I used to watch the movie analysis of the Great God and admired the five-body, but this movie is too niche or for some other reason, so that I couldn't find a very satisfactory analysis. When the obsessive-compulsive disorder occurred, I decided to do it myself. An analysis of my own debut film. I guess the writing is definitely not perfect, but this is not a new hot film. It is an old film more than 20 years ago. It is estimated that few people can see my analysis, and there should be no chance to be criticized, haha. Let's start to get to the point.
Why is the little boy (the second male villain his son) a real terrorist? Let's start with the first case, the tax office bombing. That electrician must have been carrying the pot, so let's call him an electric cooker. Electric cookers have become the target of terrorist groups because they have been found to have evaded tax and have reasons to hate the tax bureau. Then, according to the practice of terrorist organizations, we must first find a way to approach him. From the words of the electric cooker's father, we know that he has two qualities: not firm and easy to be persuaded and fond of children. Then the little boy is obviously used to get close to his core. So here are two conjectures. The first electric cooker was persuaded to become a human flesh bomb. This possibility is very small. Even if a normal person is not firm and easily persuaded, he will not do it, right? Even if he was really persuaded, who was persuaded? When the male protagonist mentioned the second male (41 years old, construction engineer, with three children), his father did not respond and thought it had nothing to do with the case. Obviously his father did not know there was such a person. It can be inferred that the electric cooker is not the same as the second male. The kind of friends who are very familiar, so the only people who can convince the electric cooker in the movie are the little boy and the scout instructor who appeared in the photo together. In addition, he likes the characteristics of children, and the probability of the little boy persuading him is higher. The second conjecture is much more likely, that is, the terrorist organization treats the electric cooker in the same way as the male protagonist, pretending to kidnap the little boy, and using the electric cooker's liking for children to let the car with the bomb rush to save people. Enter the tax office and succeed in taking the blame. Some people here say that the little boy is the son of the electric cooker, not the second male, so the second male was willing to blow his hand, and finally the male protagonist's son was also caught as the next victim, which is a bit ridiculous. The father of the pot clearly said that the electric pot has no children! As for whether the little boy is the son of the second man, it is unknown, but there is no doubt that the little boy is an important member of this terrorist organization. Either of these two conjectures requires the little boy to play a central role. I prefer that he pretended to be kidnapped and acted in a play. This scene is not easy. First of all, we have to make friends with the electric cooker and become good friends, so that the electric cooker can try his best to save him like his own son, and then he has to pretend to be kidnapped, act in panic, and stimulate the electric cooker. , in order to achieve the goal. You have to be ruthless and sacrifice your friends who are really good to you.
Then let's look at the role of the little boy in the male protagonist's case. After the terrorist organization successfully completed a scapegoating bombing case, it began to look for the next suitable target. The male protagonist appeared, and his ex-wife died because of the FBI's mistake. He has enough reasons to hate the FBI. So the second male family moved across the road from the male protagonist and became the male protagonist's neighbor. I thought I could get acquainted with it smoothly, but I didn't expect that after the death of the male protagonist's wife, he was a character who was unwilling to take the initiative to deal with strangers. He moved in for two months without saying a word. My own side was too active and seemed to be diligent and diligent, either a traitor or a thief, afraid of being found flawed, and when there was nothing he could do, the little boy stood up! He injured himself with firecrackers, and then wandered helplessly on the road. He happened to be seen by the male protagonist (designed) and sent to the hospital. The two have known each other since then. In the film, after the little boy was injured, he walked on the road holding his injured hand without crying or making trouble, letting the blood drip on his clothes. Should this be the performance of a normal little boy? Shouldn't it be rolling around, crying and wailing? This shows how terrifying the little boy's temperament is and how strong his tolerance for pain is. In this case, he can still complete his role with high quality and quantity. From the dialogue between the male protagonist and the black FBI, we know that the male protagonist's son, like his father, did not like to deal with people very much after his mother died. He became good friends with the male protagonist's son, which proves that the little boy is very talented, and he had a great time playing with the male protagonist's son with his injured hand. Then he abducted the male protagonist's son to the Scout camp to complete the kidnapping. In fact, the male protagonist felt wrong before going to the camp and did not want his son to participate. However, due to the firm friendship between the son and the little boy, the son had a tough attitude. Finally, the male protagonist compromise. It can be seen that the little boy also played an indispensable central role in this case.
And when the male protagonist was fighting with the second male, the second male said that he was just a messenger. I think this may be true. The second male may not be as good as the little boy in the terrorist organization. When I saw this, I was still wondering, how could this terrorist still be unable to beat a university professor? It turned out to be deliberately let go.
Finally, I have a question. The technology at the time could not identify that the bomb was remotely controlled by someone outside? Is this defined as no accomplices? I think this is a flaw in the film.
View more about Arlington Road reviews
