Hundreds of Gibson's heartbeats when he was nervous reminded me of Jason Statham's "Heart Attack" by Jason Statham. But the adrenaline has been mentioned, but it has not developed a vigorous and passionate scene? This also makes people quite surprised and dissatisfied. After all, the audience's ability and demand for association in this area are very strong. Especially considering that the heroine is Angelina Jolie.
Fox's persuasion and education work after the failure of Gibson's first mission reminded me of "Detective Hot". I remember I posted after watching this film that when the fat man asked the angel why he wanted to be a policeman, the angel’s answer was a humorous mockery of the British model of the Hollywood genre. At that time, someone replied that they did not see the meaning at all. And because I couldn't think of a specific case, I was at a loss for words. This time I finally found out. Note that a major feature of this mode is: it must be said that when he (she) was young... the
round bullet reminded me of the bowling flying saucer. But if according to the old man Freeman-this kind of trajectory is driven by the gunner's intuition, why do they make a very exaggerated arm swing when shooting? Is it necessary to use the kinetic energy produced by the swing arm to combine with the kinetic energy of the bullet passing through the barrel to produce a weird ballistic curve? Putting aside whether it makes sense on the physical level, doesn't it deny its theory of "intuition of consciousness" just mentioned? Because, since intuition is consciousness, why change the mode of action? …So, the only explanation is that the director himself is not very confident in the illusory things like "intuition", and must rely on the actor's super cool physical movements to boost his courage. However, it is certain that there should be no market for this technology on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. What we are after is "cutting the bend and straightening".
When hunting a target sitting in a bulletproof car, the car’s rolling in the air reminded me of another movie "Very Human Trafficker 2" starring Jason Statham. In that film, Statham is to remove the bomb from the base of the carriage, while the protagonist of the film is to avoid the bulletproof glass. But has anyone thought about this question: Why doesn't he fire a bullet that turns? Why is this patented technology of the Assassin Alliance suddenly nowhere to be used? For this, I must try my best to overcome the inertial thinking of the past—that is, the director ignores logical consistency in order to make the special effects masters work more—and make a more reasonable explanation based on the context of the film itself: just like the flying saucer. Like the bowling ball thrown in the style of play, the round bullet can only perform various curved movements on the X axis, but it can do nothing on the Y axis!
The scene where the enemy number one pulls the crumbling Gibson onto the train reminds me of "Broken Arrow." The pilot took the policewoman's gun during the fight and exchanged it with the other party, thus eliminating the other's doubts and suspicions in one fell swoop. Although I don't appreciate the actress's performance very much, I must admit that the role motive of this scene is quite convincing: I could have killed you with a gun, but I didn't, and I changed the gun for you. This is the greatest kindness. But why didn't the protagonist of "Assassin League" make the same choice under the same circumstances? Is it because the previous hatred is too strong, or is it because it is not a woman who pulls him, so he lacks the subtle emotional interaction between men and women? In any case, I am not very satisfied with the handling of this highlight. The choreographer should be able to conceive a better plot that will give the characters in the film even more choices.
The most taboo in Hollywood genre films is repetition. Although a director can copy and borrow a large number of classic bridges from other films in his own film, remember not to repeat his own plot. The super gorgeous sniper ballistic special effects flashback in the introduction of the film not only satisfies the audience's eyeballs, but also played a foreshadowing role from a narrative perspective. Especially the big "X" stepping on the foot of the prey is a visual motif. It reminds the audience that there will be a very similar plot to the front. So, at the end, the movie can end when the number one person looks down and sees the X under his feet. There is no need to enter the special effects flashback again. Quite funny is that this superfluous mistake was "repeated" twice in the film. Gibson went out for the first time accompanied by Fox, but standing on the roof of the train did not have the courage to start. So, after Fox's long talk, how should the director express Gibson's changes? Of course, only a close-up shot of a slain object falling to the ground is enough. Why is it necessary to repeat the scene of the two standing on the roof of the car again? ... In the use of omission techniques, classical films can cite countless classic cases, and the new film "Old Nowhere" is also a model-see my blog post "Old Nowhere" for details. And "Sin City", which handled two identical killings by the killer at the beginning and the end with the omission technique, can be used as the first candidate teaching material for the director of the film!
View more about Wanted reviews
