But what’s interesting is that the plot itself has been regarded as the scriptwriter’s own protagonist. Change foreseeable. I don't know if this sentence is clearly stated. If you just rectify the main line of this movie, you are actually just talking about a screenwriter. Starting from wanting to make a simple movie, and getting into trouble due to stagnant thinking, you turn to the master screenwriter to get the movie to have dramatic conflicts. Suddenly the spear froze, and finally the script was completed.
So in the process of criticism, satire, and self-compromise, the whole movie went from being gentle and charming to the opposite of vulgar and exciting. If this is an attempt by the screenwriter or director to express a satirical effect, then I regret and spurn it, because it only shows how shallow they can’t make simple films. They, like the protagonist, hope to be a non-Hollywood movie. The movie was ultimately uncontrollable, and it became an anticlimactic movie. But with a guilty conscience, he made his unwillingness clear to the world, and seemed to feel that this could show his efforts.
The performances of several big stars of the acting school are also just right. Meryl Streep’s interpretation of the "eyes that embrace all sorrow" is amazing, but at the end of the film, because of the script, the performance is like An outdated female celebrity, but I blamed this on the script itself, leaving little room for her performance at the end of the film.
So this is a contradictory movie, you can attribute its mediocrity to special, and its irony can be attributed to the self-defense of a guilty conscience. But anyway, the end of my ambivalent film review is to say. You must go to see this movie, it's worth watching!
View more about Adaptation. reviews
