"Black Panther" is MCU's 18th movie and the last movie before "Reunion 3".
As of March 8, "Black Panther" had a global box office of US$921 million, second only to "Reunion 1", "Reunion 2", "Iron Man 3" and "Captain America 3" in the MCU; North American box office reached US$512 million , Second only to "Complex 1" in MCU.
As of March 8th, the freshness of rotten tomatoes was 97%, with an average score of 8.2; MTC scored 88 points (88 points for "Three Billboards" and 87 points for "The Shape of Water").
The audience’s reputation is overwhelming. Although the audience’s reputation is not considered rave reviews, it is still above average: IMDb is 7.8 points, Rotten Tomatoes audience index is 79%, and the average score is 4.1 (full score is 5, and the ten-point scale is equivalent to 8.2).
However, "Black Panther" has been criticized by people in China:
"Political correct!"
"nausea!"
"To please the black man!"
"Don't Bilian!"
In July 1966, Black Panther debuted in the 52nd issue of "Fantastic Four" and was the first non-satiric black superhero to appear in a mainstream American comic company.
I have to say that there was no such thing as "political correctness" in the 1960s.
Not long after Martin Luther King Kong delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech, race relations in the United States were quite tense, and blacks were still subject to a lot of discrimination against whites.
Marvel can abandon discrimination, create black superheroes in comics, and let black people save the world. Isn't it a manifestation of support and respect for disadvantaged groups?
"Black Panther" praises blacks and women, representing the functioning and creating value of disadvantaged groups; similar to "The Shape of Water", dumb heroines, murlocs, black colleagues, and homosexual roommates oppose villains and also represent disadvantaged groups Strive for a better life.
There are many such movies. For example, "Miracle Boy" focuses on children and the disabled, "Call Me by Your Name" focuses on homosexuality, and "The End of the Wild Flower" focuses on women...
Take a step back and say that even if these directors are hypocritical and sympathetic, they are better than others who discriminate against disadvantaged groups without evasiveness.
When the yellow race is still low in the international society, when women are still low in China, when we are a disadvantaged group, when our lives are full of discrimination, when we can’t praise the yellow race ourselves When working with women’s films, we say that films like "Black Panther" and "The Shape of Water" are hypocritical and the director deliberately caters to the tastes of film critics.
On the other hand, what are we doing? Not only did people fail to respect and support the disadvantaged groups, but the remarks and policies that blatantly discriminated against women, homosexuals, and the disabled are still very common.
Are American directors too politically correct, or are we too politically correct?
Obviously disadvantaged groups are still being discriminated against, but we are worried about overcorrection.
It is clear that blacks, women, the disabled, and homosexuals are still being harmed, but we are worried that politics is too correct.
Women have the environment of "Blind Mountain" and "Carnival", but we have the heart of "Wonder Woman" and "Captain Marvel".
Vulnerable groups have the environment of "Blind Well" and "Tengu", but we have the heart of "Black Panther" and "Wolf Warrior 2".
It feels like we are still beggars, but we are worried about what to do if the money is too much to use up.
In 2017, "Moonlight Boy" won the Oscar for Best Picture, and everyone accused the Oscar and "Moonlight Boy" of being politically correct.
This year, "The Shape of Water" won an Oscar for Best Picture, and some people said that "The Shape of Water" was "very general", "politically correct", and "seriously over-famous"...
There are many other Oscar judges, don’t you have an amateur who understands movies?
"The Shape of Water" is not only the Oscar for best film, but also the Venice Golden Lion Award, the American Critics' Choice Film Award for Best Picture, the American Film Institute Award for Best Picture... Is it that the judges of these film awards do not know movies as well as you?
Of course, there is nothing wrong with rationally criticizing films such as "Black Panther", "The Shape of Water", "Moonlight Boy", and "Call Me by Your Name". After all, criticism is not free, and praise is meaningless.
But using the words "political correctness" to deny the whole movie is too ignorant.
Apart from being politically correct, can we talk about the movie itself?
The story originated in 1992 when Nitrobe, the brother of the old king, came to the United States and found that the President of the United States was assassinated. The community was full of drugs and weapons.
Therefore, Nitrob wanted to use vibrato weapons to overthrow the regime and let Wakanda rule the earth in the right way.
The old king was too conservative. He believed that the secrets of Wakanda and Zhenjin should be hidden from the outside world.
Radicals and conservatives represented by Nitrob and the old king are the two main groups of Wakanda.
Among the radicals are Eric and Wakabi. Among them, Eric believes that there are still a large number of blacks in the world living very difficult. They don't even have weapons or resources to resist. Wakanda should liberate them with vibrating weapons. Arm the oppressed people everywhere with vibrating weapons and let them kill those in power.
The current Panthers belong to the conservatives. He believes that his responsibility is to ensure the safety of the Wakanda. He will not use vibro weapons to start wars, nor use vibro weapons to determine the fate of non-Wakandas.
Okoye also stated that Wakanda only fought the necessary battles, in other words, she would not fight first.
From the perspective of radicals, there are still thousands of black people suffering in the world. Why should we enjoy the blessing? We should rule the world, let the entire earth belong to Wakanda, establish a new order, and achieve the goal of liberating the blacks.
Just as Qin Shihuang unified China, although he killed countless people, it was equally significant. Even if Qin Shihuang did not unify China, others would do it later.
From the perspective of conservatives, whites oppress blacks. Should we oppress whites the other way around? Then we have become like white people.
"Black Panther" revolves around the struggle between conservatives and radicals. It is a story of a struggle for the throne and a collision of ideas. It is not like a superhero movie, but more like a historical movie.
