Talk about the protagonist Hannibal Lecter.
As I grow older, I gradually understand that some viewers "like" this kind of torturous villain for his reason. But I still don't like it. I just want to watch the bad guys pretend to be forced to be tortured and killed. The bad guys pretend to be just to increase the price of meat and the freshness of the soup.
The reason why Dio is less annoying and even looks a little "cute" is because there is an invincible Chengtaro who can beat him and punish him.
If anyone thinks a real villain is better than a hypocrite, then Tian Boguang will be at your door tonight, Amen.
I tried hard to understand the rhetoric that "Hannibal surpasses human beings and cannot be measured by good and evil", but I am always confused.
Because this redefinition of the concept has no practical value, is redundant, is useless, has no universality, is indescribable like a bubble, is extremely prejudiced and rebellious and incomplete, and is aimed at the weak. Tyranny is the arrogance of the second disease.
It is nothing more than a civilian scientist who pulled a banner at the gate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, saying that he knocked on his forehead and discovered a historic breakthrough that could cause an eight-magnitude earthquake to the scientific community today.
No matter how great you are, no matter how great you are, you are greater than the great ancestor who worked for the well-being of all people?
Such a heinous criminal cannot be punished by the death penalty. It is a shame of modern law to waste taxpayers' hard-earned money.
In my opinion, it is not too late to recover from criminals who have extremely bad influence, extremely cruel methods, and many victims.
Seeing his madness in the cage, I just want to smash his fangs one by one to see his blood flow, cut his hip bones and iliac bones one by one with a dagger, and record the ghosts grinning when he was abused. Howling and screaming, and then playing it in a loop for him, while using a thorny wattle to smoke him: Let you pretend to be forced! Let you surpass humans!
In the era when there were no surveillance cameras, if criminals like Hannibal with a high IQ were not executed, they should have at least one of their dominant hands (usually the right hand) cut off. It would be terrifying for such a person to be able to move freely. After seeing the police victimized, I thought it was worthless.
The heroine is so handsome. It's not easy for that point of feat to be exchanged with life. What a pity in the sequel... what a pity...
My stubborn ideas are inseparable from the domestic environment. Weiguang has its meaning. Completely unrestricted (creative) freedom will inevitably violate the freedom of others.
The perpetrators are glamorous and the perpetrators laugh to the end. The perpetrators tortured and kill law enforcement. If they are affected by this kind of literary works all day long, do you think this will affect the general public's morality, good and evil views? ----is it possible?
Blindly killing movies and bloody movies are difficult to win the support of mainstream audiences, but at the same time they will certainly inspire a small number of demons hidden in the depths of human nature.
It is impossible to imagine how difficult it was to live normally in the ancient times when technology was backward, long live science and technology, and long live civilization.
There is a debate about morality and justice in the original novel:
"Nothing happened to me, Officer Starling. I happened to happen. Don't underestimate me. You want to frame me when you try to manipulate power. For the sake of behaviorist psychology, you don't want good and evil. Officer Starling, here. Everyone puts on a pair of moral dignity pants-there has never been anything to be said to be at fault. Look at me, Officer Stalin, can you bear to say that I am evil? Am I evil, Officer Stalin?"
"I think you have been hurting people, and I think the two are the same thing."
"Evil is just hurting people? To be as simple as that, the storm is also evil. We still have fires and hail, and we call them'natural disasters' in general."
"deliberately--"
"I am concerned about the collapse of the church. It's fun. One recently collapsed on Sicily. Have you seen it? It's amazing! At a special mass, the front wall of the church fell on sixty-five old ladies. Is that evil? If it is, who did it? If the Lord is high up there, then he loves the result. Officer Starling, Typhoid and Swan-all come from the same place."
The literary works always make the bad guys say that the protagonist can't refute, so the bad guys look deep. Blurring good and evil is the last fig leaf for scumbags.
It's actually easy to justify. It's not that scientific experiments can only use data to speak.
Natural disasters are the product of excessive and excessive amounts of ordinary natural phenomena, which cause damage to organisms and ecology.
If human morality is used to measure natural disasters, it must be evil. Of course, if natural disasters can be properly used in the future, such as storms to generate electricity, natural disasters will become a superposition of good and evil.
However, natural disasters are not human. Morality can only be used to measure people. Natural disasters and gods have no morality.
If there are lunatics who think that they have detached themselves from human beings and kill them indiscriminately, then it is tantamount to cancer viruses mixed in somatic cells and must be eliminated. So in the end, I couldn't escape talking with my fist.
Of course, I hate and hate the scum villain, and it's better to have an in-depth discussion than a bloody drama. Coupled with it's really good-looking, it scared me out of nowhere.
Thank you 2 protagonists for their explosive acting.
View more about The Silence of the Lambs reviews
