《聖杯騎士(Knight of Cups)》

"Knight of Cups" Film Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

(畫面影住一個keyboard,非常普通平價嘅無線keyboard,煞有介事咁,以極慢速推近,好似喺成大缸原油喥游水咁嘅速度,一陣黏膩噁心嘅感覺。配樂,音樂我唔懂,隨便啦,想像一曲故作宏大,空洞無物嘅罐頭音樂,聽完即刻就會唔記得嗰種,應該就啱㗎喇。)

哩篇文,根本係唔應該寫出唻嘅,應該要讀,要讀出唻。或者可以借用梁朝偉把聲,偶爾又可以用張國榮把聲,隨意交錯運用,都可以。其實我甚至唔知點解要入場睇哩部戲。幾年前睇過《生命樹》,我已經知道同哩個人係唔夾,唔啱「chan佬」(channel),夾硬唻,都係無好結果嘅。

不過一得閒,身痕,卒之又入咗場睇。

我究竟睇咗乜撚嘢呢?庸俗,虛飾,空洞,無聊… 太文雅都係唔多到肉,不如兩隻字--扮嘢。屌你扮乜撚嘢啫。點包裝都好,根本就無嘢好講,甚至無講過嘢。係,一百一十八分鐘,係無講過嘢。演員不停獨白,講好多嘢,但其實又無講過嘢。

(開始有啲悶,換過個畫面,隨便一個完全唔關事嘅畫面。比如,一個白色,極空曠嘅房,房中間有一個屎塔,馬桶,或者一個尿兜,用無影燈照住,又係煞有介事咁極慢速Zoom埋去。或者用廣角鏡,甚至魚眼鏡,隨便喺公園搵棵樹,低角度影上去,再又係極慢速推上去。)

無論你搵幾多出名嘅演員,用幾有魅力的聲線,無聊嘅說話就係無聊,一句句文藝腔心靈雞湯,頂多就變成一樽樽心靈雞精,甚至只係心靈雞粉、心靈雞汁。不過,其實又唔怪得人拍哩啲雞湯、雞精、雞粉、雞汁嘅。咁有人buy吖嘛。雖然,又唔知其實係咪真心buy,可能只係扮buy。唔係點做文青呀,或者做文中、文老。

係,好似《國王的新衣》咁,你要識做吖嘛,個個都話明,個個都話睇到,個個都話套衫咁靚,咁你睇到又好,睇唔到又好,信人睇到又好,唔信人睇到又好,老虎蟹都要話:「睇到~!梗係睇到啦!邊會睇唔到呀,套衫咁撚靚,貴嘢唻㗎。」唔係點出唻行呀。

不過諗返轉頭,都未必真係「睇唔到」㗎,其實唔係講大話,唔係唔誠實,講得多,講得耐,佢吔可能真係信咗,真係覺得自己睇到㗎,仲睇到件衫好多細節,仲個個睇到唔同嘢添,喺佢腦裡面睇到吖嘛。細路唔係特別誠實,不過佢聽得未夠耐,未洗到腦,未識呃自己。

(再唻換過個畫面,今次去後巷舊書攤,泛黃嘅燈光,影住一枱過期鹹書,再唻用龜速掃過去,一來你掃得又慢,二來後巷啲鹹書無數咁多,總之影極都仲有。)

啫係,你最唔明係啲「懶」宗教意象嗰味嘢係想點。去睇相… 吖,唔係,係咪叫去睇相呢?塔羅牌,應該算係算命先啱。算到咁上下,忽然又有個人,喺處唔知算跳舞,定做咩儀式、祭祀咁樣。除咗扮神秘,真係唔知做乜㞗。總之就係,用獵奇眼光,走入一堆異國情調嘅人喥,好迷幻,好神秘。好無謂。

唔止,仲有佛像添,係更加唔知做乜柒。仲有… 耶教嗰啲已經費事講,成套戲都係,我又唔想默返成套戲出唻。啫係,雖然,都默唔出,又都唔想默得出,我比較想快啲寫完篇文,可以忘記咗套戲。

(不如轉下把聲,無咁悶。女聲,張曼玉如何?順便轉過個畫面,唐樓樓梯吖不如,無人嘅,無旗袍睇,由下面影上去,又係向前推,但慢到永遠都到唔到個轉角位咁慢,慢到你可以數到條水磨石扶手有幾多粒石米。)

