Superstar

As a work that was screened in landmark theaters, "Death Prisoner's Walk" has been hoping to use film critics as a breakthrough point and become an excellent art film that has won word of mouth. Therefore, as a production company's DreamWorks and as a distribution company's Twentieth Century Fox attaches great importance to professional film critics, not only inviting them to participate in the internal preview, but also providing internal tickets on the day of the screening, so that more professional film critics can enter the theater to watch the movie.

Thanks to the wisdom of DreamWorks and Twentieth Century Fox, the grand occasion on the day when the movie "Death Row" kicked off did not affect the active participation of film critics-of course, such a grand occasion is the result they most hope to see, after all. Box office is fundamental.

In addition to the "Chicago Sun" and the "Los Angeles Times", this time there were as many as 26 media outlets that published "Death Row" film reviews! This data even surpassed the attention of a public summer commercial film, and easily became the most shining work in December. Even the "Game of the Brave", which had its grand premiere on the same day, had no choice but to bow down.

What's more surprising is that the media that gave praise to "Death Row" actually occupies an overwhelming advantage!

The "New York Times" actually gave a super high evaluation of 100 points, which surpassed the ratings of Roger and Nicholas, and the one-sentence comment was even more highly praised, "This film has made the film production industry a great success." Noble!" In the detailed comments, the "New York Times" emphasized that the existence of such a work is the fundamental reason why the film has become spiritual food and achieves artistic value. They believe that the core ideas contained in this work are precious and beyond. After the "seven deadly sins", many sensitive topics were discussed more deeply.

The "Washington Post" rating seems to be "lower", with only 85 points. "This is not a work with strong appeal in terms of subject matter-you already have a criminal and a nun, but no love. The scene-but Robbins made it interesting, Sarandon and Lancaster made it deep and exciting."

The “Wall Street Journal” gave an affirmation of eighty-nine points, “Robins’s directorial talent and screenwriting ability are close to flawless surging and richness. There is no simple answer to the death penalty, and the “death prisoner’s walk” makes this topic a reality. It becomes clear, full of pain and full of strength."

If these media give praise to "Death Row", people will smile at each other meaningfully. Although the objectivity and authority of film critics are necessary, the friendly relationship between these media and Hugo It's no secret. Of course, their film reviews are still very pertinent, at least won the audience's approval.

But to everyone's surprise, the media that had a "bad relationship" with Hugo seemed to have corrected themselves this time, and each gave objective-even somewhat flattering evaluations. In particular, several media outlets headed by the Block Alliance, their comments are really intriguing.

The "San Francisco Chronicle" bears the brunt. In fact, their relationship with Hugo is neither good nor bad. They are just West Coast competitors. In order to distinguish them from the Los Angeles Times, they often come up with some ingenious topics. Joined the Block Alliance.

Logically speaking, it’s not uncommon for the San Francisco Chronicle to give good reviews. They were quite affirmative of Hugo’s works before, but they gave a full score of 100, which made people a little surprised, "Wonderful The unparalleled performance makes the movie shine with infinite brilliance!"

The concise and clear evaluation can also show their extreme recognition of the two leading actors.

The "Chicago Tribune", which has always been maverick, has once again made the limelight. With a word of praise of 100 points, coupled with comments without any flaws, "Sarlandon has dedicated the best performance of her career: When she endured the powerful impact of the anger of the victims’ families, she showed unparalleled beauty and sacredness; and Lancaster, the actor who has been expected to be higher by people for a long time, once again shocked everyone, he gave It’s a great performance at the Oscar level! What’s interesting is that there is no spark between Sarandon and Lancaster, but there is an infinite chemical reaction. This may be the most exciting part of the whole movie."

The typical style of the "Chicago Tribune", with a hint of ridicule in the cynicism, but the full-point evaluation of 100 points does not have any moisture, showing their absolute affirmation of the film.

If the "San Francisco Chronicle" and the "Chicago Tribune" are excusable-although they are both banned members of the alliance, they have always praised Hugo's work. Then the "New York Post", The film reviews of "USA Today" and "Houston Chronicle" have caused many people to worry: Have the editors of these three newspapers been mad?

