The structure of the film is three nested. It's about a famous author who wrote a book about a writer copying another writer's novel and becoming famous. This kind of three-nesting itself is not bad, but the way it achieves nesting is really old-fashioned, nothing more than "once opon a time" in a story. This is the genius of Inception. It uses dreams as the basis and magnifies time by 6 times to form a more advanced structure. In addition to extending the timeline, it also uses the characteristics of dreams to depict visual wonders.
If the movie just wants to tell a story honestly, that's okay, the story can be told more twists and turns, but unfortunately it doesn't.
In the story of the Paris boy, the two kept separating and meeting each other without explaining the reason to the audience. The girl disappeared and returned inexplicably, and the boy returned to China and returned. After the child died, the boy wrote frantically. Why? The way the two behave is full of quirky feelings, leaving the audience at a loss. And the heroine is too good at acting, crying, laughing, and silent in a stereotyped manner. In short, this story is the core appeal point of the film, the basis of all emotions and meaning of life of the old man, but it has not been told in a eloquent manner, and there is no romantic and compassionate atmosphere at all, which makes the audience unable to understand the meaning of the manuscript to the old man. It is also destined to make the film a less than satisfactory work.
Rory's story is still complete, and Bradly's acting is commendable in the film. The only downside in this story is that Bradly's love for writing is not highlighted, he's not poor, his lover hasn't left him, and his dad is helping him pay the rent (probably a very shameful thing in the eyes of Americans ...), he didn't write the book without sleep or sleep, what's worse, when he found that manuscript, the language of the camera lens was too subtle and uncreative, the editing of the camera lens could be transitioned from slow to fast, and the close-up of the manuscript and the faces of the people were added. Close-up superimposed shots, while adding front deep-field zoom and changes in room light to reflect his fascination and dedication to this manuscript. The lack of portrayal of this key point makes the core of the story also lose its light.
Finally, there is the outer story. The failure of this story lies in the actors. Dennis is not two-faced enough, and his acting is thin. Originally, this character was supposed to be a lack of confidence and emptiness in his heart, but in the end, he played it very real, not exaggerated at all, and people couldn't see his long-term social glib habit and emptiness. So, when he pointed out the core "making choice" of the whole movie, the audience couldn't help but ask "Where is the point?" He
used a reasonable structure and a more profound idea, as well as three generations of handsome actors. , but did not tell a good story, really regrettable.
View more about The Words reviews
