Was Howard Good or Bad?
-
registers-944-48791 — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 03:59 PM)
Of course, the post-war marketing against Hitler and Nazi was very, very astonishing. Many people tried to deny the crimes, some with good arguments, and the debate went to a point of proclaiming the sole action of denying the holocaust a crime.
Stalin was much worse than Hitler, but almost nobody made forces into showing his crimes and durting his image. Socialist governments have a history of changing facts and lying to their voters. People are miserable due to bad and artificial government ruling, but socialists blame the enemy white-elite, and people just believe that and keep voting on them. -
registers-944-48791 — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 03:51 PM)
I doubt he'd be considered a hero. Yes, germans were very "sad", with lots of outsiders' rules and just lost a war and their govenment was having to take taxes to pay the winning side. Hitler brought their pride back, and explored their preconceptions to point a guilty one.
But he had great part on killing and taking all possessions of milions of people. At maximum, he'd be remembered as a loved ruler by germans but a thyrant responsible for many deaths. -
IMDbebe — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 08:37 AM)
Oh no, he wasn't "sick". Not in the sense that would make him not responsible for his actions. He had an antisocial personality disorder; he was a sociopath. His total lack of empathy for how others might question his dictates, he pulls Michelle by the hair because he suspects she has something under bed, the fact that he likely killed more than one young woman and, right in our face,
he kills Emmett after the young man simply admitted wanting his weapon and maintains a vat of acid
pretty much make that a given.
His need to control those that he was "saving" so rigidly made his pathology obvious in the first 15 minutes of the movie. Come on now folks!? -
mike_bike_kite — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 01:55 AM)
I suppose it depends on where you draw the line. It's implied he killed his wife and daughter then dissolved them in acid. He imprisoned that girl, killed her and then dissolved her in acid. He shot Emmett in the head and then dissolved him in acid. He imprisoned Michelle, dresses her in the other girls clothes and will presumably kill her at some point and then dissolve her in acid. On the plus side he has a bunker and can make a pasta sauce.
PS If you're still trying to work out whether that makes him good or bad I suggest having a chat with a psychiatrist. -
foxyrabbit — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 12:01 AM)
No, he didn't kill his wife and daughter, even Emmett says that they moved away to Chicago. He just desperately misses his daughter and became deranged due to this, so he kidnapped a girl who resembled his daughter and forced her to wear his daughters things and I suppose he pretended that she was his daughter. She probably rebelled/tried to escape and he killed her. Then some years later the movie begins.
-
mike_bike_kite — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 01:28 AM)
I understand what he said but isn't that what all killers would state if they'd killed their partners and disposed of the bodies? Considering Howard's standard way of dealing with conflict (shoot in the head/dissolve in acid), how are we supposed to believe he accepted them moving out? and Emmett would repeat whatever he's told.
I accept this isn't explicitly stated in the movie but it seems the likely truth and that's what was implied to me anyway. YMMV -
jpkrunch — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 07:18 AM)
The only evidence of him actually being bad is the earing and help. But I think that is good enough. Killing Emmitt was justified. He said he was making a weapon so that he could take Howard's gun. I would have killed him. Did he hit Michelle's car on purpose? Maybe but he did save her life. Clearly unstable.
I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.