With queues outstripping supply, critics' comments lingering, and the already screened "Hard Candy" still shrouded in mystery, people outside the New York area are desperate to know: What is the film really like? Even if you can't see it, at least you can see some clues from the comments of film critics, but now you can't even see the comments of film critics, and it is even more itchy compared to the comments on the Internet that have ended watching the movie. Pen × fun × Pavilion www. ｂｉｑｕｇｅ。 ｉｎｆｏ

This situation was broken until 11 p.m. on Friday, when the first professional film critic review was officially released.

Surprisingly, and unsurprisingly, the first professional review did not come from the New York Times, and apparently the New York Times was not privileged in the midst of the surging movie-going craze, and the first review was delivered by the veteran film critic Lawrence Topman of The New Yorker.

"In nature, the chain of the jungle is a wonderful link, every creature can be a hunter, and every creature can be a prey. In the process of changing the roles of hunter and prey, people are always accustomed to sympathize with the weak, but think that this is a law of nature that cannot be broken, just as it is impossible for a lion to give up hunting an antelope. But what about the same biological chain into human society?

Morally emotionally, we will always examine and criticize the bloody cruelty of hunters from the perspective of the prey; However, in terms of laws and regulations, we must stand in an objective and fair perspective to review and judge the rights and wrongs of hunters and prey. At the end of the day, we try to be impartial, but we always defend the interests of our own group, just like in nature, where lions defend the interests of lions, antelopes defend the interests of antelopes, and the distinction between hunter and prey is not important. So, whites are discriminating against blacks, heterosexuality is discriminating against homosexuals, and men are discriminating against women. We are all hunters, and we are all prey, but what determines our attributes?

'Hard Fruit Candy' explores this deep and complex issue with a short and concise story. In the whole story, there are a total of five characters, but there are only two core characters, thirty-three-year-old Jeff and fourteen-year-old Hayley. This tells the story of a fetish/child/fetish.

Jeff is the hunter, Hayley is the prey, this is the tone of the story, but as the story progresses, we suddenly discover that the naïve and ignorant fourteen-year-old girl is the hunter, and the mature thirty-year-old lover/child/fetish becomes the prey, and the story begins to become interesting. In order not to affect the pleasure of watching the movie, I will abandon further elaboration of the plot in this review, but I can tell every viewer that the roles of the hunter and the prey are still changing after that, so that we are beginning to feel confused: who is the hunter, who is the prey, who is the real source of evil?

This is precisely the reflection left by the movie.

For Hayley, Jeff's fetish/child/fetish is a sin, and she represents thousands of victimized girls, launching a counterattack and fighting her fate with her hands; For Jeff, Hayley tries to play the role of a judge in a private trial, and he is sentenced to death without any evidence, and Hayley is the embodiment of crime, and he must rebel in order to survive; But on a deeper level, why didn't Hayley choose to go to court? Why does Jeff develop a fetish/child/fetish vice? For Hayley and Jeff, they have come to the present with a heavy past, they were once prey, but now they have become hunters, and those hunters hidden in the past represent the sins of the past.

Even the other three characters in the movie represent the hunter and the prey respectively, forming a huge biological chain.

It's like a vicious circle.

In the crime trilogy, Lancelot explores a very deep and realistic topic: what makes sin? In 'Hard Fruit Candy', Lancelot explores another very serious and heavy topic, what is it that makes people abandon the formal means of legal justice and choose evil?

These are two very similar topics, but lead to two very different consequences. 'Hard Fruit Candy' reveals a brutal and bloody answer: what if the means of legal justice fail to achieve the purpose of punishment?

Why do countless criminals choose to recidivism and recidivism after they get out of prison? Even after many criminals have been sentenced to life imprisonment, there is still no way to get rid of the habit of sin? In the crime trilogy, Lancelot expounded his point of view, human beings are inherently good, and the root cause of crime is social indifference and environmental influence; But in 'Hard Fruit Candy', Lancelot puts forward a bold hypothesis, what if people are inherently evil? So what should we do?

Breaking the vicious circle between hunter and prey, like breaking nature's jungle and survival of the fittest, seems like an impossible task. Killing is the instinct of lions, so what is the human instinct between good and evil? If there is no essential difference between humans and animals, how can killing and crime be stopped?

