The above is basically the style of the whole film; let's talk about how the content is written (how to paste pictures, I think I can make my introduction more intuitively clear).
The content of the story is probably like this - there are four small groups A, B, C, D, A, the protagonist of our film "Four Little Tigers", B, a black-headed drug producer and seller, and C who buy drugs from drug dealers. The drug lord, D (and BC seems to be less connected), a more mysterious and characteristic "Haley of the Hatchet" among the above three. The story begins like this, a character in A owes D 500,000 in a gamble with D, so members of A start to collect money nervously, and by chance (seemly) hear that group C is planning to make a blackout on B , So A thinks of the coup to sit back and enjoy. And in the end it all worked out. At this time, half of the film has been released, and the next part is as follows: B traces that it is C who is black and eats black, so he starts to retaliate against C. At this time, C also found out in a very funny anger that A next door stole their money, so, while A was no longer getting the money back, he still wanted to deal with A well. In fact, seeing this time, we already know what the screenwriter will show us next. Gang C is lurking at home and intends to make a surprise attack on A. At this time (the rhythm of the music is accelerated, the eve of the storm), B happens to come too. This hut wants to do a massacre on C. At this time, unknowingly, the top of the conflict became the hidden C and the angry B (note that there are two consecutive gunshots again, one of which was shot by the leader of B), a gunshot , it rains endlessly. (When the leader of C ran away, he happened to meet the thug D1, who was sent by D to collect money from A, and D1 also mistakenly thought that C was here to pay back the money.) At this time, the B (dead) and C (dead) gangs in the article have basically become extinct , except for the blundering C boss. Of course, most of the members of the D gang are still alive at this time (the D leader, the big hand D1, the lobbyist D2, the gangster D3, D4), but don't worry, the screenwriter seems to have already foreshadowed the evil sweep of the film at this time. Therefore, in the next twenty minutes or so, the screenwriter arranged it like this. When the leader of D ("short-handled Harry") was enjoying his success in his lair, the lobbyist D2 brought the two gangsters D3 for those two guns, D4 followed Rob's whereabouts and rushed in abruptly. At this time, the one who showed his face was D3, one of the two gangsters who had never met with lobbyist D2 (the one who met was still hiding). Faced with this scene of pointing the gun at the right point, D was naturally deeply frightened, and he killed D3 unexpectedly. D4, seeing that his good friend was killed, was angry and beat D "Short-handled Harry" into a honeycomb (death). . Seeing that the situation was not good, lobbyist D2 (hehe) took out the legendary "short handle" axe, a perfect curved axe smashed into D4's spine (death), and D4 also turned around and shot at lobbyist D2 at this time. Go for a few deadly bullets (death), and two old acquaintances face each other with death, asking a long string of questions. The remaining leader C ambushed the thug D1 in the car, and at this time the two did not know each other's identities, and tragedy occurred again, C forced the thug D1 to go back to D's lair to get the money, but unfortunately was followed by a The A gang that develops in time will take the lead, and the situation of D1 and C will definitely not be good (death). By this time, the screenwriter has come to clear the scene, and the BCD gang is dead. After the film was over, our "Four Little Tigers" got a bargain by mistake. The character entanglements in the film return to the past because of the death of the characters. The director seems to be telling us that everything has happened, and this absurd story has not happened.
(There is a question, why does A want to monitor the activities of C, maybe I missed something)
The form and characteristics of the film, I also talked about it in the first paragraph, and from the content point of view, it can be said that this is a very simple The story of this type we have seen a lot. But it's not easy to say it well on a normal story, and I think this film does it -- in the first half, A and D, B and C, as the main two main lines. A well-organized narrative, it was not until A robbed C because of the 500,000 that the incident brought A, B, C, and D together at once, and the original parallel narrative style of the story was intertwined. . But the screenwriter is not messy, we can see that the conflict between C and B is reasonable as an internal conflict, and the conflict between D3, D4 and D is due to information asymmetry, which is also reasonable. Moreover, the screenwriter did not seem to have any flaws in the handling of details, and at this time the screenwriter's treatment of A did not make it stand still. We can see that the director took several shots of A, which means that they have been following as events unfold (they are looking for their answers). Therefore, in the end, it is reasonable that they can enter D's nest and take the money. Speaking of this place, I have made a little analysis of this interesting film in both form and content. I think because the director and screenwriter did a good job in these two points, "Two Smoking Guns" has achieved the results we are seeing now.
View more about Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels reviews
