Maybe it's because of preconceived ideas. The first thing I watched was the 17-year-old self-directed work by Kenneth, and the motives of some murderers in this work don't seem to feel much hatred now! Looking at the 72-year-old classic, which also gathered many works of stars, while feeling lost, I can't help but sigh, the charm of this classic reasoning work, whether it is good or bad depends more on what angle you stand on, whether you care about the reasoning of the case, or the backside of the case Anatomy of Humanity? In my opinion, man is complete because he has a bad side. The murderer is like this, and so is Polo. Evil seems to make punishment reasonable, but it still seems to be a self-comfort mechanism. Maybe evil and punishment are not necessarily related to the original, because living in groups requires order and various guarantees. Man-made punishment is born from the stable relationship, and evil is obviously the most "reasonable" explanation for matching punishment. Just imagine that in nature, only the strong eat the weak, how can it be good or bad? A person who will do anything to achieve an end is like a victor of the jungle, but he tramples on the interests of those who obey social discipline again and again. The two logics evolved into a domino effect in the "Armstrong" tragedy, which is difficult for even the criminal himself to think of. Standing on the justice that the social system produces, this person is extremely sinful. Yes, he lives in society and takes advantage of the favorable side of the system to make money in business, but avoids the unfavorable side of society, a complete villain. But I'm thinking, if you put aside the original novel itself, and just look at this "Murder on the Orient Express", I'm afraid it will be the final analysis of human nature. In front of it, it is far more attractive than reasoning and the result itself!
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
