1. The depiction of Richard's character is great but the comprehensiveness of the plot is disappointing
As a film adapted from real events, the production team has indeed worked hard to portray the ins and outs of the parties involved, and smoothly portrayed the gradual destruction of the faith of a person who firmly supports the judicial system.
But the comprehensiveness of the plot is somewhat disappointing. In addition to the portrayal of Richard, the entire film also portrays the representatives of the media and the judiciary who also played an important role in this incident. In the process of rectifying the hero's name, only the lawyer fulfilled his duties throughout the entire process, Richard's mother gave a public speech, and Richard himself had mixed results; the others did not help at all.
2. Paul and Sam played Richard and the lawyer live
Richard is a very common image of a kind-hearted big fat brother next door in a small American town. The "dough baby" who counseled, the messenger of justice, and the defender of the rules were all him. Paul's performance made me have no doubts about the conflicting nature of this character. The best scene of the beauty reporter is the triumph and madness after being paid tribute to all the people after publishing the explosive news. But most of the audience’s favorite should be Sam’s ruffian lawyer. The performance is completely fine. If I will watch this movie again, it’s probably because I want to relive Sam’s play.
3. After reading it, I feel my breath is held in my chest, I always feel that the story is not finished.
Did not watch hi. Because until the end of the film, I still feel that there is nothing to perform. It’s true that the protagonist of the film is Richard. The description of Richard’s psychological changes and the changes in judicial views is very detailed, but the two major influences on the justice and the media, the representatives of the "justification of heroes" incident, chose basic It is a purely negative perspective to describe.
When the film has a clear camp of good people and bad people, the feeling of highness in the movie will decrease.
Four. All in all, it's too facial
The depiction of the characters is not full enough, and the treatment of several main characters is too flat.
Negative masquerading has transformed justice and the media. Let the whole film lack some realism. Both FBI agents and beauty reporters used typical villain light and shadow processing (such as FBI agents coaxing Richard to record the typical villainous light and shadow of threatening voices, and beauty reporters in the editor's room to fight for the explosion news. ).
One of the two FBI agents didn’t play any role, the other was violating the rules and following the feelings throughout the entire process. After a lot of investigations but no evidence was found, he still believed that Richard was the murderer, the FBI agent. Is it really only this level? (Manually spread your hands emoji)
The beauty reporter who thought he could help Richard in the second half of the film didn't help much. Just walked around the scene, suddenly realized, ran to the bar to scold an FBI agent, shed a few tears at the press conference, and then there was no more.
General comments:
If the perfect score is ten, I will give it six.
Bonus items: 1) depiction of Richard's psychological changes 2) actor's performance 3) setting of the scene
In particular, the whole process of the gradual disillusionment of a person who firmly supports the judicial system is described smoothly.
Sub-items reduced: 1) Facebook-based justice and media representatives 2) Story presentation angle is one-sided (for example: Does the prestigious FBI really only grab a person who has no evidence of committing a crime to investigate, and does not simultaneously investigate anyone else?)
View more about Richard Jewell reviews