This is not just a core idea of the film, but also a philosophical proposition, and such a huge theme that Lancelot discusses in depth about human nature/aspects. The details in the movie are worth pondering.

Hayley had a chance to escape, but she chose to stay; Jeff had the opportunity to call the police, but he chose to give up; The coffee shop clerk once had the opportunity to see through the danger, but he chose to tease; The next-door neighbor had the opportunity to interrupt the crime, but she chose to remain silent; Genaire once had the opportunity to put an end to crime, but she chose not to say goodbye.

Everyone has a choice, to be precise, everyone has the right to choose in the face of good and evil, which is the biggest difference between humans and animals, the ability to think and do things makes us the so-called 'higher animals', but the irony is here, everyone will make a similar choice - the one that is beneficial to themselves.

In the crime trilogy, Lancelot defines this behavior as 'social apathy', which can be understood as selfishness and self-preservation, but in 'Hard Candy', Lancelot defines this behavior as the root of 'sexual evil', when selfishness becomes an excuse to protect oneself, when cowardice becomes a safe haven to avoid harm, when fear becomes a reason to abandon confrontation, we are already committing sin in this way, like a butterfly effect, deeply affecting everyone.

This pessimistic to desperate mood runs through the whole film, and it has also become the fundamental source of the work's human light. It is worth noting that every choice made by Hayley in the film has a deep meaning, which is also a means for Lancelot to self-reflect, self-analyze, and self-condemn, I believe that every audience can taste different meanings from Hayley's choice, and this 'difference' is precisely the difference between good and evil, or how we define ourselves.

After watching 'Hard Fruit Candy', the excitement of this movie has just begun, and everyone will have their own answer, which is also the best part of Lancelot's work.

After dedicating the acclaimed and acclaimed crime trilogy, Lancelot has once again brought surprises. In particular, the small-scale script shows Lancelot's talent to the fullest, each character has its own mission and metaphor, every plot is full of reflective aftertaste, every line has a corresponding meaning, and even every picture has a strong vitality. In the seemingly unremarkable small pattern, there is a burst of human brilliance that overshadows most of the works.

It's hard to imagine that this genius director, screenwriter and actor has once again dedicated an absolute masterpiece worthy of going down in history! ”

Lawrence's review is full of sprawl, and on the premise of avoiding spoilers, it is a profound and thorough analysis of the entire movie, and it can be seen that Lawrence's evaluation of "fruit hard candy" even surpasses Lance's crime trilogy, which is really shocking.

At the same time, Lawrence gave a perfect score of 100 points, which gave direct support to his views, which immediately caused an uproar on the Internet.

So far, people don't have any reference objects - the comments of netizens can only be trusted with three points, the rest is nonsense, and people need an authoritative object to lay the foundation. Whether it is the "New Yorker" or Lawrence, this is authoritative enough, and this authoritative source not only gives the highest praise, but also gives a perfect score of 100 points, which is like a Martian falling into a gasoline depot, "booming" directly detonated everyone's enthusiasm.

The Internet discussion has reached a new level, and the situation has spread almost throughout North America. Especially at the end of the review, Lawrence mocked "good night, good luck" openly and secretly, the two works are also small-scale works, and they are both outstanding scripts, but under the lenses of different directors, they bloom with different textures and depths.

"Good Night, Good Luck" pays too much attention to the sense of the times and the sense of the camera, and George Clooney injects an elegant and gentlemanly temperament into the film, but it falls behind in terms of ideological resurgence and deep excavation; "Hard Candy" is more mature and complete, and Lance injects a cold and terrifying atmosphere into the film, but always uses a third-party perspective to arrange the relationship between the hunter and the prey, and then completes the sublimation of the theme through the character of Hailey.

From this point of view, the two scripts written by Reims are shot in the eyes of Lawrence.

This sneaking comment has made netizens' enthusiasm reach an unprecedented high, and what is even more itchy is that it is only the second day of the screening of "Fruit Hard Candy", and this work can still only be seen in two landmark theaters in New York. Therefore, netizens can only get a glimpse of the style of this work through eager discussions and sneaking away film critics' comments.

Immediately after that, Roger Ebert's comments shine in! (To be continued.) )