Recently writing film reviews, many readers said that eagles are too harsh on domestic films and television, but there are Hollywood blockbusters in the lighthouse country that do not say anything, which is a typical large-scale double-standard scene. That posture, that remark, was eager to pull the eagle out and tie it to the stake and burn it to the death to thank the world.
I repeat: I do not comment on beautiful national films because those fast food films are even more difficult to scrutinize. After all, to this day, when it comes to beautiful Chinese movies, many people must talk about "feelings" and "faith", and even more, even directly and simply and bluntly say that Hollywood blockbusters "satisfy all their yearning for a better life".
Destroying people's faith is equivalent to killing people's hearts. The pickpocket is too fierce, and the fragile glass heart of some Muyang dogs can't stand it!
However, recently, some people have begun to be proud, saying that domestic films are not worthy of shoes compared with Hollywood blockbusters, and it is better to watch movies or Hollywood blockbusters.
For this kind of person, Eagle has only one sentence: domestic film and television works are insufficient, we admit. But how many years did we start behind Hollywood? We are trying to catch up. No matter how bad he is, no matter how dramatic, that is our own child! We beat and scolded ourselves! You bastard move a finger to try?!
In order to punch these people in the face, Eagle decided to write a few film reviews about Hollywood "classics" and take a good look at these so-called classics, what is the color!
First, let's start with "First Blood 1", which was once regarded as a guideline by countless Chinese people!
Sylvester. Stallone starred in "First Blood 1", released in the 1980s. As soon as it came out, it immediately set off a "Rambo fever" in the United States, and after the introduction of this film to China, it caused a huge impact on the audience, and a generation of Chinese will be John F. Kennedy. Rambo is seen as an icon.
In terms of the mainstream media and film critics in China, it is generally believed that "First Blood 1" is an anti-war film, revealing the harm caused by the Vietnam War to ordinary American soldiers, as well as the disregard and discrimination of the US government and the public against Vietnam Veterans.
From this point of view, the significance of the film is quite positive, right?
Don't worry, how simple is it?
The film portrayed John. Rambo, a retired veteran, was traumatized by the war and was not accepted by the world, so he had no choice but to make enemies of the entire holiday town. It seems as if Rambo's mistakes were caused by the entire American society.
However, on closer inspection, there does not seem to be much of the rest of the public in the entire holiday town, except for a few policemen who are committing crimes.
So why did Rambo pour his anger on the other civilians in the town?
Gas station owner recruited him to annoy him? Do you have to set fire to the gas station that people rely on for a living?
The gun shop owner recruited him to annoy him? My own shop was also burned!
On the surface, Rambo's behavior is a counterattack against injustice, but digging deeper, I seem to see a mentality that is prevalent among the people of the Lighthouse Nation - I don't care if you provoke me or not, I think you provoke me, then I will beat you!
What do you think? Doesn't it feel familiar? Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... Is it all the same logic?
Second, it is said to be anti-war, but what is anti-war?
First Blood 1 is labeled as anti-war, so is it really an anti-war film?
The film focuses on the damage caused to Rambo by the Vietnam War, so that he is violent, bloodthirsty, and difficult to control himself, coupled with discrimination and persecution by several unscrupulous policemen, which ultimately leads to the final tragedy. This is also the consistent number of so-called "anti-war films" in the United States.
However, the Vietnam War was a war of aggression! The film only portrays the harm caused by the war to the invaders, but never mentions the harm caused by this unjust war to the invaded Vietnamese people, but intentionally or unintentionally portrays the Vietnamese military and civilians as a murderous and murderous image in the film.
This number is also somewhat familiar, how can it be so similar to the so-called "anti-war films" of the island countries? War has caused harm to one's own side, but it has caused harm to others...
Is this anti-war or anti-defeat?
As for acting... Forget it, what kind of acting skills do I talk to a paralyzed patient?
Frankly speaking, in my opinion, "First Blood 1" is not as tall as he boasts, cloaked in anti-war painting skins, and there are indeed many smuggled goods in it. To put it bluntly, it is the typical archway of "both dang and standing" in a beautiful country, and it is just a decontamination powder that is desperately washed for itself.
Do you still think that such a film is a classic?