"It's not the second 'Independence Day,' it's another 'Future Water World.'"

After the premiere weekend, the major media began to wail, compared to "007: Tomorrow's Empire" and "Perfect", the "Titanic" with the title of "the highest investment in film history" has undoubtedly become a target, and James Cameron's irascible temper usually offends countless media, and now the media have all begun to fall into the ground.

Among the more than 80 media reviews - not film reviews - a full 68 media outlets considered the "Titanic" a complete disaster, indicating that this work was a major mistake in the history of film development. The debate over computer special effects was at its peak at this point – and this time it was the traditional cinema school that prevailed.

They insisted that too much emphasis on computer special effects would cause the film to lose its soul, and that a bunch of magnificent visual effects attached to a meaningless story frame would be enough to captivate the audience without any narrative skills at all. When a popcorn movie goes to an extreme, it loses the structure of the story itself, which is a catastrophic change for the film, and may even lead to the real decline of the film industry.

These views generally believe that the glory of "Independence Day" has always been a special case, and that "Titanic" will not only become the second "future water world", but also the amount of loss will create a new record in film history, and may even plunge Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox into a long trough at the same time - although not bankruptcy.

Last year's debate over the growing cost of investment was easily overwhelmed by the computer-based special effects school thanks to the Independence Day victory; And this time, the box office of the "Titanic" premiere weekend collapsed, allowing the traditional academic school to regain its advantage.

Among the many controversies, the "New York Post" commented very interestingly, they thought that this was "Hugo's first miss", because Hugo was also quite sure of the "Titanic", although he was not able to play himself, but he still recommended his best friend Leonardo to play, and also made a cameo role in order to support his friend. But now after the movie was released, the opening weekend completely collapsed, and it was also the first time that Hugo had lost his eyes since the Golden Raspberry Awards.

The New York Post's ingenious ideas have sparked a lot of discussion and approval, with many saying that the friendship between Leonardo and Hugo is now about to be put to the test.

In the face of the bombardment of the media, the first batch of media comprehensive reviews were released, but professional film critics gave different opinions, with a comprehensive score of 74 points, although it was not as good as the 83 points of the first batch of media comprehensive reviews on the "Independence Day", but it was still very good, and the polarization of these comments was very obvious. Of the 34 media outlets, seven scored out of 100 and six scored below 50.

It can be seen that professional film critics are also a little hesitant about "Titanic", as the "New York Times" that gave a perfect score said, "James Cameron's movies are never perfect, but in terms of visual and emotional effects, they are always worthy of admiration!" ”

Those in favor believe that James has made full use of the role of visual effects in the slightly weak storyline, replicating the miracle of "Independence Day"; Those who oppose it believe that James's filmography has always been nothing more than a pile of visual effects and deliberately sensationalism, lackluster in terms of humanistic thinking.

Relatively speaking, the media comprehensive review of "007: Tomorrow's Empire" can be said to be terrible, only 56 points, and it is almost scolded by professional film critics; And "Perfect" unexpectedly received a comprehensive evaluation of 76 points from the media - the reason why it is unexpected is because this score is not high but not too low, it is decent, and it is difficult for a comedy drama film to stand out.

In the professional review of "Perfection", most of the criticism was directed at James L. Brooks, "Brooks seems to have lost the gentle and deep magic of the shot, the accurate emotional grasp that makes people laugh and cry, and there is a slight lack of chemistry in this work." ”

In fact, the media comprehensive evaluation of 76 is almost the same as James's highly praised "Mr. Sweetheart" and "Mother-Daughter Love" - "Mr. Sweetheart" is 77 points, while "Mother-Daughter Love" is 79 points. But how did you get such a high score when the media was more demanding on James?

The answer is Hugo Lancaster.

In a brief review of the Chicago Sun, Roger Ebert said, "A romantic comedy full of irony and sharpness, but with a serious and deep core. Just such a script deserves a full score of 100 points, and I am not willing to change a single detail, even a word, in the whole story. ”

Roger also scored the same thing, out of 100 points, and recommended a four-star perfect score of three and a half stars.

