As the story goes on, John easily told everyone about his life experience. This is rather bad. For a person who has lived for so long, there are ears. How far things will develop is not only unpredictable, but it is not easy to tell the story so sincerely with people who get along with 1/1400 of their lives.
In order to make the story reasonable, John has to have the forgetting law of normal people, so that he can remember the big and not the small and avoid the important in the whole narrative process. He did not mention how he survived in the first few thousand years in the environment and its harsh seafaring life, let's calculate the probability; furthermore, frostbite, permanent trauma [not leaving no scars, but broken arms and broken legs] How much more likely it is not to happen in the long 14,000 years than to be struck by lightning twice in a lifetime, I really doubt it.
Generally speaking, there are four races in the world, so how did he get along with the Mongolians, Negroes and Australians cross-culturally in the constant lost experience? Why not mention these obstacles? Not to mention how profound a person's understanding of political, economic and social mechanisms will be in such a long life course, at least in psychology or understanding human nature should have made achievements, whether it is to persuade or not to convey. The real information is good, but I haven't seen the use of this ability. So from the beginning, John can only tell the truth, without a sense of humor, profound truth, and kind truth. It is not difficult for us to guess that he is Jesus in advance when we see a biblical character.
In the end, without that stupid doctor of psychology refuting the "relief", this dear man simply can't end, yes, a fact like this is believed by so many people and will not be spread, which movie watcher will be convinced, so in order not to So blatantly fooling the audience, he had no choice but to fool a few well-tested and high-IQ doctors present, and make them immediately turn their eyes against what they heard during the long afternoon. It would be nice to say that the whole process was pre-designed by John, but as a topic of free development, such an ending is to be expected for the film, how could it not develop like this?
The film was closed when it didn't see it right. At the end, a doctor had to die to prove to everyone [including the audience] the truth of the matter. Another very unpleasant part is at the end, or from the beginning to the end. It has always been the power of love, allowing trust and sincerity to flourish.
I really don't want to watch the second time and think about the loopholes. Enough is enough, my writing has never been docile enough, and there are many flaws, but this time I have to say that there are so many things that I foresee in advance that I have lost my appetite, too 100% of a commercial film, how come so many people say yes? I wonder about this. By the way, I would like to question, apart from starting to explain the human body’s immortality in an argumentative way, why has it been seen that Mr. Jesus, who has been living in a daze for so long, has ventured into the field of medicine and genetics to explore his own life The mystery is that the current genetic technology can't explain this daunting problem or that people naturally don't like research. By the way, it is said in the movie that there is no medical degree, no wonder.
Anyway, thinkcear doesn't think it's a good movie.
md, I have to say, if this low-cost indoor sitcom just stays at the novel stage, it will be fine. If it has to be made into a movie, isn't it a less intense question-and-answer and uneven debate on the theme of history? , it has become one of the N movies that our excellent bloggers love in their lives. Let me ask a very serious question. If you are asked to write this story, how can you write it? [Don’t rush to answer first , think for yourself], why not just write it like this? Science fiction, is it?
View more about The Man from Earth reviews
