1. It’s obvious that people cannibalize people, where is the dog, or a group of dogs, people don’t even have tree bark left, let alone dog meat, details determine success or failure, even if there are dogs, it is impossible In a place where there are so many refugees, Lao Mei's donkey has been robbed, not to mention the dog that no one cares about. If Lao Mei goes to a deserted village or an uninhabited place full of corpses, it may be possible, but the camera is full of How is it possible for people who want to eat with their mouths open? Director Feng has underestimated our IQ too much.
2. I feel that a historical film of suffering needs to be shocking or deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. It should not just stay on the surface of suffering, but should consider the things behind suffering and the primitive level of people's instinct to face suffering, instead of suffering. Desperately creating suffering in order to earn tears is not desirable. Let me ask everyone who has watched this movie, what did you feel after watching it?
3. The choice of the leading role and the choice of other characters are very problematic. Neither Zhang Guoli nor Xu Fan added luster to the film, but instead became a stumbling block for the film. Especially Zhang Guoli, all kinds of bad acting skills are terrible. The various characters are messy and chaotic.
4. It is impossible to get out of the so-called mainstream Chinese model. Now the major Chinese directors are very popular with foreign priests. They are neither foreign nor local, nondescript, and it is too obvious to learn the thirteen hairpins. A few clips of the Chinese priest, I was thinking at the time, A certain religious person must have offended Feng Dao, which is why Feng Dao deliberately vilified religion. What role did the Chinese pastor play? The Chinese pastor just appeared and held a makeshift cross, saying that other people's suffering history is not religious. As a result, I thought it was a liar who cheated food and drink, is it just a deliberate act of a director who is good at making comedy. To talk about religion in such a superficial way is to feel ignorant.
5. The whole film is protracted and lengthy, and the plot is unavoidable from the clichés of China's national conditions. For example, at the end, I asked the Japanese for a windmill. Is it a sensational way that every Chinese is familiar with, and things that are about to rot are really not the finishing touch. effect.
6. The depiction of human nature is too superficial, and if you pretend to be deep, you think that the deep is too paediatric.
7. The editing of the whole article is messy, there is no level and rhythm at all, and too many useless characters have done too much useless work.
8. Chinese directors are best at sensationalism. This time, they did not stir up. Our tears are no longer so easy to fall. The most important thing for a nation is not to shed tears, but to reflect.
9. The figure of Jiao Yulu is clearly reproduced in the film. Leaving aside the whole film, Mr. Li Xuejian is almost possessed by Jiao Yulu's soul.
10. To tell the truth, the investment is so large and the effect is very poor, it is better to find some historical material with a voice and pretend to be a documentary.
In a word, China seems to have no great director except Ang Lee.
View more about Back to 1942 reviews
