我很在乎

这个片子讲了个什么故事呢？我给你们举个例子吧！ 某天你突然说阿里巴巴是你创建的，声称是马云夺走了你的财产。 没有任何资质，任何证明，任何证人，马云甚至没收到传票的情况下，法院就把阿里巴巴判给了你。 马云上门来找你，扇了你一耳光，你把监控发出去，说他是神经病。 于是精神病院的人来了，也不做鉴定，也不做评估，直接就把马云送进了精神病院。 建林听到这个消息后不爽了，气的不行，准备来收拾你。 你被建林逮到还拽的不行，说不给你一千万，就不放马云。 建林脑子气坏了，甚至都忘了随便找个心理评估师就能去精神病院把人带出来。 就在建林把你丢进万达浇筑好的地基里时，你突然爆发了绿巨人的力量，一脚踹碎地基冲了出来。 然后你还不想着跑。 你想着的是报仇。 怎么报仇？ 先染个头发登记都不带登记的，就大摇大摆的走进WD总部。 然后再用出无数公司商业间谍都没有的算命大法，准确算出建林的位置。 恰好建林的保镖还都瞎了，于是你拿着根破电棍，一把破麻醉针突破了保镖重围制服了建林。 然后在众目睽睽之下，从WD总部带走了建林，丝毫不在乎那些醒来的保镖会不会来追杀你。 这是一波什么操作？约翰威克看了都紧皱眉头的操作。 不知道过去了多久，建林从医院里醒来。 你坐在床边，一脸得意的告诉建林。 我已经把你带到了老挝，你是没有身份的无业游民，你的WD得被判给我了。 建林慌了，完全忘记了一开始他帮马云伪造的身份。 甚至都忘记了，自己还有手下还有思聪。 慌张的建林，要求和你合作。 你们一起创建了商业帝国。 这个片子说明了什么？ 编剧不会写装逼的剧情，就不要写，不然到时候只剩下了尬逼，还是老尬逼。

开始的剧情倒还是很不错的，女主的可恶让人恨得牙痒痒，然后就特别希望黑帮儿子能好好惩罚这个女主，结果呢？看到黑帮杀不死女主和女主女朋友，然后反杀黑帮老大，我就直接不看了！太特么的浪费时间，太特么的搞笑了，跟个喜剧片一样，关键还不是那种真的喜剧片，看得窝火，烂片烂片烂片！谁特么看谁后悔！

以下文字转发自网友“ 青山精神病院首席院长 ”的B站评理

这个片子讲了个什么故事呢？我给你们举个例子吧！ 某天你突然说阿里巴巴是你创建的，声称是马云夺走了你的财产。 没有任何资质，任何证明，任何证人，马云甚至没收到传票的情况下，法院就把阿里巴巴判给了你。 马云上门来找你，扇了你一耳光，你把监控发出去，说他是神经病。 于是精神病院的人来了，也不做鉴定，也不做评估，直接就把马云送进了精神病院。 建林听到这个消息后不爽了，气的不行，准备来收拾你。 你被建林逮到还拽的不行，说不给你一千万，就不放马云。 建林脑子气坏了，甚至都忘了随便找个心理评估师就能去精神病院把人带出来。 就在建林把你丢进万达浇筑好的地基里时，你突然爆发了绿巨人的力量，一脚踹碎地基冲了出来。 然后你还不想着跑。 你想着的是报仇。 怎么报仇？ 先染个头发登记都不带登记的，就大摇大摆的走进WD总部。 然后再用出无数公司商业间谍都没有的算命大法，准确算出建林的位置。 恰好建林的保镖还都瞎了，于是你拿着根破电棍，一把破麻醉针突破了保镖重围制服了建林。 然后在众目睽睽之下，从WD总部带走了建林，丝毫不在乎那些醒来的保镖会不会来追杀你。 这是一波什么操作？约翰威克看了都紧皱眉头的操作。 不知道过去了多久，建林从医院里醒来。 你坐在床边，一脸得意的告诉建林。 我已经把你带到了老挝，你是没有身份的无业游民，你的WD得被判给我了。 建林慌了，完全忘记了一开始他帮马云伪造的身份。 甚至都忘记了，自己还有手下还有思聪。 慌张的建林，要求和你合作。 你们一起创建了商业帝国。 这个片子说明了什么？ 编剧不会写装逼的剧情，就不要写，不然到时候只剩下了尬逼，还是老尬逼。

