also known as "George Clooney: How I, as a 54-year-old former diamond king five and the current Wei Shu Mi, tried so hard to make the artificial intelligence little loli laugh and gradually became ambiguous with her and slowly Living alone in a group made people think I was a pedophile, so after being hunted down by a group of bastard robots, in name, in order to save all mankind, I had to reluctantly threw a little loli into a ball I forgot my name and blew myself up to prove my innocence" ,
also known as "Raffey Cassidy's Reality, What People Like Is Not Strange, What People Like Is Stealing Britt Robertson's Sister",
also known as "I thought I could sell such a cool title with such a cool title." ,
also known as "The reason why I didn't sell well is definitely not that my story is not good enough and the special effects are not amazing. It must be because everyone thinks I'm the sequel of the next-door Warner Bros scumbag "Edge of Tomorrow", so I don't want to watch it, that's right ,That's it".
Disney does have money, and they will shoot a $200 million commercial without blinking an eye—maybe they blink, but I can’t see it. I watched the entire film very seriously and barely blinked, and my biggest question was:
since it was a $200 million budget, where did all the money go? Disney isn't making fake accounts, is it?
Relatively objectively speaking, the film is naive and empty, and the story told in this film is only superficial for an extremely grand background, and the most unbearable thing is its boredom. When I walked out of the movie theater, I realized that I didn't even remember a character's name.
Could it be that the positioning of this work was originally intended for audiences under the age of 10?
Then why do you need an uncle like George Clooney to star in it?
I had a lot of expectations for "Ming", but unfortunately, after watching it, I found that the story of this film was nothing, it was a mess, and my imagination was lackluster.
But there are also surprises. I was also excited when the antique rocket full of steampunk flavor rose from the Eiffel Tower.
The story setting of "Ming" has led to the excessive amount of information in this film. The background of the story is relatively large and complex, but the length of the film is very limited. The length of the main film is only 120 minutes, which is more than enough for a sci-fi film with an ordinary background. (such as "Gravity", "Super Chappie", "Robocop", "Transcendence", "Superbody", etc.), and even "Edge of Tomorrow", after all, it sells Keep restarting the "story" of fighting BOSS and the "vision" full of game sense, rather than the "concept" of the "future" that is like a mirage in a different dimension.
"Tomorrowland" is indeed a bit "concept" too far. There is nothing wrong with "concept" first, but "Ming" is wrong with its ambiguous story background and smug technical design. Facts have proved that Brad Bird is a little too hasty this time. Whether it is in terms of setting, technology, story or characters, he has a lot of problems that he has not figured out and understood. Who started filming... I naturally understand that Brad Bird has many difficulties in directing a big production, but since he is a director, he must be responsible for the quality of the work.
There are many flaws in this film that are easy to see. For example, is the heroine's "special" only because she never gives up hope? What is the nature of the crisis on Earth? Why did destroying that "ball" save the entire planet? This is too, is it child's play?
If the director cannot even convince himself, how can he convince the audience?
I had no choice but to come to the irresponsible conclusion that Brad Bird's animation skills are of course outstanding, but the level of live-action movies is still a little underwhelming. What? "Mission Impossible 4"? Compared with the story background and technical difficulty of this film, "Disc" is a bit simple, and it is still "4" after "1", "2", and "3". It's relatively easy to make a sequel to a popcorn movie, and who's a top-notch director who hasn't made an original?
The young age of the movie was not a problem originally. After all, the producer was Disney, which started out with animation. What this company pursues is suitable for all ages. However, being young does not mean childishness and emptiness. It does not mean that you can not spend your time polishing the script. It does not mean that you can only rely on technology to make up for the shortcomings of the story. This kind of behavior is unacceptable to me as an ordinary audience. Laughter and almost no tears are not qualified for a "story", even if "Ming" is just a sci-fi film on a commercial assembly line.
The mediocrity and blandness of the story will not be mentioned, and the "climax scene" at the end has completely collapsed into a "low tide scene". When the little girl played by Raffey Cassidy was dying, it was the only sad episode in the film that could be called a "tear point", but because of the child's play in the ending design, the emotions on the screen completely did not penetrate into the audience's nerves, or the actors No matter how hard you act, you just impress yourself. The process of defeating the BOSS to save the earth is too easy and has no sense of suspense, which makes the story completely powerless, and the picture does not have enough emotions; even the "sorrowful moment" when the little girl is seriously injured and dying, the audience can't complete it. The "empathy" of the character, the character is the character and the audience is the audience. The little girl was the same well-behaved little girl two hours ago, she just closed her eyes; the audience was the same staring audience two hours ago, but her expression became more numb.
Disney's original work has once again fallen to the ground. This is a cruel failure for Disney and a helpless sadness for the audience. There will be more sequels and adaptations in the future.
Ugh.
Although "Ming" is not satisfactory and lived up to my expectations, at least, it is not 3D.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks Raffey Cassidy is a little bit like the girly Audrey Hepburn?
Although Cassidy is not as outstanding as Hepburn, the small freckles are its highlight.
View more about Tomorrowland reviews
