Take the heroine as a line to sort it out.
Heroine setting: 1 A certain Spanish-speaking immigrant cannot find a formal job with a nurse card, and may be sent back to the country at any time.
2 can't lie.
3 can play chess, high IQ.
What's the problem here? From the perspective of 1, the old man's resources can solve the problem, but the female protagonist's working hours have been prolonged, and the old man is particularly dependent on the female protagonist, and it still hasn't been resolved. Even if the old man didn't expect it, why didn't the heroine lead the old man? Well, this may indicate that she is kind and will not take the initiative to use others for her own benefit.
2 To vomit as soon as you lie is the setting of taking Veritaserum in the fantasy. But is the heroine really like this? Did you drink champagne? Don't step on your feet, did you hear me? The hostess lied and did not vomit, indicating that 2 is just a setting she gave herself, and she can overturn it at any time according to the situation.
3 The heroine is suppressed by the whole show's IQ.
Then the plot of the female mainline:
Subjective narrative: That night, I mistakenly thought that he had injected the wrong medicine. The old man committed suicide in order to save himself and came up with a series of plans for him to implement. He left in tears after seeing the old man cut his throat and committed suicide.
[Suspicious point here: The heroine is a highly professional nurse who can tell the correct medicine intuitively, so she doesn't know if the bottle of medicine has been opened and not the original seal? Don't know the normal reaction and the extremely excessive morphine reaction? A nurse lady pointed out that nurses can do it, and the female lead is still a good nurse]
Objective fact: The old man's son saw the heroine driving away. The two people's statements are mutually corroborated, and for the time being confirmed as true facts.
Subjective narration: The heroine drove to the front and back of the statue and turned back to implement the elderly plan. At this time, the old man was already dead, and the heroine imitated the old man's figure for her son to see, and then ran into the old mother when she slipped away. The old mother told her that Lanson was back again. The hostess left in a hurry.
(Because the video was destroyed by the female protagonist, the old man’s death time is estimated to be two o’clock at the latest. What the old mother said to the detective was also relayed by the detective, and here is assumed to be a subjective narrative. The only physical evidence is the broken wooden windows, dirt roads, and carpets. The mud print on it.)
The objective facts: the employer died, the hostess was resting at home for a week and did not attend the funeral. The detective came, and the hostess returned to the villa for questioning and investigation. The detective revealed that the heroine would spit when she lied, and then asked the heroine who was the murderer in her family, but the heroine said none. The detective invites the heroine to become Watson.
[Suspicious point here: 1. Is the answer of the heroine true or false? If it is true, it means that the heroine did not find that the medicine was dropped. If it is a lie, it means that the heroine has discovered it, or it is for the establishment of a person to maintain kindness and innocence.
2 Generally speaking, detectives invite suspects to participate in investigations in order to make them recall some relevant information and to observe the suspect's reaction at the same time, just as pineapples have dealt with in many cases. But in the follow-up, although the heroine's reaction is suspicious, the detective has been pretending to be blind. If asking the heroine to be Watson is not for observing the heroine, what is it for? In the process of investigation, besides destroying evidence, does the heroine play any other role? 】
Objective facts: The heroine acted with detectives and police detectives. First went to the security guard to watch the surveillance. The heroine took the initiative to put the surveillance on, but deliberately popped up to watch, and took away the video, using a magnet to erase the video information. After investigating the footprints, it was found that his footprints on the muddy ground were particularly obvious. The detectives repeatedly called the hostess not to move, but the hostess insisted on walking to the door and then coming back, destroying the footprints. A group of people entered the manor, the hostess threw away the broken wooden window frame, the dog picked it up and gave it to the detective, so the hostess's escape route that night was investigated and a mud mark was found.
[Suspicious point here: The heroine is playing tricks under the detective's eyelids, and the detectives and police detectives have no idea? 】
Objective facts: The lawyer announces the will and all the estate belongs to the heroine.
[Suspicious point here: Even if the elderly are disappointed with their children, why not leave money to the old mother? Why are you disappointed with your daughter when your son-in-law cheated? 】
Subjective narration: The heroine herself did not know that the old man had left all the money to herself.
[Suspicious point here: the old man can say nothing to the heroine, but the heroine knows nothing about such an important matter as the will]
Objective facts: The elderly family members chased the hostess and questioned him. The hostess had to run away by car and couldn't ignite the fire, so she got into Lanson's car. Lansen brought the heroine to dinner and threatened the heroine to confess the truth by telling a lie, and finally the two reached a cooperation.
[Suspicious point here: The heroine refuses to give the inheritance to her family, and wants to fulfill the old man's last wish. At this time, they agreed to cooperate and share the money, regardless of the old man's wishes. Does she really care what the old man thinks? The private heroine had already collapsed the character set, but Lan Sen thought he had succeeded and did not notice the problem. 】
Objective facts: The hostess was visited by a news reporter after she returned home. She received a threatening letter asking her mother to close the door and sneak out through the back door. However, he ran into the lame son. Faced with the threat of "illegal immigration," he witty retorted that he had the resources of the elderly to solve the problem, and the lame was defeated.
[Suspicious point here: the hostess, who "just" died of her employer, "just" learned that the nurse who can inherit the inheritance can immediately think of how to solve these problems? Looking back on the hostess’s personality, has she long thought about it? The status of the elderly can easily solve the problem of smuggling? 】
Objective facts: The hostess received a phone call from her youngest daughter, comforted, said she did not know, that she would pay the tuition for her, but never mentioned the return of the inheritance.