其實我覺得,問題已經唔係佢識唔識講個故仔,甚至根本有無故仔,當住係有先都好啦,又或者無咪當睇實驗電影囉。但到底有無任何值得講嘅思想、內容,或者任何新鮮嘅表現方式,令人耳目一新嘅畫面。無,戲裡面係無任何一件、一粒、一丁點元素係有啲哆(唔識寫呀,「dit dur」啦總之。)新意、有啲哆深度。

前蝙蝠人、身邊所有人、佢吔之間嘅關係,真係無一樣唔係公式化到極點,擺返响三色台播,你係會屌到佢反艇嘅--又或者唔會,因為你一早預咗係咁㗎嘛。悶得死人。將哩啲腐臭不堪嘅材料,剪到七零八落,分成一個個章節,配上不知所謂嘅獨白,只係更加顯得造作。

耐唔耐cut過去嗰啲風景相,真係空洞無聊到幾難以置信。諗諗下,我覺得我根本睇咗一百一十八分鐘道地綠茶廣告。唔係話唔靚,都算靚嘅,膠靚囉,好大自然氣息、有空間感,高清,好啱用唻做wallpaper嗰啲囉,裝咗windows就跟埋有幾張俾你揀嗰啲囉。罐頭相。

係呀,我玩咗成篇㗎喇,唔係你以為上面啲括號係做乜㗎。係咪唔知我做乜㞗吖?無錯,套戲就係同樣咁不知所謂,唔知做乜㞗。

不過講返轉頭,係,唔好意思,我上面都有提過,但係結尾想補返講多次。唔知做乜㞗就唔係罪唻嘅,好多實驗電影其實都真係唔知做乜㗎,睇完係一頭霧水,不過做實驗吖嘛,係唔包成功、更唔包係完完整整嘅,最緊要係有新意,真係少少都夠,趣味就喺嗰喥,有時就係嗰少少新嘢就啟發到你睇嘢唔同咗。

哩部就係衰在無,了無新意。

==

簡單評分:

D(☆☆)
(我係想再畀低啲添㗎,但係有Natalie Portman同Teresa Palmer,睇佢兩個行唻行去我都睇得幾開心,反正唔知做乜,當睇寫真DVD囉,佢兩個出場嗰啲部份,每部份有返一粒星咁啦,夾埋就兩粒。)

《薩利機長:迫降奇蹟(Sully)》

"Sully" Film Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

整部戲,僅得兩處不滿:其一是無厘頭醜化國家運輸安全委員會(National Transportation Safety Board,NTSB)為一群愚昧陰險小人,其二是臨近尾聲時Aaron Eckhart那句故作懶風趣的對白(「[若要重做一次在水面降落之舉,]我會選擇在七月做。」)實在惡頂。

抹黑NTSB,總之政府、財團有關人等,全都要打成奸角,以突出主角之英雄正直。如此處理,固非不能理解,但實在是弱智、淺薄、無聊;再細想這部戲真正的衝突所在,更會發覺如此處理根本毫無必要,拙劣的編劇手法,完全反映撰稿者懶惰馬虎。機長「戰勝」偽NTSB的一段幼稚至極,並令整個調查、聽證會過程變得頗為可笑。

本片的重心,其實是機長Sully(Tom Hanks)事後的內心交戰。抽空去看,或許只是PTSD,但在戲內的脈絡,Sully於緊急狀況決定在水面降落,但事後不停回想,會猶豫,會質疑自己,故在腦海中不停模擬各種可能的場面。這既是其「人味」所在,其實亦是其專業所本。NTSB及其調查的角色,其實只需要作為催化劑,只要平實地作調查,已經可以挑起其思緒,根本不需要寫作奸角。

現實中,NTSB事發兩日後查問Sully,從談話撮要可見,NTSB會特意追問的均為程序、系統、訓練問題(從中摘錄幾段):

“When asked about training for ditching, he said they got familiarization with the QRH. He said he thought that was something that was difficult to practice and he did not recall it in simulator.

When asked about guidance for ditching in company manuals, he said there were things in the manuals about that. He said it was a dichotomy between planned and unplanned landings. He said if it was timed and they could prepare, there was guidance. He said notification, prepare the cabin, direction of landing, wind and sea states, airplane configuration, and land near vessels. He said yes, there was guidance in the manuals about that.

When asked if anything from training was helpful in the current situation, he said “absolutely training has helped”. He said he was trained on fundamental values to maintain aircraft control, manage the situation, and land as soon as the situation permits. He said training on CRM, clear definition of duties, and clear communications of plan and to where headed. He also said the basic rules of airmanship and CRM helped. He said what they learned in training and procedures on aircraft from airbus. He said all they learned in some way contributed to this."

