This is my first time writing a movie review, and here I want to discuss the plot and the issues that some people don't understand.

Lexus 2021-10-21 15:30:20

1. Sister Judy's skin was so supple at first, and she looked better than a lamb with freckles; 2. The male coward, who hindered Judy's adventure in the name of love; 3. The characters are lively and the official Hollywood-style shortsightedness and stupidity make people hate 4. The for Carl at the end of the play is a tribute to the dead author; 5. The consistent emphasis on values ​​(god) is disgusting; 6. The stinky flag of American supremacy and patriotism is particularly disgusting, minus one star.

Hoyt 2022-03-22 09:01:14

Zemigis’s big scene scheduling can still see the influence of the film kids: the location of the radio telescope where people of all colors gather, the editing and mirroring scheduling are not chaotic, and Larry and Bush appear on the scene to enhance the sense of reality, but also There are some inexplicable designs, such as the researcher who talks to himself with dull eyes like a mentally retarded person next to Foster. I don't see any meaning except for the actor who is robbing the show. Foster is the absolute narrative core of the film. All the inheritance and transformation are due to her. She has a strong personality to chase the truth of extraterrestrial signals (even a bit unpleasant). There is also a side line about her nostalgia for her father, and she chases after it. Chasing, the final answer is for the secondary line. Of course, there are a lot of religious content on the secondary line, such as believers who are extreme to blew up to prevent the launch, such as the false priest McConaughey who read inexplicable lines-this film is considered to be There was an inadequate interpretation of "the end of science is religion." Maybe Zemigis intended to show the terrifying strength of the American religious world in realism, but I still looked dazed: what? Find an alien and finally find a vain love?