观众对《我很在乎》的失望，大多来自对影片阵容的判断失误。

大众是冲着裴淳华去的，因为《消失的爱人》实在太深入人心。

裴淳华塑造的Amy，那一双勾魂摄魄又惊悚恐怖的眼睛，就问你敢不敢多看一眼。

《消失的爱人》剧照

《我很在乎》的剧情基本等同于Amy重出江湖。对热爱腹黑大女主剧情的观众来说，这是多么振奋人心的消息！ 我们忘记了《消失的爱人》和《我很在乎》最大的区别是：

《消失的爱人》是大卫芬奇作品，《我很在乎》不是。

《我很在乎》的编剧和导演来自一个名不见经传的英国作者J Blakeson。

J Blakeson

他自2005年出道，自编自导的第一部作品叫Pitch Perfect，翻译过来可以叫《完美推销》，是个短片；2009年时，他又自编自导了一部短片作品叫The Appointment（翻译过来可以叫《预约》）。 他的第一部自编自导的长片作品叫《爱丽丝的失踪》，是个黑色电影。豆瓣评分7.0，烂番茄的专家评分81，Metacritic评分65。从这些权威平台的评分来看，应该不是雷片，但什么水花都没有，这才是最愁人的。

至少在中国，雷都可以有出路，但平庸就真的没救了。

《我很在乎》是J Blakeson第一部自编自导且自己当制片人的作品。裴淳华是他手里唯一的一张王牌。 打过牌的都知道，一开始就出王牌的，要么是手肥到没小牌可打，要么就是虚张声势，其实家里一堆烂牌打出不去。

《我很在乎》的牌面就是后者。

它最大的问题出在故事趣味上——暴力的形式花样繁多，但动机和价值导向都有点跑偏，最终主流价值观挨不上，黑色喜剧又不到位，两头不讨好。

女主角Marla人设的低共鸣

戏剧中的性别顾虑是存在的。一个人物，选择让TA呈现为男性，还是女性，都有潜规则可循。在Me Too浪潮、大女主设定的流行趋势之下，女性被认为是比男性更适合重整家庭秩序和伦理秩序的性别。

但是Marla既没有家庭，也没有伦理。

她在搞事业。

她要赚钱，要养小女朋友，要跟男人正面刚。

这就……有点不务正业了。

她搞的这项事业是什么？文雅一点叫社会清道夫，通俗一点就是啃老狂魔。

她在养老的行业道路上走出了歪门邪道，将素不相识的老人的财产据为己有，美其名曰法定监护人。她最常去的几个社会场所分别是医院、法院和养老院，豢养出犯罪一条龙，只手遮天。

Marla从事这个事业，在伦理层面上，几乎没有任何可追溯的动机。 她为什么要这么做？从文本里我们看不到她背叛传统家庭伦理秩序的理由。 这就让她的共情性又薄了一层。

女性观众的普遍认同的女性角色有两种：

要么是刀子嘴豆腐心，虽然辣手摧花，但往往心有柔软，愿意为老弱病小让步和牺牲； 要么就是傻白甜加小幸运，主角光环一路照耀着她走向人生巅峰，最后打败邪恶，达成恋爱，修成正果。

Marla两者都不是。

她太悍，悍到与所有女性默认的伦理价值为敌。这个叛逆所换来的洒脱，在性别上却是孤立无援的。

黑色喜剧跟女性诉求混搭失败

这个片子的喜剧点大概都被黑帮小老大Roman承包了。他的一举一动都在强烈表达“我知道不可能但只能硬演”的无奈情绪。看完全片我也没有明白为什么这个人物要设定为一个侏儒。

这根本不是一部黑色喜剧片，这只是一部既有点黑色又有点喜剧的片子。

其中Marla负责黑色的部分：一个道貌岸然的女慈善家最后死在羔羊的枪下，功败垂成； Roman负责喜剧的部分：一个谜之自信的黑社会前成员被一个业余的反社会女性玩得差点命都没了。

