It's an old problem for me to always discuss logic when watching movies. I even started thinking about writing this short review when I was twenty minutes away.
First of all, I have to admit that this movie exposes a certain social reality and also exposes a lot of problems. It is a movie with a certain inspiration. However, the shaping of the character's character and the logic of the character's behavior are very lacking.
So let's talk about why I wrote a short review twenty minutes ago: At that time, the male protagonist's mother slapped him and asked him why he came back. There are many logical problems here.
First, a mother, maybe half an hour or an hour ago, said goodbye to her son who had to leave without even explaining why she had to leave. Weeping loudly, when my son came back, the first reaction was not hugging or crying, but slapped him viciously and scolded him, this one;
Second, let's talk about the main protagonist. He and his father are the two most upright people in the whole film. In the environment created by the film, pure integrity without entanglement itself is perfectly too simple. On the other hand, I have to mention that he was taken to the barren mountains and mountains (passed by cars) to be secretly disposed of.
The small question here is: why is it that the police officer who is clearly following the order of his superiors to execute three people can let one go on his own accord, is he a hunter in Snow White? Why are the two selfish people who should be most concerned about their own interests unanimously accepted Persuade the police officer to let go of a third person who can be said to have nothing to do with him after his own death. According to the consistency of the characters, these two people are likely to be dying, throwing out identity benefits or negotiating, such as them It can be said that I was deceived by the male protagonist. In fact, from their professional point of view, there is no risk of the building collapsing at all. Oh, so there is the question of why they must be killed. Obviously, as long as the interests are involved, these two people actually He also has no intention of solving this problem. It can be seen from the words of the old leader in the wine bureau that let them die and forget it. On the contrary, what needs to be solved most is the male protagonist who has no interests and ideals of integrity. Etc., etc., but if you start from the main theme of the movie, maybe it can be tolerated a little bit.
The big problem is: the male protagonist knew that he was going to be killed, and his first reaction was to escape. He didn't want to die. It was obvious that he wanted to live because of his own selfish will. As soon as he returned, he would leave with his wife, obviously to save his life, to save himself and his family. I thought there would be at least a little bit of id and superego confrontation here, but not at all. The male protagonist was driving the car and started arguing with his wife. During the quarrel, he seemed to suddenly remember that there were 800 people in danger. Then he got out of the car and spoke ill of his wife who did not understand him, forcing his wife to drive away and return home by himself. (Just here being slapped by my mother). When the male protagonist chatted with his father, my expectations were raised again. The father's integrity and his love for his son were divided. He knew that integrity was useless at the moment, and hoped that his son would protect himself. At least started to fight I think. But the son had a black line on his face, without any entanglement at all, he opened the door and left... A man who was racing for his life an hour or two ago suddenly had a very firm belief in saving people, and he firmly cared for his family. See it as a hindrance to yourself...
There are many more logical issues to write about, but perhaps too much entanglement is unnecessary.
At least this movie is a little inspirational. Like saving people.
First, we want to save people, and it is the real stakeholders who should be persuaded.
I don’t know if the male protagonist also has the idea of maintaining stability in his mind. The first time he found the risk of building collapse, he was not telling the residents to face the risk and solve the risk together, but to go to the person in charge. I think it’s ok to tell the residents about the potential risk first. , and then all residents take him as a representative to report the problem to the government and ask for a solution. In this way, on the one hand, pressure can be exerted on the person in charge, so that the possibility of subsequent secrecy work and murder can be avoided. On the other hand, residents can be informed of the risks. Even if the government does not solve the problem, these residents can decide whether to stay or leave according to their own understanding.
Therefore, in the face of such a situation, the male protagonist should explain to the residents why the building is at risk of collapse. Rather than simply evacuating residents in the end, without telling them why the building might have collapsed, residents who didn't understand ended up returning to their original residences.
Secondly, if we want to save people, we must ensure our authority, that is, we must ensure the accuracy of our language. I don’t know if it’s a translation problem. The male protagonist knocked on the door from house to house and said the building was going to collapse, not that the building was crooked. If it is shaken, the efficiency of saving people will be extremely low.
In short, this movie may be trying to tell us that the male protagonist who seems to be righteous is the fool who is desperate for justice. A corrupt system is a dangerous building for everyone. We pursue interests and give up justice, just like the residents in that leaning building.
But the high level of intentions cannot hide the lack of logic. After spending two hours watching the movie, I feel like I am a big fool.
View more about The Fool reviews
