This article refutes the "so-called most vulnerable BUG", the so-called "BUG exposed as soon as a blood test"
Let's imagine (from the perspective of the old man), what does the hypothesis that the blood test shows morphine?
Can you directly prove that the little nurse killed someone?
Many film critics say that "an outstanding mystery novelist will not let his suicide body fail an autopsy"
But I think this view does not understand the old man's tricks well.
First of all, the core trick of the old man is "time difference" (very classical).
From the perspective of the police and bystanders, if the old man’s trick is established—that is, the exact time of the old man’s death is shifted back, coupled with the 10-minute rapid death time of morphine, the little nurse has already left the house, she still has perfection ’S alibi.
Conclusion: Even if the blood is tested, even if morphine is detected, even if one of the causes of death is morphine (from the perspective of the old man), the little nurse is still an outsider.
So: even, even, (in the old man's eyes) even if the old man's blood contains morphine, this is not a bug at all.
—————————
1. Why is it a good heart for a little nurse to save someone?
(From the perspective of the little nurse) Not saving people = Blackmailing death (in her eyes) = No one will expose the blood test report again = Her property is in hand + Will not go to jail
Rescue = save the blackmailer = either the blood test report is announced (loss of all inheritance + jail + mother repatriation, family broken) // or blackmailed, loss of all or part of the inheritance
So at the moment of saving people, the housekeeper’s interests conflicted greatly with the little nurse (in the eyes of the little nurse)
However, she still chose to save people
so
Would you save someone in this situation?
2. Does the family treat her well?
Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Ecuador
Meg (the daughter of an internet celebrity, majoring in magic, paying tuition), seems to have the best relationship with the little nurse, but directly betrayed the hostess and the mother is an illegal immigrant
3. Change the bottle
During the reasoning, the detective posted the bottle and asked the little nurse to take the test details
4. Dog barking
When the US team came back for the first time (to change the bottle), the banquet was in progress, and the barking of the dog would not attract so much attention.
The second time for the US team (the one that wanted to get back the evidence at 34 o'clock in the night) was because the dog barked and woke up in the middle of the night and attracted attention.
In the narrative at the beginning of the movie, it goes like this: late at night, the abrupt dog barking awakens Meg.
Therefore, the point is to wake up to attract attention.
Not all barking is directly equivalent to attention.
—————————
This film treats the audience as omniscient and presents all the facts fairly in front of the audience. In addition, the film gives a lot of information in a relatively short period of time, resulting in the audience not having enough time to truly From the standpoint of the characters in the play, understand their reactions. For example, many short comments put forward:
How did the US team change its position?
Why does the US team have to hire detectives?
What is meant by "hope that the facts are revealed, but not from his mouth"?
Why did the hostess finally lie that the butler is still alive, and what is the point?
What is the real significance of the blood test report in the plot?
Why did the police insist on "suicide" from the beginning?
. . .
Maybe it’s not difficult to guess the murderer, but do you really understand all the tricks?
Good suspense allows all viewers to reason out part, but not all.
Many viewers didn't understand it, or didn't look at the many details in it carefully, and started to spray the bugs of the movie, which made me feel uncomfortable.
In my opinion, this movie has only two minor bugs that are insignificant and even negligible. The American team’s blackmail incident: 1. The time to stun the housekeeper 2. The American team’s savvy person actually destroyed the blood test report. The uniqueness of this report is not confirmed.
In addition, the logic is tight and there are no BUGs.
In short, it is worth the second brush.
View more about Knives Out reviews
