Why didn't he even look back when he threw it? The old man smiled at that time. It was a good way to throw it. He moved quickly and seemed to be very cool. The wife's photo was attached to the frame and said to be thrown away. It's not too heavy. A pair of sofas that were specially set aside and thrown away stood there. What do you want to show? At the beginning of the film, he also works hard to protect the mailbox.
Later, he devoted himself to depicting the same scene as his wife's painting: the house by the waterfall, shrouded in a dreamy brilliance.
Haven't all her belongings and furniture been left on the wasteland? Hasn't the old man returned to the city, an empty shelf of a house standing alone by the waterfall is just the realization of the ideal of formalism. The negative thinking style of the formalist ideals constitutes a contradiction with positive behaviors. The contradiction is not difficult to understand, but the film's method is somewhat rough, emphasizing the positive side and avoiding the negative side, but instead arouses a strong sense of disharmony. People who plan to watch this kind of movie are already spoiled. I plan to not think about it, and I can't help but think about what makes people uncomfortable.
In a foreign novel, the old man always thought his wife was not dead, and set foot on the road to find his wife. Similar to the tone of the film.
Why should the "dissident" kill him? In general films, both sides of the conflict will adopt a slightly compromised attitude. Common protection and competition, as long as the opponent is prevented from succeeding, the enemy will die if there is deep hatred.
The adventurer and the old man and the child have no previous grievance, just for the mother bird. The scene is so intense that you can die. The adventurer has no taboos. He opened fire on the old man and the child, tied the child and threw it from the sky, the old man and the As for the child, seeing the adventurer falling from the sky is indifferent.
Why arrange for the adventurer to die? There is clearly no reason to die.
Why destroy your childhood idols for others to see? The double annihilation of spirit and substance, like many other episodes, evokes unpleasant memories in adults, because growing up is the painful process of discovering that what you believed in as a child no longer holds true.
The spiritual motivator and the greatest enemy are the same person, is the old man sad? What about the adventurers themselves? I started to think about the possibility of making the plot less cruel, the final reveal of the antagonist as a mysterious character, or the complexities of his character.
Why is the black dog's yellow druel, get the distinguished name of the dog, I am very happy, be a dictator.
Why didn't he speak loudly about democracy and freedom?
Why is the yellow-haired dog's trick is to use the "shame mask", like when he is bullied. This kind of practice in the real world is very unhealthy, so why take it out calmly?
Why is it so obvious for the puppies to push the wall down, and their loyalty to the so-called leader is so snobbish.
Why isn't this like an American film, without the American Dream and the mesmerizing personal heroism.
Why does it look like it was taken by a believer of XX doctrine?
Why isn't it like a Disney movie?
Why didn't the wolf and the three little pigs do this?
Why didn't Uncle Scrooge and the Witch do this.
Why didn't the conflict between the female boss and the dog owner couple in 101 Dalmatians make them kill each other?
These are all Disney fairy tales, why are they so different from today's Flying House?
The three little pigs and the wolf are not known to die at all. But watching the adventurer fall is as terrifying as seeing the wolf die.
In The Lion King, Scar, the power grabber, brutally pushed down the king Mufasa, who was hanging on the edge of the cliff. Now it is the bad guy adventurer who has fallen, and the one who remains on top is the representative of justice who is unmoved by death.
Why does the so-called waterfall seem to be neither beautiful but rather desolate
? Why is the place of this waterfall exactly the same as the dark elephant tomb, the evil stronghold in The Lion King?
It is said that this film is not like Disney, but many old concepts are used in it. For example, the evil forces in The Lion King are a group of hyenas. For example, the purpose of the bad guys wanting animals is to satisfy their perverted hobbies. The concept will only remind me of the past, and I can't help but compare, and sadly see that the fairy tales told by Disney have been overturned by myself.
Why are good and bad factions so clear, what adventurers call bad is perverted, why can't see the thought of forgiveness and salvation.
The same wonderful house, the same place to find a dream, feels completely different from Howl's Moving Castle and Castle in the Sky.
Did the Adventurer get rid of Disney's habitual image of the stupid bad guy, so he couldn't make him less bad as a result? Ended up dying?
Why didn't the protagonist end well? The old man threw away the house and his memories, the child seemed to be alone and neither his parents appeared. Want to suppress first.
Why didn't the child's father come to see him at the end? Why do I think children who count cars with grandpa are not happy at all? Is it difficult to draw a father for him?
Why is the theater silent after watching it, obviously I can't feel joy.
The little boy behind him was crying. He was very afraid of the colorful bird. Why didn't Disney investigate? There may be many children in the world who would be afraid.
Why are some people laughing at those scenes of schadenfreude, such as a fall or something? Is this
funny Thinking that the dream that should have been realized by the two of them could not be realized,
this film will really evoke unpleasant memories of adults, and it will make people see that those evil thoughts seem to be right, just like watching it in ordinary life arrived the same.
Why pretend to be realistic and have some humor in it without being as subtle as the irony of DreamWorks.
Why do the people here look the same as the Lightning Dog Potter Superman family, and there are so many familiar faces in the cartoons, and they are also actors.
Why is it obviously 3D stereoscopic, the performance of the vast sky and the vast land is not as good as the 2D hand-painted Sky City?
Why do you want to shoot at the old people and children? The spark of the gun occupies the entire screen. The perspective of the picture is that the muzzle of the gun is shooting at the audience outside the screen. The spark is so big.
Why does the script let the adventurer burn the house, and why does the stark reality of the destruction of loved ones and things is always displayed on the screen. The house was saved in the end, but so what? Does the old man really want a house, and put it by the waterfall? Then, isn't he happy that his wife didn't do this when she was alive? The old man has the courage to give up the things in the house, and he should learn to accept the loss of the things he loves. He loves his wife very much, and the death of his wife reminds him of his unfulfilled dreams. But even if you make up for this regret and guilt, you can't make up for the people who are really missing. If Disney has the courage to arrange for this flying house to be burned down and wiped out, the old man truly accepts the reality of losing his wife. Reality.
Did the old man finally accept the loss of his wife? It's too dark to see that the child is very happy with the old man. Have you accepted the fact that his father has left him alone? The adventurer loves big colorful birds, maybe more than others, but the way he loves is to make the bird as a specimen and keep it by his side forever. It's the same motivation as a kid trying to collect the last badge.
We are also like this, very stupid. We can't bear to lose not because we don't have enough, but because we lose too little.
It's still the saying that accepting loss is the only way to say goodbye to sadness. Old men and children, adventurers, are all desperately pursuing some kind of integrity. In fact, if the wife and father leave, they leave. It's a fact. . It would be a relief if the adventurer could finally give up on that bird. The waterfall you dream of going to is not beautiful at all, that place can't be beautiful, the reality is like this. Therefore, the child's father will not come, and if he loses it, it will not be a happy reunion.
According to this understanding, most of the whys can be answered, and all kinds of unreasonable things can be self-consistent, but I still feel that the character of the adventurer does not have to die.
View more about Up reviews
