To be honest, I have only written one movie review, and I dared to write it after watching it again and again, and this one was unable to restrain myself from wanting to write something after watching it. My impression of Gavin Hood is still in "Wolverine", and I don't want to know more about it. I also watched this film with the mentality of wanting to see a popcorn movie. The opening is a big one. Deep-field push mirror, from Cape Town to North Africa in one minute, I have the urge to actually buy a popcorn, and then I saw my favorite Jake Gyllenhaal. In fact, I have a deep impression of Jake Gyllenhaal. I have seen his "Prisoner" recently, and "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Source Code" are my favorite movies. Of course, I have to mention Reese Witherspoon. She has seen almost all of her movies, so I don't think there is anything outstanding. Let's go back to the movie. First of all, I have to criticize this narrative technique. I like the use of two-line narrative to illustrate the development of the plot, but Gavin Hood wants to be clever and take advantage of the film's montage to use space. I don't really agree with the practice of fooling the audience, and I don't know if Gavin Hood deliberately revealed flaws. I guessed it when it was less than a third of the movie. In fact, before Huang Jingfu's "Jianghu" is also this way, I have complained about him many years ago.
Aside from this, this movie is still very good, revolving around the theme of "human rights", "family" and "human nature" mixed in the middle, and maybe there are some political factors, but I'm sorry I'm not American, I don't see much come out. The whole movie is to tell the story. In fact, the lines can be summed up. Would you sacrifice 7,000 people to save one person? The discussion is that if you sacrifice one person, you don't know if you can save 7,000 people. One person may say yes, but what about two? 10? The movie took 120 minutes to discuss this issue steadily, and it went deeper and deeper, introduced layer by layer, and reached its climax when it fell into the early stage of the climax. The desolate BGM is beating every audience's inner thinking about human nature and human rights. Attitude, the singing and dancing of the upper class and the experience of the victims form a strong contrast, one long lens after another, zooming and focusing to highlight how huge the contrast is for each class at the same moment, heart, life, the director here is fully used To describe it in three or four minutes, I haven’t read other film reviews, and I haven’t read Wikipedia. Maybe it’s too hasty to write a film review like this, but who cares? Some people may say that these three or four minutes are the director's failure, long and meaningless, but I don't think so. A good movie doesn't need everyone to praise it to be a good movie, it is a movie that resonates with you, I remember the movie "Neuroman" that resonated with me, I said no Out of it's laudable, pale, conversational nonsense theme, but I just love it.
In the end, the climax of the movie uses slow and low percussion (sorry I don't know how to describe music), which totally cheered me up and made me feel the rhythm, what rhythm, the rhythm of the movie. It brought me into the film, and if a film can bring the audience into its own rhythm, that's where he succeeds. In the end, the director ends with the remorse of human nature, who cares so much about him? I think it's the right thing to do, that must be what Jake Gyllenhaal was trying to say.
This is less like a movie review, more like a movie review. However, despite all that, who cares?
View more about Rendition reviews
