So I'm really sluggish, doesn't that mean it can't keep up with the heat?
"Operation Red Sea" is often compared with "Wolf Warrior 2". I don't know if it is an intentional publicity strategy or a spontaneous civil behavior.
This is weird because both are type slices and the two are not the same type. It's like asking "Sweet Honey" and "Plan A Sequel" which is better, can you compare with Maggie Cheung?
"Genre" means that you know what you're going to see before you go to the cinema, lest the audience buy the wrong ticket and scold them. So neither of these two movies can be criticized after watching them. They are all typical genre films, "Operation Red Sea" is a war film, "Wolf Warrior 2" is an action film.
War films are realistic, and the themes expressed are also close to the times. It used to be a display of revolutionary optimism, now it is a display of the brutality of war. The same is true for comparing "The Longest Day" to "Saving Private Ryan."
Action movies are romantic, and they almost always end in comedy, showing pleasure and hatred, and "coolness."
If someone says, I don't like an action movie, it's too cool, too happy. I want to ask if you are an idiot?
The difference between the two, the silent majority is also reflected in the box office. "Red Sea" is indeed a bigger and more refined film, but "Wolf Warrior 2" is a higher box office. Because action films have a very deep mass base in our country.
Lu Xun told us that Lao Dan can go home as soon as he plays. Perhaps only in my country, there is a profession of "wusheng" in the systematic classical drama, and its status is no lower than that of literary actors. The martial arts action was originally designed to make up for the difficult war scenes on the stage, but it has developed too much in itself and has become an independent art from the background of war. The popular masses are very receptive to highly romanticized representations of war, even more aesthetically inclined towards them.
Compared with action scenes, war scenes must appear very late, and the funds, special effects, and scheduling required are too huge. In the world, the number of war movies and action movies is completely incomparable. Audiences go to theaters to watch war movies, more or less because they are rare and strange, and to see visual spectacles. Therefore, a movie meets this part of the needs and can be said to be qualified.
However, every time there is an excellent war film, there will definitely be a discussion of "too cruel". You know, "Ryan" was a movie from 1998, when Chinese audiences were discussing the issue of "too cruel"! It also shows how unsuitable the masses of non-military enthusiasts are to realist violence. After all, there are no ratings or horror movies on the market. Most people have seen "Red Sea" once, and if they are scared, they won't watch it again.
This is a very interesting phenomenon. Every war film on the market seems to be cultivating audiences from scratch; and every action film harvests mature audiences. For things like commercial movies and pop music, innovation is courting death, so it is obvious which of the two suffers more.
On the other hand, because war films are always more serious in their intentions and the investment is larger, their word of mouth is always better. It's also not fair. In the case of both films, they are equally superficial. Red Sea's stacking of weapons, the pinnacle of this type of film, is almost unbearable. In order to stuff more weapons, I made a mistake that can only be made in a literary film - the third act is very long. This is not seeing yourself.
View more about Operation Red Sea reviews
