Text | Linghu Boguang The New Year's Day has passed a few days ago, and this result is quite surprising. Especially for Andy Lau and Tony Leung Chiu-wai's "Goldfinger", which was combined 20 years after "Infernal Affairs", the reputation and quality cannot be said to have complet

text | Linghu Boguang

The New Year's Day has passed a few days ago, and this result is quite surprising. Especially for Andy Lau and Tony Leung Chiu-wai's "Goldfinger", which was combined 20 years after "Infernal Affairs", the reputation and quality cannot be said to have completely collapsed, but the results are obviously unsatisfactory. It only cost around 300 million in one week of release, so it is obviously not a hit.

The movie can really only be said to be average. From the beginning to the middle, the viewing experience was okay. At the end, he suddenly confessed. There is also Andy Lau's wife in the movie. It is a classic plot where he is busy with work and lacks time to spend time with his family. Everyone knows that he is doing this job. There were times when I couldn't spend time with my family, so why didn't I take it into consideration when I got married? The image of the wife was poorly portrayed. After watching the movie, the plot felt like it was all a cookie-cutter imitation of previous movies.

movies are bad? The prototype is exciting? What is the backstory of "Goldfinger"

This movie adapts the real-life Jian Ning murder case in Hong Kong history, and covers topics such as how to go from being penniless to covering the sky with one hand, how workers can rise to the top, and why people must learn to package themselves.

In 1983, a male corpse was discovered in Hong Kong og, which implicated the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption, which conducted an investigation for more than ten years.

Due to the reasonable living environment of public housing units and the hot real estate market guided by policies, Chen Songqing became a medium-sized developer through routine mortgages and loan financing, and then became a trader in the Hong Kong market by packaging himself and Jialing for backdoor listing. Through a series of means such as hiring talents with high salaries and purchasing the Golden Gate Building, the Jialing Group has been built as a giant enterprise, but its operating costs are also very high.

Chen Songqing hired experts and scholars from various industries with high salaries, and lived a life of luxury houses and cars. The Golden Gate Tower is sold with a return on investment of 68%. The background is hard but it can turn the background into incremental investment. It invests in more than 200 companies, but it requires a large amount of initial investment and high operating costs.

Hong Kong’s real estate bubble burst, and Chen Songqing took illegal measures to protect his own interests. Ultimately, he succeeded in achieving his strategic goals. Bought it through its own subsidiary company to continue to maintain it, anticipating the cost of selling it and buying it myself.

The average monthly payment in Hong Kong accounts for 180% of household income. Everyone is speculating in real estate, waiting for others to take over. The main creditor bank proposed liquidation. To liquidate, the accounts must be audited. The domain name bank sent He Puyuan to dig up black materials.

The real story behind the movie "Goldfinger" is a case of commercial crime in Hong Kong and a gambling game in the Hong Kong stock market, and this matter involves the bizarre deaths of some characters. For example, the senior legal partner of Jialing Group drowned in his swimming pool, and the Jialing murder case was listed as one of the top ten strange cases in Hong Kong.

Chen Songqing admitted to two counts of conspiracy to defraud US$280 million and was imprisoned for three years. The amount involved amounted to US$6.6 billion, and the legal fees exceeded US$200 million.

is not commercial or financial enough? This is the biggest problem with "Goldfinger"

This movie does have a lot of problems, the plot is very flat. The rhythm in the early stage is actually good, but there are no explosive points at all in the middle and late stages, and it even has a running record (catch and release 8 people). In addition, I have heard the real-life prototype story (the plot of the movie has basically not been changed), which leads to a more flat impression.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption and Andy Lau are too much of a tool (I didn’t understand why the conflict between the police station and the ICAC was mentioned at the beginning). My current impression is that Andy Lau forced different people to tell Tony Leung's deeds through different people, but Andy Lau's character itself was too thin and had no story. It looks like he has a lot of drama, but in fact he is just a tool. I feel like deleting his part in the movie would not affect the plot and rhythm at all.

Perspective problem.In the early stage, Tony Leung was the main character, and it was really cool to watch him get rich. In the middle and later stages, Andy Lau's difficulty in pursuing confessions and the fate of others showed Tony Leung's power in reverse, but now you brought Andy Lau's perspective because of the change in the narrative. Then I saw that Andy Lau has been unable to convict Tony Leung, many stakeholders were killed, and Tony Leung was still eating and drinking, but he couldn't feel happy.

This movie is Andy Lau vs. Tony Leung Chiu Wai. In my opinion, there are two problems:

1. The conflict between icac and the police station at the beginning is unclear and has no effect on the subsequent plot.

2. So many shareholders have no sense of risk at all. Every day, the company is just cash flow. A company that plays with finance and concepts, without any industry as a basis, can it really raise so much money? A bit like a million pounds. Is the focus of the film on economic gambling, or on the pursuit of a sense of justice for evildoers? After reading it, I still can’t get an answer. I’ve touched a little bit on both ends, but I’ve only scratched the surface.

