A tasteless work with more than enough power. The high expectations brought by the synopsis only lasted until the beginning of the battle scene with Spieber's legacy, and it was discouraged. It was torture to watch the director repeatedly smash a good hand and give up every opportunity to bring real value to the film over the course of two and a half hours. Let's put it this way, the popularity of the theme of the Civil War + love has become so great that the screenwriters directly write about the development process of the relationship, and in order to save trouble, borrowing the well-known narrative routine will inevitably lead to the fragmentation of the follow-up plot, and this so-called follow-up plot What is the holy place? If you really want to say that it's a routine, it's not really that good. After all, it's a feat to move the anti-war thinking that is usually limited to modern times to a slightly distant stage like the Civil War, but once the initial freshness passes, you will find that The few elements in the movie, the devastation, alienation, and hell on earth brought about by the war were all played out by the movie boys in the Vietnam War half a century ago, and the same routine has been changed. A hard-hit area of sensationalism and so-called philosophy of life - the idyllic scenery of 19th-century America (the beginning of "Gone with the Wind"? I don't know) does not bring real content to the film itself; compared to the Vietnam War trilogy, this A kind of eternal masterpiece, the only thing this film can do is a kaleidoscopic (and therefore superficial) group portrait and an equally rare (and unfortunately also superficial) feminist expression, And it is obviously difficult for a strong man to support the long two and a half hours with these insignificant bright spots.
With the lack of content, let's talk about the dissonance of form. I personally think the problem with this film is the most common among those non-genre films with commercial ambitions: using the TV series method to make a film. Simple and rude transitions, blunt lines, characters with serious facial features... The characters' emotions are extremely exposed, and the performances are not like any people in the real world. The small story of the heroine is imposed on the thin line of the male protagonist's way home like a string of beads, and the heroine's plot is reduced to an ordinary soap opera, which has no more role than complementing/emphasizing background information. Cultural FMCGs that follow this routine will leave nothing but one or two characters charismatic enough to leave an imprint on the audience's mind, even if a handful of collective memories of a generation are preserved. It's never going to be serious art; it's not a character-winning movie no matter what angle you look at it
Finally, back to what I said at the beginning: "lift the weight lightly". If the director really wants to use historical events to show the devastation of war on people, he can remove the bait that attracts the general public (yes, I am talking about those unconvincing emotional dramas that have no head, no tail), and blur the protagonist’s Motivation, the audience only needs to understand his obsession; the last and most important, must not come to a happyend of traditional Hollywood entertainment, how can there be no dark ending to reflect the cruelty of war? I think the ending of "Mints" is good. The director can refer to Li Moudong on the other side of the ocean. The unrequited love of the male protagonist was shattered in front of the war, and he left sadly after being devastated by the war. /Incurred the hatred of the heroine and was turned away
View more about Cold Mountain reviews
