Although I have guessed a little bit about the identity exchange? But it is still cool to see the same story from two perspectives (I want to review it again, and I am very excited)
In the end, although the previous reversal and foreshadowing were covered, the part of the Rand Street group scene was still a bit confusing. For example, aunt saksbi suddenly said that maud was her own daughter, she suddenly went crazy under the provocation of the gentleman, and she suddenly took all the charges. These are all very confusing. Why don't you just let saksbi be the big boss from start to finish? I feel like she's very good at mind control. I always think she's lying to maud. Since she loves her daughter so much, why didn't she find a way to bring her back sooner and have to wait until She only came back when she could take the property and said that it is better to give to her own people than to others (maud must have suffered a lot in the hands of the perverted old man)
In short, the final plot is a bit slow, and the image of the boy in riding boots is very successful. It should not stop abruptly and connect him to a gentleman. Hahahaha I haven't read the original book, but the part at the end of the movie is obviously trying to make the branches in the novel all at once. I spit out the whole plot in one go, and the screenwriter felt relieved.
The grasp of the overall rhythm is very strong, especially the section on the carriage with the right soundtrack. Forward thinking and reverse thinking are reasonable. Let the audience hold their breath before the climax of the whole drama and then drop their jaws. The acting skills of the two heroines are both excellent Beyond the first half, like Susan, I didn't notice it at all but 1. During her monologue, she repeatedly mentioned that Maud is keen to dress her up like her. 2. The gentleman saw that they were making out but didn't say anything. Continue to play his drama, Maud is the Fraud in the end.
The discussion about homosexuality in the whole film is actually very weak. I heard that the original author was studying homosexuality. Does the setting about the heroine being given some kind of drug to suppress sex desire by her uncle since she was a child has something to do with her being gay? Susan should have been bent. Apparently she fell in love with maud at first sight (really beautiful) I saw a sentence from King Lear applied by other film reviewers, which is very suitable to summarize this part: Above the belt belongs to the gods and below the belt belongs to the devil
To mention a small detail, two avian veterinarians used what as the conjunction of the attributive clause when describing the condition of Mrs. ms rivers, and then changed it to who. When Susan found out the truth and hated maud to the bone, she also used what to change who to who. The grammer trick that only British films can do
The whole film is full of dramatic influences. I have to say that some theatrical elements are used very successfully in the film. I feel that all the lunatics in Rand Street are the mad house. "Gentleman" is a typical bad guy. Why is the villain always full of passion and tension, using this energy to do other things and not succeeding sooner?
If you have some questions, you can find time to look for clues: Whose child is Susan's mother carrying? She is so rich, why doesn't she find a comprehensive solution? Why did the perverted uncle send the baby to the lunatic asylum before picking her up? What is the relationship between everyone in the Rand Street den of thieves?
View more about Fingersmith reviews