(見:National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), “Operations/Human Performance Group Chairmen Interview summaries – Flight crew", p. 13, http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/47000-47499/47230/418999.pdf。)

戲中所描述,想「釘死」Sully的態度實在見不到;而從常理去想,也不會有公務機構會想在那個時候去抹黑Sully,在民眾情緒高漲時跟國民英雄對著幹,簡直是跟自己過不去,哪會有這麼蠢的人?

另一方面,這部戲又是問了一個問題:到底「英雄」這回事有何意義?

Sully問過幾次,他一生人做過很多事,安全接載過無數乘客,為何他一生人的成就被縮小至那208秒的判斷、行動?雖然結果良好,但若然他的判斷原來出錯?就因為那208秒,就抹去他一生人此前所有工作,摧毀他的事業?倒過來看,若然無發生那208秒,他就不過是一個普通的飛機師,一個普通人;而其實,他由始至終都是同一個人。

到某一幕,match cut渡輪駛離碼頭,見到船長即時下令趕赴救人,到後來各方空群出動,每一個參與其事者,都是英雄。然後,同一個問題又冒出來了,若然無發生這次意外?他們又不過是辛勤工作,做份內事的普通人;但其實,由始至終都是同一班人。如此延伸開去,這意味就變了:每一個做份內事,辛勤工作的人,本身就是英雄。

無任何藝術新意可言,老土至極的傳統價值,不過獨行俠確是手段高明,由Sully的個人掙扎,到問「英雄這回事」,這兩部份拍得味道醇厚,好看。

然後,又要倒回去講那偽NTSB。

戲中那群小人,是絕不科學、更不誠實,Sully只是以誠實、科學的態度應對而勝。偽NTSB指示的電腦及真人模擬測試,撞雀後立即折返,完全不考慮機師需要時間判斷狀況、考慮如何應對,方能實際執行計劃,這明顯不合理、不科學;而且真人模擬示範中,事前練習過十數次,才有示範那次成功,在Sully追問後才透露實情,這是不誠實。問題是,如此作假,實在非常小學雞,大概有中學程度思維,已經看得出問題,如此低程度過招,實在當觀眾弱智。

真NTSB的模擬測試,同樣有「撞雀後立即折返」的部份,但且看其文件解釋測試的目的:

“…In these scenarios, the turn towards the airport following the bird strike was immediate in order to determine, from an aerodynamic point of view, whether the airplane had the performance to glide to a runway from the bird strike location. The immediate turn does not reflect or account for real-world considerations such as the time delay required to recognize the bird strike, and decide on a course of action. These factors are considered in Conditions 2.2c and 2.3c by incorporating a 35-second delay prior to the turn towards the airport." (emphasis added)

(見:NTSB, “Simulator Evaluations for US Airways A320 Flight 1549 Accident, Ditching in Hudson River, 1/15/09 (NTSB # DCA09MA026)", p. 3, http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/47000-47499/47230/420152.pdf。)

文件解釋得清楚,「立即折返」只是用作測試飛機的性能,根本不是用來判斷機師行動是否正確的。模擬結果又有否隱瞞呢?為免文章太長,只摘錄模擬「折返機場」場景的部份:

A total of 20 runs were performed in the S22 simulator in which pilots attempted to return to LGA runways 13 or 22, or attempted to land at TEB runway 19. Five of 20 runs (25%) were discarded due to poor data or simulator malfunctions, leaving 15 runs for analysis (6 runs to LGA runway 22, 7 runs to LGA runway 13, and 2 runs to TEB runway 19). Eight of 15 runs (53%) made successful landings. The 8 successful runs were made following an immediate turn to an airport after the bird strike. See Table 1 for details of each run.

Specifically, six runs were made to return to LGA runway 22 immediately following the bird strike. Of those six, two (33%) resulted in a successful runway landing – one using flaps at the pilot’s discretion (condition 2.1a; one additional attempt was unsuccessful) and one using slats only (condition 2.1b; four additional attempts were unsuccessful). Due to inadequate successful landing attempts following an immediate turn after the bird strike, attempts to land at LGA runway 22 after a 35 second delay (condition 2.1c) were not performed.

Additionally, pilots attempted to land at LGA on runway 13. All four pilots successfully landed (100%) on LGA runway 13 following an immediate left turn to the airport following the bird strike (condition 2.2a). Two runs were attempted in which the pilot was required to use slats only on landing on runway 13 (condition 2.2b). One landing (50%) was successful and one landing was not successful, requiring the pilot to ditch in the waters adjacent to LGA. The one attempt to return to LGA runway 13 following a 35 second delay (condition 2.2c) was not successful. No additional attempts were made to return to LGA runway 13.

