这个车道是单行线，男主是违反了交通法规在先（注意，关于车祸的方向问题警方是完全可以调查取证到的）。至于之后来的托马斯的车为什么是反方向，我个人解读是“男主叙述上的漏洞”（这点是警方无法取证的）。
4、两个人设（目击证人、在宾馆工作的丹尼尔的母亲）的作用
这两个人的确存在不假，目击以及在宾馆工作也都不假，但他们干的那些事：目击证人要出庭作证；丹尼尔的母亲帮助丈夫托马斯入室行凶逃跑则根本是子虚乌有。但两人被古德曼律师利用诱骗男主却显得完全合情合理，为什么，因为男主心中有鬼。
5、男主的手机帮助“古德曼”的演戏没有穿帮
我们不禁会怀疑，漫长的一个小时的谈话中，假古德曼怎么就那么幸运：一旦男主的个人律师菲利克斯打来电话，仔细询问，或是真古德曼律师早会儿上门，那不就彻底穿帮了！我们注意一个细节：男主曾和菲利克斯通过一次电话给，甚至男主还让古德曼接了电话。而就是这一档口，古德曼得以有机会将男主的手机关了机。（我们可以在结尾处得知男主的确关了机，菲利克斯还因此抱怨了一番。）我们可以推断古德曼在来之前与丈夫是做了精准的调查的。
但即便如此我个人还是感觉这里是电影不太严谨的一处：怎么就那么巧，男主打电话时菲利克斯刚下飞机，刚好飞机场那些噪音帮助古德曼有惊无险度过这关？
6、古德曼的“非标准思考”暗喻
古德曼讲了个小故事：一个空柴房，一个人上吊自杀；绳长3米，死者脚离地不到30厘米，离地最近的墙大概6米。
什么意思：一句话就是柴房里现有的条件不足以让死者上吊成功（他根本够不着）。除非，死者脚下垫一个大冰块。
古德曼的这个暗喻极其巧妙！试想：一个人脚下垫着冰块上吊什么滋味？他得等冰块一点点融化，绳子在自己脖子上一点点收紧让自己窒息。
古德曼随后又对男主说：这就是你的柴房。
可怜的男主只想到赶快想办法找到冰块给自己垫脚，却没想到垫脚后等待自己的是死亡。
古德曼律师从一走进男主的房间便一再重复着一个概念：注意细节。没错，这不但是在说给男主听，也是在提醒观众：要想看懂这类片子，一定得注意每一个细节。
三、人物背景
最后我们再来说说这部电影的人物背景。个人觉得这也是阐释影片主题思想的关键点之一。
首先是我们的男主人公“艾德里安”
他说过一句话：我花了十年的时间才得到现在的成就。
我们从这句话能解读出什么。我认为男主在十年前并不富有，他不是那种出身豪门的人。因此，他才那么害怕失去；艾德里安为什么那么害怕失去家人？我个人觉得他并不是真爱家人，这与他的性格不符（负责他也不会出轨）。可以解释的是：很可能是艾德里安是在妻子的帮助下才获得了今天的成就。注意：每次上流社会出席场面都有她的妻子在场。
其次是托马斯夫妇
他们俩一个是前宝马公司高级工程师，一个是文学教授。这理所当然属于知识分子了。然而在经济上，他们俩却很清贫，这一点从托马斯开的车、两人的话语中都多次体现。这是毋庸置疑的。
如此看来，托马斯夫妇与之抗衡的不单单是男主艾德里安一个人，他们面对的是整个上流社会甚至是国家权力。
显然，这是一部揭露腐败与虚伪的影片，称其为黑色电影倒很恰当。
English translation:
I saw this film a few months ago and was very excited to learn that it was going to be released in China. I watched it four or five times and then went to the movie theater to experience it. Now the fever has consumed me, but I still have to write this "brain-burning" article:
To analyze the movie in depth, we will discuss it from three perspectives: structure, props and characters, and character backgrounds. Of course, our analysis isn't merely about interpreting the story; we also try to grasp the director's creative thinking, which is the real fun of watching movies.
Without further ado, let's examine the structure first:
I. The Structure of the Movie
n I divided the entire movie into four parts:
Understanding the final twist is crucial for analyzing the structure: Lawyer Goodman is actually the victim Daniel's mother in disguise. Her purpose in visiting the protagonist (Adrian) isn't to help him file a legal complaint, but to extract his confession and bring him to justice.
With this revelation, let's revisit the four-part structure:
In Part 1 (opening statement), the director gives Adrian (hereafter referred to as the male lead) the opportunity to present his account of the case. This segment lasts just under 10 minutes (the standard opening length for a commercial genre film).
This account of the case is presented solely for the audience's benefitand holds no value for lawyer Goodman within the story, since it is essentially a rehearsed confession. Goodman then launches her first attack on the protagonist: questioning whether he knows who killed Laura (his lover), challenging the impossibility of the murderer's entry and escape, etc. This interrogation serves as the narrative bridge to the second act while redirecting focus toward a holistic case analysis.
A critical observation: what does the film's first act achieve? Primarily, it establishes the case's foundational premise. More crucially, it strategically focuses viewers on "how the killer entered and exited Laura's locked-room crime scene undetected". This exemplifies a classic suspense narrative trap: by fixating audiences on this question, they subconsciously presuppose a third-party murderer's existence. The red herring is further reinforced by the protagonist's tearful breakdown after his testimony, deepening the audience's misguided assumptions.
There's also a plot point: Attorney Goodman comes up with a brief on the “disappearance of a young man,” and he complicates the case even further. Let's move on to part two.
Part 2:
The term "the protagonist's (Adrian's) version of the story" is intentionally used to emphasize that this nearly 50-minute narrative is entirely subjective—both truthful and deceptive. Since it originates primarily from the protagonist's perspective, his retelling of events inevitably serves his own interest: exoneration. But how do we parse this version of the story? This is the "brain" of the analysis, which we will explore in detail later. First, let’s examine the purpose of this segment:
Does it imply the protagonist’s account is unreliable and thus irrelevant? Absolutely not. Structurally, this portion serves a critical role in the film by establishing all key characters and events tied to the case. We learn that the protagonist secretly met his lover Laura three months before the murder; that they caused a fatal car accident while returning from their rendezvous, killing a young man named Daniel; that Daniel’s parents later harassed the protagonist (due to the exposed affair and the BMW’s license plate); and that the protagonist and Laura became entangled in a shared crime... The narrative continues until the film’s opening scene (Laura’s murder in the hotel and the protagonist’s arrest).
