I can't even figure out the reason why the score is lower than five stars. The language of the camera is obviously uncle, but it is silky and demure. I think it is because of the gentleness of the director in his autobiography. Read the comments, and sure enough, it's all about the same experience. In terms of art, the color saturation is high but not eye-catching, and the area of the picture elements is large but not cluttered; in the title, "Pain and Glory" seems straightforward, but it is also straightforward and not tingling, all consistent with the style of the movie . At first, the theme was unknown, but it was expected to be the director's profound life. Like the title of the film, the honor is insignificant, and there is also regret and suffering. I didn't expect to stagger to follow up the main and auxiliary lines interspersed, the movie actually has little to do with the past life, just the gentleness of people in their twilight years, helplessness and relief. The protagonist's old feelings are arranged in theater performances, and the protagonist's childhood is announced in the play-in-play show. The director's self-analysis is never revealed to the public by means of tearing, but merely mentions and narrates. Especially in the scenes that were gradually pushed away later, the childhood actors were placed in the same place as the current characters, as if the two separated things were put together, and the attitude of being objective, not going deep into the relationship between cause and effect, not caring about right and wrong, and not demanding empathy was expressed. incisively and vividly. I like it, so I can't figure out why the movie isn't full marks.
View more about Pain and Glory reviews
