Chapter 1929: 1929 Media Review

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

After the premiere weekend, the major media began to wail. Compared with "007: Tomorrow's Empire" and "As Good as It Gets", "Titanic" with the title of "Highest Investment in Film History" has undoubtedly become a target. And James Cameron's violent temper usually offended countless media, and now the media have all started to add insult to injury.

Among the news reviews—not film reviews—from more than eighty media outlets, a full sixty-eight media outlets believe that "Titanic" is a complete disaster, saying that this work is a milestone in the history of film development. A major mistake. This is when the debate over CGI is at its real zenith—and this time it's the old school that has the upper hand.

They insist that too much attention to computer special effects will cause the film to lose its soul, and a bunch of magnificent visual effects attached to a meaningless story frame will be enough to attract the audience without any narrative skills at all. After the popcorn movie went to the extreme, it lost the structure of the story itself. This is a catastrophic change for the movie, and may even lead to the real decline of the movie industry.

These views generally believe that the glory of "Independence Day" is always just a special case, and "Titanic" will not only become the second "Future Water World", but also the amount of losses will create a new high in film history, and may even make Palla Mon and 20th Century Fox have been in a long slump—though not to the point of bankruptcy.

Last year's debate about the ever-increasing cost of investment, benefited from the big victory of "Independence Day", and the computer special effects school easily gained the upper hand; and this time "Titanic"'s opening weekend box office collapsed, so that the traditional academic school regained the advantage.

Among the many debates, the comments of the "New York Post" are very interesting. They believe that this is "the first miss of Hugo's gold master", because Hugo is also quite sure about "Titanic", although he I was not able to play the role, but I still recommended my best friend Leonardo to play the role, and also played a guest role in order to support my friend. But now that the film is in theaters, its opening weekend has completely crumbled, and for the first time since the Golden Raspberry Awards, Hugo has lost his eye.

The "New York Post"'s ingenious point of view has sparked a lot of discussion, and it has also received many voices of approval. Many people say that the friendship between Leonardo and Hugo is now going to be severely tested.

Facing 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 is not as good as the first batch of media comprehensive reviews on "Independence Day". Eighty-three points, but still very good, these comments are very polarized. Among the thirty-four media, there are seven out of one hundred and six under fifty.

It can be seen that professional film critics are also a little hesitant about "Titanic". As the "New York Times" which gave full marks said, "James Cameron's movies are never perfect, but from visual effects and emotions In terms of effect, it is always admirable!"

Those who are in favor think that James has given full play to the role of visual effects in the slightly weak main line of the story, replicating the miracle of "Independence Day"; those who oppose it think that James' film works can only be regarded as a bunch of visual effects. and deliberately provocative piles, lacking in humanistic thinking.

Relatively speaking, the comprehensive media review of "007: Tomorrow's Empire" can be said to be terrible, with only 56 points, and it was almost scolded by professional film critics; It got a 76-point media review—the reason why it is unexpected is because the score is not high but not low. It is quite satisfactory. For a comedy drama movie, it is difficult to stand out.

Among the professional reviews of "As Good as It Gets", most of the criticism is directed at James L-Brooks, "Brooks seems to have lost the magic of tenderness and depth in the lens, the precise emotional grasp of laughter and tears, in this There's a little less chemistry in this work."

In fact, the comprehensive media review of 76 is almost the same as James' highly praised "Mr. Sweetheart" and "Mother and Daughter Love" - ​​"Mr. Nine points. However, when the media is more harsh on James, how did he get such a high score?

The answer is Hugo Lancaster.

Roger Ebert said in a brief review of the "Chicago Sun Times", "Full of irony and sharp romantic comedy, but has a serious and deep core. Just such a script is worth a full score of 100." I don't want to change any detail, not even a single word, of the whole story."

Roger also rated it in the same way, with a full score of 100 points, and a recommended four-star full score gave three and a half stars.

Among the many reviews, almost every professional film critic paid attention to the script and made a separate review.

