The score was low, and some people complained on the barrage during the whole process. There was no plot and too plain. This is still called no plot? I don’t mention the retro hats and costumes, from the Mediterranean sea and the sea on the screen, I don’t mention Aragon’s buttocks, I feel scared under the bright light, my face is calm, and I am struggling hysterically behind my back. The feeling of powerlessness lingers. In the film, the ancient Greek fairy tale dreams are broken, and there is any conscious difference between the gun-bearing metropolis and the prosperous settlement New York. The deceit and filth of the common folks are everywhere.
Some film critics said that it is a crime documentary without suspense. After watching it, I don’t agree with it. As watchmen of the movie, we can easily stand on the sidelines, but this movie did not let me easily stay out of the matter. All the time, let us fall into divisions and doubt ourselves: I am both a situational experience or substitute, and a judge of my own speculation. I travel through it and sink into it, without knowing it, let alone knowing who has this concentration. Be a completely noble clean person. Whether it is my shrewd businessman played by the king of Aragon, or a guide who is following desperately, when they come to the dangerous "pass" again and again, I have to take a deep breath and wonder if I can also escape. The temptation of desire: What should I do if I meet an enemy with a gun and ask for money? Will I obediently give up? When arguing with my wife/husband, I still have the mind to think about arguing on the ground to avoid falling. I won’t do it at all. Like a businessman, he will go farther and farther on the wrong path. The tension of the plot really does not lie in the shadow of the sword, the shadow of the guns and the rain, but the fate of the rain and the rain, the dead end of the street at the sunny end, and the unpredictable interest care.
As time went by, the entanglement became more and more evident: the last airport trap, on the left is the murder charge and the future behind bars; on the right is the life of Jin Chan's escape from the shell and from now on at ease. Standing at the fork in the airport, which one is more attractive? What choice will you make? The plan I used in Aragon is to use the lost suitcase to frame the tour guide. It cannot be said to be a long-planned scam by the businessman, nor can it be said that the greedy tour guide deserves it. The temptation at this moment is too test of human nature, and the newspapers The eyewitnesses gave the businessman enough inspiration and excuses to use it, which seemed to be a smooth choice. And recalling the more straightforward businessmen’s mistakes in the film, the first was to kill detectives in the hotel. He explained that they were forced to do so because they had guns; the second time his wife died tragically at Yamashita, his abandonment on the spot could also be avoided as an accident. However, it was the countless Flyying Gougou who hadn't seen the sunlight behind him that really attracted all this. In the end, he couldn't escape the mentality of being a guilty conscience, and ran wildly on the streets of Turkey like a headless fly, smelling the gun. Of course, the businessman is not innocent at all. In the night of the ancient ruins, he obviously has a motive for murder. Because of his love and hatred, he killed a tour guide who has a good impression of his wife. Even being drunk cannot justify his innocence. The movie What I understand here is that he deliberately went down the mountain and then attacked from behind, which caused the witness's wife to lose control and collapse completely, and then pushed and pushed fatally.
It seems helpless, but in fact, I have already planted evil causes, and then there are irreversible evil results: fraud is the source, and the man's coat that has covered his sweet wife countless times is jealous and fuse, ignoring his wife's desire to dance. It is the norm, and the grave is the final outcome.
Let's talk about the impressive grass grey snake line. There is nothing wasteful in the film, and many details are echoed and interesting:
1. Ruins
After getting off the bus in the ancient town, the hostess knocked on the door of the tour guide and asked: What is worth visiting? Is the really desperate tour guide in a bad mood at all? Speaking of what the locals would say: Ruins, right? But when the plot came to the rainy night of escape, they took shelter under the ruins, and the heroine fell off the ruins, and the remains were abandoned in the ruins. The on-site evidence of the tour guide was also discovered by the students who came to visit the ruins. The ruins are still new. It is the home of the heroine's "Curious Hunting" and the brand that the heroine can't get rid of.
2. Boundary
In a luxury hotel in Greece, the hostess is really cute. She wears silky sexy pajamas and lays in bed casually. This is not the most explicit sex, but it looks like a couple’s daily life. She doesn’t need to be covered in front of her husband. Only outside detectives need to take a quilt to protect themselves, and when the tour guide sets out with them, it is a well-dressed lady. The boundary is very clear; but after he moved to the township and lived in an apartment hotel, the male protagonist laughed at himself Like a New York home, but the lights and space are obviously cramped. The hostess did not even give her husband a front face. When she changed clothes, she turned her back to the hostess. She was still in the concavo-convex silk nightdress, and she vomited blood from the back. , But it is in sharp contrast with the cuteness, shyness and teasing on the face before, and these private details changes between lovers will make the male protagonist more emotionally jealous. The same effect is that on the bench by the sea, the heroine is wearing the clothes of the tour guide. Although lying on one person, one chair, the sense of isolation and the anger of "crossing the boundary" towards the tour guide and acquiescence to the wife is definitely heavyweight. .
3. Disappointment
Many people have explained this keyword, thinking that the tour guide is the son of the male protagonist. It is logical, but I don’t support it. The concept of father and son has appeared many times. The male protagonist did pretend to be a father when he passed the airport. It is more likely that everyone who has a ghost child has a parent-child relationship that has been broken, and everyone's personality is rooted in the family environment. The tour guide followed all the way because of the similar face of the businessman and his father, and the golden dress. Isn't it because the tour guide's father did not give him enough wealth, nor did he give him enough paternal love, so that he coveted other people's money and wife . At the end of the plot, the dialogue point about the father at the airport was too clear, but rather a little blunt. The male protagonist repented and said to the tour guide, "I let you down." Although it echoed that conversation, it was a bit too fast to change from a cunning businessman to a loving father. Can only death have such an effect? There is no answer, only the male protagonist who may be able to make the rest of his life.
View more about The Two Faces of January reviews