Throughout this section, viewers are subtly led to connect two seemingly unrelated cases: Laura’s murder and Daniel’s disappearance. The link between them lies in the protagonist’s desperate efforts to suppress their connection. Why? Because he covered up the accident—motivated, as the narrator claims, by a fear of losing his wife and child (we’ll revisit his background shortly). Crucially, the police remain unaware of the crash and Daniel’s fate. So who bridges these two cases? The answer is Attorney Goodman. Why would she go to such lengths? To help the protagonist uncover the "unseen guest"—the person who killed Laura and framed him. What is the purpose of exposing this "guest"? The film’s third act holds the answer.
As the story transitions to its final act, Attorney Goodman poses three pivotal questions to the protagonist:
The protagonist fails to provide plausible answers to these three questions. Within the film's juridical framework, such an epistemic void operates as a performative act—his inability to address these inquiries functionally constitutes an implicit admission of guilt, given his exclusive capacity to orchestrate the crime under the established spatiotemporal constraints.
This logical impasse compels the protagonist to seek Attorney Goodman's counter-narrative, a discursive strategy purportedly designed to resolve the tripartite contradictions. Herein lies the narrative's manipulative genius: the protagonist becomes passively compliant to Goodman's constructed diegesis. Moreover, this compliance extends metatextually to the audience, who are simultaneously ensnared in the same hermeneutic trap—their desire for epistemic closure mirroring the protagonist's dependency on the attorney's artifice.
Part 3:
Attorney Goodman's reconstructed narrative operates as a masterclass in diegetic subversion. Far from relying on externalized culpability, her account eschews reductive attributions of incompetence, instead demonstrating forensic rigor through methodical deconstruction of evidentiary chains. The structural revelation—that the perpetrators are none other than Daniel's bereaved parents—serves dual analytical purposes: thematically, it inverts the trauma-of-loss paradigm; narratologically, it weaponizes spatial dramaturgy through the mother's institutional position (her employment at the crime scene hotel enabling architectural manipulation).
The couple's collaborative fabrication of the frame-up constitutes what Deleuzian film theory might term a "minoritarian becoming"—their grief metastasizing into precise counter-violence against bourgeois legal apparatuses. Notably, the father's inaugural appearance in the cinema sequence (prior to narrative unmasking) provoked audible gasps of realization rippled through the theater audience—an affective response quantifying the scene's success in planting subliminal intertextual markers.
IV. Hermeneutics of Motive & Ontological ReversalsnThe interrogation of parental motivation necessitates a Lacanian psychoanalytic lens: Does the couple's extreme retaliation merely stem from suspicion of the protagonist's complicity in their son's disappearance? Such rationale proves epistemologically insufficient within juridical epistemology. As Habermas' communicative action theory posits, legitimate legal process requires veridictional consensus exceeding private vengeance logics. Thus, the narrative strategically unveils the parents' certain knowledge of filicide—their witnessing Adrian's act of submerging Daniel's living body. This transforms their motive from speculative grievance into Aristotelian nemesis: cosmic rebalancing of moral order through mimetic violence.
Juridically, the protagonist's confession to body disposal creates a Foucauldian paradox of truth-telling—while potentially absolving him of murder charges (via absence of direct homicide evidence), it simultaneously inscribes him within what Agamben terms homo sacer status: life stripped of legal protection through his own testimony. Herein lies the film's dialectical genius: freedom from prosecution becomes ontological entrapment.
V. Metacinematic Deception & Gender PerformativitynThe revelation of "Goodman" as Daniel's mother in disguise constitutes Judith Butler-esque gender performativity crisis. Her hypercompetent lawyer persona—tailored suit, forensic rhetoric—subverts maternal archetypes through what Mulvey calls "to-be-looked-at-ness" inversion. Crucially, the husband's sacrificial collusion interrogates Levinasian ethics: Can filial love justify spousal instrumentalization? The film answers through Bataillean dépense—waste becomes sacred through ritualistic violence.
VI. Temporal Collapse & Truth EpistemologynThe protagonist's climactic admission—"Daniel wasn't dead before submersion"—shatters narrative temporality. Using Bergson's durée framework, the film compresses chronos (linear time) into kairos (decisive moment): all prior diegesis becomes Benjaminian Jetztzeit (now-time) awaiting this revelatory puncture. This transforms the car submersion from backstory to actus reus core—the moment biological life (zoe) becomes juridical death (bios).
VII. Fourth Act: Parallax TruthsnContra classical courtroom drama resolution, the final reversals perform Žižekian parallax shifts:
Ethical:
Parental vengeance morphs into Derridean pharmakon—both poison and cure
Narratological:
Goodman's disguise constitutes Baudrillardian simulacrum Phase 3: substitution of truth's absence
Cinematic:
Accelerated rhythm mirrors Virilio's dromology—speed as weapon of epistemological destruction
It is evident that the weight of the news initially provided the audience with a moment of respite, and even the drama entitled "Goodman Lawyer" adopted a more composed demeanor. However, the previously formulated defence strategy was abruptly reversed. The plot undergoes a rapid reversal, first in the nature of the case (from a crime of harboring to a murder), then in the sequence of events (the narrative of the main character is the precise opposite of reality, with his lover being the actual harbourer), and finally in the identity of Goodman's lawyer (he is Daniel's mother's impostor). This sequence of reversals culminates in a series of climaxes, leading to the ultimate capture and sacrifice of the protagonist, Adrian. Throughout the four sections of the film, it is evident that the narrative is akin to a strategic game of chess being played between two individuals in a room. This observation leads to the preference for the Taiwanese translation of the film's title: "Layout". However, it should be noted that this "layout" is confined to the initial three parts of the film.
The initial three sections were established by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas (the parents of the victim, Daniel), and were essentially overseen by the "Goodman lawyers". In the fourth part, however, the situation has become unmanageable, and the truth has deviated from "Goodman's" expectations (namely, that his son was still alive before being pushed into the water). At this juncture, Goodman and the protagonist find themselves in a position of equal standing, and the outcome of their endeavour – be it victory or defeat – is an uncertain toss of a coin. Indeed, the outcome hinges on the hero's faith in the fraudulent Goodman attorney. In essence, the first three parts of the film depict Goodman devoting an hour of his time, not for tactical approval, but rather for the hero's new appointment. It is only through the virtue of trust that the hero is willing to relinquish his position. Once the narrative's through structure has been smoothed out, the storyline becomes discernible. Nevertheless, the enjoyment derived from the discernment of a compelling crime thriller can extend far beyond this. In order to fully appreciate the intricacies of a crime thriller, one must endeavour to challenge the logic of its conception. This logic is embedded within the visual language of the film itself. A more thorough examination of the props, the plot, and the cinematography of the film is therefore recommended.
II. Cinematic language
1. "Laura's cell phone and the text message" serve as the "engine" that drives the story forward. Many people confuse Laura (the man‘s lover) with the cell phone and the text message it receives. However, the phone and the text message are crucial to the entire movie—they are the engine of the narrative.