[Suspicious point here: If we believe the subjective narrative above, then in the perception of the heroine, she killed an old man with the wrong medicine. The old man left her all the inheritance for some reason. She knew that the old man was right. The children were dissatisfied, but the old man told her nothing. The problem here is obvious-who can safely inherit this person's inheritance even when he thinks he has killed a person, and refuse to let his children's pleading at all? Faced with the request/threat of returning, pretending to be stupid and just saying that I don’t know or don’t know, isn’t this just plainly saying that if you don’t give it, you just swallow it? 】
Objective facts: The hostess who received the anonymous letter went to discuss with Lansen. The two drove to the blood center together and found that the building had been blown up and the original disappeared. The copy in the hands of the anonymous person was extremely important. The hostess received the email saying ten points. When we met in a certain place, it was nearly ten o'clock at this time. The hostess and Lan Sen were lowering themselves to observe in the car, when the hostess suddenly straightened up and looked at each other with the detective. Then he drove away. The police car caught up with Lan Sen, but did not catch the heroine. Instead, the detective believed that Lan Sen threatened the heroine, and got in the heroine's car and left. The hostess drove to the vicinity of the agreed place, and went to the shampoo room under the pretext of taking things, and found the housekeeper Fran.
[Suspicious points here: 1 The detective realizes that there is a ghost in the heart of the person who drove away, but the person who drove is the heroine, so he thinks that the heroine was instigated by Lanson. The detective trusts the suspect so much? The heroine is gone, and the detective won't follow? 2 The heroine is not afraid that the detective will follow, so she goes to find someone directly? She is not afraid that the detective will hear the content of the negotiation? 】
Subjective narration: The hostess found the butler who fell on the ground, heard the last words, gave first aid, and dialed 911.
[Suspicious points here: 1 Since the heroine went to find Lansen, Lansen had no time to act alone. If he played before that, after a whole morning, Fran was still angry? 2 Whether the heroine calls 911 or not depends on whether others stop her? I used to be afraid of being found out and wouldn't call 911, but now I am not afraid of being found out and dare to call? Or, knowing that you have been in the game, so you have to fight because the detective is waiting outside and can't hide that he has been there? 】
Objective facts: The heroine and the detective go back to the old house and tell the story on the way. And took the initiative to plead guilty and demanded to give up the inheritance.
[Suspicious point here: It’s even more interesting here. According to the current situation, in the detective’s perception, the old man died due to two reasons: Chinese medicine is not rescued + suicide cut his throat, and the former causes the latter. Without Chinese medicine, he would not at all. Will cut the throat. Even if the heroine is not intentional, this is also a negligence leading to death. And the detective is not only not angry, but also persuades the heroine to consider whether to confess? Is this the work of a detective? 】
Objective facts: The hostess who returned to the villa turned out the copy and gave it to the detective, and at the same time confessed to her family, she said a lot of emotional words, but not to give up the inheritance. When the detective read the copy and found that the old man did not have Chinese medicine, the detective was extremely angry and cursed his family.
[Suspicious point here: When the heroine faced her family in the previous plot, she did not show any warmth and had a tough attitude. At this time, she recalled her feelings in a choked voice. Is she waiting for the detective to finish watching? 】
Objective facts: The hostess confronted Lansen and received a phone call from the hospital, falsely claiming that the butler was alive, which could prove that Lansen was murdered. Lanson collapsed and wanted to commit a crime, but he drew a fake knife. He failed to kill the heroine and was arrested. The heroine finally won, holding a cup to look down on sentient beings.
[Here: I don't have any problems here. Lanson would not have killed or heard the butler was alive and collapsed. But the timing of the killing is still in doubt. 】
Based on these questions, I always guessed that the heroine was the murderer and Lanson was the smoke bomb when watching the movie. Although I guessed wrong, my question was not answered. In addition, this detective also makes me feel very strange.
Detective doubts:
If the blood stains on the shoes are not pointed out in time for the laboratory test, are you afraid that the female host will throw away the bloody shoes and lose the physical evidence?
He said that he didn't doubt the heroine because the heroine couldn't benefit, but later he knew that the heroine could benefit other children, so why didn't he doubt the heroine?
As mentioned earlier, the hostess said that he could not hear his voice, which can be said to be a lie to the face. Why didn't he still doubt the hostess?
The hostess threw the evidence away by his side, he didn't feel anything? Can't hear the sound of being empty? The video is not handed over to the police but to the heroine. The heroine is also a suspect, right? The video was spent by the suspect's hands, why didn't you doubt the heroine?
After the detective came to the hostess, he found that the family members were not good to the hostess because they didn’t treat the hostess as relatives. They couldn’t remember the hostess’s hometown and couldn’t bear the father’s inheritance. The hostess believed that the hostess deceived and persecuted the daughter. The Lord returns the inheritance, I wonder if this is human nature, right? Who can watch the unrelated people take away 60 million dollars indifferently, without even suspicion? The detective was so excited that he prevented the heroine from scolding particularly harshly when she confessed. Where does he have such a strong feeling? Is the family's actions to the heroine enough to trigger such a strong feeling? As mentioned earlier, the detective is not angry when he knows that the heroine was killed by the wrong medicine, but is angry when he knows that the hostess is "abusing" the heroine? Did I watch the romance Mary Su from eight hundred years ago? What does it matter if the writer loses his life? The heroine is hurt so badly! ! !
View more about Knives Out reviews
