why fear

Gail 2022-03-28 09:01:03

7.5 points. It looks better than the first one, but it has a strong commercial flavor; it is a step backward from the first one, and its artistic flavor is not strong. Compared with the "high concept" of the first part, the second part is backward in terms of creativity. Not only does it not further extend the high concept, but it is suspected of violating it. For example, in the setting of no speaking, the first part basically no one speaks except sign language. Under this setting, the narrative and performance are dancing in shackles, which requires skill to dance well, and the second part is largely abandoned. With this setting, the scenes and proportions of speech have increased too much, probably because the screenwriter (and director) without help can't handle it. This in turn overshadows the ambience sound effects. In addition to expanding the spatial scale of the first film in terms of layout, it did not excavate and expand the world view of the first film. On the contrary, some plots were obviously created by imitating zombie films, monster fighting films, and car chase films. Even so, the technical aspects of the film, photography, editing, sound effects, and soundtracks remain high. The three-line escape-centric parallel cut before the climax is brilliant, and the climax pushes the story to an emotional point through the two-line parallel cut.

Amanda 2022-04-24 07:01:06

The most paradoxical thing about some audiences is that the comment dimension of watching a movie is only the plot. Film is a comprehensive art, performance, photography, lens language, characters, light and shadow effects, artistic atmosphere are all very important angles. These people who go to see Kubrick will probably only say that this plot is unreasonable.