Saying it's a movie review is actually vindicating it. After the screening in the theater where the author was, all the people who hurriedly disperse heard these kinds of conversations: Are you awake? so boring! Didn't understand at all. bad movie. Don't know what's talking about. The movie reviews on major websites are also full of comments such as "Depp strives to catch up with Cage to become the king of the new generation of bad movies", "Depp's performance is as dry as the walking dead", "unclear narrative, confusing logic, poor special effects", etc. etc. description. In fact, when I was doing my homework before the viewing last night, I already knew about some of these comments, so I entered the theater with a face-controlled attitude to a certain extent. Impression flow is unreliable after all. It is no exaggeration to say that during these 120 minutes, I did not feel that my brain, which was always running at high speed, was being mistreated. In terms of visual effects, this sci-fi film released in 3D is really far from the shocking force that people expect. Coupled with the obscure plot, it is no wonder that those who are accustomed to watching big scenes of Hollywood-style productions are only looking for it. People with sensory stimuli will be seen falling asleep. How can people who only care about eating meat and drinking in a big bowl, how can they calm down and handle eight pieces of crabs to slowly peel off the cocoons to find the rare deliciousness under the hard shell?
As for the logic of science and technology, it is really necessary to study it carefully. No science fiction film can explain the core content of science and technology in its performance without any loopholes. Otherwise, how can it be called science fiction? It's just that the explanation of its technical principles in this film is indeed a one-off, one or two sentences or one or two seconds of clips, which makes some fans who like more serious things to vomit. And I think that as a medium and means to express the connotation of the film, there is no need to explain the principle of science and technology in great detail. As for the storyline, the same is true. Its sci-fi techniques and story content ultimately serve its purpose - to propose a philosophical proposition. Yes, it is a proposition, not a point of view, so fans who compare the meticulous logic of "Inception" to the film can rest. The director didn't want to prove any theory, and it doesn't matter. Right or wrong. On the surface, this film seems to express concern about the extinction of human nature in the context of technological progress, or the rapidly developing artificial intelligence with great room for improvement, like the British drama "Black Mirror" a few years ago. Possibly unmanageable fears, yes, but I don't think those are the core. In my opinion, the director wants to use this film to discuss a topic of existentialism and absolute consciousness philosophy with the audience: Can you prove you are self-aware? This dialogue, which appeared twice, is far more than a simple torture of artificial intelligence. It is the core of the whole film's dramatic conflict. The source of the contradiction between Evelyn and Max is whether Will, who has been transformed into pure ideology, can compete with him. The "Person" Will Equates? To abstract this question again, is human consciousness a combination of simple electrical impulses? Can it be replicated and simulated and stand on its own? Is there really such a thing as a soul? The No. 1 debater on the side is Will's wife Evelyn, and the No. 1 debater on the opposite side is Will's old friend and another outstanding artificial intelligence scientist Max. From the point of view of the plot setting, the director seems to be more inclined to the view of Max, and adds too much subjective color to Evelyn's insistence. The reason why she believes that Will, who exists in the form of pure ideology, is that her lover is in another way It exists to a certain extent because she is unwilling to accept the fact that Will has passed away, and even after witnessing the omnipotent ability of "Will" parasitic on the hard drive and roaming the Internet, she still does not give up until "" Will" used mind-reading on her (measurement of hormone levels in the body to monitor mood changes) to completely shatter her bottom line, and fear and disappointment eventually convinced her to form an alliance with Max. However, at the end of the story, when Evelyn, who was seriously injured and Will, who had recovered his body but voluntarily sacrificed for E, embraced and died, it can be seen that Evelyn is still willing to believe that the simple sum of the "body" and "consciousness" in front of him is own lover. There are a thousand Wills in a thousand audiences. You can agree with the positive or the negative. You can even think that the director has given the answer or you can think that he does not. This is the charm of this film. By the way, Depp's much-maligned "Walking Dead performance" in this film perfectly demonstrates the ambiguity between "Person" and "AI".
It's a good movie, but not a successful commercial. The director's biggest mistake is that he used the all-star lineup, the theme of science fiction films, and the packaging of commercial films to do enough foreplay, but it is not surprising that he used this expectant 120 minutes to talk about life and ideals with the audience ( Take off your pants to see this?). After all, you can't expect every movie with real content to have the same level of IMDB's top 10 and top 20 masterpieces and unparalleled box office appeal like "The Dark Knight" or "Inception".
View more about Transcendence reviews
