I read a bunch of 1 star film reviews and found that they all made sense, but they all went wrong.
These comments make me can't help but yy is really idle to go crazy and people who have a predatory sentiment towards society will love this movie so much.
Or, this movie is good, but it doesn't fit my current mood and natural pursuit.
First of all, what is a good movie?
Strong emotions ≠ good movie film
criticism, or to expose the evil human nature films ≠ good movie
will tell the story of the movie ≠ good movie
reasoning profound movie ≠ good movie
actor superlative movie ≠ good movie
mood calm to control and understand good and evil All are human, the story is appropriate and wonderful, the reasoning is deep but never pretends 13, the movie with the actor's devotion = the good movie.
Next, why isn't this film worth watching for people with a solid heart?
This movie can easily make people who can't understand feel a kind of incitement. This excitement and incitement comes from every rhetoric and every fist of Pete. I admit that many things are very right, but it's just that Pete used the right words to prove an incorrect point.
Then, the audience took their seats and convinced themselves that there is also a Pete in their hearts: they are rampant, determined and courageous, and resist the vulgar laws of society.
Then, the ending and the ridiculous intention.
First, the director of Chicken Thief gave the audience a collective carnival for more than an hour, and finally slapped everyone implicitly: Living neither crazy nor cowardly is the right answer. . Sometimes I don’t like this reversal at the end. I feel that the director is always juggling, as if to show off his own level, but I feel that this approach itself is very cheap and low.
2. The cowardly little white face "killed" (or domesticated) Pete and became a uniform person. Tyler took his girlfriend by the hand and watched his own plan and action put into effect-the financial building was blown into a mess by himself.
You would say that this is Xiao Bailian's victory in resisting his weak self, and a transcendence to tame wildness. In other words, he can fully control his will, and he is no longer afraid of the head and tail, and no longer violent and radical.
However, this is manifested and achieved by destroying other things.
Although blowing up the financial building is a symbol of liberation of people enslaved by society. But I don't think anything will be solved by blowing up the building. Although I often think that man-made buildings are prisons that imprison the mind, body, and soul, can the problem be solved by dismantling the prison and letting the prisoners run into the street? This is actually the kind of thinking of the Joker or Bain: crazy and unruly. Break the rules and let chaos and disorder rule the world.
I think people who like this argument are really just because real life is so good. When you have never suffered, you don't know how to care for others, and you have no sense of responsibility, you will love this crazy "freedom" very much. When I see someone using a movie to get rid of the little gloom in my heart, I get excited.
Real freedom is dancing in shackles-the existence of simply forgetting the existence of shackles is true freedom and liberation-and the person who smashes the shackles will always be in your heart.
Real freedom is dancing with shackles-the body is burdened with a heavy burden, but the liberation of the soul makes your whole body full of power.
Therefore, David Fincher just made a movie full of yy flavors, which gives people the feeling that an insatiable teenager or a pampered elder, taking the rebellious life as an adventure.
This point, the reality blows your face:
On February 22, there were 3 girls in the UK, 15 and 6 years old, who flew to Syria with their passports and claimed to be ISIS’s wives. Their three families are happy and have a good result. All A, now reduced to a sex slave, can't bear this kind of life and later escaped from the "husband". He is being chased by ISIS frantically and his whereabouts are unknown.
Weak and small will be bullied by others,
but supporting personal strength and competition in disorder will surely be swallowed by chaos.
Finally,
I have watched "Seven Deadly Sins", "Social Network" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" for the insensitivity of the director's style itself . After reading it, I felt two words: disappointed.
I always feel that David Fincher has been showing himself. It really feels like this.
Show off yourself using the camera, show off your understanding of human nature, show off your little tricks, show off your own plot layout and unexpected ending. But I found that his understanding is not deep, so it seems to be very cheap.
If nothing else, I will talk about human nature.
The seven deadly sins seem to be discussing the people in this world who violate the Catholic precepts and commit capital crimes every day. Even police officers who are passionate and have a sense of justice will fall for their own weaknesses. This seems to be exploring the darkness of human nature and the nature of sexual evil; it is expressed in the grotesque art of a self-proclaimed performance artist.
This film makes a fuss on the structure of id, ego, and superego. I will never tire of expressing the powerful power of instinct, and then finally ambiguously compromised to express the superego.
Looks very hanging?
But why do I feel so insincere? Makes people feel that these human natures are nothing more than gimmicks, nothing more than symbols played by the director?
In other words, this man’s movie has neither love nor hatred, except for playing right and wrong, nothing.
Humanity ≠ Endless Darkness and Evil
Think about when you are at home and calm, who taught you these concepts? Who are you instilling them on now? Who taught them these concepts, and who are they instilling them?
Human nature is a fallen divinity.
Human nature is full of faults.
But human nature still has brilliance and sincerity.
But I don't think the director understands.
Picking up a private item: I think the one who knows best about human nature is Nolan's "Dark Knight." The clown symbolizes extreme chaos and evil. It penetrates into the dark corners of everyone's heart, but some people, such as Batman, don't want to eat you. He has seen the suffering in the world, the gloom of society, and he is personally in the wave of evil. He has gone through it once, but he wants to be a good and upright person, not for reputation or money. What the Joker did to him would not destroy him.
In such a story, humanity is full, true, and sincere.
Watching "Fight Club", you would say the same is true, the protagonist finally reached this state. But I don’t think. Because people who need to destroy external things to achieve their own growth and evolution are fundamentally contradictory and illusory:
I need to explode a building to liberate others and to promote the morality in my heart.
I need to rely on drugs in exchange for happiness.
I need to rely on revenge in exchange for
all kinds of tranquility , nothing more than a crutch. Therefore, seeking the inner improvement from the outside of the heart is itself a kind of ridiculous thinking.
Life is lonely, and the
world is absurd.
Choose freedom at
your own risk.
These are mentioned in the director's movie, but I don't think the director understands it at all.
(The movie is actually three and a half stars, and one star is an over-balanced score.)
View more about Fight Club reviews
