Superstar

"Not the second'Independence Day', but another'Future Water World'."

After the premiere weekend ended, the major media began to cry. Compared with the "007 Empire" and "Perfect", the "Titanic" with the title of "Highest Investment in Film History" has undoubtedly become a target. And James Cameron's irritable temper usually offends countless media, and now all the media are starting to fall into trouble.

Among the news reviews of more than 80 media-not film reviews-a full 68 media believed that "Titanic" was a total disaster, indicating that this work is in the history of film development. A major mistake. The debate about computer special effects reached its true peak at this time-and this time it was the traditional film school that had the upper hand.

They insist that too much emphasis on computer special effects will cause the movie to lose its soul. A bunch of magnificent visual effects are attached to a meaningless story frame. No narrative skills are required at all to attract audiences. After popcorn movies go to extremes, they lose the structure of the story itself. This is a catastrophic change for movies and may even lead to the real decline of the film industry.

These views generally believe that the brilliance of "Independence Day" is always only a special case. "Titanic" will not only become the second "Future Water World", but the amount of loss will also create a record high in film history, and may even make Pella at the same time. Menghe twentieth century Fox fell into a long trough-although not bankrupt.

Last year’s debate on the growing investment costs, thanks to the victory of "Independence Day", the computer special effects group easily gained the upper hand; and this time, the box office of the "Titanic" premiere weekend collapsed, leaving the traditional academic school. Regained the advantage.

Among the many controversies, the comments of the "New York Post" are very interesting. They think this is "Hugo's first miss of the golden hand", because Hugo is also quite affirmative of "Titanic", although he I was not able to play, but I still recommended my best friend Leonardo to play, and also played a role in order to support his friends. But now after the movie was released, the premiere weekend has completely collapsed. This is also the first time Hugo has seen it since the Golden Raspberry Awards.

The ingenious views of the "New York Post" triggered a lot of discussion and received many voices of approval. Many people said that the friendship between Leonardo and Hugo is now undergoing a severe test.

Facing the frenzied media bombardment, the first batch of media reviews were released, but professional film critics gave different opinions, with a comprehensive score of 74 points, although it is not as good as the first batch of media reviews on "Independence Day". The score is 83, but it is still very good. The polarization of these comments is very obvious. Among the 34 media outlets, there are seven full scores of 100 points, and six full scores below 50 points.

It can be seen that professional film critics are also a little hesitant about "Titanic". As the New York Times, which gave full marks, said, "James Cameron's movies are never perfect, but from the visual effects and emotions In terms of effect, it is always worthy of admiration!"

Those in favor think that James has given full play to the role of visual effects in the slightly weaker story line, copying the miracle of "Independence Day"; those who oppose it think that James’ film works can only be regarded as a bunch of visual effects. And the deliberately sensational accumulations are lackluster in humanistic thinking.

Relatively speaking, the media review of "007 Empire of Tomorrow" can be said to be terrible, with only 56 points, almost scolded by professional film critics; while "perfect and perfect" is unexpected I got a 76-point media review-the reason why I said it was an accident because this score is not high but not low. It is quite satisfactory. For a comedy drama movie, it is difficult to stand out.

Among the professional comments of "Perfect", most of the criticisms were directed at James L-Brooks, "Brooks seems to have lost the gentle and profound magic in the lens, the accurate emotional grasp that makes people laugh and tear. There is a slight lack of chemical effects in this work."

In fact, the 76 media reviews are almost the same as James’ highly praised "Mr. Sweetheart" and "Mother and Daughter Love"-"Mr. Sweetheart" is 77 points, and "Mother and Daughter Love" is 70 points. Nine points. However, how did the media get such a high score when the media is more demanding on James?

The answer is Hugo Lancaster.

Roger Ebert said in the "Chicago Sun" brief review, "Romantic comedy full of irony and sharpness, but has a serious and profound core. Just such a script deserves a perfect score of 100 I don’t want to change any detail in the whole story, even a word."

Roger also scored in the same way, with a perfect score of one hundred, and a recommended four-star full score gives three and a half stars.

Among the many comments, almost every professional film critic paid attention to the script and made separate comments.

