Just like I don't think this movie is a meaningful movie, I'm not a profound person either. If you think the writing is superficial, you can laugh it off; if you have a deep understanding of this film, you can ignore me, and then please go to open a post yourself, bragging about it, no one will stop you.
Regarding some details of this film, the brothers in the discussion area have already said it clearly. It was boring to write such a long review at the time, and it was just because it was the first time I was growing up to see a new movie so timely: amazing.
3 and a half stars. Because there is old man Anthony, there is a beautiful picture of Abby, the male lead is quite good, and the supporting roles are all acquaintances.
But this is not an action movie, not even a thriller, and there is basically no suspense after you finish it, a gray drama.
Why is Anthony always playing such a cold-hearted role?
It is a pity that he only told a story in this play, his storytelling ability = 10 screenwriters and directors of this play. However, what a waste, the director only asked him to tell a story, then looked at the phone, answered the phone, and it was gone.
As for why the old man found so many people to kill the male protagonist, it was actually the old man's several plans and bottom-line plans.
Actually, it's the director's fault. What do the first two shots mean? The old wheat work in this "lawyer" will be more beautiful, which only shows that the director lacks imagination. And as an important foreshadowing and opening. In addition to listening to the male protagonist's self-report, only those two shots. Time management is the basic skill of doing this business, oh, sorry, no extra points for sex scenes.
The set of the scene where I missed it was very fake.
The male protagonist hastily challenged, and so did the director. Marked 2 points, and suddenly it exploded. The rest can only be explained by people who write comments like me: The master has killed countless people in the past, and they were all headshots in open shots, and there were no close-ups, so I didn’t feel it. This time, the master intuitively felt the cruelty, and in addition to the fact that he injured the innocent, there was a psychological shadow.
However, the opening point is also difficult for many audiences to accept: why can't the master get over this hurdle. You are the master.
The above settings have caused a contradictory and not exciting start to some viewers.
Of course, the director also explained in the title: feed the dog.
Feeding the dog is the beginning of the master's self-demotion. I went. Dog blood.
There are more shots of the dog than the one that flashed to the master's mind.
There are also some brothers who can't understand why the old man kills the male protagonist so cruelly: that tiny reaction to the allergy of the male protagonist in the cemetery is the original motive of the old man. The male protagonist has a psychological shadow, which is equivalent to a gun that may jam. It is no longer perfect or even incompetent. More importantly, it has lost its safety bolt, and it is easy to fire and injure itself at any time.
The old man said a lot of things at the tomb, not a psychological counseling class, just to stabilize the male protagonist and retreat safely. Only one sentence tells the audience that the old man used to be a "ruthless killing machine".
This round is not a test. The old man gave the girl clear instructions. The old man has two time-lapse shots to wipe a lot of guns. If the plan fails, it is his last alternative.
The director is wasting a few actors, he should learn from Quentin's same low-budget movie "Reservoir Dogs". The title explains clearly, conflicts directly, and then gives the actors enough room to play. The audience just enjoys it.
The whole drama is actually quite clever in conception and layout, but it basically follows the director's own ideas, and the gray ones are a bit boring. The director himself does not focus. The shooting was completed smoothly. Maybe the direct reason why it doesn't please most viewers is the ending: after being bored for a long time, the male protagonist gave up on himself and hung up. On the meaning of that bed scene, a suspected old virgin (for a short time) broke and disappeared.
The new top girl didn't kill the dog. I think the best easter egg imaginable is that she is pregnant. O(∩_∩)O haha~
It is a pity that this film is a waste of such good actors and many elements, if they do not perform well!
Director, please drink Erguotou, dry a bottle directly, and order some dog food in the trunk, you probably can shoot better.
——————Gorgeous dividing line——————
One additional note: Actually, I neither think that the old man is a master, nor that the male protagonist is a master.
I don't think the old man is a master because the film sets his role to be similar to a "professional trader". The director's shooting is neither profound nor happy. Really wasting a few actors.
Anthony Hopkins has a movie "Vengeance of the Hymn", in the last scene of the old man from one end of the long dining table happily talking to the crowd (tell them what to eat), while jumping to the other end, and finally walking to At the end, he screamed several times (go to die), and tried his best to stab the evil old woman who was extremely frightened at the time. The cause and effect, bloody revenge, the director explained clearly. What's important is that the director gives the actors a space and just the right amount of time to show. The 162-minute long movie has a climax at the end: the old man's elastic reversal and instantaneous emotional explosiveness are vividly displayed. As an audience, I feel really enjoyable. This movie is from 1999. Director Julie Taimer is a female director.
I also don't think the male lead is a master: he just died like that.
View more about The Virtuoso reviews