同样我也不明白Marla这个人物被设定为女性的理由。

Marla所做的事情跟女性诉求毫不相关。

女性呼唤的平等待遇，无论是社会分工还是情感意识的被认同，在Marla这里统统不重要。

Marla像是一个披着女人皮的男人。

她的身上没有丝毫女性质地的东西，从内到外，全是阳性的。

Marla要的始终是钱，但钱的伦理符号是权力和责任。它是非常典型的男性目标。有了钱才能养得起家，才能爱得起人，才能做想做的事。这是男人每天在YY的事情。

女性的价值排序中长年名列第一的是一个叫做安全感的东西。安全感对女人来说有多重要，不言自明。Marla需要安全感吗？她根本没有脆弱的时候。 另外，女性做不了世界的霸主，最大软肋是情绪。古往今来的叙事作品都在告诉我们：女性不是没有武力值，她们往往都是被自己的情绪打败的。

不能说观众期待，但观众默认的叙事原则中，包含着对女性情绪的体验诉求。 我们想看到女性在现象面前的精神纠结，感受细腻而丰富的意识形态流动。我们希望知道女性在想什么，哪怕是自相矛盾的意识，也是有趣的。我们想探知女性这种生物从皮囊到心灵之间密密缝缝的思绪的层次，那是比烟花还要绚烂的美景。

而Marla没有这些女性思维的层次。她凌厉无比，直截了当。从女性的角度来说，她其实是单薄的。

归根到底还是人设的问题。大女主的黑色喜剧，不好做。不是简单的元素的拼接就可以完成的。

情节漏洞多到可以下海捕鱼

Marla跟Roman的过招跟儿戏没有两样。观众用脚趾头都能想出一万种方法把Marla处理得渣都不剩，但Marla硬是凭主角光环一路顺风顺水，还获得了黑社会前正式成员的青睐。

一个被打得满地找牙的男人，最后跟暴揍他的女人说：我看好你，咱们联手吧。

这个逻辑，古今中外，没见过。性别游戏从来就不是这么玩的。

况且，Marla的战斗值始终是个谜。

从Marla的结局来看，她死得不是一般的草率。一颗子弹就能让她展现血染的风采，可见也不是什么金刚不坏之身。

所以杀她有何难？Roman怎么就做不到呢？

说到Roman这个小老大，真的是无愧于全片的笑点担当。

他全程龟缩在SUV里不敢露面，演绎黑社会是如何维持神秘感的。人手也少得可怜，接老妈的司机跟救老妈的打手，居然用同一个人。至于他自己，目测也是手无缚鸡之力，所以在家练瑜伽是要表达什么？（用力收住刻薄话~）

作为一个混过黑社会的人，在那么等级森严的环境里待过，竟然允许下面的人居高临下地跟他对话，他还得抬着眼睛训斥比他高好几个身子的下属，这个秩序感，简直乱成一锅粥。

当然，最大的雷还是在于一票人一事无成，还干不过一个死了老妈的无名氏。 瞧人家结尾那一枪，多准多干脆。

Roman的妈Jennifer，跟她儿一样，

全程除了被Marla玩得像陀螺一样转之外，只会摆出一副胸有成竹的表情，

然后该送养老院送养老院，该送精神病院送精神病院。该吃的亏一样没少吃。

就是这么个谜之自信的老太太，前史被吹得天花乱坠，什么金融高手、身份成谜，但似乎并没有给Marla的狩猎造成任何麻烦。

都是虚张声势而已。

除此之外，长得一表人才，但是专业技能一般般的律师；

人高马大但是一秒就被电晕的保镖；

还有怒闯养老院救人结果全军覆没的小混混们，

一个个出场都气场两米八，过了两招发现不过都是花拳绣腿的角色。

法庭上力量悬殊的对决蔓延到生活中，就是Marla一派全都开了挂一样的强，小女友被煤气毒死大半天了，还能复活。

就问你服不服。

讲故事，都涉及到欲望的表达。

以《我很在乎》为例：到底是要钻石，还是救老妈，本来是个可发展的欲望挑战。

钱财还是人情，二选一，天然的博弈局。

鱼与熊掌不可兼得，把霸道总裁Roman丢进这个局，看他百爪挠心，求而不得，很有滋味。

但故事偏偏把这个层次撤销了，把两个价值融为一个价值，变成“我都想要，我都不给”的简单局。

钻石和老妈作为重要的叙事符号，本应该分开呈现，结果被揉成了一团，变成了一个模糊的欲望对象，就是幼稚的“属于我的”。这就跟幼儿园小朋友抢东西的思维逻辑差不多了，何谈人性困境？

