I have seen many movies, especially horror movies. Personally, I don't think this film lives up to its name ~ it should deserve a higher rating. The reason for the low score now may be related to the fact that it is a horror genre film. Just like Quasimodo, he was born to scare off some people with his ugly appearance, and make others preconceived. Looking at the short reviews, we will also find the reason for its low score: some audiences are too involved in the drama, like to substitute themselves into the protagonist, seek abuse, and confuse the quality of the film itself with the feeling, just like a Puritan would give a low score to lust and caution , is understandable, but not worthy of reference. So what is an objective evaluation? It is to use less of your own values, and use many values to compare and measure from various angles. If in another 50 years, horror films that draw attention with blood plasma or terrify with jump scare are forgotten, neither will this one. I bet it's place in the horror genre will gradually emerge, so I'll leave it to you and honored. Friends who recognize bad can be avoided.
1. The boldness of its narrative is comparable to that of Quentin's Pulp Fiction. It challenges traditional narratives, is not conventional, and may have less skill in structure, but its simplicity and straightforwardness are commendable and not flattering. That's one of the reasons Quentin's films are so admired. When you watch a lot of stereotyped genre films, you will find this precious. 2. It reflects the aesthetics of violence as much as Chainsaw. The foot is pierced, and the wire is pulled. Cut the meat with a knife and hide from the trash can. It seems like a small scene, but it makes people feel the same. This kind of discomfort is no lighter than that of a chainsaw being pinched in the middle. It does not require 4D odor and hardware blessing, and can be expressed only by the tension of the picture itself. Just like the reason why Mount and Blade is more fun than most fancy action games is that it focuses on teasing people, which is more beautiful than fancy actions that rely on aesthetic fatigue, and is a wonderful application of literary synaesthesia rhetoric in movies. At first glance, it looks rough, but this violent beauty is very different from the violent beauty of Sin City. If you compare the latter to psychedelic rock. The former is the roar of heavy metal, but it's all beautiful. Especially the scene where the traitor is burned to death. Silently revealing the strangeness, an evil ritual sense pays homage to the famous scene, which is in stark contrast with the heroine's unbearable heart. The strong conflict produces beauty and shocks people. 3. In terms of details, many foreshadowings have to be done twice and three times. For example, the slogans on the street signs, the subtle strangeness of the host's house found by climbing the roof, the change of the heroine's face, etc., are not idle strokes, but metaphors and points. This is why we feel real, because the subconscious mind pays attention to a lot of details. When a thing is rich in details, we feel more real, and the details are substituted. We can also disprove the richness of details by the degree of our own substitution. 4. In terms of suspense settings, I don't have much movie knowledge. But I know that what keeps me wondering about the next step in the plot is the suspense. If you fast forward, it's just because you can't bear to look directly, not because the suspense is not set well. 5. In terms of immersion, I bet its immersion is top-notch. What are the first-class standards? Just not on the big screen of the theater, even on an old mobile phone, you can substitute it. From this point of view, its immersion is much better. The same ordinary type of film has completely different effects on a large screen and a mobile phone, and its immersion must rely on hardware to achieve it. And it just relies on the plot itself, which is the genius. 6. In terms of acting, not much to say. When we want to tear up the bear child to protect the most beautiful smile of the heroine, we already have the answer. Whether the protagonist or the villain or the supporting role, I haven't found a single one whose acting skills are not online. Even the useless little blond boy, with a hard look on his face, made people think that he was acting in his true colors. If you want to rank the villains in movie history. If I hadn't forgotten what the bear boy was called, I would have written his name next to the clown. Too many movies try to whitewash the villain, always trying to show a little bit of humanity. But this movie reminds us that there is still the purest evil, which is called pure villain. 