Finally, two runs were attempted to determine the ability of the airplane to land at TEB runway 19 immediately after the bird strike. In both runs, pilots were able to use flaps at their discretion (condition 2.3a). One attempt (50%) was successful and one attempt was unsuccessful. Due to inadequate successful landing attempts following an immediate turn, conditions 2.3b and 2.3c were not attempted." (emphasis added)

(見:NTSB, “Simulator Evaluations for US Airways A320 Flight 1549 Accident, Ditching in Hudson River, 1/15/09 (NTSB # DCA09MA026)", pp. 6-7。)

主持聽證會的Robert L. Sumwalt,非但無在會上質疑Sully,反而… 我本來想講「去片」,但錄影實在太長,不如讀謄本快捷,就來看他如何問Sully(摘錄):

“CHAIRMAN SUMWALT: This event turned out differently than a lot of the situations the Board looks at. Tell me, in your mind, what made the critical difference in this event? How did this event turn out so well compared to, perhaps, other events that we see at the Safety Board?"(p. 46, lines 17-21)

“CHAIRMAN SUMWALT: You testified to Congress — you and I testified on the same day back in February, and you mentioned that the airline piloting profession faces some challenges. I want to make sure — unfortunately, we, at the Board, we see events that don’t have, oftentimes, good outcomes, so what can we extract from your mindset, from the things you’ve learned, to basically hand over to others in your profession?"(pp. 47-48, lines 21-25 & 1-2)

“CHAIRMAN SUMWALT: Thank you. In looking at the CVR transcript and listening, actually, to the CVR, I noticed that you immediately, after both engines were lost, you immediately turned on the ignition; you fairly much immediately started the APU and then commanded for the loss of both engines checklist. Oftentimes — and we may even get some testimony on this later this morning or later today — oftentimes, when somebody is faced with an unusual or surprising situation, there’s a choke factor, there’s a startle response. You did not seem to exhibit that startle response. It was like you knew, you were prepared for this, you knew immediately what to do. What do you attribute that to?"(pp. 49-50, lines 18-25 & 1-4)

“CHAIRMAN SUMWALT: And I think that is so important. I’m trying to get an idea of what your mindset is and how you were there. I can contrast you to a crew that we looked at recently that I mentioned the captain said he was ambivalent. They had an engine fire 800 feet AGL and it took about three and a half minutes before they completed the checklist, which should be a memory item, should be done immediately. So I want to be able to bottle your mindset and be able to make sure that everybody is drinking from that same bottle.

As far as the CRM, and the Threat and Error Management is concerned, what can we learn from your lessons regarding — from CRM and Threat and Error Management?"(p. 50, lines 12-23)

(見:NTSB, “Transcript – Public Hearing Day 1 (06/09/09)", http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/47000-47499/47230/422295.pdf。)

我相信不用多解釋了。

戲劇,當然不是紀錄片,但問題是扭曲的程度、方向:一、是否合理;二、是否需要。今次似乎兩者皆否。

==

簡單評分:

B- -(☆☆☆)/A-(☆☆☆☆★)
(Tom Hanks的部份實在精彩,無論如何扣分,亦有前項分數;而盡量壓下我對上述長篇大論部份的不滿,則或許亦值得後項分數。)

==

一時興起,讀文件癮發作,且引Sully兩段說話作結:

“CAPT. SULLENBERGER: Well, if you think I wasn’t startled, you misunderstand. But I think both Jeff Skiles and I have done this long enough and trained long enough to have internalized the values of our profession and to have learned what needs to be done, and so we quickly acknowledged our bodies’ innate physiological reactions, set it aside and began to work on the task at hand."

(見:NTSB, “Transcript – Public Hearing Day 1 (06/09/09)", p. 50, lines 5-11。)

“Captain Sullenberger said he “could not be more happy and pleased and gratified that we got 155 people off the airplane and it was due to the professionalism of my crew; Jeff, Donna, Sheila, and Doreen”."