"The playful and sharp wisdom in the script continues the style of Lancaster in'Before Sunrise', and then goes one step further, including an important life core in this simple romantic love story, as a screenwriter, Lancaster's brushwork is impressive."

"Delicate and true character modeling, almost every detail is worth savoring. It seems that everyone can find their own shadow. The fragility and loneliness that touches the heart makes the movie exude an indescribable attraction. force."

"Such a simple story conveys such a powerful idea, which is very rare in contemporary movies."

"Nicholson, Hunter, and Kinnear will easily win your love. Their characters exude a real and wonderful sense of incompleteness in the story, but they are compelling to love them. This skill Even a senior screenwriter can't do it, and Lancaster used his keen touch to do it well—even to complete the task brilliantly."

"There are so many excellent places in the whole movie, in the dialogue, in the lines, in the performance, and the film successfully connects these'moments'. Lancaster has once again succeeded. This is another work that deeply demonstrates the charm of lines after'before sunrise'."

"It is hard to imagine that this is just the second official work of the screenwriter. The sophisticated brushwork, exquisite details, vivid characters, deep thoughts, and the mature charm make one can't help but savor it."

"Lancaster did it again, injecting powerful life wisdom with a short story. It's eye-catching."

It can be said that the "perfect and perfect" script written by Hugo has received unanimous praise. When many senior screenwriters of the American Screenwriters' Guild exchanged opinions in private, they believed that this script is reminiscent of Woody Allen's " Annie Hall". As a new screenwriter who is not very productive, Hugo's attention is beyond imagination.

Excluding the "Shawshank's Redemption" that only appeared as a cameo, the two current Hugo screenwriters, "Before Sunrise" and "Perfect", can definitely be said to have played a super high level. Mouthful. This also reminds people of a very important thing: In fact, Hugo was a major in classical literature.

Although the finished product of "perfect and perfect" was slightly weak and could not reach the height of James's previous works, thanks to the excellent script and the outstanding performance of the three leading actors, this made the media review reach the height of 76.

The satirical comment of the "Chicago Tribune" summed up the "perfectness", "Hugo Lancaster's script is 100 points, James L-Brooks's director is 59 points, Jack -Nicholson’s performance is ninety points, Helen Hunt’s performance is eighty-nine points, and Greg Kinnear’s performance is ninety-one points. So, this work is eighty points."

The "Chicago Tribune" gave a score of 80 points and expressed its views on this work in the most vivid way.

Before the release of "Perfect Perfection", people were always wondering: would this work be successful without Hugo's participation? As a screenwriter, does Hugo have real materials? Without the appeal of Hugo's actors, what will be the result of this work?

Now, after the premiere weekend is over, the answers are revealed one by one. Although the box office of the "perfect" premiere is not satisfactory-this is only a relative term, but there is no doubt that Hugo can get it as a screenwriter. Everyone agrees ~www.wuxiaspot.com~ Some people have even begun to call Hugo a "screenwriter genius", not only because of the high efficiency of the two works, but also because of Hugo's academic background. The actors and singers of Hugo are all amateurs. In the screenwriting industry, Hugo can be regarded as a half-professional background.

Hugo's talent as a screenwriter has once again been affirmed, which is undoubtedly a huge piece of good news.

But everyone knows that the "media review" is only a measure. Unless the work can win the Golden Globes and Oscars, and rely on the awards to make the investment return, the box office is the only criterion for the success of the major film companies. And now for "perfect perfection", the situation is obviously not optimistic-the high investment of 50 million US dollars only exchanged the box office of 13 million US dollars for the premiere, even if it exceeds the cost line, it is very worrying.

Could it be that the magic of Hugo really disappeared? Could it be that as a screenwriter, Hugo's name really doesn't work?

More importantly, in addition to "perfect and perfect", as the "New York Post" said, the box office of "Titanic" was also in a mess. In just one week, Hugo selected two works. Encountered Waterloo, does this mean that Hollywood's long-lived "golden hand" has finally failed? If this is the case, then is this the beginning of the destruction of the embankment of a thousand miles in the ant den, is this a precursor to the collapse of the Hugo dynasty?