At the same time, the media is having a hard time.

The two episodes of immortality are divided, attracting more and more attention from others, and their newspaper wants to use this news to attract attention.

Earn sales, but they don't know how to write news anymore.

Judging from the box office, Lin Mu is definitely hitting the street, and the box office in the first week is basically half of the box office of the whole movie.

But now it's only less than 3000w, and it's not as much as one-third of the forest debut, so it can be said that the forest is hitting the street.

But after watching it, they are all very discerning, and they can see the connotation and novel point of view of this movie.

It was a very good movie, a film that had to be watched, so they didn't know what to write.

Urged by the people above, finally, they began to write, just write down their opinions, no matter what the bonus.

Whether you can publish it depends on what the people above think, anyway, you can complete your task first.

Therefore, the media is also divided into two factions, one is to directly criticize the people who are fighting on the streets.

One is to hype up the film as a must-see for all.

The audience was also instigated, there was nothing on the Internet about the movie, it was all mysterious, and the newspaper was also divided into two factions, one said it was good-looking, the other said it was not good-looking, and the forest trees had already hit the streets.

They don't know who to trust now, whether they should pay to watch this movie?

It wasn't until comments gradually appeared on the Internet that the matter came to an end.

The first thing this movie feels is thinking. After you read it, do you choose to believe it or not? Perhaps it is not a choice, whether it is completely denied or completely believed. The whole open-ended story brings very interesting thoughts.

I choose to believe in the same way that I believe in God's answer. There are similar lines in the movie. And this is also logically flawed, but I think the answer is simple and difficult to disprove: can you deny that the protagonist is not a god? Like can you deny that God doesn't exist? Of course, you may not be able to prove the existence of God. But you can't deny that it's not.

It is common sense to move from the debate of science to the discussion of religion: religion is relatively capable of solving the ultimate problem that most science cannot explain.

Theism or atheism, the vast majority of people are passively chosen. No matter which is more scientific and logical, they are just a kind of "theory", regardless of the country and the educational background. will instill a certain faith in the younger generation. This belief is the bottom line of most people's logical thinking.

There are many places in this film that remind me of the book "Everyone is Going to Die", and immortality is the ** and fantasy that everyone has had. The protagonist of the book, who has been immortalized, has experienced N years of life and realizes that eternal life is eternal punishment. Because whoever he loves will die. Any of his achievements will eventually be dusted over time.

The difference is that the protagonist of this film does not consider himself immortal. There was not much sadness in his calm countenance, but for him, the death of those he loved and those who loved him could not be ignored.

In addition to exploring the rich thinking space that immortality and eternal time bring to the audience, the film also gives a high evaluation of the role of knowledge in the long history and human civilization, and the protagonist who has lived for thousands of years must rely on knowledge to retain his memory, and the setting itself is quite interesting: if others can learn to a certain extent, they can be almost as leaky as he says. This reflects the director's ingenuity in the storytelling. Whether you choose to believe or not depends on how you think, rather than clinging to true or false value judgments.

At the end of the film, the protagonist stops and waits for the woman who loves him, and the camera does not shoot whether she pulls the car door and gets into the car. I was very touched by the suspense in this. A man who will eventually grow old and die of his lover will leave the people around him every ten years, which is self-preservation. It's also about caring for others. But will he stop for the woman in front of him? When he stopped and looked back at the woman, the subtle change in the woman's face was so heartwarming! The course of 10,000 years of life has nothing to do with me. You're just the man I love, and you've repeated it N times like you've done in the past. Leave the people around me, but you still stay for me for a moment.

Do you want her to go with him?

This article is all about the feeling of watching this movie from the perspective of a bystander, but it does not directly prove that this film is likeable.

But from the sentences and words in it, it can be seen that the author loves this film, and it also raises a lot of questions about the loopholes in the film, or the answers that no one has been able to answer all along.

Quite a few websites reposted the article to see the film from the perspective of a bystander.

And those who have praise do not like it.

As a movie fan, I can't consider Immortality as a classic, or even enjoy the movie. As far as the basic elements of the film's technology are concerned, there are no bright spots in this film. Most of the time, the camera just mechanically shifts between each character according to the needs of the dialogue; The composition of the picture is not very aesthetically pleasing; The soundtrack, if there is any at all, does not serve as a narrative aid at all; Pacing is also lackluster; The actors' acting skills are also generally remarkable. Of course, as a low-budget "sci-fi" film with conversation as the main plot, we can put aside the discussion of cinematic techniques for a moment and focus on the story in the film and the worldview that the author is selling.

The story of this film unfolds according to a core clue, that is, will there be a person in this world who can live from the Paleolithic Age for thousands of years and live until now? If such a person really exists, what is his life experience? On this topic, I think that the narrative method that can attract the audience's attention more should be logically deduced. When you have to accept an unbelievable point of view because of rigorous reasoning, the psychological resistance and shock are much stronger than just being indoctrinated with that idea. So if the idea of this film is: the hero Zhao Qiao provides facts and clues, and the people around him continue to approach the truth through logical deduction - that is, Zhao Qiao is an immortal from ancient times. That film might be even more appealing. However, the story of this film adopts another line of thinking, that is, the male protagonist Zhao Qiao proposes that he is an immortal primitive person soon after the beginning of the story, and the rest of the film is trying to confirm or falsify this fact.

This line of thinking does not make the story fascinating, because the confirmation or falsification of the "facts" is under the subjective control of the screenwriter, and does not require the participation of the viewer's mind: whether the screenwriter wants Zhao Qiao to be a primitive or not, he can provide irrefutable evidence as he pleases; The audience only needs to accept the facts thrown by the screenwriter, and there is no need for logical reasoning. In fact, it is not difficult to convince the audience that Zhao Qiao is immortal, he only needs to provide evidence that he has lived for a hundred years - from the perspective of defying common sense, living for a hundred years (and it always seems to be in his twenties) is just as incredible as living for 10,000 years. And with the scientific and technological progress of mankind in the past hundred years, the photos of this man in the past hundred years and any traces of his life can prove his existence. Just as at the end of the film, Zhao Qiao easily makes one of his friends realize that Zhao Qiao really doesn't age by recalling the details of his life. But this ending doesn't give us any psychological impact. Didn't we already accept the fact that Zhao Qiao was a primitive in this film? So what's unexpected about this ending? (To be continued.) )