The interpretation of the whole work is fairly smooth, and several of the more brilliant scenes in the book are also involved, especially the contextual reference of several jump words, which can still touch some audiences with unique tastes like me. And several episodes of sex addiction have been handled more naturally (it seems that many people are looking for these exchanges specially, then I would say that they will definitely be extremely disappointed, just like when the whole people watched the gap between the instinct and the instinct. ), although it is surprising but not obtrusive, it is more convincing.
It's a pity that the flashbacks of childhood and adulthood are too frequent, which leads to the slow progress of the story, which is a rather embarrassing shortcoming. It is definitely a big test for audiences who have not seen the original work.
If the rhythm is too slow and erratic, it will be difficult for people to get into the state, and a movie that makes people lack a sense of substitution is the most lethal flaw. It makes sense that it would be difficult to get the majority of the audience to agree.
And the protagonist seems too indifferent, and the protagonist in the book is even more cynical to cover himself up properly, which is even more heart-pounding. The protagonist of Tongdian is just dull but not naive. The dubious attachment and silent love to his mother can actually be interpreted a little deeper.
The biggest flaw is actually the weakening of the several suffocation scenes (whether true or not). The few viewers I have come into contact with who haven't read the original book are very confused and confused.
If it's not a lack of self-identity, why rely on suffocation to get hugs from others (strangers)? And the body fluid exchange time and time again is more like anesthesia than relaxation... It is also a form of suffocation. Chuck Palahniuk is best at Ling Lie Lengyi in absurd scenes, which is treated as a unique embellishment in this movie. Whether it is good or not is a matter of opinion. As a result, it is not surprising that the inexplicable stone barrier that was supposed to be thick and colorful (the bright tail left by the author) was made an anticlimactic.
In general, it is worth watching, but it is recommended not to pass the time in the mediocre and idle time, and it is not suitable for couples to watch together. It's not because there are any special scenes in it that are not conducive to stability and unity, but I think it's impossible for your other half to experience the struggle in that bleak environment at the same time as you. That being the case, it's better to enjoy it slowly by yourself, and then bring it to a bar with three or five friends.
Finally, I would like to say a word "circuit" that I have a deep impression on. Most of the people (including Fanren) who have not seen the original book and movie, few thought that it could be expressed in this way (especially in the popular authoritative dictionaries, the meaning of this word is confiscated) , and I went back and forth and couldn't come up with an apt counterpart, "vicious circle"? , "Reincarnation"? It is neither good nor appropriate. I myself understand it as a "report of the present". If anyone has a better understanding and word processing, please let me know, especially in the movie, it was repeatedly emphasized and used for me many times.
Chuck Palahniuk is known in circles for his work as an internet dictionary killer. A lot of familiar words and slang words are definitely a kind of torture to those who are not interested in accumulating, especially when the regular Longman Oxford can't find them, let's advertise: You can turn to Lu Gu, Sun Lu Lao's "English-Chinese Dictionary" for help. Of course, if there is no vocabulary or usage pointed out by Mr. Lu, it is definitely not because Mr. Lu and his team are ignorant, it is the strange usage of Chuck, which can be completely ignored and smiled...
View more about Choke reviews
