After reading this title, I thought there would be a protagonist with a split personality. It seems that I think too much, 233. From beginning to end, I only saw a good face-faced father.
The film structure and the narrative method are relatively mature. As for the plot, I have to say that it lacks new ideas. In order to save the sick daughter, the desperate father had to go the wrong way and eat the black story, but the story has been played badly. As far as crime films are concerned, clichés are not the original sin, what matters is how to put new wine in old bottles.
But in fact, the wine in this old bottle is the same as the coconut coconut milk. It has still had that taste for decades. From the beginning to the end, few plots can be unexpected. Turn this film into a black and white picture, saying that it is I believe in films from the 1950s.
It is worth mentioning that under the old-fashioned story, some details are handled quite well.
From the embarrassing pregnant woman who echoed from the beginning to the end, to the idiot detective who was pregnant with ghosts when boarding the bus for the first time, because the relevant details are in place, the audience can actually infer these two dark lines from the clues in advance. Pay attention to inference, not by force. Guess. This sense of participation is more than fifteen percent better than burying all the clues and finally revealing the secret to you. Of course, there are not many things to infer in this film and it is simple. A better film should have all the clues, but it is difficult for the audience to reason out, but after all, this is not a detective film with a detective and criminal police as the main point of view. I will not make too many demands on this and deduct points.
I am the dividing line
Both details should be analyzed from the behavioral motivation.
1 From the beginning of the film, a lot of shots of the pregnant woman were given. After the robbers got on the car, the protagonist deliberately arranged the pregnant woman and the child to get off the car together. For this reason, he did not hesitate to argue with the strong robber leader, and the cooperative relationship between them It is inherently unstable, and this kind of argument can turn the other side upside down at any time. Merely using the protagonist’s reasoning is not enough to explain his motivation for doing so. Those who are accustomed to routines should notice the role that pregnant women may play in this place.
2 In the middle of the movie, the casino boss asked his subordinates that he needed to talk to the protagonist alone. At this time, the idiot detective made his first appearance. After he actually faced the protagonist, his feet quickly came out. The process was so simple that I almost squirmed. As a criminal police officer whose job is to ensure the safety of the hostages as much as possible, after the robber No. 2 injected the drug into the sky, he ignored the personal safety of the veterinarian and immediately buckled the pot on her head, almost dk. It was completely contrary to what he was supposed to do, and obviously muddled the water. Why is the motivation clear at a glance. stupid.
I still divide the line
At the end of the film, the whitewashing of the casino boss, the police's almost indulgent attitude towards the protagonist, is really a bit off my appetite and points are deducted.
By the way, the bus driver is really a funny comparison. The coin-operated joke of the policeman about to get on the bus really made me laugh.
I gave this movie a pass, so Samsung.
View more about Heist reviews
