I read "Once Upon a Time in America" and read a lot of comments. I found that many people didn't understand some of the key plots. I said the two most important points: 1. Finally, did Max really get into the garbage mixer and die? The answer is NO, which is absolutely NO, because the mixer truck does not exist at all. The mixer truck was just a fantasy of noodles, and it didn't exist at all. There is a piece of evidence, that is the inexplicable frisbee in front. Perhaps because of drug abuse, noodles sometimes have hallucinations. An inexplicable frisbee appeared before, which made the noodles enter the memory. Many people have read countless times and could not find any explanation for this frisbee. The reason why the director did this , There is only one reason: he is implying that this Frisbee is a fantasy of noodles, and it does not appear in reality, so there is no need to explain it. When Noodles received the invitation letter to Mo Pang, Noodles, Mo Pang and the audience might have mistakenly thought that someone was going to kill him. Mo Pang asked Noodles at the time: What does this mean? Noodles answered: It means, dear noodles, we can find you even if you hide in the corners of the world. It means, are you ready. Mo Pang asked nervously next: What are you going to prepare? Noodles replied: This is the only thing it doesn't mention. In fact, this is a very interesting section. Through the opening chase and kill scene, the story goes here. When Mo Pang asks "what to prepare", many people will take it for granted as "ready to die". Including noodles. When the noodles were carrying the suitcase full of money to carry out the "next task" and rushing on the road nervously, he was worried that he would be killed by others. He had many questions in his heart, but what suddenly appeared was not The bullet in the pistol, but an inexplicable frisbee. As a result, Noodles began to recall the past. This is also the director's suggestion. Noodles' subconsciousness told him that the next assassination is not the assassination scene. No one wants to kill him, and some are just fetters from the past. Imagine the situation at that time. It is impossible for someone to throw a frisbee at the noodles at that time and on that occasion. It might be true that a gun appeared to kill him, and that frisbee could only be a fantasy product of noodles. The next time this situation occurs, it is the garbage truck that was last parked outside the max mansion. Please analyze it carefully, and you will find that the garbage truck is just a fantasy, including the last bridge where Max walked in. First of all, the garbage truck did not drive over to assassinate Max. The final image shows Max walking in alone instead of rushing down 5 or 6 masked men to drag him in. However, in that kind of grand banquet, where celebrities gather, park a huge garbage mixer outside the gate ( And still working), is this realistic? This is not a garbage truck that collects garbage every morning downstairs by Chinese residents. With the identity of Max at that time, this kind of car would definitely be driven away by security on that occasion. Unless this is called by Max. Finally, if this garbage truck was called by Max himself, of course it also explained why he could walk in directly after he came out (as if he knew it was parked here). This is another question, but Max has shown this in the film. Is it a heavy self-abuse plot? Will a celebrity commit suicide by taking the approach of "I got into the garbage mixer and was beaten to death"? I have a gun upstairs. I can still jump off the building. If I take poison or hang myself, who will get into the garbage mixer? Not only is he not afraid of pain, but he also thinks that he is rubbish. The proud Max let himself be killed by a diamond, I believe, but will he treat his glorious life as rubbish? He was still upstairs and said to the noodles: You come to kill me, you are the only person I am willing to kill me. After a cup of tea, is he willing to let the garbage mixer truck kill him? Therefore, it is obviously not that Max chose this method of death. Please remove the words "possibly" and "as if". The "absolute" is an illusion of noodles, otherwise it is completely illogical. As for why the noodles have this illusion, and the significance of the appearance of the garbage mixer, it is no longer obvious: Deborah said to the noodles before: If you choose this door, even the memory will not exist. In the end, Max approached the scene of the death of the garbage mixer. It is the noodles that sent all the guilt and memories of Max in the past 35 years as if they were sent to this car and mixed. In the end, they all shattered and turned into meaningless garbage. , None of them exist anymore. This garbage mixer shows the sadness and despair of noodles. It stirred "dead" max, drove away, and left. Although he didn't do anything, he killed Max in his heart, or at least that