Many people say that the ending is hasty. If you think about it from Tony Leung's perspective, he has long transferred the money to his wife through money laundering, and the relevant responsible persons have also been dealt with. He went to jail for three years and then came out. I think it is not hasty at all. , this is not a problem.

The problem is that the movie adaptation is not as good-looking as the prototype. The screenwriter directly transferred the background to the so-called financial master prototype. He is well versed in human nature and cashed out at a high level through a method similar to a financial Ponzi scheme. After cashing out tens of billions, he became a big capital. In Hong Kong's capital society, big capital is God. How could he be sentenced? If it hadn't been in 1997, he wouldn't have pleaded guilty to a small crime. It feels like it would be better to cut through the Jia Ning murder case and see the undercover boss game.

html It’s been 320 years, but Andy Lau and Tony Leung Chiu-wai are still useless? "Hong Kong movies" are really not good anymore

The biggest problem with this movie now is that it doesn't feel good as a commercial film, it's not professional enough as a genre film, and it has a financial problem that has not been solved. That's how the financial backers harvest retail investors. Is it still the same building? After the poster manipulated the company's stock to rise 20 times, can it continue to rise?

It cannot be because real estate is not high-tech and there is an upper limit. The investors behind it will definitely look for opportunities to slap the estimates on the floor, and wait for the stocks to be sold to hold the chips in their hands. If the chips are not large enough and concentrated enough, they will no longer push up the stock price. Cutting leeks back and forth like this is all the money of the common people.

The movie did not explain it clearly, and it is easy for people to misunderstand that the triggering event is the cause. That incident did not happen, and now the money has increased, no retail investors have been cut off, and the financial backers behind them have suffered more losses. They dare not or have never thought about cleaning up the behind-the-scenes The donor has sucked in so much of Hong Kong’s blood and sweat and left. It is also said in the form of PUA that as long as you welcome investors to invest and do not restrict investors, then more investors will come here, and then it will become a financial center.

This is the conflict between long-term interests and short-term interests. The movie still lacks the perspective of ordinary people. It only sees ordinary people turning into big bosses, living in rich life, drinking and meat, which makes people infinitely yearn for it and make their blood boil. There is no vast living area for leeks, and they will jump off the building to burn charcoal after bankruptcy.

In addition to its benchmark "The Wolf of Wall Street", other high-quality films include "The Big Short" and "Wall Street 1&2". Even among Hong Kong movies, there is also "Big Time". It's not like there is no one who inserts knowledge and science into the plot for ordinary audiences. Very well done: "The Big Short". If you want to understand Hong Kong stocks/real estate, then "Big Time" and "Genesis" are the wonderful descriptions of stock trading in Director Zhuang's films: Theft 2 > Theft 1 > Goldfinger.

"Goldfinger" is not good to watch. I like the music, costumes, graphics, and acting. I just say that its plot is superficial, just a formality, and not deep enough. The so-called stocks and business wars it talks about are lackluster. It has nothing new and exciting. It is incomparable to what I told you.

If someone thinks it is very exciting and has a sense of superiority because of it, it only means that you have too little experience and have not seen good things, so ego is equal to one-half of knowledge. Of course they may not even understand this sentence. I have seen too little in real life and watched too few movies. I have not even watched many of Director Zhuang’s films.

"Goldfinger" inherits the usual logical flaws of Hong Kong movies. It can even be said that most of the shortcomings of Hong Kong movies in recent years have been magnified and "presented" to everyone. The early publicity was so thorough, and it also had a lineup of two king-level Hong Kong stars, Andy Lau and Tony Leung Chiu-wai. In this situation where everyone was looking forward to whether it would be a turnaround for Hong Kong films at the end of the year, the final result of

was... It's surprising that even two king-level actors joining forces can't save the declining Hong Kong film industry.

It’s 2024, and that’s it for Hong Kong movies.

That’s really it for Hong Kong movies. These are the only people who make Hong Kong movies, and there’s nothing left to make Hong Kong movies. It’s true that there really isn’t much left to film in Hong Kong.

Because I kind of miss Wang Jing's "Chasing the Dragon". Although it's not particularly awesome, I feel that at least what they filmed makes me want to watch it and it's exciting! Hong Kong movies are not good anymore. Not only are the screenwriters and directors bad, not to mention their acting skills, because I think the acting skills of these old Hong Kong actors are all OK! I think it’s a script issue and an editing issue.

I really like Andy Lau’s movies, from when he was young to when he was old, to these two movies. I still like Andy Lau’s acting, but these two movies are really not good to watch. Really, I won’t talk about logical editing. It's just boring, boring, boring.

Hong Kong movies will be terrible in 2023. In 2024, Hong Kong movies will be like this.