The more interesting point is how to do evil for the good. Once you do evil, do you have to cover up the evil with countless evils? Who defines the good and who judges the justice? Is the motive for good altruistic or self-interested? If Kant, Bentham, Machiavelli and others watch this movie together, will they fight after watching it? Perhaps the most likely scenario for a brain patch is that Woody Allen was gang-fighted by them. And the ambivalence of middle class, intellectuals, female literary youth being fascinated by male literary youth, and the probability of crime are all traditional Woody Allen elements. Those who are familiar with Woody Allen can see that the shadows of sin and wrong and the point of the match are the old man's once again in a movie with Dostoevsky. The turning point at the end of the movie is also thrilling, especially compared to his more moderate movies in recent years, this one has the sharp style of Woody Allen in the last century. However, I have to say that this one is basically without any aftertaste. Even if it has a philosophy, it is only a very simple application. The inquiry into the problem is not in-depth, but Woody has no such thoughts anyway, so there is no need to pursue it.
View more about Irrational Man reviews