7. In terms of depth of thought. Compared with "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Truman World" and other works known for their depth, it is not the most comprehensive. But in terms of the evil of human nature, few movies are more profound than it (perhaps "City of God" counts as one), as for the so-called banned film "120 Days of Sodom", etc., only show evil, more for satisfaction People's curiosity, many unnecessary scenes make it downgrade. But there are very few unnecessary scenes in the film. In my opinion, the profound standard is that after many years, I will think about the questions it raises. It is more difficult to ask questions than to explain the truth. The director of this film has revived the Flaubert-style narration without discussion. In retrospect, in fact, we cannot see the director's value orientation from the film. He is just faithfully deducing things with logic. development, even if it is not as desired. The so-called reasonable, unexpected. It is the most dramatic and the hallmark of a good work. Because this can stimulate the free thinking of the audience, which is much smarter than telling the audience a truth. The value of free thinking, as Plato said, philosophy begins with wonder. There is an exorcism in horror films, and it is praised for its profound problems, and I think the problems of this one are deep enough. Because he's not just asking about children's education, but more. For example, when and how should masculinity manifest itself? Being provoked and insulted in front of females. After all, dignity should be defended. Or is it better to hedge wisely? Should those who do not follow evil from their hearts die? Are evils caused by collective unconsciousness and centralization considered evil? Is it inherently evil in human nature, or is the environment determined to be evil? Is it related to poor people and poor mountains and rivers? Why would such a pure wicked person have mercy, such as pity the dog, is this the glory of his humanity or an excuse to do evil? Why do people have a desire to destroy beautiful things? Cute think X is not the fuse of the arrogant child? Is it really like Freud's so-called sexual desire is the source of all impulses? Is there really no reason for the child to do evil to the two? In addition to the death of the dog, does being sprinkled with dog food count? If so, then there is jealousy. Is mental maturity related to age? If relevant. So aside from good and evil, just in terms of maturity, the bear child is obviously more mature than the protagonist. It can be seen that the mind is not linearly related to age, so should law enforcement refer to the maturity of the mind or only based on age? Why can't we legislate more scientifically? Is it because it shouldn't be like this, or is it just that most people's cognition is not at the level? If you were a parent, justice and your own children, which would you choose? Which should you choose? More broadly, how do you choose between the fundamental interests of individuals and justice and morality? We sympathize with the heroine because we see what happened, if we don't see it? Should we put our children in jail? Is it really good for him to choose to save the child? love someone Shouldn't he be given the harshest punishment he deserves? Just like Christianity says that the Father loves the world, shouldn't he judge and punish the world? This leads back to the classic question posed by the exorcism: If God loves believers, why are devout believers unfortunate? It will lead to an ancient problem in the philosophy of religion. If there is a God, why is there still evil? Some people will say, I won't let the child grow up like this, then he should think, if he is full of bad habits, can he really do better than the parents in the film? The parents in the film are not completely bad. For example, they took in the heroine when they first met her, and then chose to do so only because her interests conflicted with his children, but their children were bad. Doesn't this mean that role models are even more powerful than we expected? The parents in the film have also spoken to their children, is it useful? Did the child learn badly on his own? Or who is the reference to learn bad? So is it important to preach, or is it important to lead by example? Can justice always triumph over evil? If not, then why do we like that ending? Is this really our ideal? Or is it just our escapist instinct? If victory is not about good or evil, but about strength and weakness. So what's the point of being good? Can the good and the strong coexist? If they can coexist, what is the key? Is it goodness or power itself, or rationality? The fairy tales woven by countless movies are like fantasy, and the fate is not transferred by human will. Man proposes, God disposes. It may seem hopeless to draw such a conclusion, but think about it from another angle. Why do we like to focus on results but forget about the process? The heroine failed, but escaped from the tiger's mouth again and again, and saved the danger again and again. Go beyond yourself time and time again. Just because of failure. Should it be totally rejected? Portugal, led by Ronaldo, did not win the World Cup. Should their efforts be negated by the results? Do you still regret the failure after trying your best? For the heroine. This is perhaps the most unusual experience in her short life other than preschool education. In a desperate situation, she has inspired bravery, wit, and brilliance of humanity that was not obvious, which may have been unimaginable to her previous self. She may never have imagined that she could become such a powerful and excellent person. So, is there any truth to this saying that people are forced out? Should we push ourselves? Or wait for bad luck to force us? If she was just an ordinary kindergarten teacher all her life. In our opinion, how does she differ from most ordinary people? How can we remember her? Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. If there is a chance for a better ending, we would prefer the heroine to be as silly and sweet as she used to be and not to look at herself, and to live comfortably for a lifetime, or to grow into such a fighter and face her fears with wide-eyed eyes? What about ourselves? If future generations want to follow us The real experience of writing a movie. Is there anything worth writing about in our lives? Maybe she didn't want to be remembered this way, but was her death absolutely useless and tragic? The director specially arranged her boyfriend as a comparison. It can be seen that she is not useless and miserable, because she resists. This kind of resistance can be found in Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus", pushing a stone to the top of the mountain but rolling down, and having to continue to push, although it is futile, but the resistance itself is tragic and solemn, we can't just because this behavior is futile, The ending is hopeless, let's just say it's not a great tragedy, but a bad taste and sadistic film. It is a pity that many viewers only see the despair of the ending, but not the tragic and solemn resistance. Isn't it the conclusion we should draw to not judge heroes based on results? That's why its ending raises the depth of the film several notches. If the ending is happy revenge, that's not what the director wants to express. The audience will only say, "Oh, justice has triumphed over evil again. Because of the victory, the struggle is meaningful." The director wants to say, don't worry about winning or not, that's not something we can decide. The struggle itself is the meaning. At this point, the director has some bad taste in fishing, depending on how many audiences will be obsessed with his deliberately exaggerated painful and desperate ending, ignoring what he really wants to express. Some people will say that I am over-interpreting, and the director just wants to abuse the audience to satisfy his bad taste. But I want to say that if you recognize the truth of what he shoots, this is not an over-interpretation, because respecting reality itself is the most serious, and trying to deduce the ending logically. We can't say that he is just trying to convey his own values and bad taste. In my opinion, the reason why the heroine called so desperate in the end is not just fear of her own death, but regret that she should have been more vigilant, but she slackened, she is crying for the incompleteness of her struggle. If she really tried her best, then when fate gives such a result, I think she will face it calmly. This is also why many people ask why she didn't kill herself? I would like to ask back, if you try your best to survive to the finals, you think your chances of winning are slim, will you give up? You may be even more unwilling, and you will not give up easily after working hard. You will regret not doing better before, and just try to make up for it. Just like Messi's regretful eyes when he missed the Hercules Cup, doesn't he think he should have done better? The only way to regret is to put in the effort but not do your best. , pushed the stone to the top of the mountain but rolled down, and had to continue to push. Although it was futile, the resistance itself was tragic and solemn. We cannot say that this is not a great tragedy, but an evil Funny abuse movie. It is a pity that many viewers only see the despair of the ending, but not the tragic and solemn resistance. Isn't it the conclusion we should draw to not judge heroes based on results? That's why its ending raises the depth of the film several notches. If the ending is happy revenge, that's not what the director wants to express. The audience will only say, "Oh, justice has triumphed over evil again. Because of the victory, the struggle is meaningful." The director wants to say, don't worry about winning or not, that's not something we can decide. The struggle itself is the meaning. At this point, the director has some bad taste in fishing, depending on how many audiences will be obsessed with his deliberately exaggerated painful and desperate ending, ignoring what he really wants to express. Some people will say that I am over-interpreting, and the director just wants to abuse the audience to satisfy his bad taste. But I want to say that if you recognize the truth of what he shoots, this is not an over-interpretation, because respecting reality itself is the most serious, and trying to deduce the ending logically. We can't say that he is just trying to convey his own values and bad taste. In my opinion, the reason why the heroine called so desperate in the end is not just fear of her own death, but regret that she should have been more vigilant, but she slackened, she is crying for the incompleteness of her struggle. If she really tried her best, then when fate gives such a result, I think she will face it calmly. This is also why many people ask why she didn't kill herself? I would like to ask back, if you try your best to survive to the finals, you think your chances of winning are slim, will you give up? You may be even more unwilling, and you will not give up easily after working hard. You will regret not doing better before, and just try to make up for it. Just like Messi's regretful eyes when he missed the Hercules Cup, doesn't he think he