"The witty, edgy wit of the script continues Lancaster's style in 'Before Sunrise', and then goes one step further to include an important human core in this simple romantic love story. As a screenwriter, Lancaster's pen is impressive."

"Delicate and real character creation, almost every detail is worth savoring carefully, it seems that everyone can find their own shadow, the fragility and loneliness that touch the heart make the movie exude an indescribable attraction force."

"Such a simple story conveys such a powerful idea, which is very rare in contemporary movies."

"Nicholson, Hunter, Kinnear will easily win you over, their characters exude a real and beautiful sense of incompleteness in the story, but they have to be loved. This skill Not even a seasoned screenwriter can do it, and Lancaster pulls off the task brilliantly — even brilliantly — with his sensibility.”

"There are so many great moments throughout the film, in the dialogue, in the lines, in the performances, and the film manages to connect these 'moments'. Once again Lancaster succeeds, After 'Before Sunrise', this is another work that shows the charm of lines deeply."

"It's hard to imagine that this is only the second official work of the screenwriter. The sophisticated brushwork, exquisite details, vivid characters, and profound thoughts, the mature charm makes people can't help savoring it carefully."

"Once again, Lancaster has done it, injecting powerful life wisdom into a skit-like story. It's eye-popping."

It can be said that the "perfect" script written by Hugo has been unanimously praised. Many senior screenwriters of the American Screenwriters Guild have exchanged opinions in private. They think that this script reminds people of Woody Allen's " Annie Hall". As a new screenwriter who is not very productive, the attention Hugo has received is beyond imagination.

Not to mention "The Shawshank Redemption", which only appeared as a cameo, Hugo's two screenwriting works, "Before Sunrise" and "As Good as It Gets", can definitely be said to have performed at a super high level, which is commendable. Absolutely. This also reminds people of a very important thing: in fact, Hugo was a classical literature major.

Although the finished product of "As Good as It Gets" is a bit weak and did not reach the height of James' previous works, but thanks to the excellent script and the outstanding performances of the three leading actors, this made the media comprehensive evaluation reach the height of 76.

As good as it gets, the Chicago Tribune's ironic review sums it up, "Hugo Lancaster's screenplay is 100, James L. Brooks' director is 59, Jack - Ninety for Nicholson, eighty-nine for Helen Hunt, ninety-one for Greg Kinnear. So, eighty for this production."

The "Chicago Tribune" gave it a score of 80 and expressed its views on this work in the most vivid way.

Even before "As Good as It Gets" hit theaters, people wondered: Could it have been a success without Hugo? As a screenwriter, does Hugo have the real stuff? Without Hugo's actor appeal, what will be the performance of this work?

Now, after the premiere weekend, the answers are revealed. Although "As Good as It Gets" did not fare well at the box office at the premiere - and this is only a relative term - there is no doubt that Hugo's talent as a screenwriter has been well received. It was unanimously affirmed by everyone, and some people have even started to call Hugo a "screenwriting genius", not only because of the super high efficiency of both works being recognized, but also because of Hugo's academic background, which is different from Hugo's actors and actresses. Singers are all amateurs. In the screenwriting industry, Hugo can be regarded as a half-professional.

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

But everyone knows that the "media comprehensive evaluation" is just a measure. Unless the film can win the Golden Globe or Oscar, relying on the awards to make the investment return, otherwise, the box office is the only criterion for the success of major film companies. Now, the situation is obviously not optimistic for "As Good as It Gets"-a high investment of 50 million US dollars, but only got a box office of 13 million US dollars for the premiere, even if it exceeds the cost line, it is very worrying.

Could it be that Hugo's magic has really disappeared? Could it be that, as a screenwriter, Hugo's name really doesn't work anymore?

What's more, in addition to being "as good as it gets," as the "New York Post" said, the box office of "Titanic" was also a mess. In just one week, the two works selected by Hugo were all the same Encountered Waterloo, does this mean that Hollywood's long-standing "Golden Touch" has finally failed? If this is the case, is this the beginning of the collapse of the embankment of a thousand miles in an ant's nest, and is this a precursor to the collapse of the Hugo dynasty?