On the star.

At the end of the film, many people said they didn't understand it. After reading the online film reviews, there are many similar voices. Some professional film critics even said that the film "just shut the public out".

This makes me a little strange and confused.

Aside from these, I'll talk about my personal views from the film itself.

The cast or something, because I'm just a layman, and I can recognize Stallone at most, so I won't comment. As for the director, the same is true. I know Xiaogang Feng best-of course, he doesn't know me well, only because he was found to be super-living in Wuxi.

From the plot, I think this film is very long, old-fashioned and natural. As all the friends sitting next to me know, all the plots of the movie have not yet appeared, and I have begun to play like a person who has seen it. For example, at the beginning, the protagonist dreamed of a plane crash, and I said that he wanted to regain control of the spaceship. For example, after he worked out the coordinates in his daughter's room, I said it must be a secret aviation base. For example, when he gave his daughter a watch, I said that he would definitely be younger than her when he came back. For example, when he and the female doctor were arguing about which planet to go to, I knew that Dr. Mann's information about habitability was false.

Of course, many people can guess these things, and those who can guess can skip this paragraph. As for those who are still puzzled by my "divine prophecy", I will explain it a little. This is actually a feeling, well, after reading many stories, the plot here will be like this. Because it is difficult to create new plots, many stories are often traceable, which is why online novels such as Wandering, Mercenary World and Blasphemy can be praised as pioneering works. It is not that the writing style, plot and characterization of future generations are inferior to them, but that they have created an idea or plot that they completely believe in, and future generations have not jumped out of this circle for the time being. This may still be a bit illusory, so I will take Dr. Mann as an example. Haha, forgive me for being unprofessional. ), why do I know he is a "bad guy"? In fact, there are traces to follow. Just as conflict is one of the three elements of drama, conflict is naturally a very important or the most important element of film. Unlike Alien, this movie has no alien creatures, so there is no conflict between land creatures and alien creatures. What is the conflict in this movie? The protagonist and his daughter, stay or not? The protagonist and the female doctor, here or there? The protagonist and those who stay on the earth give up development? Or man and the universe, so-called good night and unknown? These are all, these are not. They are indeed conflicts, but they are not the conflicts I want or the conflicts in the eyes of the director. As a film for the public, it can't be like a literary film-even most literary films won't be like this-like a trickle. He needs to cater to the current audience, so he must create a "villain"-of course, this villain is not necessarily a bad guy, so I also put quotation marks on the bad guys before. Just as the world is not only black and white, different ideas can't say who is good or bad. To some extent, Dr. Mann's method is a bit radical, but it is the most reasonable and safest measure. Therefore, this villain is only an image that conflicts with the author's ideas, and this image is necessary and must directly conflict with the protagonist, so that the feelings of the film can erupt through this "point" and it is in line with the public's taste. So when the movie goes to the debate between the protagonist and the female doctor, if you look at the timeline, it is easy to guess that there must be something wrong with this Dr. Mann, and only Dr. Mann was buried in the base, and Dr. Mann's bad appearance and Dr. Mann's robot were destroyed, which shows the director's intention and confirms my guess, and the ending is expected. This may be vague or complicated, but in fact,

I know the answers to these things that only flash in my mind for a second, but I may not be able to perfectly repeat the process of explaining this answer myself, just like Sherlock Holmes first met Watson and explained to him why he knew he was a military doctor who came down from the battlefield in Afghanistan.

This is just an example. The whole story is so old-fashioned and natural that it can't escape the prediction of a willing heart.

Besides, it is very long. This is very simple. Because it is a western film and influenced by western culture, this two-and-a-half-hour film is lengthy and the plot is not compact. If it was shot by China people, I think it is very possible to compress the whole film to one and a half hours regardless of technical funds.

So as far as the plot is concerned, there are no highlights and difficulties in this film. The so-called "don't understand" of others may not be aimed at those clauses that can be ignored without affecting the overall situation.

The spherical movie of wormhole is very clear and concise, and I even want to marvel when the black dress person explains it. First of all, as a liberal arts student, I have no interest in the universe. I only know the concept of wormhole from some online novels, and I know nothing about its shape and function. However, the explanation of the black people in less than a minute can be said to make me a completely "zero contact" person suddenly enlightened.

I think "I don't understand" may be aimed at the paragraph after the protagonist falls into the five-dimensional space. I have to say that that passage is exactly what I think is the essence of the whole movie, but at the same time, it may take too little time to direct this part, so it is difficult for the audience to understand.

But it is necessary. I wonder what the current technology has brought to our cognition. I think it's because the director or screenwriter himself can't fully or completely understand the five dimensions or express them easily, so he can only "vaguely" express his understanding of the five dimensions through the dialogue between the protagonist and the robot in time and space-our argument with them-and his own actions. This will naturally cause the phenomenon of "not understanding" to a certain extent.

In fact, this "understanding" is also the fundamental purpose of my writing this review.

In fact, I have never been interested in the whole movie, but when I came to the concept of "five-dimensional space", I was awake in an instant. Because I know that at this point, I have the same "understanding" as a movie or a screenwriter-I can't say it's right, because it needs factual basis and proof, but neither the director nor the screenwriter can produce any proof, because that's what experts can do.

Everything really comes down to size.

Perhaps speaking of this, many people will subconsciously associate this with western culture, such as Hawking's A Brief History of Time. But as far as I know, the concept of dimension has actually existed in Taoist thought for a long time.

For example, the cognition of "dragon".

Dragon, as an image in China's mythology, has always been regarded by many people as a fiction. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Cao Cao also has a classic description: "The dragon can be big or small, and it can be raised or hidden. When I was big, I would smoke and fog, and when I was young, I would hide. When it rises, it will soar in the universe, and then it will lurk in the waves. " How big or small? Can you go up or down? This is obviously inconsistent with the cognition of the human world. In fact, no one can produce convincing evidence to prove the existence of dragons, so it is considered false. No problem.

However, it all comes down to size. Dragons are high-dimensional "creatures". In our low-dimensional world, or should I say "cognitive low-dimensional world", there are sufficient reasons to prove their existence.

Let me give you a simple example to illustrate. Maybe this can be proved simply.

Just like the relationship between man and shadow, for the time being, man is defined as the existence of a three-dimensional world, and shadow is the projection of this three-dimensional existence of man in a two-dimensional world. It's very simple. Shadows can become bigger and smaller because of light, and they can rise or hide. We can tell whether this is a person or a tree by the shadow. However, it is basically impossible to judge whether this person is male or female, tall or short, fat or thin, tall or short, fat or thin, and how old he is. Not to mention looks and clothes, even people who are located in three dimensions can't judge the existence of three dimensions through this two-dimensional shadow, let alone locate in two dimensions.

Just like this example, "dragon" corresponds to my three-dimensional definition of "human", while we humans are my two-dimensional definition of "creatures". As for "shadow", it is a dragon corresponding to our real world, so we can't really realize the existence of dragons.

Dragon, here's the thing.

The rest is nothing more than this.

It all comes down to size.

Of course, this is just the personal idea of a layman who knows nothing about the universe, and it is not enough to be evidence for everyone to argue about the existence of dragons. There are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand people, and everyone's "cognition" is actually different, which is reasonable and impossible to be extinct.

In fact, there is another thing that touched me in this film, that is, Loneliness of Time, which is also my feeling because of a novel Sin City I was reading recently. However, because the screenwriter or director didn't shoot it in the film.

The point is just to mention it briefly, so I won't go into details. I will instill my own ideas in you, otherwise it will be a big talk again.

Personal thoughts, a smile after dinner.