I watched it in the early hours of yesterday. Looking back on it now, I think it looks pretty good, but I can't think of anything bad at the moment.
But it doesn't seem to have reached the perfect place in my heart.
At the beginning of the movie, the characters of three teenagers were presented during a theft process, and the family reasons for this kind of thing and character were quickly explained in the follow-up, without any delay.
The feature film was launched later, and every step from the beginning to the end has a feeling that you can't guess how he will act, and according to the development of the plot, you will feel both acceptable and reasonable.
The film series is very well portrayed, such as the glass slag on the ground at the beginning, the close-up shots and the subsequent combination, you can appreciate the intention of the film.
The first third, an elderly man who lives alone and who is still blind, wakes up to find that it has been stolen, which makes people feel sympathetic. At the next moment, he shot without hesitation, which made the movie and the audience's psychology immediately enter a reversed plot. At this moment, the moral scale is still in favor of him. No matter what, he is still in self-defense, but it is a little extreme, because this legal rule has also been paved in the early stage of the film. Later, from the perspective of two escaped teenagers, they are caught in a tense chase.
At this moment, the imprisoned woman appears, and another ethical moment appears. When this moral right or wrong appears, it seems that the previous moral right or wrong has also been clearly lifted off the screen. Among these three parties, who is it? right or wrong.
Was it the thief who wanted to get rid of the girl whose alcoholic mother took her sister away?
Is it a boy who has a crush on a girl and borrows his father's position to steal?
A guy who steals for his own lust?
Or an elderly man living alone who lost his daughter, acquitted the murderer, imprisoned the murderer, and was stolen?
Or a woman who can be acquitted because she has money to kill someone?
In these intricate ethics and morals, in the old man's final statement about his daughter, it seems that my moral scale is a little bit in favor of him. After losing her daughter, there is no law to help her, so she can only take revenge by herself, but her psychology has been twisted to the point that she must have another daughter. But is he not so innocent? Although the plot has paved the way for him to kill in self-defense, the cruel methods, the no longer trust in the law, and the large amount of cash generated from all sources.
In the end, the ending of the movie that I understand is an open ending. The girl who survives to get the cash that is more than three lives will lead her sister to live the life she wants or see the news to expose the old man.
I am also thinking about what the old man will rely on to support his subsequent life, because he wants to live so much, he would rather swallow the money and cover up what he has done.
Throughout the film, the presentation of various morals and ethics, I think, will allow each viewer to have their own understanding and moral inclination.
Seeing that there will be a second part in 2020, still playing the old man, I am still looking forward to it.
Worth a look.
over
View more about Don't Breathe reviews
