Chapter 1362: Chapter 1362

As a work screened at landmark theaters, "Death Row" from the very beginning hoped to use film critics as a breakthrough to become an excellent art film that won word of mouth. Therefore, as the production company DreamWorks and as the distribution company, Twentieth Century Fox attaches great importance to professional film critics, not only inviting them to participate in the internal preview, but also providing internal tickets on the day of screening, so that more professional film critics can enter the theater to watch the film.

Thanks to the wisdom of DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox, the grand event on the opening day of the screening of "Death Row" did not affect the active participation of film critics-of course, such a grand event is also the result they most hope to see, after all The box office is the bottom line.

In addition to the "Chicago Sun" and the "Los Angeles Times", this time there are as many as twenty-six media outlets that immediately released the film review of "Death Row Walking"! This data even surpassed the attention of many summer commercial films, and it easily became the most shining work in December. Even "Game of the Brave", which held a grand premiere on the same day, could only bow down.

What is even more surprising is that the media that gave praise to "Death Row Walk" actually occupied an overwhelming advantage!

The "New York Times" actually gave a super high evaluation of a full score of 100 points, which completely surpassed the ratings of Roger and Nicholas, and the one-sentence comment gave the highest praise, "This movie has made the film production industry become a reality." Noble!" In the detailed review, the "New York Times" emphasized that the existence of such works is the fundamental reason why films become spiritual food and achieve artistic value. They believe that the core ideas contained in this work are precious and transcend The "Seven Deadly Sins" is discussed in more depth on many sensitive topics.

The Washington Post's score seems to be "low" at 85 points, "This is not a work with strong appeal in terms of subject matter-you've got a criminal and a nun, but no love The scene—but Robbins made it interesting, and Sarandon and Lancaster made it deep and exciting."

"The Wall Street Journal" gave it an affirmative score of 89 points, "Robbins' directing talent and screenwriting ability are close to flawless. Clarity filled with pain and power."

If these media gave "Death Row Walking" a good review, people would still look at each other and smile meaningfully. Although the objectivity and authority of film critics are necessary, the friendly relationship between these media and Hugo It's no secret either. Of course, their film reviews are still very pertinent, at least they won the approval of the audience.

But to everyone's surprise, those media that had a "bad relationship" with Hugo seemed to have corrected themselves this time, giving objective—even flattering—evaluations one by one. Especially the several media headed by the Banning Alliance, their comments are really intriguing.

The "San Francisco Chronicle" bears the brunt. In fact, their relationship with Hugo is neither good nor bad. They are just competitors on the West Coast. In order to distinguish them from the "Los Angeles Times", they often come up with some ingenious topics. Joined the ban alliance.

Logically speaking, it's not unusual for the "San Francisco Chronicle" to give good reviews. They also affirmed Hugo's works before, but they gave a full score of 100 points, which made people a little surprised, "Wonderful The terrific performance makes the movie shine infinitely!"

The concise and clear evaluation can also show their extreme recognition of the two leading actors.

And the "Chicago Tribune", which has always been a maverick, is in the limelight again this time, with a 100-point praise, coupled with no flaws in the comments, "Sarandon dedicated the best performance of her career: She bore the brunt of the wrath of the victim's family with unmatched beauty and holiness; and Lancaster, an actor long expected to live up to expectations, stunned everyone once again, giving An Oscar-caliber performance! It's funny that there's no spark between Sarandon and Lancaster, but there's a lot of chemistry, and that's probably the best part of the whole movie."

The typical style of the "Chicago Tribune", there is a hint of ridicule in the cynicism, but there is no water in the evaluation of 100 points, showing their absolute affirmation of the film.

If the "San Francisco Chronicle" and "Chicago Tribune" are excusable-although they are members of the block alliance, they have always praised Hugo's works. The film reviews of "USA Today" and "Houston Chronicle" made many people start to worry: Could it be that the editor-in-chiefs of these three newspapers have lost their minds?

"USA Today"'s full score of 100 points can be said to be earth-shattering, "the joy of watching the movie, there is almost no part that can be blamed for this movie: it is so unbelievable!" They used "Fabulous" with such strong positive The vocabulary of meaning and color can also see the weight of this one hundred percent.

