But when I saw the old people dressed up as the Death Scythe, I still thought of the preface of Van Loon's "Tolerance" and the so-called conservative old people in it. Suddenly I seemed to be sitting back in the high school seat. In front of me was a sublimation and then sublimation, so that the male teacher who stretched his height to be completely incomparable with his body, looked down, and the old-fashioned old man turned into a sickle. It's not that I was advertised as a child with a talent for being smart and amazing, but now I see the shadows and pull out the entity from that time. The shadow thing is very strange. When you stand on a mountain peak, the shadow may be under your feet, or it may reach the spire of the opposite mountain, and you have no idea that these two shadows come from the same you.
The film's funny, no matter the action or language, reflects the consistent style of British film, while also catering to the appetite of audiences from different cultural fields intentionally or unintentionally.
In terms of the plot, it is entirely driven by the old people's cruel mentality that they do not accept new things nor share them, and love their villages to the point of development and promotion, which also makes the sentiment more convincing. In fact, it is not easy to be completely convinced. For those of us who were born in Eastern thinking after the reform and opening up, how many people believe that such stubborn and extreme people really exist in the world, besides, why the face project needs to be done so absolutely? Still beautifully done? Come to China for inspection. However, it cannot be ruled out that when the forest is big, every bird has the opinion.
Thinking about it carefully, the practices of these elderly people are fundamentally different from the Face Project. I don’t know what the real purpose behind the Face Project is. Maybe I know, but I don’t want to admit it, and don’t want to know. And these old people do cruel things for good. Contradictory? Nope. It's like meeting a girl you really like, but you feel embarrassed and come forward so easily. The old people really love the village, they are so hysterical that they are picky. They don't want anyone to destroy the perfection of the village, even a little bit, and for them, the means are unscrupulous. Regardless of the destructive nature of this method, in terms of the original intention and purpose, they are for perfection, not only for the perfection of personal life, but for the beauty of the village. In their words, this is for the sake of consideration. "The big picture." Perhaps this embarrassed many conductors of the face project. In comparison, the old people are relatively cute.
Then, the next question is: for a perfect thing, or something that is absolutely perfect in the eyes of insiders, is it necessary and impossible to change it? I can't answer, although I know a standard answer, I still can't answer it. According to the standard answer, the world is relative, so there is no absolute perfection; flowing water does not rot, and household hinges are not worms; the problem must be viewed in a developing world... etc. But, philosophers, I want to ask you, when this simple problem happens to you, that is, when you think your current state, status, prestige, and surrounding conditions are perfect, at this time you have thought about changing you Self? Even a little bit? And did you do it again? I know that someone must have done this. A small probability event can be ignored, but it cannot be denied. And most of what I have seen, no.
Perhaps this question can be asked in another way: Should the change of a thing happen in its perfection, or in its decline? Note that I am asking about yes, not yes or no. History has given us the answer to the question of yes or no. Most of them, I can only say that they are the majority, and things change when they need to change. When is this? My understanding is when things are no longer perfect. And is "should" or "should" be at this time? The theory planted in my mind by Chinese education, which has finally come out in the past 10 years, should not be. Because perfection is equivalent to the peak, it is inevitable that you will have to go downhill next, just like you should go to the south after you go north to the North Pole. This is an inevitability. There is no arbitrary door of Tinkerbell, and there is no little bear in the constellation Little Bear on the North Star. Beckon to you. Acknowledge fate, this is everything that Chinese education has taught me over the past 10 years. So I still can't answer this question. Although I try to change my one-sidedness, I can no longer uproot it.
So the logic of the movie returns to the same cruel punishment of the old people from the execution of their legally irresponsible behavior. Reasonable. Although I have always hoped that what the director actually wants us to know is a blow to conservative forces, I also think there will be people who think like me. But in fact it is not. The only thing is that the law cannot give concessions for any reason.
Look at it the other way around. As the enforcer of the law, the police are not also stuck on the soil of the law? They have so many similarities with the old people. They are convinced of the perfection of the law, they are loyal to the law, and their methods are equally cruel. They use the law as their virtual perfect village to change a physical perfect village. This in itself is a kind of destruction, or violation, but who will punish them? No, some may only be another organization that is stronger and needs to be disciplined. What's the point? Endless, chickens lay eggs, eggs hatched, the world is really moving.
Now I understand why the pioneers described by Van Loon failed, and why the modern police succeeded. It is also a proposition that is unwilling to admit: strength determines everything!
Okay, let's summarize, hey, don't summarize it, it's not the total score of the full text summary and the mentality summary of the childhood.
View more about Hot Fuzz reviews
