At least I personally think that the main reason why this film is highly praised is that it has affected the nerves of the war on terrorism. Judging by the standards of a movie, the documentary style is slightly rigid, and the tension of the whole movie is insufficient. If there is no refreshing explosion and shooting, it will be drowsy. It seems that the director not only maintains the enthusiasm of the film school graduation, but also maintains the production level of graduation. Of course, the director of this film is no longer a newcomer, but one film after another has been stuck in a rough experimental sense and has not seen a significant improvement, let alone a breakthrough. Even if the price increases sharply due to the Oscar winning, it will still be difficult to rank. First-line and even second-line directors. This reminds me of a director in our country: Lu Chuan. The same passion, the same love of suffering, the same incomprehension (Lu Chuan is even more), in other words-love to be clumsy. Of course, it's the same to win prizes with big themes.
When the creators of the Oscars were emotionally expressing that the film was difficult to market because of its "political incorrectness", I felt that the Oscar statuette was not "awarded" but was "advanced"-this acceptance speech It is the truly moving performance.
Oh, maybe it was driven by the narrow imperialist conspiracy theories of the civilians in the third world countries that made me wrong this group of happy people, they may just be staunch patriots, instinctively cherishing the values of "Americanism" Bar. If it is so, it is even more terrifying. To perpetrate violence or lobby for the perpetrator in the name of sacred purity is even more barbaric from centuries ago. The terrifying high-level armed forces of the American soldiers envelop a man who has the identity of a son (daughter), husband (wife), lover, and friend at the same time, a man of flesh, blood and spirit. And under the head-wrapped robe are terrorists, potential terrorists, growing terrorists, or terrorists whose types cannot be accurately defined. That’s good, don’t be vague, do what you do to pests, do what you do to them.
Under the seemingly anti-war theme, the film deeply soothes the unspeakable thirst of the "main theme", demonizes the people of the occupying power, sexualizes the aggressive robots, and rationalizes the unprovoked killing—compared to the self-proclaimed doubters. The identity is more like a pioneer in breaking the moral predicament of the war of aggression.
If you want to criticize this war, it is best to start the comprehensive aftermath, when the later propaganda offensive will make critics ashamed of their own meanness. It is believed that some people related to this film are or will be participating in the relief and reconstruction work of the war zone. In a few years, the schools, hospitals and other facilities built in Western countries will coexist peacefully with the "de-threat" locals, representing a reflection on the conscience of the left. It came out one after another. The decision makers said in the easy chair of the manor house, I admit that I made some mistakes and am willing to apologize for it, but sometimes, you know, for the benefit of the country, "have to". In the face of these sincere expressions, the condemnation became weaker and weaker, the meticulous and appropriate bleaching turned blood red to warm pink, and a new round of golden age has arrived.
This deja vu reincarnation is really helpless.
I believe that even without this movie, this year's Little Golden Man will not award the "Avatar" which is truly "politically incorrect". The virtual character revolution made the actor judges sweat, attacking the theme of aggression and ripping off the fig leaf of the national strategy. When the economy is not picking up and the war quagmire is deepening, it is not suitable for such deep self-blame.
View more about The Hurt Locker reviews
