What should I say? ? ? How should I write this movie review? ? ? How are bad movies made? ? ? Being able to make one of the worst in history is the result of the director giving his soul and life? ? ? This is a spectacle in the history of film... Have there been any directors in history who have studied film, or even made a film without having seen a few films, can still make classics, well, classic bad films are also classics.
I talked a lot incoherently and vented my "excitement". The movie itself is still interesting, the perspective is novel, and it's much better than the movie it pays homage to. Since the entire movie was being filmed, I didn't notice the camera at all in this movie. Moreover, the plot structure of this film is very complete, it is completely realistic shooting techniques, any formalism shots are freely released in the play.
In a way, this movie can be seen as a guide for "Rear Window". He tells the motivation of this group of people to make that movie, and shows their feelings for the movie, for their friends, and for themselves. An uncaught emotion may be the point of the two films, which is why the film is called "The Disaster Artist." Because, even if it's a mess, their emotions and their externalizing behaviors can be called artists, and the films they make themselves fit the characteristics of postmodernism: centerless, meaningless, unprincipled, and dissolving everything . However, compared to other postmodernist works, their conscious unconsciousness is especially difficult to accept. However, with this film as a buffer, I feel like I should be able to try and see the finished product from such a production process.
View more about The Disaster Artist reviews
