1. Perspective. The film is not a God's perspective, nor a personally experienced perspective, but a documentary style that accompanies the observation. This style can be said to be very suitable for the whole film. If you use the perspective of God, the sense of substitution is not strong. If you use the so-called personal perspective (such as the pseudo-self-portrait mode of "Out of Control" mentioned by many commentators), too much logical self-consistent is required. With the seemingly reasonable motives of “selfie” that cannot withstand scrutiny at all, it is not well done and is full of loopholes; even if it is done more rigorously, it will reveal considerable deliberateness, and the content becomes an appendage of the form. And this film adopts the perspective of accompanying observation, which is a more compromised plan, and it does indeed achieve the "most suitable". When watching, if you can first accept the logic of the existence of this viewpoint, it will easily become the viewpoint of "you", making you feel that you are there and you are watching.
2. The appearance of the source of terror cannot be seen clearly. This is even more of a bonus for this film. Not to mention the indiscriminate "fear stems from fear itself", what kind of visual impact has not been experienced by today's audiences? What kind of image of a terrorist entity do you think is shocking? Recall the nightmare you remember, are there many terrifying dreams that actually don’t have obvious horror objects? Perhaps, as some commentators said, the film was handled in this way because of cost constraints. But just like the article is Tiancheng, this restriction makes the film fit a kind of "just right". It's like some viewers are disappointed that the woman with a pair of proud breasts in the film is not exposed. Not to mention that "the role of big breasts must be revealed" is there any logic, just say that if she reveals, it will satisfy you? What kind of .avi, what kind of .rmvb, what kind of .mp4, what kind of big breasts have not been seen, but you want to watch them in such a film that is not on these at all? Moreover, if it is exposed, it will also be exposed; and perhaps it is not showing that it makes you remember such things as "It's so big, what does it look like if it's taken off", so on.
3. The logic of some role actions. The "human" thing is a big "variable". Any film's action on the character can only be relatively logically self-consistent, and the character's action logic is still considered passable. Although I sometimes complain about "Oh, he shouldn't be like that" when watching movies, I also know that my judgment in a calm situation cannot be used to apply the role of the character in such a situation.
Of course, the film is not to the point where it can't be faulted. Although the whole film is relatively "restrained" to the extent that some viewers dislike it as "not addictive", I think it can be more "restrained". For example, the positioning of the infected person can be more vague, and the "human form" can be less so. Obviously, the number should not be so large (Once there are too many, it will greatly reduce the sense of terror in a certain sense). The images of the "informers" (military and so-called doctors) that appear at the end of the film can also be more ambiguous, especially if you don't use lines to reveal what the source of the terror is. It is a better plan not to say a word.
The flaws are not concealed. In many points, this film is like its rare music and ambient sound effects, and it achieves "less is more".
View more about Chernobyl Diaries reviews
