Reviews

Xem phim này như thế nào vậy

Thjjhgghyuiiyrtioihfgv uuuloyyiiojhv yyreegjkllyrzsfc

Trust me! This will become the latest hit of the Argentine horror films that have suddenly emerged in recent years

The modern setting clashes with the Shakespearean dialogue and this makes the film feel disjointed. The screenwriter’s faithfulness to the original text results in scenes that feel out of place, and the final blood-soaked death scene is a bit excessive.

Darren Aronofsky’s direction doesn’t stand out as it usually does. The camera work feels uninspired, with no unique angles or creative shots. While the story isn't particularly original, it does have some interesting details. Mickey Rourke’s performance, however, is flawless—he doesn’t even need to act; he simply is this character.

The film is full of biting social commentary, hitting its marks with precision. The protagonist’s downfall is partly due to his own flaws, but society plays a significant role in pushing him over the edge. Both Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall deliver excellent performances, driving the film’s central conflict.

The film fully exposes the darkest aspects of human nature without much build-up. From the underground world of illegal film dealings in LA to the climactic revenge, the film showcases the most brutal and voyeuristic impulses with little subtlety.

Being a silent film, there’s no opportunity for the lead to showcase his vocal or musical talents. Additionally, his frightening appearance and lack of stature make it hard for me to feel the same sympathy as I did for other versions of the character.

The two-hour runtime felt like an endurance test. The fragmented plot and dull dialogue failed to create engaging characters, and having multiple personalities doesn't make the character any more complex. Samuel L. Jackson's performance felt stiff and unconvincing. It's hard to believe this was directed by the same person who made “The Sixth Sense”.

The experimental nature of the film is intriguing. Watching modern characters recite lines in Shakespearean English creates a surreal contrast, but this method doesn't really engage the audience emotionally.

The film portrays a tragic existence, but it doesn't delve deeply into why the protagonist ended up this way. The synopsis suggests he chose this life for his love of wrestling, but the film doesn't expand on that enough.

The film never delves into the protagonist’s past, making his violent outbursts seem irrational and hard to sympathize with. The subplot involving the police officer feels weak and somewhat redundant. The traffic jam sequence at the beginning is well-executed, with montage effectively conveying the tension and frustration, but the overall impact of the film is less than expected, relying heavily on its score instead.

The script has a lot of potential, but the director fails to fully utilise it. The first half maintains some suspense, but the second half lacks depth in both character development and story progression. Nicolas Cage’s decision to avenge the girl should have been accompanied by a more profound internal struggle, elevating the film's theme to a commentary on human nature. The current approach of “an eye for an eye” cheapens both the script and Cage’s acting.

The film made bold, forward-thinking choices in its visual and sound design, which still resonates with audiences today. However, the story’s genre elements feel quite primitive. Yet, because it's a narrative that predates traditional genre conventions, it leaves a lot of room for deeper exploration.

Despite expectations, the final installment is just as underwhelming as the previous two films. James McAvoy’s constant switching between personalities feels more like a showcase of his acting skills than a plot necessity. When you think about it, only a few personalities stand out, so why exaggerate things by adding so many others?

The film evokes the spirit of 1970s American teen life of freedom and rebellion. This was a time when kids could live wildly before entering adulthood. The film also subtly reflects the director's concerns about love and friendship. The cast, now well-known, were still young and fresh-faced at the time.

6.5/10. This film is highly experimental, with its unique visual approach overshadowing the story itself. The use of live-action animation is rare and interesting, but I wonder how fans of the original novel feel about it. As a standalone movie, I didn’t find the plot particularly compelling.

This film is groundbreaking and could easily be considered the “Prophetic Book of the 21st Century.” The ideas it conveys—its warnings and insights—go far beyond its cinematic significance. It touches on concepts in the natural sciences, social sciences, ethics, and politics, extending its reach to human history and even the origins of the universe.

The film’s gimmicks overshadows its content. I gave it 8 points out of respect for the director’s 12-year dedication, but it’s not what I consider a great movie. After the 120-minute mark, I found myself wondering when it would finally end. The monotonous portrayal of everyday life didn’t evoke any real emotional connection for me.

Roman Polanski's critique of society often intertwines with his fascination for self-destruction. His masterful camera work transforms the confined spaces into claustrophobic and disorienting landscapes. The protagonist feels uneasy whether inside his apartment or stepping outside, and it’s only when he gazes out the window that he experiences any sense of clarity, hence he finally leaps out to complete his escape.