memory. If you want to ask about the evidence, isn’t it conspicuous enough? The big "35" is printed on the compartment of that garbage mixer truck, which just refers to the 35 years when noodles have been guilty of guilt. The numbers in this movie sometimes have different meanings. For example, on the tombstone, his former accomplices all died at the age of 26, and when Max was released from prison after receiving the noodles, he gave him a prostitute who "died at the age of 26". This is a code that only Max and Noodles know. There are two possibilities for this coincidence: 1. The age engraving on the tombstone is fake. This is Max implying that the noodles are not dead. This is what he asked to engrave. The age on the top is that he can engrave whatever he wants. Noodles may already know the answer from this time. 2. It’s a bit darker and less likely, just It is the age that is true, and Max deliberately chose to sacrifice them this year to escape his golden cicada, and at the same time hinted that the noodles did not die. 2. Is this a movie about friendship and betrayal? The answer is NO, It is more certain NO. Many people understand this gangster movie as about friendship and betrayal, but they just didn't understand it. It is about love and ban. This is not a simple replacement of two words, it is a complete denial of that understanding, because this film does not tell about betrayal. Although it is a gangster movie, the background is the Prohibition era. But in that era, it was more than alcohol that was banned. What the director wants to say is: what is banned is more love. Deborah has no friendship with noodles, and Max has no friendship with noodles, but love. This is what many people agree with. There are also a lot of hints in the film. There is an easily overlooked section: When Noodles asked Deborah about her future plans, Deborah said that she wanted to reach the top. Noodles replied that you and Max don't like each other because you two are so similar. But what noodles didn't understand is that they are not just like reaching the top, but they are also like the love for noodles. Obviously two people who didn't like each other, the irony in the end turned into a lover relationship, this is the only point of sustaining. Many people mistakenly understand that Max betrayed the noodles. What is the motive of this betrayal? Max killed his companion, took the money, deliberately made Noodles feel guilty to him, and took away his woman. What was the motive? Is the motivation money? Obviously, it's not. When it comes to money, Max has always been generous to noodles. Although in jail, Max always pays dividends to the noodles. When noodles were released from prison, max was already quite developed (this growth history has nothing to do with noodles, but the noodles received the most respect and the most decent dividends), including the status in the gang, and even when the brothers were born and died, the noodles were soaked. Woman, go to take drugs, Max will give him an equal dividend afterwards. Is he doing this to noodles for the money? In fact, later Max deliberately put money in the same suitcase, hung up the key in the cemetery, and gave a large sum of money to the noodles. Not for money, then why should he betray the noodles? For women? He doesn't like noodle women. In other words, he has no reason or motive for betraying noodles, unless it is "love begets hatred". Max really loves noodles, but this love, like Prohibition, is banned, and he can't speak. If you want to say that the "hate" of "love begets hate" also leads to betrayal, then what I want to say is that love begets hate, but Max did not choose to betray. All he is doing is just to "prove ". Obviously, with the deepening of gang activities, the ideals of the two have diverged. Max's ambitions and ideals are great, but the noodles tend to be comfortable. For the love of noodles, the only thing Max can show is that they hope that they can achieve their ideals together. . And this ideal disagreement, Noodle's opposition to his ideal, made Max completely plunged into an abyss of pain. This is also the only time when max will thicken the noodles. For men, if there is no connection between dreams, love will completely lose its meaning. Noodles can only choose two things: 1. Let yourself die. This level of death has a new meaning. He hoped that he who loved noodles would die. He also hoped that the noodles would feel guilty for betraying him like this. 2. "Prove" to the noodles: Your ideals are correct. This is not betrayal, this is just proof. And the result proved: Max is right, not awake, just noodles. Max is always smarter than noodles. This is not snatching, all this is just proof. Noodles used to be in front of Max, between career and Deborah, choosing Deborah. Max just wanted to prove to noodles: if you collude with the government and favor politics like me, if you choose a career like me, you will get what