(見:NTSB, “Operations/Human Performance Group Chairmen Interview summaries – Flight crew", p. 21。)

《走音歌后(Florence Foster Jenkins)》

"Florence Foster Jenkins" Film Poster
(from Wikipedia;Fair Use/Fair Dealing)

先旨聲明,我向來不喜歡看梅姨。不止「唔係fans」的程度,係達到「不喜歡」的程度,總之就是不合口味,是以本文實在先天有極大偏見,講清講楚,讀者也好自行斟酌。(此等頭盔聲明經常出沒,遲早要想個方法統一處理,每次寫一句實也太煩。這句是寫來提自己的。)

本片取材自真人真事(Florence Foster Jenkins),戲中的荒謬事大多(應該)有所本,卻不是傳記電影那種風格,乃偏向戲劇化的處理:將伴奏琴手描繪成丑角,「怪事」又多由其觀點逐步揭開。設定上,就是一個局外人走進Jenkins身處的虛幻世界;問題是,拍出來的風格完全錯置,簡直一塌糊塗。(其實,看海報已經明白出事之處;又,上一句已揭了底牌。)

Jenkins五音不全,品味庸俗,但家財萬貫,名流、音樂圈中人樂於作其傍友,遂能活在謊言堆砌成的虛幻世界中。到此處,讀者腦中或許已浮現出一幅幅荒謬可笑的畫面,而我則可以保證,你想像的畫面八成不會在戲中出現。這正是本片最失敗之處,Jenkins的世界太正常了,甚至其身邊人都太正常;或許不是街上的一般人,但離怪誕甚遠。(最最奇怪的一幕,只是在浴缸放滿薯仔沙律… 一來不甚震撼,二來此類畫面在片中僅得一處,沒有跟進配合,拍不出氣氛,反為格格不入。)

究竟出於何等原因不好說,但作者似乎拿不定主意要如何講Jenkins這個人。既不願將其拍成被取笑揶揄的對象(琴手反遭醜化為丑角。),但又看不清、看不穿這個人,又或者講不出這個人有何獨特、深刻、值得講之處。結果,大部份時候就只是見其幼稚、單純、不知世事,梅姨的演出更坐實了這觀感,似乎Jenkins小時在白宮演奏後就沒長大過,小女孩的心靈困在衰老的軀體;但有時又現出純粹中老年樣,甚至流露出一股怨婦味,兩種印象不能調和,不湯不水。

Hugh Grant的角色同樣受困於這不湯不水的處理:一時又似是從Jenkins身上撈油水,與情婦倒是生活美滿;一時(忽然)又情深款款,處處保護Jenkins… 片中前大半段用盡每個小節刻劃其撈油水、佔便宜的一面,後段忽然深情,實在虛浮得很,令人難以接受。人當然會有不同面貌,但戲中拍得淺薄,沒有各種面貌交纏的感覺,就流於空洞。

空洞的角色,又不止兩三個主角,配角也處理不佳。其中一小段,煞有介事的安排一個二撇雞輕浮男出場,似是Hugh Grant及情婦之友人,講要安排他「欣賞」梅姨之演出,花了好些時間和鏡頭,但最終就只是見他在席上忍笑… 其後,完全無下文。浪費時間引入這角色,到底有個屁用?隨便一個沒名沒姓沒背景的觀眾,都能擔當此任…

上述講法有點空泛,但讀者或可看另一部戲作比較--《金曲金后(Marguerite)》,今年四月在香港有上映過的。該片亦是受Jenkins的事跡啟發,但避過了真人真事的麻煩,只取其重點,改編成虛構故事。(話說回來,可能正是珠玉在前,我對梅姨這部走汽汽水更無好感。)

《金后》人物、畫面、情節,均極盡荒誕,幽默諷刺,尤其一眾配角色彩分明,風格上已經遠勝本片,但更重要是能在人物中抽出一條線索,觀眾方能與Marguerite這個人有共鳴。(不理解,何能共鳴?)這線索,倒不似是Jenkins本身所有,或許這也是虛構勝於現實之處,有時真人難以理出頭緒;但觀眾當然只是看戲,一個理路分明深刻的角色,效果遠勝面目模糊淺薄者,就是如此簡單。

==

簡單評分:

C(☆☆☆)

《屍殺列車(부산행)[Train to Busan]》

《屍殺列車》電影海報
(來源:維基百科;公平使用/公平處理)

我誤判,我愧疚。上週睇完超.好睇的《真.哥斯拉》,激動非常,荷爾蒙上腦,「大腦有超過50%Ram係處於癱瘓狀態」,寫了幾千字無謂文章,竟錯過了機會講同一週上映的《屍殺列車》。影評盛讚,眾口交譽,不少人謂「必看」;但余以為只屬一般,可以一看,實是過譽。

