"Dangerous City" movie always has to face the choice between life and death, and choosing at the crossroads of morality and life is even more difficult. The challenge to power created the film's intention to use the past to satirize the present, which is slightly deliberate but also reveals a rare innuendo of reality.
Chen Musheng wants to make Gu Tianle take the actor with this role, it may be a bit difficult, Gu Tianle always lacks a villain evil. The action scenes are very beautiful. In the first personal show of Peng Yuyan, Liu Qingyun and Shi Yanneng's two play scenes are obviously better. In the third scene, Peng Yuyan and Wu Jing shot from the room to the outside of the room. With double knives, the moves are sharp and neat.
In fact, the story is very simple, justice and axioms still exist in that chaotic era? Is there really power without justice? The film repeatedly explained this idea. The main ideological core of the film is about the persistence of justice. The sense of justice in the protagonist (the defending group represented by Yang Kenan and Ma Feng) is indeed encouraging. The gentleman is magnanimous, the villain is always afflicted, and he is human. The magnanimity has been well reflected in Yang Kenan. As an old drama player, Liu Qingyun can be said to be responsible for the drama (of course, the performances of Peng Yuyan, Gu Tianle, Yuan Quan, etc. are indeed different). In the movie
, there is a decisive scene in which thousands of people are going to die. Before Cao Jun arrives the next morning, it is difficult for Yang Ke to choose a person to stick to it. This scene is quite moving. At this time, Ma Feng asked Yang Kenan: Do you know you will lose or do you want to stay? Yang Kenan’s answer is: I didn’t do anything wrong, so how could I lose? This kind of light is really brilliant, regardless of winning or losing, just doing right or wrong.
can’t help but remind me of the battle between Cao Pi and Cao Zhi in the "Military Division". Facing the difficult problem of the hero Cao Cao, Sima Yi gave Cao Pi a dose of medicine that doesn’t matter whether he wins or loses, he wins for Cao Pi. One ride. In many cases, the simplest truth plays the most important role. But I have to say that there are some logical confusion and lack of reason in the film. The director's thoughts may have a strong idealistic light, so the background of the story is also set in the chaotic world of warlords, and it seems that he wants to ignore the existence of law and reason in the chaotic world to some extent.
During the night when it was difficult for Yang Ke to detain the marshal, we were able to glimpse the fragility of human nature: under the leadership of Boss Liu, the whole city collectively asked Yang Kenan to release the marshal (the one who killed three ordinary people Arrogant and domineering people), because they don’t want to be implicated and killed by Cao Jun the next day. In the face of life and justice, they chose to sacrifice justice. This is pitiful. The poor people must have a sadness: in their collective Under persecution, Yang Ke could not resign as the head of the group and disbanded the defense group. While saving the group members, he decided to stay alone, hoping to save the people from being involved in his own life.
But what they could not think of was: Actually, for Cao Jun, whether to detain the marshals will not affect their behavior after the city. Boss Liu also became the first ghost under the sword and died in his own lobby (how (Ironic), from now on, Pucheng people are better off than life. Later, the story reversal became the old routine. The oppressed people began to resist under the leadership of the heroes. It was just that such resistance seemed so stiff, naive and irrational, leading to the final The extension of righteousness will inevitably become a little hollow.
The people chose to compromise from the beginning to the end (a lot of film and television dramas are based on this thinking routine), is this awakening or populism? Whether this kind of people has become a wall of grass, which one is strong on which one, instead of making their own rational choice.
In the beginning, they forced Yang Ke to retreat and could only die alone. Later, they ravaged Cao Shaolin to death. Does such violence against violence bring the light of resistance or the darkness of the mob? I think that even in the name of justice, one cannot trample on life arbitrarily. He can be defeated and die in confrontation, but if he died in such a riot, then such justice would be too empty. In the film
, there are actually two incarnations of justice. The first is the southern army, perhaps this can be symbolized as national law; the second is Pucheng’s regulations, for example, according to Pucheng’s regulations, please go to the execution ground and ask the leader Host. This kind of justice is more practical and can withstand the temper of reason. In the era of hot weapons, martial arts is not omnipotent, the key is chivalry.
