Can't tell right from wrong

I once compared the elements of a movie like this: the plot is the skeleton, the actors are flesh and blood, the screen is the appearance, the connotation is the spirit, and the music is the soul. But the film gives me the feeling that a thin, tall, bamboo-like person looks very weak and easily arouses sympathy from others. He was pale, and there was some aura in his thinking but it was difficult to express. As a result, some "film critics" are easy to feel compassion when they see this. When they see a European film with a theme but a long plot, they think it is an "art film". Anyway, I unceremoniously think that I have no way to understand and accept such a person. For such a movie, I can only say that I barely pass.

My point is that regardless of any literary and artistic form, in most cases, content is more important than expression. Take a movie as an example. First, the picture must have a certain attractiveness, and then there must be wonderful and profound content (first of all, it must be wonderful, which represents various thriller and suspense films, and secondly, it is profound, the representative of Eastwood), and then Using various unique expression techniques (representatives Nolan, Quentin) and music that resonates or induces certain emotions can make a masterpiece. I think this is a gradual acceptance process for normal people. Just like accepting a person, the normal order is also from the outside to the inside. But it's so strange that people who practice both internally and externally often fail to become the most representative. For example, people like Beckham who are handsome, professional, and admirable cannot get the Golden Globe Award, while the "defect beauty" that is only outstanding in one aspect like Zidane or Ronaldo can be the best. Favored by "professionals". The same is true in the film industry. Nolan’s "Inception", "Fatal Magic", and "Shards of Memory" are not good for image effects, music, screenwriting, and ideological connotations, and they bring many new ideas or models to the festival. excellent work? But none of these films has the chance to win major film awards. It's just a token of getting some technical awards. However, "Lord of the Rings", "Crash", including this year's "Twelve Years as a Slave", which only did a good job in certain aspects, even deceived the golden golden man. Although I am a loyal fan of "Lord of the Rings", I can't compare the connotation of the above-mentioned Nolan films with my conscience. Movies such as "Crash" and "Being a Slave" may not have the same ideological level. Nolan's height. And "Chicago", "The King's Speech"... Forget it, I don’t want to talk about these

It's too far, the film has a very deep theme, and many details are worth thinking about. But how can I accept the filming method of the director? Pseudo documentary? 150 minutes of length, abuse of long shots, no soundtrack, little beauty in composition and no sense of language. Obviously it is a barely passing movie with a waste of subject matter, but our pseudo-literary and artistic youth on Time.com scored a high score of 8.0...Under the aura of Cannes's best picture nomination and best screenwriter, IMDB only scored 7.6 points.

The public is really easy to be swayed by authority. Those who score high, have you watched a lot of movies? Do you really think such works are excellent? The masses are the nuns and nurses in this film. They have no opinions and only listen to the bishops and doctors. And they can't tell right from wrong at all.

View more about Beyond the Hills reviews