As the narrative progresses towards its dénouement, it becomes evident that the text message was in fact transmitted by Laura herself, utilising a temporal lag to ensure its delivery. The motivation behind this action remains unclear. The motivation behind this act was not the result of manipulation by external forces, such as Dennis's father or the witness, but rather, it was Laura herself who instigated the events that led to the hero's visit to the hotel. It is evident that Laura's actions were driven by a deliberate attempt to persuade the hero to surrender himself, which ultimately resulted in the tragic demise of the protagonist. It is further hypothesised that Laura herself may have foreseen this possibility, which may have prompted her to edit the text message in anticipation of potential complications. The narrative suggests that the hero, Adrian, is not unintelligent, but rather remarkably astute. On the contrary, he is very smart! Furthermore, Goodman's lawyer employed the cell phone text message to construct an alternative version of events, portraying Thomas (Daniel's father) as the one who framed the hero. It can be argued that, in the absence of the cell phone and the text message, the narrative would have been significantly altered.
In cinematic narrative analysis, the pivotal plot device of "the protagonist receiving the photographic evidence" constitutes Laura's strategic psychological entrapment. The critical inquiry lies in deconstructing Laura's methodology for persuading the narrative subject to attend the predetermined rendezvous. It warrants examination that the protagonist demonstrates neither naivety nor romantic susceptibility, thereby presenting significant resistance to conventional manipulation tactics.
The evidentiary crux resides in the anonymously delivered photograph bearing the "Daniel" signature – a calculated semiotic construct. Through forensic analysis of mise-en-scène elements, we can extrapolate Laura's authorial agency in fabricating both photographic artifact and accompanying epistolary materials. This deduction finds evidentiary support in the lakeside sequence following their egress from the rural estate: diegetic camera work reveals Laura surreptitiously capturing the pivotal landscape shot from the vehicular passenger position while ostensibly engaged in touristic observation.
This narrative stratagem operates through exploitation of the protagonist's psychological vulnerabilities – specifically, the manifestation of traumatic residue metaphorically termed "the specter within his psyche." Laura's deployment of this evidentiary bait demonstrates sophisticated understanding of cognitive manipulation techniques within thriller genre conventions, effectively weaponizing the protagonist's latent psychological susceptibilities through carefully curated visual evidence.
3.The vehicular navigation system, purported wildlife encounter, and route selection mechanics constitute a multifaceted analytical challenge regarding the protagonist's post-collision decision-making. While surface-level interpretation might attribute his police avoidance to marital infidelity concealment, this explanation proves narratologically insufficient given established character competencies.
Forensic reconstruction of events reveals critical evidentiary lacunae: the complete absence of diegetic verification for cervine collision (no impact footage or ungulate remains). Hematological evidence distribution patterns contradict vehicular trauma expectations – bloodstains localized on Laura's hands suggest proximal fluid transfer rather than high-velocity impact dispersion. This evidentiary discontinuity permits alternative hypothesis formulation: the "accident" may constitute deliberate vehicular homicide disguised as zoogenic mishap.
Navigation system semiotics during the route divergence sequence prove particularly revelatory. The interface's graphical representation of improper lane positioning (right shoulder indication) combined with temporal urgency pressures (impending flight departure) creates narrative space for traffic regulation violations. Through cognitive mapping analysis, we can interpret the unchosen left path as symbolizing transgressive action potential within the film's moral topology.
Crucially, the protagonist's forensic capability (established through prior criminal record expungement) renders manual corpse disposal narratively incongruous unless necessitated by deeper complicity. This narrative paradox suggests either:
The collision constitutes premeditated murder requiring active cover-up
Existential threats beyond legal consequences compel his actions
The deer's symbolic function as narrative MacGuffin becomes apparent through its visual absence – a deliberate directorial choice employing absence-as-presence to subvert audience expectations. This technique effectively weaponizes viewer assumption bias while constructing plausible deniability within the diegetic framework.
Ultimately, the navigation system's route display operates as meta-commentary on moral divergence points, with the protagonist's choice trajectory mirroring his psychological descent. This technological witness becomes the film's silent Greek chorus, its digital cartography charting both geographical and ethical deviation.
If the navigation scene doesn't fully clarify the spatial relationships, pay close attention to the subsequent crash sequence. The director intentionally employs frequent "axis crossing" shots (a filming technique that disrupts traditional 180-degree rule continuity) to deliberately disorient viewers. Upon careful observation, you'll notice the collision causes the BMW to spin 180 degrees. When the damaged car finally comes to rest, it now faces the same direction as Daniel's approaching vehicle. This directional alignment persists with all subsequent cars appearing in the frame - they're all moving in the same coordinated flow of traffic rather than opposing directions.
Witnesses driving in the same direction as Daniel's direction of travel, which once again proves that this lane is a one-way street, the main man is a violation of traffic laws in the first place (note that the direction of the car accident, the police can be fully investigated and obtained to the police). As for why Thomas's car came in the opposite direction, I personally interpreted it as a “loophole in the main character's narrative” (which the police could not prove).
4. The role of the two personas (eyewitnesses, Daniel's mother, who worked at the hotel) These two people do exist, and it is true that they witnessed the incident and worked at the hotel, but they do But what they did: the eyewitness had to testify in court; Daniel's mother helped her husband, Thomas, escape from a home invasion is simply not true. But the two were used by Goodman's lawyer to entrap the main man but it seems completely reasonable, why, because the main man has a ghost in mind.
5, the main man's cell phone to help “Goodman” acting did not wear help we can not help but wonder, a long hour of conversation, how the fake Goodman so lucky: once the main man's personal attorney Felix called, questioning, or the real Goodman, the real Goodman, the main man's personal attorney Felix called, the phone, the real Goodman. Once Felix, the hero's personal attorney, called and questioned him, or if the real Goodman's attorney had come to the door earlier, it would have been a total blowout! Let's note one detail: the hero had a phone call with Felix to, and even the hero let Goodman answer the phone. And it is this slot that Goodman was able to have the opportunity to turn off the male lead's cell phone. (We can learn at the end that the male lead did turn it off, and Felix complained about it.) We can infer that Goodman did precise research with her husband before arriving.
But even so I personally feel that here is one of the less rigorous aspects of the movie: how is it so coincidental that Felix was just getting off the plane when the hero called, just as all that noise from the airfield helped Goodman get through it without a hitch?
