Two stars for the plot and one star for the production. Obviously not as good as 1. The purpose of the film is to reflect on the ethics and morality of scientific experiments, but it cannot deny the fat man's upbringing of the male protagonist. Unprovoked animal experiments should be condemned, but isn't the killing of the male protagonist more distressing than animal experiments? Even if the armed men don't, at least the female doctor shouldn't die. Why didn't the male protagonist commit suicide after poisoning the mutated dog before he mutated himself? In the end, it was replaced with Fatty... This makes me even more speechless. Fatty was mutated and raised. He is a human being, after all, it is not the same as an animal. . Cloning also clones animals and does not allow clones to be cloned. In the end, it is better to kill the fat mutated man after raising him. . Didn't the fat man monitor the male protagonist, but the male protagonist himself is a potential foreign object. . The film's description of Fatty's evil is obviously insufficient, only depicting his selfishness but not to the degree of evil. If you want to directly raise the male protagonist to mutate, you can directly supervise it for 24 hours, and do experiments to force him to mutate. There is no solution... The male protagonist is still healthy and has grown up with healthy values.
The male protagonist's sympathy for the dog is to think of himself. Animal experimentation is unethical, and it is for such a private purpose. But the male protagonist is inconsistent, making people speechless. Contrast 1, at least his father did not kill innocent people indiscriminately, and his death was honest enough.
View more about The Fly II reviews