you want. In fact, max is right. Noodle chose Deborah, but lost Deborah. All he can do is romantic dinner and rape. Max chose his career, he got everything he wanted for noodles. This is certainly not a betrayal or even a snatch. He is just using his life to prove to the noodles: If you could choose the same ideal as mine at that time, you could get what you want. My ideal is not "crazy", it is "correct". What Max is doing is just this. It has nothing to do with betrayal. This is not a snatch, but a proof of the most "whatever it takes". Noodles refused to choose the way, max just proved that it worked. And when Max proved it, he sent an invitation letter to noodles. Noodles didn’t know that he had become such an acceptor. He was desperate and sad. At this time, it was Max who was even more desperate and sad. When he saw him appear, Hope he can kill himself. The other reasons, political reasons, are all deceit again (and there is a slight permission to be true), but I hope that the noodles will be able to kill him again, and replaced by "real" killing him. Max said that this time is "nothing to lose". He had hoped that he, who loved noodles so much, could "die once." Then what I found was "deeper love", letting myself live for that "proof" all my life. It proves that I am "correct", but it proves that it is "meaningless" for myself and for noodles who do not agree with me. So, he has "nothing to "Lose" because he didn't get anything. To eliminate the love for noodles, Max thinks it can only be "real death". If this love is there, he will fall victim to "this proof" all his life. In addition, in this film , Many people have a misunderstanding that Max even snatched the carol from noodles before. I don’t know if it’s a translation problem. This is another obvious misunderstanding. Carol knew from the beginning that noodles raped at that time. She. As we can see, Carol knows it all. The evidence is that when four people stood side by side showing the chicks, Carol looked over one by one, admiring the other three people, except for the noodles. Very cold, only said one line to him, but this line is obviously the key line. Carol said to noodles: We have already met. What does this sentence mean? Obviously noodles, like everyone else, met with Carol. The number and time are exactly the same, but Carol said to him: We have already "met". The meaning of this "met" can only be "I know we have'do' it." "This is the only explanation. Obviously, Carol has recognized him. But she still hates the feeling of being raped. Out of Carol's self-esteem, she certainly couldn't say "I was raped by you." In Japanese pornography, it is obvious that Carol does not have the kind of abuse complex of Japanese actresses, which is why Carol is the most indifferent to noodles. Therefore, the noodles did not deliberately steal Carol. In fact, Carol's scheming is quite deep, she just secretly took a fancy to max , I guessed him for the first time. For the sake of noodles, Max immediately said clearly "no". In the end, Carol chose the only wrong answer, which shows that this is not a "quiz" game for a long time, but her "flirting" Games". To sum up, this movie may have all talked about it, but the only thing it didn’t talk about was "betrayal." Some were just disapproval of dreams and banned love among men. The noodle sentence was half right. ——Max's ideal is not "crazy", but his method of proof is. This film, judging from the award-winning situation, in the era at that time, it may also be a good film that was "banned" by "concepts". What does it mean? Obviously, Noodles, like everyone else, has exactly the same number and time of meeting with Carol, but Carol said to him: We have already "met". The meaning of this "met" can only be "I know we have'do' it." This is the only explanation, and it is obvious that Carol has recognized him. But she still hates the feeling of being raped. Out of Carol's self-esteem, she certainly couldn't say "I was raped by you." Unlike Japanese porn movies, it is clear that Carol does not have the abuse complex of Japanese actresses, which is why Carol is the most indifferent to noodles. Therefore, Noodles did not deliberately take Carol away. In fact, Carol's scheming is quite deep. She just seized Max secretly and guessed him for the first time. For the sake of the face of the noodles, max immediately said clearly "no". In the end, Carol chose the only wrong answer, indicating that this is not a "guessing" game for a long time, but her "flirting game". To sum up, this film may have all talked about it, but the only thing it didn't talk about was "betrayal". Some were just disapproval of dreams among men, and banned love. The noodle sentence is half right-Max's ideal is not "crazy", but his method of proof is. Judging from the award-winning situation, this film may also be a good film that was "banned" by "concepts" at the time.
View more about Once Upon a Time in America reviews