6.Goodman's metaphor of “non-standard thinking” Goodman tells a short story about an empty woodshed where a man hanged himself; the rope was 3 meters long, the dead man's feet were less than 30 centimeters off the ground, and the nearest wall was about 6 meters away from the ground. What does it mean: In a word, the existing conditions in the woodshed were not enough for the dead man to hang himself successfully (he couldn't reach it at all). Unless, of course, a large ice cube was placed under the dead man's feet. Goodman's metaphor is extremely clever! Imagine what it would be like for a man to hang himself with an ice cube under his feet. He would have to wait for the ice to melt a little, and for the rope to tighten a little around his neck, suffocating him. Goodman then says to the hero: This is your woodshed. The poor man only thought of finding the ice for his feet, but he did not realize that death was waiting for him after the feet. Attorney Goodman repeats the concept of attention to detail from the moment he walks into the man's room. Yes, this is not only for the hero, but also to remind the audience: in order to understand this kind of movie, you must pay attention to every detail.
III. Character background
Finally we come to the background of the characters in this movie. Personally, I think this is one of the key points to explain the theme of the movie.
First of all, there is our hero, Adrian, who says, “It took me ten years to get to where I am now”. What can we read into this statement. I think that the hero wasn't rich ten years ago, he wasn't from a wealthy family. That's why he was so afraid of losing; why was Adrian so afraid of losing his family? Personally, I don't think he really loves his family, it doesn't fit his character (and he wouldn't cheat on his wife if he was responsible for it). What can be explained: it is likely that Adrian got where he is today with the help of his wife. Note: her wife is present at every upper class attendance scene.
Next is Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, one of whom is a former senior engineer at BMW and the other a professor of literature. This rightfully belongs to the intelligentsia. However, financially, the two of them are very poor, which is reflected many times in the car that Thomas drives and the words of the two of them. There is no doubt about it. So it seems that Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are fighting against not only the main character Adrian alone, but they are facing the whole upper class and even the state power. Obviously, this is a movie that exposes corruption and hypocrisy, and it is appropriate to call it a film noir.
《看不见的客人》是一部值得看的悬疑片，我相信看完了以后大多数人都会给周围的人推荐。但是推荐影片是一门有技术含量的学问——
……
就我个人而言，我日常给朋友推荐电影都是用第一种模式，因为不论什么类型的好电影，都各有各的好看，通常看完全片给我的观影感受似醍醐灌顶，于是我往往趁这种感觉还没褪去，赶紧微信一下我的好友，“快去看xxxx，真的太他妈好看了！”
