The main idea is that children will eventually grow up and leave the safe zone. Parents should not be too monster parents. It seems to be very positive, but in fact, the way of expression is broken.
The bigger problem is mainly about saving tigers
1) When they didn't start the rescue, I thought it was to notify the relevant departments, but it turned out to be sneaking in and stealing the tiger. Tigers are pitiful, and I firmly deny all animal performances. But the problem is that this practice does not respect the law, because in fact the tiger was purchased by the circus leader and is his "property", and his property and rights should be protected by law. The arrangement of the movie, as long as it is "right" and conforms to the so-called "righteousness or morality", can do anything, which is basically encouraging crime. The story should be changed to the tiger is smuggled and illegal, and finally alerted the relevant departments to deal with it.
2) What's more, the train is attacked during the second rescue, which will cause a great accident. Speaking of means of transportation, during the second rescue, the old woman who had a lot of cats was incapable of driving at all, it was the cats who drove it! How terrible this is! A road accident will kill people. Such an irresponsible attitude turns out to be a positive character in the story! And this old woman is simply incapable of raising so many cats, and there are signs of destruction everywhere in the house. In reality, it should also include cleaning and sanitation problems and medical problems caused by the inability to deal with urine and urination. However, the animation is to beautify the positive characters, but it is hidden. went.
3) The first time they stole a tiger, they had absolutely no idea how to arrange it, which encouraged impulsive action. Secondly, putting tigers in other people's residences, or even sneaking them into their homes while the protagonist is traveling abroad, completely disrespects the rights and interests of others, and deprives them of their right to know. Besides, tigers are dangerous animals. They eat meat and eat an amazing amount of food. It is unreasonable to put tigers in any household.
4) In the end, the tiger lived in the old woman's house in the name of "cat", which is a blatant violation of the law. Even if the tiger is legal in the state, it is necessary to apply for a license. The old woman can't see the tiger clearly. It's a total crime to steal/steal it back.
The most three views of the whole film are instilled that "if you are designated as a bad person, you can do anything to them"
The head of the circus was first violated (the tiger was stolen), the circus train was attacked, then he was beaten in various ways, and was deliberately hit by an old woman with a car... In the end, all the atrocities involved were not at all, just because "the circus" The regiment leader is a bad guy", this is encouraging lynching! If you think about it further, if you fancy someone's property and want to rob it, you should first publicize it as a bad person. Then you can not only rob his property, but even kill him, and no one thinks there is a problem. What a terrible situation!
Of course, I understand that lynching is far more effective than the law in dealing with some scumbags, but the movie does not rule out that the audience is children (in my case, many parents take their children to watch the movie), so their three views should not be distorted. It's not my monster parents. If the foundation of the three views is not laid well, I will accept the impact. It will only push the child toward the villain or the unprincipled bottom line. This is not an alarmist. Only by laying a good foundation of three views can you distinguish right from wrong, distinguish between black and white, and cut off right and wrong. As the saying goes, there are no rules and no circles. If you don’t even learn the rules well, you will be exposed to the scene of breaking the rules. Where is it? The most excessive is that the movie starts by listing a bunch of pet characteristics that are recognized as facts by the public, which makes the audience more inclined to believe and instill the values of the movie.
Of course, the most terrifying thing is that these kinds of problems are not the screenwriters' intentions, but the subtle effects. I hope the screenwriter does it intentionally and wants to poison the little flowers and grasses in China, but unfortunately the chance of doing it intentionally is quite low...
There are also places worthy of praise, mainly the male protagonist and his time on the farm
For example, the farm dog took the male lead to rescue the lamb, which is worthy of praise - it is the male owner's fault to release the lamb, and it is natural for him to be responsible for repairing it. This is to promote a sense of responsibility.
It also advocates the courage to challenge oneself to gain growth
However, it is more controversial to advocate that we should not be overly protective and treat everything nervously as a disease.
For example, biting off the male lead's hood - this is against doctor's orders
Another example is to accuse the little master of being trapped in the fence - the lamb almost died when he walked around, and the little master was more prone to accidents when he walked around
View more about The Secret Life of Pets 2 reviews
