First of all, it's a good movie, but I can't give it full marks, there are two places in the movie that I don't think I'd like. The film tells the story of a horse farm owner who sees a hero, brings a lonely trainer, a poor rider and a crappy horse racing network together to create the greatest miracle in the history of horse racing. Leaving aside the horse racing, the film mainly involves three key characters: the owner, the trainer, and the rider. Each of the three characters has a wonderful story, and it can also be made into a movie if they are picked out individually, but if they are mixed together, they need a lot of work in the narrative. The director used a multi-line narrative method at the beginning of the film, using time as the axis to interspersed descriptions of the situation of each character. But the problem is that the three protagonists are somewhat similar in appearance and have a large age span. If the audience does not understand the background of the story, it will be difficult to distinguish the three characters, and they will mistakenly think that this is a story about a character of different ages. It was not until the appearance of the horse racing "Ocean Biscuit" that pulled the three characters into the same picture, we could not be sure that the story told before was the original story of three people. Personally, I think that the multi-line narrative method is not desirable in this film, it is too difficult to control, and it is too messy in actual viewing. In terms of storytelling, the chronological style is not as comfortable as the Ji Chuan style. It can introduce the three characters of the horse farm owner, the horse trainer and the rider in one breath. For example, at the beginning, I introduced how the horse farm owner changed from selling bicycles to selling cars, and became bigger and stronger little by little, and became a rich man. Do not intersperse the stories of other characters until his son died, divorced from his wife, and was alone. Then I introduce the second character, the rider, and introduce the misfortunes of his childhood, youth, and youth, until he works for others at the racetrack. Let's introduce the third character, the horse trainer. The original film didn't have much of his story, so I personally feel that I don't need to write too much about him, and I can take it from the mouth of the third party through narration. Then the owner of the horse ranch met a new partner who loved horse racing at the racecourse, and began to recruit horse trainers. The horse trainer then chose the "Ocean Biscuit" for the race horse, and then selected a stubborn rider to drive the same stubborn "Ocean Biscuit". In this way, all the characters are linked together. Therefore, I personally feel that the beginning part is not handled well. If the full score is 10 points, I can only give 5 points. I almost classified this film as a bad work because of this messy beginning. Fortunately, when the story became official, the situation improved. Compared with the incomplete beginning, the ending of the film is also difficult for me to let go. However, I personally feel that this is not the director's fault, but the strange situation caused by this magical story. us You know, the usual way of telling a story is: beginning, development, climax, and ending. It may not apply to every story, but such a narrative approach is particularly useful. But there is a very strange thing about this film, which must be discovered by many viewers, that is, it has two climaxes. It's not that the suspense drama needs a major reversal. It seems a bit abrupt that a biographical film with a sports theme has two climaxes. The first climax is: after the rider was injured and unable to play, and the rider was temporarily replaced, "Ocean Biscuit" still completely defeated the ever-winning general "Battle General" even though everyone was not optimistic. If you change to another film, you can finish it immediately, but there is a second climax after the film: that is, "Ocean Biscuit" was injured and crippled during a competition. When everyone thought it could not be recovered, the lame rider. He and the lame racehorse supported each other, tided over the difficulties together, and finally returned to the field and won the championship again in an incredible way. These two climaxes are very exciting, it is difficult to make a choice, and it is impossible to weaken one of them, and putting them in the same film at the same time lengthens the rhythm of the film. Therefore, the director chose to end directly at the second climax, forcing the second climax to become the ending, which conforms to the four-stage structure of traditional narrative. This kind of treatment makes us viewers who are already used to traditional narrative methods feel a little awkward when watching the movie, and the sudden ending makes people feel unsatisfied, just like the sudden power outage when the party reaches its climax. I personally feel that since it is an adaptation of the movie, it might as well make a big change to the story. Let the "Ocean Biscuit" be injured earlier, before the competition with "Warlord", let the rider and the horse be injured at the same time, and then come back at the same time, defeat the "Warlord" amid the voices of doubt and ridicule, and combine the two climaxes. It may be more comfortable for the audience to be one, and then use plenty of time to end slowly. Although I am not satisfied with the narrative style of the film, the story of the lame rider and the lame racehorse winning the championship is too lovable, and the imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." It's not that a suspense drama needs a major reversal. It would be a bit abrupt for a sports-themed biographical film to have two climaxes. The first climax is: after the rider was injured and unable to play, and the rider was temporarily replaced, "Ocean Biscuit" still completely defeated the ever-winning general "Battle General" even though everyone was not optimistic. If you change to another film, you can finish it immediately, but there is a second climax after the film: that is, "Ocean Biscuit" was injured and crippled during a competition. When everyone thought it could not be recovered, the lame rider. He and the lame racehorse supported each other, tided over the difficulties together, and finally returned to the field and won the championship again in an incredible way. These two climaxes are very exciting, it is difficult to make a choice, and it is impossible to weaken one of them, and putting them in the same film at the same time lengthens the rhythm of the film. Therefore, the director chose to end directly at the second climax, forcing