第二种的推荐模式适合影评人，因为他们直呼“好看死了！”会较难体现他们的职业专业性。
但我不喜欢第三种推荐模式，为什么呢，这种模式存在的“因”和“果”我都很不喜欢。展开讲讲？就是通常被这样推荐的朋友真的去看这部电影了，他就会下意识地去猜剧情。nn若是死活猜不到，心里有种不服气，这种不爽的情绪还会被牵连到这部电影带来的体验上，从而潜意识力给电影减分；要是猜到了，就有一种，什么嘛看到一半就猜到了，这电影不过如此。nn以及，通常要开始“猜剧情”的话，还会很“聪明”地排除掉最符合常理的结局线，因为知道会反转，所以怎么离奇就怎么猜——唉，导演编剧在细节上努力铺呈的用来支撑逻辑合理性的内容全被无视，因为这个想要猜结局的观众心里想到就是：结局肯定不是我想到这样，所以我要反着想——n（睁着大大的眼睛然后看不见电影的语言。 ）nn这导致的结果就是，耐心地看完了一场电影，但却没有机会体会平均水平上的看此片的感受了。
当人们反复被“你肯定猜不到结局”这种推荐语给送到一部部剧情片悬疑片面前，n人们的定向思维就逐渐变成——我猜不到结局的悬疑片才是好片。n因果循环，下一次给别人推荐的时候，也会以此衡量标杆来引出他们的推荐语：n“xxx，快去看这部电影，你肯定猜不到结局！去看！”
……
老实说，如果导演真的想给你一个看完仿佛被打了一耳光那样的剧情反转，n他可以全程所有的结果导线都指向A，然后结果给你一个B，n就是这么任性而不讲究逻辑，就是让你猜不到！n可，那样就会被爽到吗？！ n我想，剧情好比是一部电影的支架血肉，倘若漏洞百出，即便给你一个意想不到的结局，n也不会有情绪上通透的爽感吧。
再说，真的那么喜欢猜结局，你为什么不去破案呢？？？
发挥你的智慧和敏锐的洞察，去挖掘案件背后的秘密呀！！！n感激发达的B站，普及了电影推广，n也让观影的门槛变得如此之低。
（此处【观影门槛】已被网友指出不太妥当之意，我不想改动，但在此声明，本人写这篇【不算影评的评论】真的没有任何优越感，反正你能看懂我想表达的意思就好，谢谢）
以下涉及剧透：n（仅代表我个人观点，不做电影的整体评价，且仅谈谈我在短评里想塞又塞不下的部分）
当看完整部电影之后，能充分理解剧情反转的合理性，因为有细节的交代；
但也正是因为细节的交代，让我觉得后劲有些些不足。具体讲的话就是：
很多人觉得本片最大的反转是古德曼女士被受害者母亲假扮了，逆天大反转。并且之前情人在受害者一家看到的那些照片、俩人爱好戏剧表演以及复仇的动机具备等等都让这个假扮显得合情合理。这是细节的优点。
另一个优秀的反转是男主才是杀害情人的凶手。真的心狠手辣的人才会推车入河处理尸体，使用手段嫁祸受害人，买通目击证人，再到杀害情人。（当时受害人没有完全死透也是一个反转，加深情感深度的同时也更加体现了男主的冷漠，真的只爱自己）所以男主先前对情人的描述和控诉都是假的，而我个人认为，这种人物刻画上的细节烘托出的反转，比古德曼女士的反转更有冲击力。
这种感觉就好比，我已经在男主杀情人的自白那一段得到了高潮，且久久无法退散，结果从“古德曼女士”离开房间，男主发现异常之后，揭晓最最大的反转是“古德曼女士”本身，这一段的高潮，我没能充分体验了。因为我觉得最爽的部分，是前面那一段罗生门一样的梳理案情和全部推翻重塑的流畅感。
就是这样一种青黄不接的感受。不过当我还在纳闷是如何处理真的古德曼女士这个情节（此人真的存在与否？如果不存在怎样打造她的声名？是否被拘禁被杀？）之际，真的古德曼女士来了，原来真的有古德曼女士，但是来晚了，晚得太好了，并且这个巧妙的人为“巧合”有让假扮古德曼这个情节变得不是那么用力过猛了。【对，受害人是帮助情人修车的家庭的小孩，略巧了，但增加冲突感，丰富了剧情推动的线路，无可厚非；但若让真的古德曼女士也成为他们家的亲戚，那体现的就真的是编剧想不出别的路子，强行转折】
看完真是一种享受。
题外话讲两句：现在啊好多人写短评意在用精炼的语句抖机灵，比如（摘取部分）
无意去纠正别人，我也不一定对，再讲观影本就是一件很私人的事。
但我想我们看电影难道不应该是追求细节的用心，而不是拘泥于整天拿着放大镜找刺然后架起大喇叭努力先他人一步讲出来的龟毛衰样吗？
能把一部85分的电影好好感受出85分的享受，这样舒服顺畅着难道不好吗？
我要是可以写出这样的本子，至少吹嘘5年。
反正我看完这部电影感觉很爽。
总之——
“快去看啊啊啊！真的很好看呐！！！！”
二次修改补充部分：
关于那个门槛，我真的不想辩解什么，觉得被冒犯到的人可以直接讲我（我认为那是我文笔不好，无法表达心中所想，但我坚持维护我的看法，我认为门槛就是存在的）不过若是觉得以下我回复其中一个评论的内容，能“顺便”回答你的想法，那就尽量不要浪费口舌怼我啦，谢谢！
大概我说的门槛就是【人们都在抗议电影院观众太没素质要求大家闭嘴小孩滚出去，但在B站弹幕里：1.这个女的演过xxxx里的xxx 2.前面脸盲 3.凶手是xx 4.不要看剧透！结尾大反转 5.2017年x月x日 现在x人一起看！ 6. xxx我爱你】我不是监管会的，但我希望关闭弹幕这种【自我选择】就是无形的【观影门槛】的体现，自动隔绝这一批与我意见不相同的人。
另外讨厌用弹幕的语气来讨论电影的问题，你和楼上上那位**讲话的腔调，就是我想【讨论电影】时的门槛了，感叹号和嘶吼谁不会，没有要较真，看完我写的内容也至少理解我的点不在于“门槛”，但非要揪着这个词然后跳脚大书特书——那我呢，就觉得我们在某些看法上有代沟，这沟反过来看，就是门槛。谢谢你认真看完我写的东西。
你可以说关不关弹幕是人家自己的选择，我没什么好多嘴。是呀，那请你给我一个我可以选择关弹幕的权利，请不要告诉我“结尾有大反转”，因为未知和已知就是一个不可逆的结果。
当然，我讲的也不是【剧透】这个问题。
我认为就是存在【观影门槛】的，但不是说没有看过电影的人不配看电影，我认为像电影、音乐、美食这些享受甚至都不需要语言共通，人类都能够有情感理解，专业的影评人有自己的见解，但什么专业培训都没有接受过的人说不定有更真更深的情感共鸣，一千人眼中一千个哈姆雷特；非要有门槛的话，我觉得，“哟！！！！看电影啊，老子也看，欸，这人好看，欸这个是好人坏人啊？卧槽真好看这女的，我截个图，咔嚓，欸，讲到哪里了，死了？欸，肯定没这么简单，操，这老太婆是假的！嗨哟，不过如此嘛！”的人，真的拜托了leave me alone……（以及别再说我不喜欢我可以不看啊干嘛逼逼，是啊弹幕可以关，但人家在电影院这么说，人家在我耳边这么说，这是我躲不掉的，谢谢，不是辩论比赛，不要再奇袭我了。
还有人说我“哪来的优越感，阅片量多了不起啊”……拜托！这有什么了不起的，看电影而已啊，你花时间你有眼睛你也可以看，得亏我近几年看了电影都豆瓣标记一下，不然若寥寥“已看”，怕对方又要怼我——“你自己才看过几部，哪来的优越感！”
