Seeing the score of 7.9 in "The Labyrinth of Silence", I think, this film is probably nothing more than that. How boring and boring it must be for a historical film to be rated below 8. However, I started watching it with the mentality of killing time because of boredom. After the film ended, I decided to give it five stars. Four-and-a-half-star movie points, plus half-star favorite points.
The reason why I liked this film so much is probably that it allowed me to see something different, such as how history is reproduced, rather than history itself.
This film made me suddenly discover that the history that is most likely to be "blank" is not during the war, but after the war. Those who are deliberately buried will eventually be seen again with the passage of time, while those who seek the truth themselves are often ignored and forgotten by future generations.
You see, among the many films listed above, which one focuses on the reappearers of history rather than the participants in history? We are now praising the Germans' reflective attitude towards history, but how many people are aware of the hardships and pain behind the reflection?
Forgive my ignorance, at least I had no idea before. I used to think that after 1945, the sun would illuminate the earth, dispel the long night, and expose all the sins of darkness to justice in an instant. I didn't know before that, the Germans had kept this page of history secret, and the post-war generation in Germany could know nothing about Auschwitz.
I didn't know the truth was once trapped in such a huge labyrinth, and that the explorers of those labyrinths had gone through so many ups and downs and were almost lost.
Some people think the script is too stereotyped, I call it real.
As descendants of the post-war generation, we naturally fully understand where the plot is headed. The investigation will surely win, the truth will be revealed, otherwise what else can be done?
But should you blame the screenwriter for being too "tidy"? I tend to think we were spoiled by the history books, years ago, and had nothing to do with the writers.
In my eyes, this is a film that pays tribute to our ancestors, not a historical reflection, nor a suspenseful story. It doesn't need to be fancy or deep, it's only responsible for recording, recording the twists and turns of those maze explorers, allowing us to see the blind spots that are most easily missed when examining history.
I remembered that a friend of Dou asked in the short comment why you want to insert the scene of love? I thought that the emotions and weaknesses of mortals were an inescapable part of the record; and the poor performance of the stubborn and stubborn Radman in finally saving his girlfriend brought me more real touch than any romantic ending.
Some people say that this kind of neat, stereotyped and styleless film is not annoying? At least I personally never downgrade a movie because of subjective emotions. Good movies can be recommended, bad movies can be marked, but mixed with subjective likes and dislikes, it will never become the version I share with others.
And I've always held the view that the fundamental purpose of any art form is to record information. The way of expression affects the degree of acceptance of the information, but the flaws in the expression do not make it lose the meaning of the record, so it is really unnecessary to give one or two stars to the whole. In other words, if you want to have fun, please go out and turn left. Thank you.
View more about Labyrinth of Lies reviews
