Have you ever played "Turtle Soup"? The gameplay of this situation puzzle (Situation puzzle) game is very simple. Each round of the game assumes an extraordinary situation in a common situation as a puzzle. Each player is required to guess what kind of human, time and place changes the situation has experienced before it becomes like Ending. If you agree that the video works are a one-way output rather than a two-sided interaction, "Can't Kill Three" is to force the audience to be players in the theater and spend a ticket to play the turtle soup: "In Australia At a certain seaside, there were five men and four women discussing life there, one of them was a killer. One day, the lady of the bar went to see the dentist; the next day, the killer died at the dentist’s house. What's the matter, please?” The only difference , Only the answer to this question of sea turtle soup does not require interaction with the host, and it will be announced in ninety minutes.
Of course, "Can't Kill Three" is by no means the first movie to play this kind of turtle soup trick. Just in the black crime genre that is homologous to this film, the whole picture of a huge crime is connected through multiple people and lines. I immediately thought of Kubrick's "The Killing" in 1956; Kubrick influenced Garrick, who lived in the UK, so he had two more titles in 1998's "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and 2000's "Snatch" (Snatch). Film; After Gary's influence crosses the English Channel, there will be two works by China’s Ning Hao in 2006's "Crazy Stone" and 2009's "Crazy Racing". Last year, in 2014, Shinagawa was filmed in Japan for "Three Thirds: Reversal Gambling". I'm not sure if it was directly influenced by this movie, but the style is indeed very similar. If you put the influence on the micro level, the film opens with three different points of view and repeats the same period of time. It will be slightly reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 "Pulp Fiction" (Pulp Fiction). The trick to go back in time. However, this technique has its origins, perhaps not from Quentin's recent works, nor is it known.
Watching these movies, the audience is not only watching, but also often guessing, guessing who will encounter another group of people and what will happen to them. Sometimes there are even more guesses than watching, especially when the director is willing to let go of the inevitability of favors or the retribution of cause and effect, the audience has no way to find the rules of the type to find the answer, let alone if the script is bad enough, the key evidence will be Simply have not played before the finale!
The script of "Can't Kill Three" does not reach the limit of evil, but it does throw away cause and effect. The whole film has no intention of trying to characterize the character. As the opening character, Simon Peggy immediately shot and killed people in the desert. After setting the tone for the film to black, there were successive snatches and packet losses: Grab money and lose your life. Five men and four women are not good men or women, but they are so bad that they have no antecedents. The "Turtle Soup" is fully utilized to simplify the characters and strengthen the situation. The story is constantly flipped, and the relationship between the characters continues to expose the enemy and our camp. , The key evidence of the money is repeatedly guessing what's in the bag (albeit crudely idiotic). This situational game is complicated enough and complicated enough to play.
But then? After the opening three simultaneous different narratives were played, and five men and two women officially started to face each other, the excitement that "Can't Kill Three" can bring the audience to fatigue slowly. Because the next thing is everything, there are many branches and leaves, and the roots are scattered. It is just the process before the ending to solve the puzzle. What happens is not surprising, and it is not surprising who will fight back. Very fresh, but what to do with our audience?
This is the most dangerous aspect of this kind of "turtle soup" plot.
When the characters of the movie are completely functional, it is relatively difficult for the characters to be attractive, depending on the actor's appearance and posture. On the other hand, the script cannot do anything for the actors, and the story only tries to play non-stop, and the release of the climax is only required. The audience sympathizes with a certain character, and then is frightened by the unknown end of that character. But the movie is not a game. It is also a guessing murderer. The interaction between movie audiences and the characters on the screen is far lower than the fun of the players who can interact with each other with their mouths and bodies. Players can become friends with each other because of the game, or they already are, but the audience and the characters can't. If we are not friends with the characters, we have no reason to spend 90 minutes caring about people we don't care, right?
I believe that many creators who write the script of the sea turtle soup will instinctively discover this in the writing process. If you don't want to abandon the fun of the turbulence of the plot, but want to try to improve the innocuous and scary audience, you can only add some new elements. The things that every screenwriter uses to comment on are different: "The Killing" (The Killing) is still early days, and I dare not let it go too much (so there is still a narration to remind the audience of the situation), and the turtle soup can still be regarded as ㄧA normal crime movie; "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" are based on the British tune and humor of each character Small actions create the illusion of a comic hero; "Crazy Stone" and "Crazy Racing" are more weird. The director chose to put in a lot of current affairs ridicule, which made the whole film swing very paradoxically between humor and ridicule; ㄧ: "Reversal Gambling" (サンブンノイチ) wants to like this film, but the director's way to solve the turning point is to put a lot of comic dialogue (mancai) into the flower arrangement, which is really not very clever. Regardless of whether it is by genre, comics, current events or crosstalk, these movies are trying to make the audience not give up in the process of solving the mystery-to be straightforward, just don't be boring.
"Can't Kill Three" has absolutely no intention of self-reliance, to resolve the insensitivity of the audience in the guessing process. Although in the middle of the film, Simon kills the remaining characters until there are not many left. What the plot does is to continue to warm up the complexity of turning between the paragraphs; it is difficult to be called a new element, only when it is a turning point, it is necessary to put one. Back to the signature soundtrack. However, no matter how strong the screenwriter is, the turbulent changes in the situation will inevitably be exhausted with the gradual increase in clues, making the answer clear and easy to guess. When the fun of guessing the answer is getting less and less, and we owe the sorrows, joys, situations, and affections of the role axis, the ending is just like a game where everyone can’t guess the answer, forcing the host to announce the correct answer. The end of the answer is the same as routine-failure is greater than satisfaction.
"Can't Kill Three" disdains these interspersed tricks, whether it believes the audience too much or does not believe it too much, I can't tell. The script is quite good, and the turning points are not far-fetched, but the more you want to make these turning discounts more complicated, the main roads that were originally used for damage tend to appear thinner. Finally, because of its thinness, the movie is boring.
View more about Kill Me Three Times reviews