should have done better? The only way to regret is to put in the effort but not do your best. , pushed the stone to the top of the mountain but rolled down, and had to continue to push. Although it was futile, the resistance itself was tragic and solemn. We cannot say that this is not a great tragedy, but an evil Funny abuse movie. It is a pity that many viewers only see the despair of the ending, but not the tragic and solemn resistance. Isn't it the conclusion we should draw to not judge heroes based on results? That's why its ending raises the depth of the film several notches. If the ending is happy revenge, that's not what the director wants to express. The audience will only say, "Oh, justice has triumphed over evil again. Because of the victory, the struggle is meaningful." The director wants to say, don't worry about winning or not, that's not something we can decide. The struggle itself is the meaning. At this point, the director has some bad taste in fishing, depending on how many audiences will be obsessed with his deliberately exaggerated painful and desperate ending, ignoring what he really wants to express. Some people will say that I am over-interpreting, and the director just wants to abuse the audience to satisfy his bad taste. But I want to say that if you recognize the truth of what he shoots, this is not an over-interpretation, because respecting reality itself is the most serious, and trying to deduce the ending logically. We can't say that he is just trying to convey his own values and bad taste. In my opinion, the reason why the heroine called so desperate in the end is not just fear of her own death, but regret that she should have been more vigilant, but she slackened, she is crying for the incompleteness of her struggle. If she really tried her best, then when fate gives such a result, I think she will face it calmly. This is also why many people ask why she didn't kill herself? I would like to ask back, if you try your best to survive to the finals, you think your chances of winning are slim, will you give up? You may be even more unwilling, and you will not give up easily after working hard. You will regret not doing better before, and just try to make up for it. Just like Messi's regretful eyes when he missed the Hercules Cup, doesn't he think he should have done better? The only way to regret is to put in the effort but not do your best. In the past, the director has some bad taste in fishing, it depends on how many audiences will be obsessed with the painful and desperate ending he deliberately exaggerated, ignoring what he really wants to express. Some people will say that I am over-interpreting, and the director just wants to abuse the audience to satisfy his bad taste. But I want to say that if you recognize the truth of what he shoots, this is not an over-interpretation, because respecting reality itself is the most serious, and trying to deduce the ending logically. We can't say that he is just trying to convey his own values and bad taste. In my opinion, the reason why the heroine called so desperate in the end is not just fear of her own death, but regret that she should have been more vigilant, but she slackened, she is crying for the incompleteness of her struggle. If she really tried her best, then when fate gives such a result, I think she will face it calmly. This is also why many people ask why she didn't kill herself? I would like to ask back, if you try your best to survive to the finals, you think your chances of winning are slim, will you give up? You may be even more unwilling, and you will not give up easily after working hard. You will regret not doing better before, and just try to make up for it. Just like Messi's regretful eyes when he missed the Hercules Cup, doesn't he think he should have done better? The only way to regret is to put in the effort but not do your best. In the past, the director has some bad taste in fishing, it depends on how many audiences will be obsessed with the painful and desperate ending he deliberately exaggerated, ignoring what he really wants to express. Some people will say that I am over-interpreting, and the director just wants to abuse the audience to satisfy his bad taste. But I want to say that if you recognize the truth of what he shoots, this is not an over-interpretation, because respecting reality itself is the most serious, and trying to deduce the ending logically. We can't say that he is just trying to convey his own values and bad taste. In my opinion, the reason why the heroine called so desperate in the end is not just fear of her own death, but regret that she should have been more vigilant, but she slackened, she is crying for the incompleteness of her struggle. If she really tried her best, then when fate gives such a result, I think she will face it calmly. This is also why many people ask why she didn't kill herself? I would like to ask back, if you try your best to survive to the finals, you think your chances of winning are slim, will you give up? You may be even more unwilling, and you will not give up easily after working hard. You will regret not doing better before, and just try to make up for it. Just like Messi's regretful eyes when he missed the Hercules Cup, doesn't he think he should have done better? The only way to regret is to put in the effort but not do your best.
