I really want to talk about the relationship between two people.
Let's qualitative first: I think Booster has a passion for Turk, and it is mixed with Electra.
Some people criticized Booster when Turk is an idol inexplicably, and Turk is not someone who can become an idol of others.
But I feel that, first of all, it is probably difficult for Turk to become an idol in the general sense. He is not so intelligent, talented, and powerful, and there are many defects in his personality. But obviously none of these affect him to become Booster's idol. However, I have to admit that the film has not made corresponding preparations in this regard. Although the emotional foundation of the two has been expressed very well, it is not sufficient considering the level of "idol". It just flows between words.
Some people say that Booster is the third party between Turk and his lover. Actually, it's not justified. Of course Turk molested this girl, but in the end, sodomized this girl, it explained everything. He did not admire this woman, nor was he jealous of the relationship between Turk and her, but completely disgusted and hated. And it is this hatred that further illustrates the existence of Jiqing.
The direction of the movie is towards the base, and the ending is considered to be the finishing touch, but it seems a little weak, whether it is lines or performances, they are a little weak.
As for Turk's performance at the end, I think it is because Turk has the original faith. Booster is already a complete criminal at this time, and his performance is in line with this. Turk should be in a kind of cognitive confusion. And he didn't have a corresponding basis for Booster, that woman was the evidence.
Where did the foundation of Booster come from? He was abused when he was young, and what he abused was the religious authority in the eyes. After the collapse of values, seek support for values. Turk is such a support. The feelings accumulated by trust, dependence, and time will finally be transformed into basic feelings. This is the logic of the movie, but it is also a logic that makes sense. There are real examples of this.
But in fact, I don't agree with the basic expression in the movie. This is more like being used as a gimmick, a selling point, but it doesn't help the film itself perfect. It seems a little playful. If you have to say it is bad, this is a very objective bad point.
As for this film, it was sold off and evasive at the beginning, and the ending was a big turn, too old-fashioned. I quite accept this kind of cliché. Watching a lot of this type of film will indeed feel boring and easy to be aesthetically tired. But it is precisely because of more that it has become a means of expression, a conventional means of layout, and many stories are wonderful because of this layout. If you want to judge this kind of layout, it seems that it is more fair to only talk about likes and dislikes, regardless of good or bad.
The point is, although the movie is sold off on the names of the two. But still gave a lot of hints. This is more interesting.
Booster looked at the priest leading the child at the beginning;
and the psychologist said that the poetry man actually wanted to leave clues to the police to show his intelligence and gain a sense of accomplishment (Booster first guided everyone to think that the suspect is a policeman, and Turk He tried his best to avoid it, Turk’s performance
was exactly the opposite of what the psychologist had interpreted); and when Turk’s lover said that Turk’s handwriting was completely inconsistent with the poetry man’s handwriting, there was every reason to guess that it was Booster, right?
In addition, when everyone doubts Turk, Booster will avoid suspicion and help Turk, which can be regarded as a kind of show of basic feelings.
More touching place.
First, it was the old man's choice. Especially in the story of the baseball player, 400 points, can already be famous, drifting away at the most brilliant time, but still insisting, making a more brilliant 406 points.
In this way, Booster chose to make a desperate move. As a result, his life turned around and returned to the original point again, so that there was no, no Chan, but finally it rotted helplessly. Turk was obviously not reconciled, and finally accepted his fate as a baseball coach.
The second is the way the villain is dealt with in the film. Those who deserve to be punished have been punished to varying degrees. The two who escaped death were obviously uncomfortable, especially the Russian killer, which was very bleak.
The whole film contains such a breath: do not accuse this method of exceeding power to execute the wicked by the death penalty, and the punishment of each wicked person is heartfelt. I really like the expression of this concept. Of course, many films have been used before, which is not new.
I saw someone saying that photography is not good. I have never paid much attention to the photographic effects of this kind of film, it's just fine. Besides, I don't know much, so I won't say much.
I just feel that I haven't found too many reasons to define this film as a bad film, and the Golden Raspberry Award is obviously not the authority to judge bad films. I personally understand that Jin Sumei nominated Al Pacino as the worst actor, not because of his performance ability, but because of his old-fashioned but hungry image is not acceptable.
View more about Righteous Kill reviews
