(1) Historical themes have always been difficult to control, because it is often difficult to balance historical facts and fictions, and to completely restore historical facts, for fear that the plot is not attractive enough and too many fictions will lead to criticism. This play is considered to be dancing in shackles. (2). Subject matter involving religion is even more difficult to control, because it also involves the issue of belief and the three outlooks.
Because (1), the script of this play is written with flaws, and other comments are all about plot flaws, I believe everyone can feel it.
I personally think that the plot of this drama can be scored 3-4 points. The advantage is that the rhythm is not slow, and the multiple lines are concurrent and attractive. The downside is that 1. The "everyone seizes treasure" style is very clichéd, and 2. The character setting is also clichéd: the dead and respected old tutor (Leaving secrets as clues, gradually blackening, and finally being understood to turn white, reminds me of Ha 7 Dumbledore); a defector with a disability (because the disability is not recognized and accepted, he blames his misfortune on the male protagonist. The former is like the traitor in "Spartan 300", and the latter is similar to "The Dark Knight". Vident). In addition, there are high-powered killers purely for money, treacherous ministers who are like a tongue, and old servants (doctors) who are loyal to Sha's monk, and so on. This is what everyone calls "personalization". In addition, some details are not in line with common sense and cannot stand scrutiny, especially in the second half. As far as the plot is concerned, it can be a little more than 3 points.
In addition, the language of the lens is quite deliberate, the soundtrack is great, and in terms of props, I don't see any problems with historical laymen. In general, I feel that the production of the whole drama is more conscientious.
As for (two). Personally, I think: the religious stance of this play is relatively positive, and the ideological connotation is also rich. The only thing is that the theme is a bit flawed.
In fact, the main two parties competing for the Holy Grail are the Brotherhood of Light represented by Godfrey and the Pope power represented by the robber Roland. In the end, the Brotherhood was characterized by the screenwriter as the just side and the Pope as the unjust side. Let me talk about the Pope's side. The Pope advocates the use of violence to build a unified Christian world, just like the Qin Emperor and Hanwu, and cannot be simply judged as evil. But not only Christianity is actually about peace and non-violence, but also modern values. The Brotherhood of Light is a multi-sect organization that can tolerate different beliefs; at the same time, it is not utilitarian and should obviously be sentenced to justice. Personally, I am a Christian, and the Brotherhood is obviously a pagan religion. However, which is more important to do God’s righteousness or to call God’s name. I have not yet figured out whether good people who do not believe in God can finally be accepted by the Lord. , Or is the Pope like a person who never leaves his mouth every day but has bad conduct will eventually be forgiven by the Lord? But one thing is certain: you can't force others to believe. For example, launching a holy war to slaughter infidels is wrong. Seeking common ground while reserving differences and freedom of belief are the axioms of modern civilized society.
The holy grail symbolizes power, power and strength. In the real society, power always exists, and it is impossible to break it down. Once power falls into the hands of a single, centralized power, it will bring disasters, because those in power will inevitably use their power to eliminate dissidents. Just as letting the church get the Holy Grail will start a war, just as the President of the United States cannot be the KKK, just as the dictatorship of capitalists cannot be allowed to squeeze the poor, and the poor cannot be allowed to "anti-capital and anti-rightist" with one word. The method used in the play is to transfer power to a force that has no selfish intentions, namely the Brotherhood and the nuns. But in the real world, this method is really not feasible. In fact, the power of the Lord of the Rings will corrupt everyone, including the innocent Hobbit. In reality, the only solution is to decentralize power and achieve checks and balances. (To be precise, the Brotherhood and the nuns are not without selfish intentions, but because the Holy Grail does not give them power or strength. The male protagonist can be selected to find and protect the Holy Grail, but also because the Holy Grail is useless to him)
The flaw in the theme of this play is the line of love between the hero and the queen. In fact, to be honest, Philip had always been interesting to his wife before. He cared about his wife and did not feel sorry for his wife. Especially when he learned the truth, he still took off the crown in front of his wife to seek reconciliation. In the end, he ended up as a villain. . It cannot be denied that love is indeed a treasure of mankind, and it is more important than life. However, believing is the foundation of everything. Since you can't let go of the temptation of love between men and women, don't swear when you join the group or when you get married! Now that we have promised, we will try our best to do it. What is said cannot be done, especially for men, it is indeed wrong! Obviously wrong! It would not be wrong to expel a membership on this basis.
What's more, "love" that swears oaths and ignores family and country matters is not noble. Seeing that the other person is handsome and beautiful, and we talked and fell in love with each other, so we ppp, and then work, plus our family, I don’t like it, so we are "love", and we are justified, because It’s not that love and freedom are above all else. Finally, we have to put a big cross in red in the snow to show how noble our “love” is, and it’s simply not bloody. Since the Holy Grail is sacred and cannot be used by mortals to satisfy selfish desires, and Lame is not allowed to be used by Wayne, why did the male lead give it to his queen again? It is true that it is true that it is not white to emphasize color over friends. The scene of the ending should be the finishing touch to the pawns, the red cross in the snow, how beautiful, but I really can’t think of the relationship between the queen’s behavior and the Christ spirit symbolized by the cross, let alone the theme of the show. What is it. For a religious-related historical drama, I hope that the theme will be more based on the contradictions and practice of human spirit, instead of emphasizing the conflicts of various forces, the game of interests, and power like "Game of Thrones". Chase. I don't even want to see the theme sing the praises of a reasonable questionable male and female love.
I only read it once, and my understanding of the subject is unavoidable.
In the end, the queen stabbed cousin to death once, knocked out her husband once, and took two personal surprises like "Jing Ke assassinating King Qin" to change the overall situation. This plot setting is a bit strange. I am afraid it is not so simple in history. Advise young people who are in trouble in their lives not to imitate.
View more about Knightfall reviews
