first blush, this sentence may seem positive, a reflection on the previous reckless military strikes and casualties of innocent civilians by the surviving president and his colleagues ( It's not really that new either). However, when you think about it in relation to the specific plot of the film, it doesn't feel right. Because what the narrator refers to, it seems that it can also be what the "Hawkeye", a super-intelligent system secretly developed by the Ministry of Defense, did in the film! Isn't it the very purpose of upholding the spirit of freedom and democracy in the U.S. Constitution that it uses extraordinary means to subvert the government? So, the meaning of this sentence becomes strangely: to overthrow the US government on the pretext of safeguarding freedom is tantamount to a threat to freedom itself! Our President of the United States of America can do wrong, and seriously. But you can't subvert him and his government in a similar way!
Violent subversion of the government is indeed undesirable. But the problem is not here, but how to connect the whole thing. It begins with a missile attack and ends with the destruction of Hawkeye. So, why is the use of violence arbitrarily under the guise of safeguarding freedom, Hawkeye should be completely suppressed, and the President of the United States can continue to exercise his presidential functions in a stable and stable manner? Isn't this the same as naked propaganda, only the state officials are allowed to set fires, and the people are not allowed to light the lamps? I really doubt that the title of the American blockbuster that President Bush excitedly asked our foreign minister when he got off the plane in Beijing was not only "The Dark Knight", but also "Hawkeye"!
On the political level, the reactionary nature may be somewhat obscure, but if you simply enjoy it as an entertainment blockbuster, this film is not very clever.
The first is the lack of novelty in the plot. The way and process of the hero being framed and fleeing is very reminiscent of "The Matrix". And there was also a woman who came to meet him. The difference is that she was also coerced to join, and she is not as cool as Trinity in black and sunglasses. In addition, in the scene where "Die Hard 4" was released less than a year ago, the audience once again saw the scene of cars jerking off in the tunnel. Could it be that Hollywood directors have reached the point where they are best at what they are best at? Second, the protagonists are too submissive. In the film, the man in the Middle East could finally find out that he refused to cooperate and died under the high-voltage line, but the hero and heroine did not show the slightest doubt about the nature of the whole incident (whether it was an ordinary kidnapping or endangering national security)? Especially the male protagonist! Of course, there is still room for doubts to be suspended in this question.
But the bigger controversy is the plan itself implemented by Hawkeye. As many netizens have said, if Hawkeye's intelligence is already powerful to the appalling level shown in the film, why is it necessary to adopt such a complicated and complicated subversion plan forcing innocent civilians to join? Wouldn't that just let that plane go for a missile attack or something? There is a lot of debate online about this issue. However, I personally think that it is really difficult for the positive side to gain the upper hand. Because they're defending a completely fictional (at least Hawkeye's non-existent) storyline. The bad thing is that the screenwriter of this film is far from establishing a relatively complete and meticulous logic system similar to that of "The Matrix" although it is a science fiction. Therefore, even if the audience is willing to take the initiative to adapt to a specific situation and watch it, they do not know what to think about to understand the logical relationship between the beginnings and turns of the whole story.
On the other hand, the increasingly "civilian" feature of modern Hollywood action films has raised the threshold for audiences to stop disbelief. Because if the protagonist is played by a traditional action star like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willie, it's barely plausible that you let us ignore plot holes. After all, the masculine action scenes are enough to distract the audience even more. But if what they see is more than two young people like LaBeouf, don't you care about the storyline? What's left for that movie?
View more about Eagle Eye reviews
