The overall impression is that the story is shallow, eager to say things, and motivated time and time again for psychological changes, but did not make a deep excavation and extension of the psychological causes of Stockholm syndrome, then the meaning of this movie has to be questioned. . It is better to watch a documentary just to restore the case.
And Stockholm syndrome itself is a very controversial psychological problem, and its definition of symptoms and moral value judgments are very vague. Is the robber worthy of love? Are the hostages psychologically distorted or should they be understood? Regarding these issues, people have not yet reached a consensus, and even if there is a consensus, they tend to deny it. So embarrassment came-there is no character in the film worthy of the audience's love and recognition. Whether it is a robber, a hostage, a policeman, or a politician, they are not cute in this movie, and they all have to be looked at differently. For the film, this is very troublesome. The film loses the audience, which is equivalent to the loss of the foundation of existence.
Furthermore, because the subject itself is vague, the point of view of this film is also vague. What attitude do you want to show? Is it sympathy? Is it critical? It doesn't seem to make sense. At first glance, it still feels more like a simple display of the spectacle of the case, with an unclear point of view.
View more about Stockholm reviews
