Lao Luo's performance cannot be said to be indifferent, but it only makes a dull and dull image more annoying, of course or this is the original intention-to hit the key, not as good as the rest. However, a character who has basically no other image besides being old-fashioned is really a bit of a toothache. But as others have said, the director may never be prepared to let people understand. This is a solo dance of a person, and the applause and the audience are just meaningless extras.
The whole movie is full of rebellion against Christian doctrines, false confession can be exchanged for salvation (or, "the opportunity to hurt others again?"), but when the real confession begins, at least the audience no longer believes it. Why? Precisely because the sin of the penitent turns the bystander into the perpetrator, then, when the initial sin is realized, the atonement effort is in vain.
In that case, confess your sin-to whom? How to repent? What about after confession? Mabry's children's shoes are not less remorseful, but do any of the judges find this thing useful? Or does the author find it useful? no. We are defined by our own behavior, so confession that only stays in language is just nonsense, but if we do not use behavior to atone for our sins, can we only bear these sins forever? But the director keeps saying that whether you atone for your sins or not depends on whether you show confession. What happens after you show it? Does Mabry believe it? Does Stone have an atonement? All is just re-entering reincarnation. Just like Lao Luo's confession, all he got was the godfather's formulaic answer, as well as the unchanging silence and boring in life, and then he watched his life collapse, just like that house.
Speaking of this, I think of a line, if God is omnipotent, then where does the sin in the world come from? -If God is in charge of everything, then is sin also part of God? ——Well, I admit that Augustine didn't understand what I didn't understand, so I don't understand.
I always hate this kind of literary and sullen movies, not for anything else, because I can't understand them. The whole article is all metaphors. Those who are free may wish to look through the manuscripts of the Pope’s answers to modern philosophical questions. The questions he tried to answer seem to have been carried out in a circle one by one here. Then what? Then no, the author has no plans to answer, or is unable to answer, or the question itself is all? I don’t know, I’m just a 2b youth. I just want to say that the director is smashing Christianity, but if you find this, then you have been smashed by the director.
View more about Stone reviews
