I feel that the plot logic of this film is very poor. Why is what the Queen Mother said equal to the truth? law? It's obviously a misunderstanding, just admit the mistake, how big of a deal can you get rid of your son's throne? And let Bajo bring back Devashina, didn't he already send him a letter? Why send troops to fight the small country where Devashina is located? It is said that this group of soldiers ran fast enough, surpassing the birds of the messenger! Moreover, Bajo has a token of the king on his chest, and even the king of a small country recognizes it, so Bajo can completely use it to command the soldiers of his own country, so that he does not need his own country's token. The soldiers were wiped out by themselves. Personally, I think this arrangement is the screenwriter's wishful thinking to make the audience feel that Bajo can fight, and make Devasina worship Bajo (do you worship him for killing?)
And Bajo's uncle is also really interesting. In order not to let the queen mother's hands get his son's blood, he would rather kill Bajo who respected him so much. And it was also used to refer to Bajo from the bitter meat scheme. I really can't accept this kind of morality. Since both myself and the queen mother understand Bajo's character, no one has thoroughly investigated the frame-up. At least bring Bajo over to ask, and set up a bitter plan to frame Bajo. I said, do you love Bajo or hate Bajo?
There are too many, I don't want to vomit anymore...
View more about Baahubali 2: The Conclusion reviews
