I like it so much, I couldn't help giving it five stars, and I couldn't help but take a note, so as not to forget it in the future. (Speaking of a lot of movies, I only remember it very well, but I forgot how to do it...) —————————————— To me, the interesting points of this movie are: 1. The creativity is very simple! It's so concise, but it only relies on mathematical logic to derive such a series of stories. Simply genius, Rubik's Cube kills people, more interesting than ordinary secret room killings! (The originator of the mobile secret room?) 2. A spark of thought! Although it is not deep, it is very cleverly arranged. It is only shown through the character conflicts of a few characters, and the expression is very make sense, very natural, not the kind of "profound and profound" rigidity. Suddenly dumped a few blocks of ordinary thriller dramas. A total of 7 people appeared in the film, except for the first one who played soy sauce, there are 6 left. But their relationship is not a six-sided relationship like a cube, but the following:
The above interesting point 1 is expressed through three parallel lines of characters: prison escape experts, students, and autistic geniuses. The three of them played an instrumental role in turn, turning the story from "a starting point" to "a long line." The above interesting point 2 is expressed through the three characters on the triangle: the police, the doctor, and the architect. The main character conflict is also among them. And this conflict gave the film a certain depth of thought, from "several long lines" to "a cube." (In other words, the characters in this movie are set up to have architectural beauty!) —————————————— The first spark of thought occurred after the architect blew himself up. There has been a reflection on "technology". A conflict broke out between the architect and the doctor. In just a few sentences, they revealed their completely different political positions. Doctors are typical critics of democracy. "Do not trust the government", "conspiracy theory". In her view, the problem is not "technology" but "people". Human control technology, big brother controls people, and finally achieved totalitarian power. The architect is probably an anarchist. But what can we do without the government? Technology is still out of control. He said: There is no big brother. This view brings the reflection on "technology" into a deeper level of reflection on "modernity". Don't try to think about the "big picture", "focus" what's in front of you; when the prison breakers and the police boost morale like this, we seem to be able to see the shadow of countless American dramas. Professional, rational, and practical, this modern spirit has helped people solve many problems in modern society. But at the same time, it is also dividing the "people" into countless modules, disconnecting the connection between people and the world, disconnecting the connection between people, and making "people" a cog in a huge system. As Bauman pointed out, totalitarianism is not the cause of the disaster of modernity, but the result of the development of modernity. If you lose your reflection on modernity, you will inevitably not fall into what Hanlena calls the "evil of banality." The architect has clearly realized this level. Looking at his previous contempt and disdain for the police at this time, the reasons are even more clear: 1. The police lacked reflection on the worship of technology in the modern world, and still tried to use technology against technology, even if the escaped had proved that the road was not working. 2. The police did not realize how small the "individual person" is in the modern world system that engulfed everything, but still blindly confident, trying to maintain the sense of control of the "person" over the world by giving meaning to everything in the world. However, it is clear that these six people are in the same room, which is not the result of "deliberate arrangement." It can be expected that any one of them will not have a chance to escape if they act alone; and that they are in the same room, it is an accidental result. Any one of these accidents will change the overall situation. In the "human stupidity" that architects would rather wait to die than endure, is the police one of the representatives? And such a person, why not occupy a glamorous position and appear as a successful person? If the police did not have such a human stupidity, he would probably not complete the transition from "just angel" to "evil demon". It is possible that eventually, all six people escaped, including himself. ———————— The second spark appeared when doctors tried to protect autistic geniuses. (At this time they didn't know that he was a genius) On the surface, her contest with the police was a contest between good and evil. However, this movie is not about the human nature of "good and evil". The good in this movie is not the essential and supreme good in Platonism. In the film, human nature is so empty, and the difference between good and evil is nothing but the result of environmental manipulation. We can see why the police can encourage everyone like a hero in the first place? It does not stem from his sprouting of the abstract goodness of "the starry sky above his head" in his heart, but from his confidence and fascination with his secular identity, the policeman, the representative of power. He has been completely embedded in the external "social" system. His initial performance of "goodness" is just an appendage of pragmatism; then, it is not surprising that the later incarnation of the law of the jungle. He has not changed, only the jungle has changed. As for the doctor’s "goodness", the police hinted bitterly that in the outside world, her worship of goodness stems from the lack of other aspects of her life; while in the inner world, her worship of goodness is an attempt to Use this to counter technology. Here, the second spark is introduced to a deeper level. The above points out the consequences of modernity and technology worship. How to solve it? The doctor’s answer is: "We are human beings; this is the only thing we have." . What is "human being"? People are "not tools". Man is his own goal; man is not anyone's tool. So the doctor desperately wants to keep that autism. He is a "person", and his existence has all determined his value, rather than being measured like a tool. However, doctors cannot even protect themselves in the end. People like her are quite a bit of the "Virgin Mary" in life. Relying on the call for "humanity" of retroism and the empty heart of the Virgin will not save us who are trapped in the disaster of modernity. —————————— The cleverness of this movie is that it only throws out these few sparks of thought, which are also common reflections and interrogations of modern society in the West, without trying to answer it at all. . The director can be "profound", but the film does not need to be "profound"; in my opinion, this is a good movie, which plays the basic function of sensory stimulation. The autistic genius who escaped in the end may be the purest person. Because of social obstacles, he was not contaminated by society, and was not assimilated by technology (in the Rubik's Cube), but was vomited out. But I don't believe that this ending has any profound symbolic meaning. This arrangement may be just for the convenience of shooting a sequel (so that no one will know what the Rubik's Cube is about)... I have to say that the architect who resonates most with me is the architect. He is a complete nihilist, he is passive to everything. He hates the stupidity of human beings, but he did not turn to technical worship. He did not get any sense of accomplishment or meaning from building this Rubik's Cube; he has no desire to survive, but no desire to die. After his initiative was briefly aroused by the evil of the police, the shadow of the hero disappeared immediately after completing the task. Therefore, his hesitation after the door of life was opened seems to be a logical ending. Relatively speaking, that student is the closest to ordinary people. She said: The outside is indeed full of human stupidity, but "I can bear this." Passiveness will "passively" harm others. In the face of a huge industrial civilization, being cynical and sticking to the retro (whether returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video. Cynical and persistence in retro (whether it is returning to nature or returning to humanity) seem to be infeasible. So, what should we do? This is my current confusion; therefore, it is a reason to like this video.
View more about Cube reviews