From an outsider's point of view. Isn't her life more shocking than a mediocre person like me? Pain and shortness are the sorrows of her life, but the life force bursting out of desperation makes her a person worthy of a book. Wittgenstein, Hemingway, will take the initiative to participate in terrible wars, actively seek pain, and the purpose of ordinary soldiers is different, they are not for the country or others, only for the passion of life, even death, they are more decent, they think this is better than It is more honorable to die in a hospital bed. This has to cause me to think, do I focus too much on the length and comfort of life and ignore something? Why would anyone pursue extreme sports? Why are some people not afraid of the new crown? I think they don't put life first, it doesn't matter right or wrong, it's just a difference in values. In my opinion, the heroine also put her life first at the beginning, but later it was not necessarily because she chose to run in reverse instead of running away. At that moment, her mentality had undergone a subtle change. If immediate revenge was as possible as leaving alive, she would not necessarily choose life again. The persistence of hope of victory and justice and their destruction are her biggest regrets and fears. She must be afraid that the wicked will not be punished and justice will not be served, but she is not necessarily afraid of death.
In addition, the film caused me to think otherwise. For example, why do couples have such a thing? Is fate an unintelligible accident, or is it related to our own choices? I suddenly remembered a word. Breaking bad. That's right, just like the old white in "Breaking Bad". Why would a person with ordinary duty or even good nature slip into the bottomless abyss? Is it really fate that is forcing him to do many things against his will? Think of the domino effect. Would the entire domino building come crashing down without the initial nudge? If Lao Bai didn't kill Crazy Little Eight at first, would there be many other last resorts? Will it lead to more and stronger opponents? It seemed fate had imposed it on him. In fact, it was because his initial choice set off a chain reaction, which was breaking bad. The bad luck of the male protagonist in this film seems to be caused by the evil of the bear children. But if he didn't try to be provocative at first, but was able to bend and stretch away, it wouldn't necessarily happen later. Did he warn against justice? It is more likely to be out of male vanity in front of females, out of contempt for vulnerable groups (at that time he didn't know that they were not vulnerable groups.) This is evident from his insistence on breaking into houses. In love, he is obviously a The macho, rational opinion of his girlfriend is not as good as his own face, isn't it worth taking a warning? This kind of vanity, contempt, and irrationality are just a little bit of negative thrust that drives the dominoes, which are infinitely amplified in extreme environments, just like a werewolf killing, and a little bit of emotional substitution will lead to breaking bad. What he taught us is that we can't make everyone a good person. But you can be vigilant about yourself, you must be rational, and do not substitute any emotions to deal with problems. So from this perspective, the film celebrates reason. This form of praise is more memorable than empty dogma.
From the perspective of horror film innovation itself, his significance to domestic horror films is even more significant. At the very least, he asked us, can we make horror movies without ghosts? When did we equate ghost movies with horror movies? Is this kind of thinking too narrow? Can't Cthulhu be scary? Can't the evil of human nature be terrifying? Shouldn't the fear of unemployment be scary? Is it an excuse for us to rely solely on the radio and television for the slump of horror films, because we have a single approach, solid values, and do not like to explore horror from all angles? In terms of the level of horror alone, this film is no worse than a ghost film. But how many people have asked why? The most ironic thing is that some people even give low scores because they are too depressed and uncomfortable. Want to be comfortable, why watch a serious horror movie?
Finally, I would like to say that this film is worth watching more. When your discomfort is relieved, its true nature will be revealed. Of course, my evaluation is inevitably subjective, such as shortcomings, which I don't want to mention. Any well-founded critical opinion is welcome. I think it's good for the film to get rid of emotions and personal attacks. Everyone can be a good film critic, but take responsibility for what they say.
View more about Eden Lake reviews