我只是刚看完电影情绪激动却看见短评里一堆……有感而发写写东西，没想到也有点热度引起讨论上升到热烈的部分。不是KOL，众口难调，小小人物也在意别人支持or怼我的话语，所以进行二次修改补充内容，遗憾在于完全覆盖了我第一次写的时候那种流畅的观后感分享的心情。同时，若是看到这里也影响了屏幕前的你单纯想看一篇影评的心情，我也感到很抱歉，真心的。
最后，再一次感谢认真看到结尾的所有人。
------------剧情简介（正序版）---------------
多利亚是一名成功人士，有一次他对外宣称在巴黎谈生意，实际上是在和情妇劳拉约会。期间他接到了老婆索尼娅的电话，他只好说道：“我真的没事儿，我正在吃辣条呢。”
随后，多利亚和劳拉驾车离开，接着就遇到了一条岔路。
多利亚：Turn left？
高德地图：Right。
于是多利亚转左，然后就撞死了人。事后他在微博上骂了林志玲。
途中多利亚和劳拉还说只是想要一次试验性出轨，至于“试验性出轨”的含义，估计和“轮流发生性关系”“休假式治疗”“盈利式亏损”等等词汇是差不多的。
对于撞死了人的事情，劳拉提出报警，遭到了多利亚的制止。多利亚发现死者丹尼尔没系安全带，并且开车的时候还在发短信，再加上刚才有一只狍子横穿马路，于是多利亚决定肇事逃逸，让警方误以为丹尼尔是自己开车出了意外。
他们准备离开的时候，汽车抛锚了。就在这时，一位目击者汽车司机靠近他们，多利亚和劳拉只好演戏掩盖这一幕。
途中劳拉拿了丹尼尔的电话，并且忘了还回去。
多利亚开着丹尼尔的汽车，载着丹尼尔来到湖边，也是在这个时候他发现丹尼尔还没死，但他仍然把丹尼尔连人带车推进了湖里。在此之前他还拿走了丹尼尔的钱包。
劳拉无法发动汽车，随后遇到了好心人帮助，刚好他就是丹尼尔的父亲托马斯。
（话说蝙蝠侠的爸爸也叫托马斯，当爸的托马斯死了那么多次，这次终于轮到儿子死了。）
托马斯把汽车拖到家里，在这里劳拉遇到了托马斯的老婆埃尔韦拉。
埃尔韦拉接到丹尼尔朋友的电话，她得知丹尼尔并没有去找他的朋友。埃尔韦拉给丹尼尔打电话，劳拉才意识到丹尼尔的手机在自己身上，于是把手机放在了客厅的沙发上。
劳拉以有事为由离开了，而托马斯注意到两个细节：1.劳拉调整了座椅，说明之前不是劳拉在开车。2.丹尼尔离开家之后用手机打过电话，也就是说丹尼尔的手机并不是一直在家里。
劳拉和多利亚决定永不联系。多利亚还销毁了汽车，并且伪造了汽车被偷的假象。在家里，多利亚在电视上看到了丹尼尔失踪的报道。
有一天，警方找到多利亚，大概是说，托马斯在丹尼尔失踪当天遇到了劳拉，根据托马斯所回忆的劳拉开的汽车的车牌号，那辆汽车正好登记在多利亚的名下，于是警察问多利亚是否认识劳拉。
多利亚的律师菲利克斯机智的作出了回应，从而排除了多利亚的嫌疑：1.事发当天，多利亚在巴黎，有酒店、机票可以作出证明。2.多利亚的汽车在停车场被偷了。3.托马斯记下的车牌号不见得准确。4.警察对这起事故的细节并不清楚。5.没有任何目击者可以证明警察说的话。
而多利亚接受警察审问之后，托马斯把他注意到的那两个细节（劳拉调整了座椅、丹尼尔离开家之后用手机打过电话）告诉了警察，但是警方并不相信。
多利亚从丹尼尔的钱包中找到他的银行卡，他动用关系让人误以为丹尼尔从他工作的银行偷了五万欧元，然后带着偷来的钱消失了，也就是说让人以为这场事故是丹尼尔自导自演的。
看到这则报道之后，丹尼尔的父母并不相信，埃尔韦拉还中风病倒了。
于是托马斯对多利亚进行了跟踪，他发现多利亚私下和劳拉见过面。托马斯带着证据再次找到警察，但是警察又一次不相信他。
后来，劳拉一直处于绝望之中，从而身患间歇性恐惧症和深度抑郁症。最后，劳拉决定把真相告诉丹尼尔的父母。她来到毕尔格，在车站给多利亚打电话，声称路过的司机知道他杀人、抛尸的经过，于是敲诈了她。劳拉叫多利亚带上钱到贝拉维斯塔酒店（埃尔韦拉工作的酒店）来找她。
（这个时候多利亚虽然觉得事情蹊跷，但他并不知道那是埃尔韦拉工作的酒店）
劳拉来到贝拉维斯塔酒店，以防万一，她还设定了一条定时发送的短信。短信内容是：我开好房了，我在QQ游戏斗地主715号房等你。
不好意思记错了，这个才是短信内容：想知道所有真相，到贝拉维斯塔酒店715号房。
多利亚来到酒店，贝拉把自首及后续计划告诉了他。与此同时，多利亚收到了劳拉定时发送的短信，他明白这是她设的圈套，并没有什么目击者。劳拉说她要把真相告诉丹尼尔父母，然后补偿他们，并且和多利亚一起自首。
多利亚杀了劳拉，屋外有人听见声响就要进门的时候，他想要逃跑才发现窗户从屋内打不开，于是决定用劳拉定时发送的短信作文章。短时间内他就想好了应对措施，于是用头撞了玻璃，接着就遭到了警方的逮捕。
丹尼尔的父母来到酒店，得知劳拉死了，于是明白了事情的经过。他们知道把多利亚绳之于法的几率很小，他们也不相信司法，于是决定监视多利亚，等待机会。
埃尔韦拉伪装成多利亚的律师弗吉尼亚·古德曼，会见了多利亚，也就是电影开头的场景。
这里有一段对话非常重要：
多利亚：我以为你会晚一点到。
律师（埃尔韦拉）：是的，但是今天不幸出了点状况。你今天就得出庭应诉，原告说找到一个目击证人，现在离开庭只有三个小时。
一方面说明真正的律师还没到，另一方面埃尔韦拉假扮的律师已经开始用“多利亚今天就得出庭”和“原告找到一个目击证人”的谎言来骗供。
起初，多利亚并不信任律师（埃尔韦拉），给她讲了第一个版本的经过：
有人想利用多利亚出轨的事情敲诈他10万欧元，他和劳拉在酒店等了两个小时。随后他收到了勒索犯用劳拉手机发来的短信，他知道勒索犯已经拿到了劳拉的手机。就在他准备和劳拉离开的时候，他被藏在房间里的勒索犯打晕。他醒来的时候，劳拉已经死了，随后多利亚被警方逮捕。
（第一个版本的经过在电影的第5~10分钟）
在律师（埃尔韦拉）的追问下，多利亚讲述了第二个版本的经过，大部分和事实吻合，但有以下几处谎言：
1.多利亚说是他提出报警，遭到了劳拉的制止。实际是劳拉提出报警，遭到了多利亚的制止。
2.多利亚没有说他把丹尼尔连人带车推进湖里的时候，他知道那时丹尼尔还活着。
3.多利亚说是劳拉伪造了丹尼尔偷了银行5万欧元的假象。实际上这是多利亚动用关系伪造的。
4.多利亚说他们撞死丹尼尔之后，目击者并不相信劳拉的演戏，并且暗中观察。
后来，他收到了目击者寄来的一张湖泊的照片，目击者想骗他去酒店。
（第二个版本的经过在电影的第13~64分钟）
在多利亚描述第二个版本的经过的途中，律师（埃尔韦拉）说原告请的目击证人到庭了。（第42分钟）
她骗多利亚的目的是为了让他供出更详细的信息。
对于第二个版本的经过，律师（埃尔韦拉）觉得疑点重重，她提出了以下修改的方案，也就是第三个版本的经过：
