The overall idea of this film is very good. Two men played three rounds of mental games in a room. There should have been a lot of things to enrich, but this film is very shallow and superficial. It's just a great duo show.
Specifically, these three rounds. The result of the first round of reconciliation was really unexpected, but after looking back, you can find that the following plots are all applying the same pattern, that is, whoever lies more true than whoever tells lies, and who is true enough to cross the opponent's psychological defense line, whoever wins is the winner. , which should be the intent of the plot. But are they really playing mind games? ! At first, I thought that the old man who wrote detective novels would be very wise and would play around with young people. Later, it turned out to be scary with the method of emptying bombs. I was disappointed when I saw this. And the young man was really unsuspecting at the beginning, listening to the old man's rhetoric and doing as he said, obviously the screenwriter was too far-fetched. Although the two men are very different in age, they do things like boys, intimidating each other violently to achieve their goals, rather than using their brains to set up a high-IQ game.
In fact, the film's worst failure is the use of guns. A phrase with a very high appearance rate in American movies is "I AM THE PERSON WITH A GUN". Only if you have a gun can you speak. The person pointed by the gun is the weak and the loser. If you can use your own wisdom to get out of danger That's what matters. In the first round, the young man was stunned by nothing but the gun. In the second round, he used the gun to scare the old man, and the old man panicked too. with a gun), in the third round, the old man killed the young man with a gun. There is no rich psychological stimulation, just waving guns around, trying to intimidate the other party with violence, the more you think about it, the more stupid you are. When I wrote this, I suddenly remembered the Russian roulette in "The Deer Hunter". There are similarities and the same purpose, but the rhetoric here is gimmicky. Those who have seen it should understand what I mean.
The third time, he had some psychological tactics, but it wasn't that bad. The old man wanted to take care of the young man. If he succeeded, the young man would lose to both money and him. But under the circumstances of the tension at the time, no matter whether the old man was really interested in young people or pretended (seeing the meaning of the screenwriter, he at least had this tendency), both of them knew that the other was absolutely untrustworthy, so young people There is no way he will be hooked. The old man is simply humiliating himself in desperation.
The dialogue of this film is indeed outstanding. It has the ability to lead the audience by the nose, and it seems that it is very exciting to make things that are obviously very pale. It is amazing. A lot of effort has been put into acting theatrically, but for what purpose? Drama for the sake of drama? Don't treat it like a special effect. When I think of "glengarry glen ross", there are only five or six actors who keep talking, why is there so much difference.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Reply to yourself, I watched the old version of this some time ago and found that The evaluation of the new version is a bit harsh, because I swore that the old version would be much better. But after reading it, I feel that each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but Michael Caine has always been so perfect! In my personal opinion, the old one surpassed Lawrence Oliver, and he was completely different. He had his own unique interpretation, and the young one far surpassed Jude Law. Putting the words of the two films together, the most shining thing is his acting skills, which is really impressive. . .
View more about Sleuth reviews
