I did not force anyone to agree with me. Refuse to fight.
They said that this movie was made for marginalized people, lonely people, and people who lack love, because it portrays a pure love that does not exist in this world in such a romantic way. The beauty of love contrasts with the killing of the Cold War, and the emotion of "freaks" contrasts with the ruthlessness of "normal" humans, making the neglected feel treated with tenderness. Coupled with the dreamlike art direction:) and the culmination of the fascinating stalk:) The niche group ushered in a carnival made for themselves-although it is dedicated to everyone in a broad sense, including The current charge was also poked and moved.
But I don't feel that I have been treated fairly. I have always liked monsters. I liked Abe when "Hell Boy" was released. Similarly, I don't mind falling in love with Murlocs. Especially in the film, the murloc is called handsome and su. But I also clearly realize that his role is no different from that of a sex toy, and there is no sense of disobedience to replace him with an electric dolphin. This is a heavily materialized character whose purpose is only for the "monster". Label.
In such a romance film, love is the worst thread to talk about. What I see is the lonely heroine's unilateral obsession with murlocs-assuming that the heroine is a mermaid setting, this is understandable, but the film never really shows their emotional development process, it seems that they are just anxious to let them go as soon as possible The scene of applauding underwater.
Because of environmental constraints, only the heroine is active. Where is the point where the two really established the connection? At what moment does the obsession and what is defined as friendship become love and physical relationship? The confession that the heroine shouts hoarsely to the base friend is more like forcibly telling the audience with her lines-see it, that's how I fell in love! This is why she loves him! But why is this? That short montage clearly didn't cover anything. Where did the romance come from?
This movie can't talk about love at all, because it never wanted to portray the role of the murloc. The film tells us through the mouth of researchers that murlocs are intelligent creatures, but it stops here. What did the audience see? An abused test subject, a pet cared by the hostess, occasionally madly eats a cat, and can applaud. Then what? What kind of personality does he have? What is the heroine in his eyes? Can this character only be labeled one by one? This should be a movie about "the silent" and the "marginal" also have souls, but in the process of emotional development, where is the soul of the murloc? How did this soul impress the heroine? Just because he has no mouth? After being abused by humans for a long time, is it normal for the heroine to send an egg and dance to the bait? Is the heroine imagined that "the me he saw is the real me" is a false proposition? Without a word, can the murloc who gnaws on the cat really understand the heroine? Murloc was defined as a god in the end, but is there any difference between him and dolphins under the film's shaping? Shouldn't the mental interaction between the two be focused on performance? It may take a month or a year, but there must be a communication that is understood by both parties. Even if the murloc can quickly learn the sign language of the heroine, does anyone really know what he thinks?
So what kind of actor is this! ? You fast-forward the relationship line in such a hurry, is this faster than app dating?
Or the director thinks that none of this is important. This movie may not be about the love you understand. This is a relationship between two freaks in a way that ordinary people can’t understand, skipping the key point of establishing relationships that ordinary people need. . It's a matter of course? If it doesn't exist, the director makes them love them. You cannot understand that it is your limitation as a normal human being.
This is not as good as "King Kong" and "Chappie". After advancing with the times, the former established a connection between King Kong and Ann. Ann’s feelings for King Kong are a very obvious "reject-accept" route, which can be described as a gradual process. Finally, the feedback that Ann gave King Kong does not violate peace; Chappie’s emotions The route is advancing and retreating, spiraling upwards, learning, cognition, contradiction, and reconciliation. The whole process of the film is shaping two interactive souls. Are these two human-beasts and human-machines not much more reasonable than this mermaid love?
I guess the emotional drama should have become the focus of this film, but it took too much pen and ink on the cumbersome and gorgeous details, and the branch line of the research institute that is not exciting at all. Shannon contributed the worst villain in recent years. It is more comics than the most comic super villain. I think there is no such cliche villain now, but the staleness of this character is still surprising and very forceful. , As if from the 1960s-well, he is from the 1960s. But this is not the reason you made him so boring.
You can't justify all the stale and deliberate settings just because you are shooting a fairy tale?
I think this movie has ambitions, but the director has more than enough ambitions and lacks strength, and his ability can't support this ambition and feelings. He tried to portray a mermaid love-even if it succeeded in bringing out my tears, it was still quite a failure, because the male protagonist was brutally materialized, so that you could not follow up the emotional development at all; avoid the importance and indulge in the details, using only the most understatement. Writing the most critical interaction, describing the process of falling in love is surprising, as if the director has never been in a relationship; some minority groups are not so well represented in this film as they have completed their tasks, that is Appearing on the screen as a minority group, viewers who are enthusiastic about this issue happily tick off “LGBT”, “black”, “immigrants”, and “disabled people” on the checklist, filling in small boxes with stereotypes.
Except for the director's fascination with art and monsters, it is not like an author's film at all. On the contrary, it is covered with the fingerprints of the studio and textbook-like public relations from top to bottom, covering every point. Even if the subject is about monsters, it is very conservative, very old, and nothing new. I have no doubt that the "monster" here is just adding fashionable value to the film. I also have no doubt that film critics like to cling to the "minority" and "niche" to show their empathy and pure heart.
I'm sorry I don't eat this set. As a monster fan, I didn't feel like I was being treated fairly. Why can't we get a romantic movie that talks about love well? Why can we just send them a monster label? And when we see this label, we should forget all its rush and flaws, we should forget the emotional line of its failure, and should we applaud the director for taking care of minority groups? Why?
Some people may say that the focus of this film is not on love, you didn't understand it. The focus of this film is the "neglected soul", or the cruelty of a minority holding together against reality. So did "Three Billboards" fail to do it? I'm even embarrassed to say that even Get Out is better than this. By the way, Get Out at least the script is completely original, the director's vision is fully expressed, and there is something new. Is this movie a little original? What aspect of this movie was not discussed by other movies? Even the Murloc was inspired by Hellboy.
So why can it take BP? The college climaxed directly after seeing diversity and retro style, right?
Then I think the 2005 "King Kong" is really a pity.
View more about The Shape of Water reviews
