I think people might be missing the main theme of this film

you have a very good point that is not exactly common for people to realise.

I hear you man. I've been trough that situation a few times when, for example, I was with a group of buddies(around 10) and an unpleasant situation appeared, and we said we cant let the things that way so we decided to take action, and when the moment came, only me and another one had the courage to voice our opinion, the rest run away and hides like mice. Another example is with good friend of mine, who almost all the time come to me with different proposal to change the things for better, and one time, we found ourself in an another unpleasant situation, and I said to him that together take action, and of course, all of the sudden he became "small" and I was left alone, by the same guy who had the voice of the men to do things, but when the moment came...he just "dissapeard".

The same with the girls value for honesty, they say they admire and value honesty/sincerity, but sometimes when you offer them that, and they dont like it, they turn their back and walk away. So much for repay you to show them honesty.

There's so much people who dont assume what a thing truly is, they only have an incomplete idea in their heads, shaped based on their preferences, and when the reality of that things present itself wholly, they have a crisis, a blockage and they try to suppress or deny you, or they run away.

So, in other words, it's better to be consistent, no matter what our actions are? If we think the world should be better off certain people, we should kill them? Also, how is one deciding over another person's life can ever be justified? How about filtering your actions instead? Ideas and actions are two different things, if everyone acted on their feelings or in the heat of the moment, we would all face a truly miserable future. I think you all forget, that being a human also means, that we can change the course of our actions, once we realize they were wrong. Humans evolve, being a person is NEVER a consistent thing, whether you like it or not. Also, it's ALWAYS your actions that define who you are. At least here, on Earth. By committing certain acts, you shape your habitus and just like Abe in the movie, by committing murder one becomes a murderer. This film is about morality, in a sense of personal choice. In the beginning Abe quoted Kant's categoric imperative, but what they missed out on is that Kant also realized later, that the categoric imperative can't be applied to all cases in 'real' life; he concluded that it's only our will to do the right thing(=our individual sense of morality) can help us become moral beings. Yes, it's a grey area but what it really means, is that there are no certain guidelines on how to act and what is the right thing to do, everyone should work their on sense of morality and try to become better. In other words, Kant change his mind to, since he realized his initial theory can't fit all. Unlike Abe, Jill evolved in a sense that she began practising her own judgement over the situation. You can argue, that that's exactly what Abe did, using his own sense of morality but even if there can't be a universal guideline, there are certain acts that are essentially wrong and they don't even need proof. One of them is murder and especially a philosopher would definitely know better. That is the point when this movie becomes uncreditable, even if it meant to be sarcastic. Also, I doubt that Abe was using any sense of morality, when he was clearly aware of himself lying and deceiving others and on the top of that, he clearly enjoyed it all. He didn't show any remorse, not even about lying, let alone the murder. Now, how's is that possible, if the synopsis clearly suggested, that he was aware of such concepts and them being wrong? This movie failed has failed on so many level.

(spoilers)
I agree with you in the sense that it's Jill who is the villain in this story-- because she walks away at the end, to a sunny life. A few ops on this board have said Jill was wonderful, but I think they're missing the intent of the movie.
What Abe did was to remove an apparently sociopathic judge who had a history of making life miserable for many people. So, using a painless poison, Abe does away with him. OK, it's murder, but it does benefit people. And yes--Jill hated the judge too. So Jill's tracking down and finding out that Abe was the killer was not meant to be a quest of decent morality--good over evil. No--I think Woody Allen meant for Joy to come cross as a shrill girl who demands that Abe turn himself in, to basically confess and end his life (or most of it)--she could've waited to see what would happen to the innocent party who the cops suspect. Instead she gives Abe this ultimatum.
Last point: Jill treated her boyfriend in a dishonest way, cheating on him and just ignoring his (reasonable) request to talk about the nature of their relationship. So--Jill walking away at the end, back into her boyfriend's arms, with Abe dead and Rita alone--I think that would make most sensitive, intelligent people sick. Which was Woody Allen's intention, imo.

I think it's partly about hypocrisy but not on Jill's end. Abe becomes a hypocrite at the end because instead of killing to be "just" with the judge, he tries to do a totally unjust thing by killing Jill just for his own self-benefit. As much as Abe tried to justify killing the judge as doing the right moral thing, it was a self-serving act all along, because doing it would make him feel excited about his life and be able to get it up

Allen isn't commenting on anything. Everything in your post should be credited Dostoyevsky.

It reminds me of Native Son which is often philosophically discussed in many schools.

No.