到選舉過後,見當區左膠老千高票穩勝,方赫然發現我錯過了一重要現象。不妨講明白一點,在下屬九龍西,票投本區最高質數候選人--十三號游蕙禎(現時為當選人,候任議員。),等開票結果時實在一額汗。反省為何小麗老母能得高票,便醒悟對《屍殺列車》的觀感落差,正好能解釋其中一項因素,乃為此文。

(當然,長期兜售退保迷債、在社區蒲頭等亦是原因,本文只欲解釋另外某一點。)

先講正題,部戲。

以喪屍片種而言,實在無任何突破之處。戲中喪屍只是普通滅世災難,也只是追趕主角四處走的怪物;而喪屍有夜盲症的設定,甚至不如《殭屍先生》謂殭屍靠人鼻息追蹤有趣。

不過平心而論,在第一部火車(約佔本片八成時間?)的困獸鬥是拍得不錯,雖未能突破類型(故非精彩、必看),但在類型之中亦屬出色。利用火車的特性,營造橫向卷軸式遊戲的環境,一節節車廂變成一個個關卡,頗為有趣;在停站後再開車的一段,要穿越車卡救人,正能發揮此環境優勢。

不過,在停站那一段,其實已露了底牌,只是用人力堆砌出場面,空有動作刺激,欠缺內涵,畫面既沉悶,亦無實質的故事。只是知道多一個城市/市鎮淪陷,但無任何新資訊,總之繼續被追趕,主角又繼續逃走。到喪屍迫爆玻璃的一幕,其實已頗為無聊復可笑。

中年壯男及其大肚老婆兩人,可為唯二成功角色,討好而有點人味;其餘眾人皆如樣板,不值一提。壯男奮勇救人之後,按照公式,此配角必然要捨身成仁,尤其老婆大肚這一點,早就插上了死亡flag。後來,果然如此,但也不算缺失,起碼死得型,只是走不出公式而已。

到主角群捱過危險,穿過賤人車卡,其實已適宜畫下句點。到老年姊妹決定開門(那一個鏡頭扮有感情,但其實整部戲幾乎全無刻畫,只靠當時幾句獨白,實在廉價淺薄。),賤人全體(看似)自食其果,已經走到本片頂峰。若果,到那個時候就完場,只見主角群繼續「釡山行」,邁向未知的世界,則尚算不俗;偏偏,作者又不甘於留條尾,想埋尾,這就出事。

要換車,其實已經無謂,但明顯只是為推進劇情而設置,姑且暫時接受,就看你有何板斧。結果,只是無謂地繼續死人… 貌似流浪漢者死,算,起碼死得其所,由怕事逃走變成捨身救人。但那兩個學生呢?除了灑狗血,擠眼淚,簡直毫無意義。車長亦然,根本是無謂,整部戲他都幾乎置身事外,其實貫徹下去就好。

賤人中老年男呢?整部戲都見其討厭,再來害多幾個人有何意思?困在廁格,進退兩難,等死,本已是最理想結局;偏偏想扭橋,又安排他推人送死,也勉強忍了,但亦是時候收手。再不停寫下去,根本是狗尾續貂,死拖。到最後是要有何效果呢?原來不過是再整死主角… 又是廉價的擠眼淚技倆,實在低手。

到最尾最尾,若然夠膽開那兩鎗,我倒還敬重作者殺人不眨眼,也算小有突破,結果卻是安然渡過,濫情庸俗之至。

不少人盛讚之處,正是本片最大缺憾。中性講,是口味問題;傲慢講,是品味問題。濫情庸俗爛片,香港人非常受落,這就是現實。為何左膠老千會高票,為何CCTVB爛劇仍然有人睇,歸根究底是同一個問題。且容我提一提讀者,2015年最高票房港產片,正是濫情膠片《五個小孩的校長》。我再重複一次:這種貨色,香港人最受落。

現實就是,你有如此一堆觀眾,實在無太多條路可揀:其一,投其所好,就用如此包裝,但搞衰自己,一來自己難過,二來原本觀眾亦會離棄;其二,深耕細作,潛而默化,提升觀眾品味,此為正途,不過當然難行;其三,拍出破格之作,雅俗共賞,通殺各類觀眾,這條路最難,我亦無答案可供參考。

現實,就是你,在玻璃門外,擠幾滴廉價,眼淚,就有觀眾;
現實,就是幾個字,一個抖氣位,你的書就賣得,兼當票王;
現實,就是屌鳩選民,不會增添,選票。
如此,而已。

==

簡單評分:

C+(☆☆☆★)