the second climax to become the ending, which conforms to the four-stage structure of traditional narrative. This kind of treatment makes us viewers who are already used to traditional narrative methods feel a little awkward when watching the movie, and the sudden ending makes people feel unsatisfied, just like the sudden power outage when the party reaches its climax. I personally feel that since it is an adaptation of the movie, it might as well make a big change to the story. Let the "Ocean Biscuit" be injured earlier, before the competition with "Warlord", let the rider and the horse be injured at the same time, and then come back at the same time, defeat the "Warlord" amid the voices of doubt and ridicule, and combine the two climaxes. It may be more comfortable for the audience to be one, and then use plenty of time to end slowly. Although I am not satisfied with the narrative style of the film, the story of the lame rider and the lame racehorse winning the championship is too lovable, and the imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." It's not that a suspense drama needs a major reversal. It would be a bit abrupt for a sports-themed biographical film to have two climaxes. The first climax is: after the rider was injured and unable to play, and the rider was temporarily replaced, "Ocean Biscuit" still completely defeated the ever-winning general "Battle General" even though everyone was not optimistic. If you change to another film, you can finish it immediately, but there is a second climax after the film: that is, "Ocean Biscuit" was injured and crippled during a competition. When everyone thought it could not be recovered, the lame rider. He and the lame racehorse supported each other, tided over the difficulties together, and finally returned to the field and won the championship again in an incredible way. These two climaxes are very exciting, it is difficult to make a choice, and it is impossible to weaken one of them, and putting them in the same film at the same time lengthens the rhythm of the film. Therefore, the director chose to end directly at the second climax, forcing the second climax to become the ending, which conforms to the four-stage structure of traditional narrative. This kind of treatment makes us viewers who are already used to traditional narrative methods feel a little awkward when watching the movie, and the sudden ending makes people feel unsatisfied, just like the sudden power outage when the party reaches its climax. I personally feel that since it is an adaptation of the movie, it might as well make a big change to the story. Let the "Ocean Biscuit" be injured earlier, before the competition with "Warlord", let the rider and the horse be injured at the same time, and then come back at the same time, defeat the "Warlord" amid the voices of doubt and ridicule, and combine the two climaxes. It may be more comfortable for the audience to be one, and then use plenty of time to end slowly. Although I am not satisfied with the narrative style of the film, the story of the lame rider and the lame racehorse winning the championship is too lovable, and the imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." After overcoming the difficulties together, he finally returned to the field and won the championship again in an incredible way. These two climaxes are very exciting, it is difficult to make a choice, and it is impossible to weaken one of them, and putting them in the same film at the same time lengthens the rhythm of the film. Therefore, the director chose to end directly at the second climax, forcing the second climax to become the ending, which conforms to the four-stage structure of traditional narrative. This kind of treatment makes us viewers who are already used to traditional narrative methods feel a little awkward when watching the movie, and the sudden ending makes people feel unsatisfied, just like the sudden power outage when the party reaches its climax. I personally feel that since it is an adaptation of the movie, it might as well make a big change to the story. Let the "Ocean Biscuit" be injured earlier, before the competition with "Warlord", let the rider and the horse be injured at the same time, and then come back at the same time, defeat the "Warlord" amid the voices of doubt and ridicule, and combine the two climaxes. It may be more comfortable for the audience to be one, and then use plenty of time to end slowly. Although I am not satisfied with the narrative style of the film, the story of the lame rider and the lame racehorse winning the championship is too lovable, and the imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." After overcoming the difficulties together, he finally returned to the field and won the championship again in an incredible way. These two climaxes are very exciting, it is difficult to make a choice, and it is impossible to weaken one of them, and putting them in the same film at the same time lengthens the rhythm of the film. Therefore, the director chose to end directly at the second climax, forcing the second climax to become the ending, which conforms to the four-stage structure of traditional narrative. This kind of treatment makes us viewers who are already used to traditional narrative methods feel a little awkward when watching the movie, and the sudden ending makes people feel unsatisfied, just like the sudden power outage when the party reaches its climax. I personally feel that since it is an adaptation of the movie, it might as well make a big change to the story. Let the "Ocean Biscuit" be injured earlier, before the competition with "Warlord", let the rider and the horse be injured at the same time, and then come back at the same time, defeat the "Warlord" amid the voices of doubt and ridicule, and combine the two climaxes. It may be more comfortable for the audience to be one, and then use plenty of time to end slowly. Although I am not satisfied with the narrative style of the film, the story of the lame rider and the lame racehorse winning the championship is too lovable, and the imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." It's too hilarious, and imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance." It's too hilarious, and imperfections are acceptable, so I decided to give the film a "good". Although it has regrets and imperfections, it does not prevent it from being a good film, just like the film wants to convey our thoughts - incompleteness is actually a kind of beauty. The miracle of "Ocean Biscuits" gave Americans hope during the Great Depression, and the film will inspire us ordinary people with dreams - "sometimes all people need is a chance."
View more about Seabiscuit reviews
