#头条创作挑战赛 #
Author: Li Xiaotian
Hollywood's older generation of action actors is rapidly extinct.
Bruce Willis has announced that he has stopped acting, and he can't even act in a bad movie. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been underserved since Terminator 6: Dark Fate hit the streets, and although he has not announced his retirement, his work has been underserved. Harrison Ford can only continue to eat the old copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Duff Longer, Shange Winton, etc. can only live in the B-grade film market, stinking and embarrassingly acting/and.... Counting the days, the only veteran action movie star left is Sylvester Stallone, still alone.
Honest and old, can you still eat?
Don't mention Liam Neeson, he was a proper literary student in his early years, and only transformed into action movies after he got old, and it was because other action stars could not act, he came to fill the market.
Only Stallone is gone. Should I be thankful, or should I smile bitterly?
After all, Stallone has continued to tinker with "Rocky" and "First Blood" over the years, and has also continued these two IPs into a good story. And "Quidditch", as a spin-off of "Rocky", is also quite good. Moreover, Stallone is not satisfied with this, but also made up two series of "Daredevil" and "Golden Cicada Shell", although these two series are getting worse and worse, but they have been good and bad.
Moreover, Stallone has also rolled in the "Guardians of the Galaxy" series and "X Task Force: Full Assemblage", which is not much, but full of highlights.
But overall, Stallone's fatigue is visible to the naked eye, and it really can't be performed.
We want to talk about "Samaritan", as a new film starring Stallone, I went to see his name, but after watching it, I can only say that I am embarrassed and sigh.
Even touting "Top Gun 2" and "Falling", to "Samaritan" is really exaggerated, and I can't find a reason to find it. Boasting about "Top Gun 2" and "Falling", from the perspective of the screenwriter, these two films are really one of the few highlights under the epidemic. The former is a good way of telling the story, and the latter is a good idea of the story, holding the story up, gimmicky. Two films, forming two creative directions, are worth learning from the screenwriters.
And "Samaritan", not to mention from a professional point of view, is from the perspective of the general audience, it is embarrassing. From the screenwriter's point of view, it is even worse. Why, because it is copying homework, or the kind that can't copy well. You say that people are angry and not angry.
The current Hollywood studios are the world of Disney, and one of Disney's main forces is Marvel. The Marvel family has supported most of the sky of comics. Then, together with DC and Hasbro, basically tell the story of superheroes, which makes the whole of Hollywood seem to be a superhero world.
What is Samaria? Obviously, it is to touch the craze of porcelain superheroes, force it in, and try to get a piece of the pie.
This kind of film, this kind of intention, and the practice of picking up people's teeth and wisdom behind others is certainly not worth learning.
"Samaritan" is a superhero film, Stallone plays a reclusive superhero, and the whole thing looks like a beggar's version of Batman' story.
Stallone is the reclusive Batman, but Batman is a rich man, and stallone here is a poor ghost, working in the garbage dump for a career, the main way to make money is to find some old things from the garbage dump, and then repair it, and then go to change some money to spend. Batman's biggest enemy is the Joker, and the villain in this film is a botched version of the Joker. His works, his deeds, and his personality are all permeated with the smell of a copycat version of clowns. Moreover, the villain played by Piru Especk still has a smell of Yu Lun in "Game of Thrones", and the actor seems to have not yet come out of the game of thrones.
The Joker is constantly causing trouble, forcing Batman to go out of the mountain. The same is true in Samaria.
However, since there is Stallone, since it is a superhero film, since it is the opposition between good and evil, then there must be a few smooth action scenes.
But, sorry, no.
This is not enough for the audience. In fact, it is not nothing, but too perfunctory, Stallone casually waved his hand, the action scene is over, all relying on special effects to complete the result. What kind of action scene is this?
But that's just the way it is.
So Samaria is not very good.
In order to make the story more dramatic, a reversal was deliberately set up in the film. It turns out that Stallone is really a survivor superhero. However, he is not a superhero, but a former supervillain.
So how did he turn into a good guy?
Sorry, just rely on a few tough lines at the end of Stallone's film. People have good and evil, not simply divided, but there is no clear dividing line between good and evil, which can be transformed. The once super demon, in the long retreat, is slowly becoming a simple good person. Why? Why? Sorry, there's no why, no why, it just happened.
So, is Samaritan worth recommending?
Not worth it.
Back to the title, would you feel good about being a touch of porcelain?
However, there is Stallone, a once fierce Hollywood first macho man, but now he is dying of old age, and he is about to be unable to act. If you're a fan of him, or an action movie fan, it doesn't hurt to check it out, as long as you don't expect too much. After all, watching one less.