There is no logic in the plot, and the actors are making a show.
Turn on someone’s evaluation:
http://group.mtime.com/filmov/discussion/1537485/ I
inspected this film in Hong Kong, one word: bad.
Of course, I didn't intend to hack this film. Although the film was unacceptable, in order to show respect to the film production team, I watched more than 10 minutes of subtitles at the end of the film in the theater.
All I can say is that this film is much worse than Chuang Ji, and it went so smoothly at the box office. I'm really sorry to the Chuang Ji production team.
Since the founding of the war, I have held this attitude: Don’t be too demanding on the plot, as long as it is enough to support the development of the plot and support the special effects. This is what Genesis has achieved. Although the plot of Genesis is simple, at least it has achieved a certain level of special effects, which gives people a refreshing feeling, and the special effects can completely conceal the weakness of the plot, at least worth the price.
And change to 3, nothing good.
1) The music has no characteristics, several of the same melody, frequently used.
2) The visual effect has a certain novelty, but it is not attractive. What it brings to people is not "beauty" but "chaos". And it's a boring mess.
3) The plot is unacceptable, so that the special effects have become a show after show, which is very unnatural. It feels that so many things happen to the characters in it, which is just to be shown to the audience, and the logic is poor. This is the basic point to become a bad film. In this regard, Variation 3 is too standard, so Variation 3 is an out-and-out bad movie. Not only is it bad, but it can also be used as a model in bad movies and selected as a negative example in "textbooks".
4) The special effects are dazzling, the camera dangles, the audience actually sees nothing, sees nothing clearly, the original movie is not much better than the gun version. For example, the transformation of Transformers is the feature of this movie, but for all the shots, the transformation of King Kong is completed with a few twists and a few twists. The actions and shots are not delicate at all, making the audience miss this series of films. Characteristic place. Also, the definition of the movie is too poor. Understand? It’s good to see the special effects without the plot, but the special effects are not clear and messy.
5) It is said that Michael Bay wants to use this film to restore the audience's confidence in 3D. Then, it can be said that the audience's confidence is completely lost in this century.
6) The rhythm of the story has a degree of relaxation on the surface, but it is actually just a blunt alternation of "zhang" and "relaxation".
7) The audience cannot resonate, and many shots are too silly! For example, after hardships and victory, slow motion is a good technique, but since the movie did not render the cruelty and tension of the war to a certain height, the final victory lost its value and was too blunt.
8) The title is too showy, and even the level of the running account is not up to the level. Originally, the space race appeared in the movie and it was easy to bring the audience in. It was a good subject, and it turned out to be like this.
Finally, I believe that most viewers will comment on this film in one sentence like me after watching it: it’s
not interesting.
Yes, someone will definitely say: look at the special effects. But please note that I have already said that even the special effects are not interesting anymore. It is better to watch the special effects!
Hey, I thought I saw Michael Bay’s "Break into Death Island" back then, and how admired he was. Now, I also understand that it turns out that Michael Bay has already become a lunatic, and the role in the movie has also become It's a lunatic, what kind of plot, it's just a few crazy convulsions there.
In contrast, Nolan movies not only have both special effects and plot, but the two complement each other and complement each other, producing a hundred times the effect.
Looking forward to HP7, 2011, the sequel year, the number of sequels is good. Just ask, what is the quality?
If I hadn't read it, I would have to scold LZ as a dog-blood sprinkler when I saw such a log. I said so much today. It’s not that I suggest that you don’t read it. I think you still have to look at it. You can look at it in any way. If you don’t read it, you won’t understand how correct I am.
View more about Transformers: Dark of the Moon reviews
