In my opinion, watching what these people write is more interesting than watching a movie. That's what makes movies fun for me - to breed cultural anecdotes and outreach industries. Creating topics and talking about topics has always been a Chinese hobby.
But after reading Confucius, I didn't get to know more about his interest at all. If the taste is the same, it is better to read "Zi Yue" and the like, and come to the essence.
A director said that Confucius can get a passing score because at least it is not thunderous, which is better than Chibi. Instead, I miss Chibi. It has always been said that Chinese people are not good at making blockbusters, either because the story is too bad, the pictures support it, or it is too thunderous, such as Chibi's "life is more colorful". I thought that if Chibi was a serious drama, it would be the tune of the Chinese. Confucius is a sample of a serious drama. The lines can't be written in ancient texts any more. There are many characters, which means a bit of a real reproduction. There are a bunch of disciples, and there are also a lot of subtitles. I’m a Chinese person who is already struggling to watch, and when I’m watching a movie, I keep answering work calls, arranging viewings here, making appointments over there, etc. I’m very afraid that I won’t be able to keep up with the plot, let alone audio-visual enjoyed it. At this point, I thought, if he was really entertaining, I would really be able to return to the screen from work. But I found that when I came back from work, I just threw myself into a more intense mental state, trying my best to analyze the realm that the director wanted to present to us.
I haven't read anything about Hu Mei, I just think that "realm" is too difficult to do well. A director said that at this time, it is better to make Confucius more superficial, and it is better to stay at a shallow level. But many of our directors really thought that they could make Chinese traditions heaven. I really agree with the statement of a director who compared Mozart. I also thought of Mozart when I was watching a movie. To describe a person's awesomeness, you can use the jealousy of a mediocrity. In addition, Mozart's flaws are as stark as his brilliance, which is what makes the characters endearing. From this point of view, Confucius is not cute at all, why do you want to shoot it? God is not good at shooting. Unless you reach the realm of God. God cannot do it as a man, but as a devil. A person who strives to cultivate towards the realm of God can only be embarrassed when confronted with practical problems. It is disrespectful to treat him as a thunderbolt, and to not treat him as a thunderbolt is an insult to the life realm of ordinary audiences. To be in the realm of the gods, one must talk nonsense, go straight to the divinity, or make a mess of reality ridicule, without hesitation to externalize and dramatize the point of view, the audience will forgive this kind of vulgarity, and the audience never rejects the vulgarity , otherwise he went to read history books, why did he watch movies?
Therefore, the film of Confucius is not of low realm, but of too low technique. It's not Confucius' problem, it's the director's film concept. Movies can be high-definition, but they cannot violate the laws of emotion.
So, mtime's review is precise, it's a movie that lives in its own world (presumably that's what it means). If I don't play, I really can't understand Confucius' persistence and ideals. Speaking of which, I was in the play, but I still couldn't agree with his ideals. A movie without a sense of identity is not a good movie. Confucius also had a wife and also acted as the deputy prime minister. He also played politics and was a layman. However, with so many mundane things, why can't the audience find the entry point? I am also very strange.
Confucius was a person floating in the air, and finally floated back to the state of Lu, full of tears and said that I had come back, but when I came back, I was only teaching, and never asked about political affairs. This logically means that Confucius admits counsel. This is a story about Confucius who really failed to realize his ideals and became a bereaved dog, not about a man who passed on his thoughts for thousands of years.
It turned out that Zhou Xun only had one and a half scenes. He thought there would be a lot of scenes in which Sage Kong and bad women collided, but there were none. Wei Guo's boss is also half incompetent and half gay. He thought it would be more fun, but he didn't. Ren Quan died so great, for those bamboo slips. Why is Lu Yi acting in this play? There is such a person in the real reproduction? Chen Jianbin is neither too bad nor too noble.
In this play, Confucius has no opponent. He is competing with an era that seems to be empty in the movie. The contestants have gray temples and are so disheartened that they can only teach - people who don't know Confucius will think so. His opponent was too metaphysical.
Insert: Yesterday I asked my younger brother to go to see Confucius together, and my younger brother replied on QQ: No, I despise Confucius who pushed Avatar away! (blooded kitchen knife)
View more about Confucius reviews