The full 100 points of "USA Today" can be said to be shocking. "The joyful viewing process has almost nothing to blame for this movie: it is so unbelievable!" They used "" which has a strong positive meaning. The color vocabulary can also see this one-hundred-point weight.

You know, in the history of several confrontations between "USA Today" and Hugo, apart from the "Schindler's List" that maintains "political correctness", they almost completely obliterated Hugo's efforts in the works. Although they are not as aggressive as the "New York Post", in fact, from the beginning of "Scent of a Woman"-or before that, "USA Today" didn't have much favor with Hugo.

But this time, "USA Today" gave a perfect score of 100, which is really...staggering.

The "New York Post" actually gave out a full score, which made countless people fall through. This is almost even more terrifying than the "New York Post" surrendering to Hugo. Because, bowing your head to admit defeat at least shows that the "New York Post" has the strength to admit failure, but film review scoring is a very subjective thing. When a full score is given, what does it mean? Means convinced!

"A bold, searching, and painful experience. This may be one of the most complex and surging films in Hollywood's history."

Because the "New York Post" praise is too bold, people even doubt whether this is ironic, but the full score of 100 points can not deceive people, leaving many people at a loss: What happened to Colin Mailer!

Relatively speaking, the "Houston Chronicle" score of 78 is the most calm, but even this score is still very good praise, "The dialogue in this film is too long, which makes many emotional exchanges change. It’s a pity that Robbins’s unskilled handling of preaching and self-awareness made the film’s communication just stay on the surface. But the superb performances of Sarandon and Lancaster made the film convincing. And it has injected incredible intelligence and emotion into the movie."

Faced with such unprecedented praise from the media, people have to think a little bit more. Could it be that the former members of these blockade alliances are worried about the settlement after Hugo Qiu-after all, they joined hands to block the "death prisoner walking", and they did not steal the chicken. Ba Mi, now "Death Prisoners Walk" has not only become a hot topic, but Hugo's performance is even more shocking. The most important thing is that the movie's discussion of the death penalty is completely a gunpowder barrel. At this time, the uncrowned kings who are burdened by the yoke of public opinion supervision Don't dare to make a mistake again.

So these former members of the banned alliance have expressed such a position?

However, regardless of whether they said it under the pressure of public opinion or sincerely praised it, they have given incredible ratings to "Death Row". This has become an established fact, which also means that the word of mouth of "Death Row" is step by step. Towards a new peak.

"Reel View" gave another evaluation with a perfect score of 100. They stated in the film reviews, "The irony is that the movie named after such a title should be the most important and freshest of all the movies this year. Living, most challenging work."

The subtext is that it is ironic that such a tricky, troublesome, and complicated subject work "Death Row" has been produced so successfully that it has exploded other works today in terms of topicality and reflection. This is really ironic.

Although "Death Row" has received rave reviews, there are still some negative comments. The "San Francisco Observer" said, "Controversy, trouble, trouble, entanglement. A mess." They only gave 63 points. Appraisal, obviously not satisfied with the finished film.

In addition, the "TV Guide" cruelly gave an ultra-low score such as fifty points, "Sarandon is amazing~www.wuxiaspot.com~ Lancaster is undoubtedly at the peak of his career. However, the movie It's just a messy hodgepodge containing all kinds of miscellaneous news. Even a wonderful performance by two actors can't make up for the vagueness and confusion of Robbins' thinking."

However, compared with the overwhelming praise of movies, negative reviews are not only rare, but also not strong. And it’s worth mentioning that, regardless of whether it’s good or bad reviews, the reviews gave a huge affirmation to the performance of the two protagonists, especially from "Empire" magazine.

"Sarlandon's performance gave the film a discussion meaning, while Lancaster's performance injected the soul into the film. The collision of the performances of the two actors made the film's infinite reflection, and the epic performance reinterpreted The meaning of the word'performance'."

"Empire" magazine's uncompromising praise, plus an 85-point evaluation, is undoubtedly another affirmation of "Death Row".

Among the praises of the media, the media review of "Death Row" is as high as 87 points, which is undoubtedly a very good result for a work of art, while the theater score reflects the audience's thinking is obviously mixed. A lot, but the "b+" rating also shows that people still gave the movie enough affirmation, especially for the high expectations of Hugo. The result was not lower than the expectation, but was shocked again!