1.在第一个版本和第二个版本的基础下，把“勒索犯”改为“托马斯”。也就是说是托马斯骗多利亚、劳拉来到酒店，后来又叫劳拉把电话扔进垃圾桶。多利亚收到劳拉手机发来的短信后，得知中计，随后被托马斯打晕。托马斯杀了劳拉，然后逃脱。
2.托马斯逃脱的方法是，在酒店工作的埃尔韦拉给了他打开窗户的手柄。
（第三个版本的经过在电影的第65~78分钟）
值得一提的是，律师（埃尔韦拉）给多利亚看照片的时候，故意遮挡了镜子。
随后，律师（埃尔韦拉）说她不知道原告请的目击证人叫什么名字，但已经知道他是谁，他就是那个路过的司机。（第78分钟）
这时，律师（埃尔韦拉）提出了第四个版本的经过：
劳拉以多利亚的名字租下了度假小屋，案发当天开车撞死了丹尼尔，然后伪造了丹尼尔卷款而逃的假象，也就是说这场刑事案件和多利亚无关。直到劳拉向多利亚提出求助，他们在酒店见面的时候，多利亚才知道这场刑事案件，随后他情绪失控杀了劳拉。
（第四个版本的经过在电影的第78~80分钟）
对于第四个版本的经过，律师（埃尔韦拉）说要在劳拉和丹尼尔之间建立直接联系，她的解决方案是要确保沉水的汽车中有劳拉的物件。于是，她让多利亚标出沉车地点，但这一举动遭到了多利亚的质疑，因为目击证人可以证明第四个版本的经过是错的，因为案发当天目击证人看见了多利亚和劳拉两个人。
然后律师（埃尔韦拉）说其实没有目击证人，这只是她编造的一个谎言，目的是让多利亚提供必要的信息。（第80分钟）
律师（埃尔韦拉）：你何不立即告诉我所有真相？
多利亚：我想听听你是怎么解释托马斯悄无声息从房间溜走的。
多利亚也假装很聪明的说他早就知道房间里把他打晕的是托马斯，因为他得知贝拉维斯塔酒店是埃尔韦拉工作的酒店，就很容易就把这件事和托马斯联系起来。
事实证明多利亚假装很聪明，却再一次秀了智商的下限。
“假装很聪明”指的是并没有勒索犯，也没有人在酒店把多利亚打晕，这一切都是多利亚自导自演的。此前多利亚隐瞒真相、提出第二个版本的经过，目的是想听听律师（埃尔韦拉）解释托马斯是如何凭空消失的。随后他觉得都律师（埃尔韦拉）的说法完全说得通，于是再次决定隐瞒真相，不把“他自导自演了这出戏、实际上并没有人在酒店中把他打晕”的事实告诉律师（埃尔韦拉）。
“秀下限”指的是酒店照片是PS合成的。
多利亚标出了沉车的地点，也就是在这个时候，电影再次出现一个重要的细节：
律师（埃尔韦拉）和多利亚所在的房间对面有个人。（第82分钟）
镜头虽然没有明确告诉观众这个人是谁，但很容易能想到那是托马斯。一方面是因为这时观众已经知道托马斯有跟踪、监视多利亚的习惯；另一方面是电影翻来覆去就只有那么几个人，房间对面除了是托马斯之外不可能是其它人了。
而托马斯出现在房间对面的目的有两种可能性：一种是托马斯在监视他们；另一种是律师是和托马斯是一伙的。
所以能猜到律师是托马斯的老婆并不奇怪了，毕竟导演已经暗示得相当明显了。没猜到不用感到心塞，猜到了也没有什么优越感可秀。
随后多利亚才说道，在他把丹尼尔连人带车推进湖里的时候，他知道丹尼尔还活着。
律师（埃尔韦拉）非常生气，然后说出了第五个版本的经过，这也几乎和事情真相相吻合：
1.案发当天是劳拉提出的报警。
2. 多利亚和劳拉协商永不见面之后，是多利亚食言并提出的见面。
3.多利亚拿了丹尼尔的钱包，并且动用关系制造了丹尼尔卷款而逃的假象。
4.事后，劳拉有深深的负罪感，身患深度抑郁症，决定补偿丹尼尔父母，并且和多利亚一起自首，最后和多利亚在酒店见面的时候被多利亚杀死。
（第五个版本的经过在电影的第84~93分钟）
电影最后的几分钟再次多重反转，并且在这一过程中解答了大量疑问。
1. 律师（埃尔韦拉）把房间对面有人的事情告诉了多利亚，她说这是托马斯，并解释称这是因为托马斯在跟踪、监视他们。
2.. 律师（埃尔韦拉）说照片是合成的。
3. 律师（埃尔韦拉）说她会帮助多利亚让法官知道多利亚不是凶手，于是迫使多利亚承认了是他杀了劳拉。
律师（埃尔韦拉）已经得到她需要的所有信息，于是离开了房间，此时电影剧情再次逆转：
1.多利亚的另一个律师菲利克斯给多利亚打电话说他找到了案发当天的目击证人，并且收买了他。
2.打电话的途中有信号干扰，多利亚发现胸前的钢笔漏水，原来这是用钢笔伪装的窃听器。
3.桌子上写着“懦夫”“凶手”“正义”“骗子”“自大”五个词语，多利亚结合之前律师（埃尔韦拉）说的话，知道自己上当了。
4. 随后在一段相当震（惊）撼（悚）的BGM中，律师（埃尔韦拉）卸妆变回埃尔韦拉的相貌。
5.这时真正的律师才刚刚来到多利亚房间。
--------------------几个可能的疑问与解答----------------------
问：多利亚收到的短信是谁发的？有什么目的？
答：是劳拉发的，以防男主不来酒店。后来这条短信成为男主大做文章、直呼遭人陷害的工具。
问：为什么刚开始多利亚不说实话，要给律师（埃尔韦拉）讲第一个版本的经过？
答：多利亚想隐瞒他和劳拉开车撞死人的事情。目的是把两桩命案变成一桩，并且在第二桩命案中他还编造了一个并不存在的“勒索犯”，试图排除嫌疑。
问：为什么多利亚后来又相信了律师（埃尔韦拉）？
答：多利亚一直都没有相信她，他一直在撒谎、隐瞒真相，如果不是最后律师（埃尔韦拉）说出的第五个版本的经过和事实大幅吻合，可能他会一直撒谎下去。
问：多利亚讲第二个版本的经过的目的是什么？
答：多利亚讲出第一个版本的经过之后，律师（埃尔韦拉）作出的回应是：根据警察的报告，目击者听到了尖叫，但没有人离开过房间。门是从里面锁上的，门链是系着的。罪犯不能从窗户逃走，因为从房间里面无法打开窗户。冬天时，酒店会把开窗户的手柄移除。
多利亚知道他无法解释凶手如何消失的，所以把他和劳拉撞死人的事情告诉了律师（埃尔韦拉），并且说是目击者司机骗他到酒店并杀了劳拉，多利亚这样说的目的是希望律师（埃尔韦拉）能解释凶手是如何消失的。
但是如果是目击者司机骗多利亚到酒店并杀了劳拉，律师（埃尔韦拉）并不能解释他是如何消失的。所以她把“目击者司机”换成了“托马斯”，由于埃尔韦拉在酒店工作，托马斯在她的帮助下离开房间就完全说得通了。
问：律师（埃尔韦拉）提出第四个版本的经过的目的是什么？
答：为了让多利亚标出沉车地点。
问：为什么律师（埃尔韦拉）要说原告请的目击证人到庭了？
答：她一开始就知道多利亚撞死了自己的儿子，但她不知道有目击证人，也不知道目击证人是谁，她一直在从多利亚口中套话。这有好几个过程：
她和多利亚刚刚见面的时候，她并不知道有目击证人，所以只是骗多利亚说“原告找到一个目击证人”。
第42分钟，多利亚讲第二个版本的经过已经讲了一半，这时她已经确定由目击者了，所以她才说“目击证人已经到庭”。
第78分钟，她说她知道目击证人就是那个路过的司机。
第80分钟，为了让多利亚认可第四个版本的经过的可行性，并且标出沉车的位置，她又说根本没有目击证人。
问：之前多利亚隐瞒了他知道把汽车推进湖里的时候丹尼尔还没死，为什么后来又交代了事实？
