From the first dispute between the male protagonist and others about whether to open the door, I had a foreboding that this was not a suspense horror film. When the protagonist had a dispute with his neighbor who was a lawyer, I laughed, and TM's really is a pedantic film. It is not wrong to borrow one thing to let people in extreme environments suppress and hide the conflicts, confusion, suspicion, and observation and research, but the author's use in this film is too obvious and too rough. Everyone, ordinary workers, lawyers, and religious fanatics have acted too deliberately, as if the author can't wait to hope that they can express these words and opinions clearly and clearly, but ignore the environmental background. This is a bit like inferior photographic technology-the main characters in the foreground and the background images in the two photos of different environments are bluntly combined, trying to get a beautiful photo in this convenient way, but ignoring the foreground characters. The light, color tone and the light source of the environment background are out of sync.
In the film, in such a panic and unknown situation, our lawyers just because of the conflicts with the hero in some lawsuits before, they did not hesitate to refuse to believe the hero, and the other four people, and even went to see it. The evidence is not willing. The unreasonable ridicule and contempt of religious fanatics who seemed kind and sincere at first when faced with other people's concerns happened too suddenly. The disjointed character of the characters makes people feel that there is a pair of impatient hands pushing them away behind them, which is not like a natural change at all. It feels like in a physics class, the teacher will keep saying: Now we ignore the air resistance, ignore the volume of the ball, ignore the blablabla, and then we will judge how long it takes for the ball to land. This exclusion, hypothesis method is feasible in theoretical research, but this is a movie. I think the author must have buried himself in the book for too long, and the whole film is full of nerd-like sourness.
To describe human nature, this film obviously has too little preparation work. I think you should either express your thoughts with joking and ironic exaggeration like other people's "Zombie Shaun", or you should earnestly enrich the necessary conditions for breeding these conflicts, so as not to look deliberately blunt.
I have seen many speeches by Western sociology and psychologists. When demonstrating a point of view, they must make every effort to avoid the experimenter’s own preconceived views, subconsciously dominate the results of the experiment, and do everything possible to make the experiment unaffected Under the real environment. Only by repeated experiments of this kind can these scholars dare to express their opinions cautiously. In this film, I saw a scholar who was eager to impose his immature views on others under the guise of experimentation. I can hardly imagine that "The Mist" and "Shawshank Redemption" are the works of the same director-Frank De Labont.
When it comes to characterization, some people say that they hate the old religious woman who is preaching inside. Let me say, I hate everyone inside because they are so unreal, they are like lunatics when they should be calm, and they are inexplicably calm when they are panic-crazy. Everyone seems to be reading lines, their behavior is completely out of harmony with the lines and emotions that burst out of their mouths. It's like looking at a synthetic photo full of holes. They are all freaks created in Frank De Labont’s laboratory, just to illustrate Frank De Labont’s extremely one-sided and naive thoughts.
View more about The Mist reviews
