Later I turned over its film review and remembered to write this short review. In fact, the director's intention is very big, and the spearhead is directed at the hypocritical religious beliefs of the mainstream society. Jack, a "pious" believer who worships every week and prays at every meal, is engaged in the noble work of persuading unscrupulous criminals to reform, and when he retires, he still hates his wife and disrespects his colleagues; he was even "instigated by a criminal" "Step by step, he slid into the abyss of crime. This is a typical Christian-the problem is this, if a person only repents before God and has no reflection on other people; he can still be a good believer, despite the fact that he may be a good person. Not on. At this time, he was doomed to perish, and even God could not help him-because God's servant in the world was probably just a passerby (the pastor). The classmate Jack played by Robert De Niro is still very good. He has a feeling of walking dead. On the surface, he seems to have a lot of thoughts. It seems that the thoughts in his brain are very deep, but in fact, it is an out-and-out pile of thoughts.
If it is generalized, I want to say that this is not just a question of religion. There are many beautiful things in the world, and it is good to have them, and other benefits are obvious after having them. Because of this, everyone wants to get it. This is called the principle of profit-seeking. Although everyone has different goals, there is no difference in fighting in a row. Like our university spending parents’ money, eating, drinking and having fun for 4 years, failing to countless subjects, and finally trying hard to get a diploma, this seems no different from the results of the cold window for ten years; it is all for the kindness of the parents and for the use of people. The face of the unit. Also like our phd, ws still has no clue after several years of research. With the help of teachers, brothers and sisters, we have to mix up a few second works to graduate, and then we will blow it out when we see people, otherwise we will not be confident.
~~~ It's a bit farther away, in short, to use a buzzword on the Internet: if you are serious, you lose. The movie was not viewed well because it was too serious, and the audience in the United States was enthusiastic about it, so it lost miserably. There are nothing more than two kinds of criticism and opposition. One is that you are not adding to the chaos, and Christianity is such a good thing, and it is not your turn to criticize; the other is that hey, it is rare to find a serious comrade, and quickly cover it up. Invite to join an underground organization, don’t be invited to drink tea by the FBI. . . There may be a third possibility. It is reasonable to say that existence is reasonable, but you obviously did not realize it when you jumped out to criticize it. . . I crossed. . .
Let's go back to the movie. After breaking down and standing up, after criticizing the wrong way of belief, the film describes the right way of belief: that is through constant persistence and experience, and finally become "God's tuning fork", so that you can become a true believer-a little bit mysterious, I I don't know what is the connection between this tuning fork theory and fatalism, or Eastern religions, and what is the difference between them. But in all fairness, it doesn't seem like a wonderful thing to be a tuning fork-the so-called Taoist "doing nothing" and the Confucian "doing what one wants without exceeding the rules" sound much more chic. Personally, I still appreciate this method, because it is gratifying to find that Western and Eastern religions used to be so similar.
It's a pity that this part of the film is not good. Maybe because the thing to be established (belief) is too abstract, even though the description process is very detailed, it still looks like "Little Head Dad". It’s not that Norton’s performance was not wonderful. He first listened desperately (subjective effort, please see for yourself), and then an accidental opportunity made him reflect on his past sin (becoming a sinner—a believer in Christ), and then he believed (It doesn’t matter if you go to jail or come out). The performance is very dramatic, and the process is also one step at a time. However, the whole process has no sense of ritual or miracles. It is very different from Western religious traditions. It sounds closer to the Eastern story of "put down the butcher knife and become a Buddha on the ground". Some. I'm afraid it is also a certain distance from the Western audience, so many audiences are more likely to regard it as a secular story. Moreover, there is a logical loophole in the film, that is, it is completely untenable to criticize the traditional way of belief by criticizing a pseudo-believer, so the following argument (the proposal of another way of belief) is also far-fetched. (Of course, there is a relatively pious traditional believer in the film. Jack's wife, who smokes and drinks alcohol, and is trapped in a failed marriage, should not have received faith; as a dark line, the logical support provided is not strong.) In the
end, despite this It is a completely religious film. As an atheist, I feel that it can be interpreted from a human point of view: the film describes four (species) people: Stone (Norton), Jack and their respective wives. Stone is a spiritually oriented person, and his wife is a desire-oriented person (seduce Stone and Jack successively). Jack is an interest-oriented person, and his wife is a socially-oriented (complied with social morality) person. Pursuing spirit requires bearing social prejudice; pursuing desire may mean betrayal; pursuing profit must endure spiritual torture; pursuing social morality means personal compromise and being trampled on.
The tragedy is that no matter the kind of people above, they may be lonely in the end. I don't know what kind of person I am.
View more about Stone reviews