答：在律师（埃尔韦拉）提出第四个版本的经过后，多利亚已经把沉车地点告诉了她。假如警方找到汽车和丹尼尔的尸体，就有可能查出丹尼尔真正死亡的原因是溺死。
-----------------影评---------------------
总的来说本片剧情并不复杂，看一遍就能大致看懂，可以说是把抽丝剥茧、层层递进运用到了极致。
由于本文已经很长了，影评就不多说了。简单发表一下我对不少朋友因猜到结局而给低分的看法。
我觉得看悬疑片猜结局是很正常的行为，也是看悬疑片的一大乐趣。猜对结局也很正常，毕竟电影翻来覆去就只有那么几个角色。但是猜对之后就打低分，并且秀优越感就有点幼稚了。毕竟悬疑片的结局的确很重要，但过程更重要。
猜测男主撞死人会不会被发现、是谁杀死了情妇，以及男主和死者母亲假扮的律师之间的博弈难道不比结局有趣得多吗？
悬疑片分为很多种，不少悬疑片的结局非常关键，比如《灵异第六感》《爱的成人式》《东方快车谋杀案》等等，给人一种“被剧透了就没意思了”的感觉。还有一种悬疑片的结局很关键，但是即使你知道结局也并不会影响观影体验，比如《罪恶之家》《恐怖游轮》《嫌疑人X的献身》等等，《看不见的客人》也属于这一范畴。
日版《嫌疑人X的献身》刚开始十多分钟就知道凶手是谁了，《罪恶之家》的片名就把整部电影都剧透了，但是我们并不会因此认为这是平庸之作然后打一个低分，因为我们知道“凶手是谁”对于这两部电影来说并不重要。
不少人说《嫌疑人X的献身》原著小说是东野圭吾的巅峰之作，或者说是“巅峰作品之一”。原因之一是原著小说刚开头就详细地描述了杀人过程，以至于读者非常好奇：“我连凶手是谁、作案动机、作案手法全都知道了，小说后面还怎么写？”也正因为如此，它才能在悬疑小说玩不出什么新花样的年代脱颖而出。
其实《看不见的客人》也是这样一部作品，它非常“反套路”，体现在电影刚开始十多分钟观众就知道男主和情妇撞死了人，使得侧重点从“凶手是谁”转为“男主和情妇隐瞒这一命案的过程”，然而这个问题还未揭晓答案，男主和情妇之间又发生了第二桩命案，着实吸引了观众的眼球。
这点有点类似于“希区柯克”电影，“希区柯克”的电影大致可以分为两类：一浪高过一浪，以及一波未平一波又起。
本片属于前者。“是谁杀死了情妇并嫁祸在男主身上”和“他是怎么从房间消失的”是贯穿整部电影的主线，但是电影进行了十多分钟的时候，观众开始被另一个悬念所吸引，男主和情妇杀人、抛尸会不会被发现？导演还特意加入了路过的目击者司机，以及好心帮忙的路人来加强这种紧张感。当观众发现好心帮忙的路人就是死者父亲的时候，这让剧情变得更加巧妙……随后观众开始猜测欺骗男主到酒店并杀死情妇的是目击者司机还是死者父亲，殊不知这是男主自导自演的一出戏。就在男主承认了是他杀死情妇的时候，影片又揭晓了一个新的谜题——律师其实是死者母亲假扮的。
换言之“律师是死者母亲扮演的”只是这部电影中众多悬念之一，猜到结局并不见得能猜到过程。当然，如果你把过程全都猜中了，那么我很理解你给这部电影打低分，并且我建议你立即放下手中的工作，转行去当编剧，中国电影的未来就靠你了。
查了一下西班牙语片名 Contratiempo，有意外灾祸，和倒退，逆流，两个释义。个人更喜欢西班牙语的原名，即投射了车祸和laura的死亡，也投射了贯穿整场的精彩对话是以倒叙的方式层层挖掘的，那个表也是一个提示。这样一来，西班牙语的标题更加符合电影的内容。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
再说电影的导演，Oriol Paulo，1975年生，巴塞罗那人。正好是电影大部分情节发生的地点，也算是他的主场。他不算是一个高产的电影导演，至今只导演了这部戏和女尸谜案两部电影。值得注意的是，这两部戏，都是由他自编自导的。2010年的电影茱莉亚的眼睛，是他编剧并上映的第一部电影，但是是和另一个人一起执行编剧的。2012年的女尸谜案，则是他第一部独立导演的电影，并且也参与了主要的编剧工作。而2016年他出了两部电影，一部是绑架，这是他独立编剧的电影。而这一部好评如潮的看不见的客人，则是他第一部真正意义上独立的自编自导的电影。
但是他并不是影视界的新人，以前他是写电视剧剧本的，也参与了电视剧的导演。早在1998年，他就独立自编自导了一部片长45分钟的短片 McGuffin。之后一直有陆陆续续担任电视剧的导演和编剧，也是功底深厚的。
这一部看不见的客人，至今为止，豆瓣评分8.7,IMDB 评分7.6。应该说都是给予肯定的，只是这种结构复杂，对白较多的作品，更符合东方的审美标准一些。西方文化则更偏重superhero类的大场面作品。希望导演能得知在中国的观众心中，很多人已经把它当做一部神作了，而感到欣慰。
还有电影的构图极为考究，让我观影的同时一度以为这位导演的处女座的。但是并没有查到他确切的出生月日。欢迎补充。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
最后友情提示，不要看剧透，不要看弹幕。静静观影，会有惊喜。
看了十多分钟，我就照常规电影套路猜测在地点2发生的事件①是男主精神分裂？②男主妻子索尼娅或是他情人劳拉的丈夫布鲁诺情杀嫁祸？③或是托马斯为儿复仇策划了这起谋杀又能嫁祸给男主？很快便证明①②猜测完全扯淡③的可能性极大，那接下来最大的悬疑便应该是托马斯怎么密室逃脱了吧？
接下来，我又发现自己too young to simple.在“律师”出示种种假证据套话的情况下，男主艾德里安以“罗生门”的方式还原了犯罪地点的场景。“律师”告诉艾德里安可以用托马斯脱罪，艾德里安此时信任了“律师”，把沉车地点勾画了出来，到这里，“律师”的初级目的已经达到了，她想让自己的儿子用传统的方式进行墓葬。但当艾德里安说汽车沉水时丹尼尔还没死时，“律师”情绪有些抑制不住的激动，接着她进行了真实的现场还原，这些场景中的男主终于展现出了与他的总裁身份相匹配的智商。哦，原来他是那个主导者呀，他身上背负了两条人命！最后影片随着一个小高潮结束了：真律师来了，假“律师”到了对面大楼在男主面前逐渐卸下自己的伪装变成了那个我们熟悉的温和的学究派的一直以背景墙方式出现的丹尼尔的妈妈。
在影片情节推进过程中男主艾德里安、劳拉、托马斯...呈现给我们的形象都在不断地变化，对于男主形象的变化，“律师”作了很好的归纳：懦夫——凶手——正义——骗子——自大。劳拉则是：自私强硬——懦弱——正义，而托马斯则是：善良——坚强——狡诈——正义。
这不是一个典型的结局式影片——最后几分钟以情节反转带给观影者以强烈震撼，如“控方证人”等优秀影片。
我认为“看不见的客人”这部影片带给我们的惊喜更多的是在解密过程中，一层又一层的事实叠加出现时。
最后简单粗暴的总结为:好片！