Subjective perception is that the perception is very poor. I don’t think it counts as telling a story, but as a person who is unprofessional, unobjective, reads a small amount of film, and basically watches movies for pleasure, my basic requirement for watching movies is to tell a story... I want to summarize it in one sentence In terms of content (don't worry about spoilers, because you can't reveal anything), an accomplished Hollywood drama writer feels confused and painful, just fools around. The whole film is full of huge emptiness and meaninglessness. There is no dialogue, it is all narration, and most of the narration is the psychological activity of the character, and it is the same as in the novels of Literary Mary Su. I guess the director just wanted to convey this "feeling" and didn't intend to create any conflict or drama, so the small word "a quest" on the poster is quite appropriate.
However, please, just fool around and sit there thinking, if you can understand the meaning and direction of life, it will be weird. In my opinion, one is love and connection, and the other is work. The male protagonist did not pursue any of the two in the confusion and pain, and he must continue to be confused and painful. It should be noted that the male protagonist has experienced infatuation and passion, and even actively seeks passion, but this is different from true love and connection. I hope that the vitality brought to his life by the young and beautiful girl is simply because of the roots of the tree. And the girls inside, except for the Devil and Portman, are like objects, not humans.
At the beginning of the film, he told a fable. A king of the Eastern Kingdom asked the prince to go to Egypt in the west to find a pearl. When the prince arrived in Egypt, he was filled with a kind of wine (?), which made him forget the pearl, his kingdom, everything. everything of. But his father did not forget the prince, and people kept bringing him letters. This fable appears again and again, and the male protagonist keeps reminding himself of the "pearl" (= "initial heart"?), which probably means that he still has a pursuit that cannot be forgotten. But the behavior of the male protagonist taking the role of the prince himself is problematic: he has not been drunk, so he sees his loss as a passive thing that happened to him. I am not cold-blooded to refuse to see his pain, in fact I can understand it, but the pain itself is boring and exhausting, whether it is for the sufferer or for the company. So it might be meaningful to discuss this kind of drunken dreams of death in Hollywood, but I don't want to spend two hours watching his powerlessness, a huge first world problem.
My friend gave me two tickets for advance screening in the morning, and I went. I don’t know if advance screening will be watched by many media and film critics. When I think that they not only have to work hard to finish reading, but also have to write manuscript evaluation when they go back. When I think that some people's work includes reading this kind of thing, I feel that my work is very happy.
There are other film critics who say that the director graduated from the Department of Philosophy, so he must have not read Marx well. Suggest that he go back to the furnace and focus on the "Manuscript of Philosophy and Economics in 1844".
"for what it life but activity?"
View more about Knight of Cups reviews
