Facts have proved that it is quite unreliable to watch people (actors) to choose films. To weigh whether a work is "excellent" or not, it still needs to be considered comprehensively. Actors are only one of the elements. .. to decide.
American movie "Infernal Affairs"
Type of work: crime
Main Cast: Nicole Kidman
Story Overview: Tells how Detective Erin Bell walks out of the shadows of the past
Release Date: In the UK on January 25, 2019
List of film awards
Directed at Nicole Kidman's video, wait for the goddess, come to an old woman, tired all day, want to relax, just show me this? ! drunk...
Stop worrying, watch movies and comment. (quick fight, don't want to talk too much, waste time)
Firstly
The actor's focus is on Nicole Kidman, pretending to be an old man and being ugly. As for the acting, I'm a little bit long-winded.
Let's look at " her one-man show " first, without talking about body language, just focus on her "eyes", as the saying goes, "eyes are the windows to the soul", what do the audience see with these blue eyes? Melancholy, confusion, disappointment, firmness, relief... It seems that there are more emotions. Of course, these emotions need to be comprehended by the audience themselves. How to comprehend them? Through the interpretation of the plot (whether or not you can read it is another matter), you can understand the various emotions in your eyes. All in all, if you understand it, you can understand it (guess), but what if you don’t understand it? It can only be huh...
Watching " her opponent's play " again, it's quite boring, whether it's a frontal play with her "ex-husband"/"daughter" or a frontal play with "informer"/"bandit leader", it's all the same tone, the definition of the role (it has nothing to do with the actors, It's the director's arrangement) is quite vague, and there are not enough "eye-catching" scenes (old-fashioned bridges, not popular), it is difficult to make people "eye-catching".
To sum up, although Nicole Kidman's performance in the play can be called "excellent", it is difficult to be "recognized" by the audience because "the role is not a coincidence".
Second
The title "Destroyer" has two meanings (pun intended).
1. Silas destroyed Erin's life
Erin's failed/fatal undercover experience caused her to lose her lover, to fall for herself, and to lose the direction of her life.
2. Silas was eventually killed by Erin
a. Killing Silas means "the end of the unsolved case"
b. Killing Silas means "the demon that has plagued Erin for a long time is destroyed"
At last
The narrative structure is interesting, but the plot content is boring.
How to interpret these 12 words?
Let’s look at the structure first, focusing on flashbacks (“the opening scene” = “the scene at the end”, that is, Silas was dead on the street, and the police came to hear the news), interspersed with multiple lines (present tense + past tense + past perfect tense, each time The central characters of each fragment are Erin), which has a sense of hierarchy.
Looking at the plot again, the story of revenge + redemption is neither as refreshing and fierce as "Peppermint", nor as beautiful and delicious as "Red Sparrow", the whole is moderate. In addition, the appeal of the story is completely suppressed by the charm of the actors (making wedding dresses for actors), and the sense of existence has been missing for a long time.
End of review.
Screenwriter★☆☆☆☆ (The story is old-fashioned and the plot is too vulgar)
Director ☆☆☆☆ (I can't feel the director's own unique content at all, it has been repeated, inherited, and adhered to)
Actor ★★★★☆ (Nicole Kidman is very hardworking and very devoted, there is no doubt about this)
Plot ★★★☆☆ (The content is not good, but the structure is still novel, save some face)
Visual effects ★☆☆☆☆ (the makeup is too bad... can you be more careful)
Sound ★★★☆☆ (normal)
Not recommended (the goddess is not allowed to watch, so what can you recommend?!)
View more about Destroyer reviews