Among the many reviews, almost every professional film critic paid attention to the script and commented on it individually.

"The playful and poignant wit in the script continues Lancaster's style in 'Before Sunrise', and then goes one step further to include an important life core in this simple romantic love story, and as a screenwriter, Lancaster's writing is impressive."

"The delicate and real character creation, almost every detail is worth savoring, it seems that everyone can find their own shadow, the kind of fragility and loneliness that touches the heart, so that the film exudes an indescribable attraction."

"It's rare for a story so simple to convey such a powerful idea."

"Nicholson, Hunter, and Kinal will easily win your affection, and their characters exude a real and wonderful sense of incompleteness in the story, but you can't help but love them. It's a skill that even a veteran screenwriter can't do, and Lancaster does it brilliantly with his keen touch - and even brilliantly accomplishes the task. ”

"There's so much in the whole movie, in the dialogue, in the lines, in the performances, and the film manages to connect all these 'moments'. Lancaster is another success, and this is another work that shows the charm of the lines in depth after 'Before Sunrise'. ”

"It's hard to imagine that this is only the screenwriter's second formal work, and the sophisticated brushstrokes, exquisite details, vivid characters, and profound thoughts, and the mature charm make people can't help but savor it."

"Once again, Lancaster has done it, and has done it with a skit-like story infused with powerful life wisdom. It's eye-catching. ”

It can be said that Hugo's "perfect" script has been unanimously praised, and many senior screenwriters of the Writers Guild of America have agreed that this script is reminiscent of Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" in a private exchange of opinions. As a non-prolific up-and-coming screenwriter, Hugo has received more attention than he could have imagined.

Excluding "The Shawshank Redemption", which only appeared as a cameo, Hugo's two current screenwriting works, "Before Sunrise" and "Perfect", can definitely be said to have played a super high level, which is full of praise. This also reminds us of a very important thing: in fact, Hugo was born in classics.

Although the finished product of "Perfect" is slightly weak and has not been able to reach the heights of James's previous works, thanks to the excellent script and the outstanding performances of the three leading actors, this has made the media comprehensive review reach the height of seventy-six.

The Chicago Tribune's sarcastic commentary summed up "perfection" even more, "Hugo Lancaster's script is a hundred points, James L. Brooks's directing score is fifty-nine, Jack Nicholson's performance is ninety, Helen Hunter's performance is eighty-nine, and Greg Kinneil's performance is ninety-one." So, this work is eighty points. ”

The Chicago Tribune gave it a rating of 80 and expressed its opinion on the work in the most vivid way.

Even before the release of "Perfect", people were curious: could the work have been a success without Hugo's participation? As a screenwriter, does Hugo have real material? Without Hugo's actor appeal, what will be the results of this work?

Now, after the premiere weekend, the answers are revealed one by one, although the "perfect" premiere box office is not satisfactory - this is only relative, but there is no doubt that Hugo's talent as a screenwriter has been unanimously affirmed, and some people have even begun to chant Hugo is a "screenwriter genius", not only because of the super efficiency of both works, but also because of Hugo's academic background, unlike Hugo's actors and singers are all amateurs, in the screenwriting industry, Hugo can be considered half a professional.

Hugo's talent as a screenwriter has once again been recognized, which is undoubtedly great news.

But everyone knows that the "media review" is just a measure, unless the work can win the Golden Globe and Oscar, and rely on the award to make the return on investment, otherwise, the box office is the only criterion for the success of major film companies. And now the situation is obviously not optimistic for "perfection" - the high investment of 50 million US dollars has only been exchanged for the box office of 13 million dollars in the first release, even if it exceeds the cost line, it is very worrying.

Could it be that Hugo's magic is really gone? Could it be that as a screenwriter, Hugo's name really doesn't work?

What's more, in addition to "perfection", as the "New York Post" said, the box office of "Titanic" was also a mess, and in just one week, the two works selected by Hugo suffered Waterloo, does this mean that Hollywood's long-standing "gold magic hand" has finally failed? If this is the case, then is this the beginning of the destruction of the embankment in the anthill, is this a precursor to the collapse of the Hugo dynasty?