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.

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

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.

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.

Howard was bad. He previously kidnapped and killed the girl. He had acid for getting rid of bodies.

He murdered Emmett so yes, he was a BAD man.

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!?

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

Khm khm, angry russian reply incoming beep u pathetic uneducted monkey U gonna spit ur pathetic cold war propoganda bout "Stalin personaly eating bilion of babys"? I guess u dont know that NOWADAYS there are more people in jail in ur states of patheticness, then there were in all GULAGs history? And why the hell we mustnt consider him as hero? He had a country half ruined after ww1 and revolution, 80% sanctioned by "cultured and civilized" spits in disgust world And what he left? Major superpower with influence on 70% of the world. Majority of the world wanted to became comunist But how cud "cultured and civilized" rullers another spit of disgust give away all their colonial profits, all their influence they established through centuries of slavery and colonizing weak countries? Thats why communism was declared "worse then nazi". And thats why brainwashed idiots like u keep pretending that Stalin "was worse then Hitler" and continue to spread all this retarted beep for braindead monkeys, who doesnt have enogh brains to cheack ACTUAL HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS, not some douchebag pre-paid "historian" impression on those documents I dont say Stalin is saint, i say : first U pathetic "cultured and civilized" idots have 0 right to tell us who we must worship or who we must hate. Second yes he killed 1% of innocent ppl. And if u ask me, or any sane person, 1% of inncoent people "dying" alongside 99% of criminal bio trash, is a good thing. But even with that logics Stalin wasnt such a monster, he sended majority of them to "siberia" to save them, if u ask Russians nowadays about his "victims", majority will say "he was too kind with them". Seen how those ungratefull pathetic dogs are throwing more and more beep at nowadays Russia, i point taht NOT STALIN BUT TODAY RUSSIA and all Russian people. U want us to bend down and keep asking for forgivness in something we dont feel guild about? Khm khm U can go and beep urself with those suggestions Sry for long off topic post, but those brainwashed idiots spiting their beep all over internet is insanely piises off, hope u understand And for the movie: Hovard has clearly abducted and killed his "daughter". I think Michele was coinsidence as he was saying. He rushed to bukner, crashed her, she reminded him bout his "daughter", so he took her. Is he evil? Kinda It is acutaly a great representaion of how poor ur "cultured and civilied" spits again in disgust looks on people and events in the world. U see all world as if it is only black or white, while there over 9000+ different colours It is insanely dumb hope u get it.

I'm afraid the current status of Stalin today in Russia (half the people think of him as a hero, government has begun rehabilitating him on the down low) says it all (he happened to be on the winning side, yet can anybody say he was any better than Hitler?).

Hitler would be considered one of history's greatest heroes had Germany survived the war. Comparing the state of the country before and after he took power, he very clearly had a beneficial effect on the quality of life, pride and happiness of the German people. Because he ended up losing, his legacy turned out a disaster. But that's politics, judged in retrospect. It has nothing to do with good or evil. A politician is good if his actions have a net positive effect on the people he is ruling, and bad otherwise. Any other consideration is meaningless. Trying to bring morals to the discussion of politics is like trying to discuss theology using the scientific method. They belong in different fields entirely.
No. Hitler turned Germany into a police state and pretty much became a dictator. The average German was miserable under him. Only the rich and elite Germans had no problem with him. Had he won, he still would've been considered a monster.

"Hitler would be considered one of history's greatest heroes had Germany survived the war."
Hitler's government killed 6 - 11 million Jews, a good percentage of whom were children, as well as millions of people who were physically or mentally ill, homosexual, on the wrong side of the political fence, or captured combatants. They displaced millions of people from their homes and took their things with no compensation. They forcible sterilized people they felt were "inferior." So I don't think this person would have been considered a hero even if Germany had scored a resounding victory.
The top echelons of the Nazi government knew that the gas chambers and the killings were wrong because they covered them up. They lied to family members of victims, disguised the true nature of the concentration camps, and would close and actually bury camps when local suspicions became aroused. Why would they have done that if they believed what they were doing was good and heroic?

This message has been deleted.

Hitler would be considered one of history's greatest heroes had Germany survived the war. Comparing the state of the country before and after he took power, he very clearly had a beneficial effect on the quality of life, pride and happiness of the German people. Because he ended up losing, his legacy turned out a disaster. But that's politics, judged in retrospect. It has nothing to do with good or evil. A politician is good if his actions have a net positive effect on the people he is ruling, and bad otherwise. Any other consideration is meaningless. Trying to bring morals to the discussion of politics is like trying to discuss theology using the scientific method. They belong in different fields entirely.

I'm no psycologist, but I understand that they actually unerstand the pain.
Psycopats are unable to feel emotions and empaty, but they are able to understand and simulate emotions. They are so good at lying that even specialists are mistaken by them. It's very interesting how they don't feel but simulate so well.
And it's very common that they feel pleasure when torturing, killing and inflicting pain. It's not like somebody that doesn't feel pain and doesn't know what they're doing when hurting other living beings. They do know what they are doing, and they feel pleasure or have benefits on that. They just don't care. Also, psycopats don't feel sorry even for themselves, when they are in jail and are provoked to talk about their situation they don't feel sad even for themselves.

This message has been deleted.

Psycopat by itself doesn't need to do harm. They just don't feel feelings and don't care for other living beings. They do what they wanna do, if for that it takes doing harm to othes, so be it.
If some living being is blocking a psycopat of achieving something she wants, and she's capable of killing him, she just takes the opportunity and do it.
Some of them feel pleasure torturing or watching somebody die. It may be sexual pleasure, or the feeling of power on taking somebody's life. It's interesting that the high value they see on a life is what may make them like to take it.

You've outed yourself as an ignoramus. Psychopathy does not necessitate doing harm to anyone. You clearly don't know what psychopathy is. Here's an example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/03/how-i-discovered-i-have-the-brain-of-a-psychopath

Psychopaths aren't evil? You've just outed yourself as a complete beep

I don't try to justify horrible actions. I'm just saying that evil doesn't exist. Psychopaths for instance aren't evil, as they can't understand the pain the inflict. If you don't understand that, how can it be evil? I don't accept warped beliefs, I'm saying that they can still be "pure" beliefs, even if it leads to horrible actions. I'm quite sick of people trying to distance "normal humans" from people who do horrific things, when people who do horrific things are just normal people with a malfunction. Like how we use the word "inhuman", when in fact the things we call inhuman are just horrific examples of what humanity can be. The biggest problems in the world will never get any closer to being solved if we just see everything as black and white, and accept that "some people are just evil".

i'll certainly agree the term "evil" is ridiculously overused and is thus devalued but true human evil obviously exists in people who can feel no remorse nor empathy with people they kill. and such people who must keep killing to satisfy a compulsion. hitler didn't see jews as fit to live, he fits that category. so would someone like ted bundy or john gacy. you can say it's just sickness and not evil, but this is a degree which cannot be corrected. no matter what you do, you could not fix those men from being compelled to end fellow humans lives just for their own satisfaction. they were evil.
Larry Gaylord: "a billion people come in on a day off, and they don't flip out!"