You know, in the history of several confrontations between "USA Today" and Hugo, except for "Schindler's List" which maintains "political correctness", they almost completely wiped out Hugo's efforts in the works. Although they are not as popular as the "New York Post", in fact, since "Scent of a Woman"-or before that, "USA Today" has not had much affection for Hugo.

But this time, "USA Today" gave it a perfect score of 100, which is really... jaw-dropping.

And the "New York Post" actually gave it a perfect score, which surprised countless people. This is almost more terrifying than the "New York Post" bowing to Hugo and admitting defeat. Because, bowing your head and admitting defeat at least shows that the "New York Post" has the courage to admit defeat, but film review scoring is a very subjective thing. When a full score is given, what does it mean? It means convinced!

"A daring, searching, harrowing experience, this may be one of the most complex and turbulent films Hollywood has ever made."

Because the "New York Post"'s praise is so bold, people even doubt whether it is irony, but the perfect score of 100 can't deceive people, which makes many people confused: what happened to Colin Meile!

Relatively speaking, the "Houston Chronicle"'s score of 78 is already the calmest, but even this score is still a very good compliment, "The dialogue in this movie is too long, which makes many emotional exchanges change. It is a pity that Robbins' unskilled handling of the film's communication is only superficial. But Sarandon and Lancaster's superb performances make the film convincing. And it imbues the movie with incredible intelligence and emotion."

Faced with such unprecedented praise from these media, people have to think a little bit more. Could it be that these former members of the blocking alliance were worried that Hugo would settle accounts after the fall? After all, they joined hands to block the "Death Row Walk" at the beginning, and the result was nothing to lose Bami, now "Death Row Walking" has not only become a hot topic, but Hugo's performance is even more shocking. The most important thing is that the movie's discussion of the death penalty is completely a powder keg. At this time, the uncrowned kings who are burdened with the shackles of public opinion supervision I dare not make any more mistakes.

That's why these former members of the banning alliance expressed their position one after another?

However, no matter whether they said this under the pressure of public opinion or sincerely praised them, they have given incredible ratings to "Walking on Death Row", which has become an established fact, and it also means that the word-of-mouth of "Walking on Death Row" is gradually increasing. Toward new heights.

Scroll View gave another perfect 100, saying in their review, "It's ironic that a film with such a title should be the most important and freshest of all films this year. Living, most challenging work.”

The subtext is that it is ironic that such a tricky, cumbersome, and complicated theme work "Death Row Walking" has been produced so successfully, and it has blown away other works today in terms of topicality and reflection.

While "Death Row Walking" received rave reviews, it also had some negative reviews, with the San Francisco Observer saying, "Controversy, trouble, obsession, entanglement. A mess." They gave it just 63 out of 10 Obviously not satisfied with the finished film.

In addition, the "TV guide" cruelly gave such an ultra-low score of 50 points, "Sarandon is amazing, and Lancaster is undoubtedly at the pinnacle of his career. However, the movie is just a movie that contains A jumbled smorgasbord of miscellaneous news, and even the best performances from two actors can't make up for the blurring and confusion of Robbins' thinking."

However, compared with the overwhelming praise of the movie, the negative reviews are not only rare, but also not strong. And it is worth mentioning that, whether it is positive or negative, the performance of the two leading actors has been given great affirmation in the comments, especially from the "Empire" magazine, said so.

"Sarandon's performance makes the film meaningful for discussion, while Lancaster's performance injects soul into the film. The collision of the performances of the two actors has made the film infinitely reflective, and the epic performance reinterprets the The meaning of the word 'performance'."

"Empire" magazine's unsparing praise, coupled with an 85-point evaluation, is undoubtedly another affirmation of "Death Row Walking".

Among the praises from the media, "Death Row" received a comprehensive media review of 87 points, which is undoubtedly a very good result for a work of art, but the theater scores reflect that the audience's thoughts are obviously mixed There are many, but the "B+" score can also be seen that people still gave the movie enough affirmation, especially for Hugo's super high expectations. The result not only did not fall below expectations, but was shocked again!