Because Nitrobe helped Klau stole the vibrating weapon and tried to kill Zu Li, the old king naturally killed him without having to bear the guilt.
But, is this the truth?
It is worth noting that the king has supreme power.
Nitrob stole the golden weapon because he understood that the old king would not agree with his ideas. As long as the old king disagrees, then no matter how he wants to use the golden weapon to rule the earth, it will not help;
When Eric became the king, most people began to be loyal to him. If it weren’t for the "resurrection" of the Panthers, Okoye would not resist; Eric wanted to send vibrato weapons to spies of various countries, which would cause war. He won everyone's support, and even if one or two people opposed it, it would not have any impact on Eric's plan; even if Eric ordered the gardener to burn the heart-shaped grass, the other party would obey.
These details show that everyone will listen to what the king says, whether you are a radical or a conservative.
Since Wakanda can be hidden until now, it means that every king is a conservative. After all, as long as there is a king in history who is a radical, the fact that Wakanda has hidden to this day will not be established. In the first egg, Panthers also said, "This is the first time in history that it has been disclosed to the world."
There is an important detail in the film: Wakanda elects the king by force.
As long as they are of royal blood, they can challenge the throne.
So, is there no radical in Wakanda’s history to become king by force?
We can boldly guess that every radical who "has royal blood and is qualified to be a king" has been killed, just like the old king killed Nitrob.
We can boldly guess that Nitrob’s charges of "helping Klau steal a golden weapon and attempt to kill the ancestors" are also unwarranted. It is out of nothing. It is the reason the old king made up for the reasonable killing of Nitrob. It is the old king. Cooperating with Zu Li to lie to the Panthers.
Only in this way can we explain why Zu Li said to Panther, "We have to keep this lie."
This is the only way to explain why Zu Li said to Eric, "Kill me, I killed your dad."
If it was Nitrob who wanted to kill Zuli, and the old king killed him to protect Zuli, Zuli would not say "Kill me, I killed your father" to Eric , After all, it was Nitrob who did it first, and there is no such thing as "the ancestor killed Nitrob".
Therefore, before the old king, a large number of radicals were killed by the king, and then the truth was concealed by the king.
This is why the Panthers say: We cannot make mistakes again and again because we are afraid of being discovered by the outside world.
And this is the shortcoming of conservatives. They do not disclose in order not to make it public, which makes things worse.
Choosing the radical way will inevitably trigger a world war and cost tens of thousands of people's lives; choosing the conservative way, the future king will kill many radicals in order to prevent radicals from gaining the throne.
Therefore, it is really difficult for the Panthers to make a choice.
In fact, the film has long been foreshadowed. In addition to conservatives and radicals, there are also charitable groups like Nagiya. She advocates that Wakanda share the resources she has and provide rescue, technology, and shelter to those in need.
At first, Black Panther thought that Nagia’s ideas were too naive and naive, and even a little leftist, no different from “accepting refugees” and “going to have relations with refugees”.
But he gradually discovered that among the radicals, conservatives, and philanthropists, the philanthropy was the best.
So in the first egg, Panther said that Wakanda will no longer be isolated from the world, nor can it be isolated from the world. He will share Wakanda's knowledge and resources with the world for the first time in history.
If "Black Panther" is a dystopian movie based on a fictional background, this problem can be solved, and you can directly choose the radicals without having to bear the guilt.
For example, "The Hunger Games", "Moving Maze", "Star Wars", "The Matrix", "Torn Doom" and so on, all tell stories about the protagonist living in tyranny and want to overthrow the tyranny, but no audience would think that they would overthrow it. The approach of tyranny is wrong.
If "Black Panther" were a story that took place on Mars, we wouldn't think there was anything wrong with Eric launching a war to unify Mars. After all, the innocent people who died on Mars are my shit. After all, this is just a movie.
However, the background of "Black Panther" is the earth. The protagonist and the audience will feel guilty about "ruling the earth", believing that the radical ideas are wrong. After all, if you want to rule the earth, you will inevitably lose thousands of innocent people. life.
If in real life anyone would stand up and say that he would start a world war and unify the earth, then he would be wrong and would become a target of criticism and a public enemy of the whole people. Unless he can win the world war and unify the earth smoothly, no one will talk about him. It is like if Hitler won the world war and ruled the world, he would become a hero.
In the same way, Nitrob and Eric’s ideas were not wrong, and the fault was that they lost in the end.
If they win in the end, they will become heroes who liberate the blacks and revolutionaries who unite the earth; while the old king and the black panther will become villains, indifferent and unforgiving people who ignore the life and death of blacks, and become criticized and reviled. Object.
But in fact, with the same desire to make Wakanda stronger, Nitrob and Eric became villains, but Panthers became heroes. We don't know whether there is a tendency to vilify Nitrob and Eric and beautify the Panthers.
After all, history is written by victors.
Superhero movies are all fictional stories. As long as they can be logically self-consistent and tell a good story, they are good movies.
In my opinion, "Black Panther" may not have much depth, but at least it is above average.
"Black Panther" doesn't have many laughs. Compared with other MCU movies, the style is more serious. It is biased towards "Captain America 2" and "Captain America 3."
In terms of entertainment and fun, it may not be as "good-looking" as "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" and "Thor 3", but the script and film quality are still good.
If you want to watch a popcorn movie with fights and jokes, you may be disappointed; but if you don’t care much about entertainment and can calm down and think about the plot of "Black Panther", then "Black Panther" will definitely be able to Meet your needs.
More importantly, I hope that we can rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the film, instead of labeling it as "politically correct."
I hope we can stop talking about political correctness and talk about the movie itself.
I hope that we will not negate the whole movie and miss a masterpiece just because of the "political correctness".
View more about Black Panther reviews