其实蛮可惜。

最后是复仇叙事的问题。

一般来说，人物复仇有一个非常重要隐因，就是道德偏差。因为道德偏差而自然夸大自己受的冤屈和对方造成的伤害，因此才能理直气壮地付诸暴力，一定要以牙还牙，以眼还眼。

这个道德偏差，一定是跟人情世故挂钩的。

偏偏《我很在乎》是一个没有烟火气的故事：Marla把老无所依的老人们的照片挂了满满一墙，像野蛮的猎人炫耀他射杀的动物头颅一样，原始而冷酷，反社会到变态；Roman抱着莫名其妙的孝心，笨拙地追杀一个旁门左道人士，一路上洋相出尽不说，一抹脸，是个更甚的贪婪小人。自负而麻木，屈辱而不自知。

这两个人，谁都不会发生道德偏差，因为他们双双越过道德的边界太远了。

观众不是不喜欢看狗咬狗的戏码，但看戏的乐趣除了感官刺激，还有一个归属感需求。演员在台前卖力表演，观众在台下是要论断是非的。 两个人的冲突如果不涉及道德判断，观众就无从站队。 《我很在乎》的冷清就在于道德意识的淡泊和迟钝。 剧中人物既没有道德，也不谈道德。剧情发展也毫无禁忌，充分放飞道德底线。这让复仇如何名正言顺，这让复仇如何大快人心。 当观众的志趣和同理心无处寄放，回馈的也自然只有不近人情的差评了。

The End

就挺无语的，竟然和黑帮共情了，人家生活的挺好被主角搞得乱七八糟，然后黑帮老大都杀不死主角最后被一个普通人开枪杀死了……

还有那包钻石，一颗20万美金，看着也就十几颗的样子，女主拿这个要挟1000万美金？？？会觉得很离谱。

前面还挺好看，看到后面只希望黑帮尽快杀掉女主救出老太太了……

【首发于公众号 写作疑难杂症诊疗室】

I Care A Lot 一句话影评： The storytelling is so good, acting so good, until you realize the story is so … 三观不正 😤

If you are intrigued by Rosamond Pike’s unfeeling, first-rate psychopathic smart bitch in Gone Girl, then you will watch I Care a Lot as soon as you have the chance. Well, that’s what I did. And it was the first movie I watched in 2023 — by Jove, how it angered me.

Two minutes into the movie, it is living up to the poster’s promise of badass-ness. Pike plays Marla Grayson, who does the voice-over in the opening monologue synopsizing her worldview: this is a world of either winners or losers, predators or prey, lions or lambs. Black or white, no middle ground. An all too familiar worldview to the point of hackneyed, but Pike’s delivery, her cadence, is top-notch. In this strictly dichotomous world, Marla declares:

“I am not a lamb. I am a fucking lioness.”

Suspense is a foundational trick to hold the audience’s attention. The opening scene does this by the discord between what you see on the screen and what you hear. You hear Marla briefing you on her Ayn Randian philosophy (which has a lot of avid supporters in the far right, something to keep in mind when thinking about why the movie is terrible), but you see images of an orderly care facility where the staff seem attentive to the elderly, and then a disheveled, chubby man trying to break into the facility, only to be quickly seized by some brawny guards.

If you are minimally familiar with the science of storytelling, you know that suspense helps to release dopamine, the so-called happiness hormone. When you anticipate a reward, in the case of storytelling, when you expect that everything will be accounted for by the end of the movie, your brain produces dopamine. This opening scene is your first shot of dopamine.

The next scene quickly explains what is going on. We are now in a courtroom. Turns out, the mother of the disheveled man, Feldstrom, is in the care facility, to which he is denied access. The court appoints Marla as his mother’s guardian, giving her license to deny Feldstrom visits to his own mother. Marla is also entitled to sell the mother’s house, car, valuable belongings and then use the money to pay herself for her service as the court-appointed guardian.

If this sounds crooked, it is. Feldstrom adds that Marla is a total stranger both to him and his mother, and his mother has explicitly said that she doesn’t want to be put in a care facility.

Just when you think Marla is the bad guy in the story, here comes the twist.

Marla defends herself, first by portraying the son as irresponsible: “Your mother couldn’t cope on her own. A doctor diagnosed her with dementia, Mr Feldstrom, and wrote an affidavit recommending immediate action be take for her safety. You have amply opportunity to move your mother into a care facility or into your home. You did neither.” When parents abuse or for whatever reason can’t take proper care of their children, we think it reasonable for the government and the judicial system to step in. The same goes to elderly who aren’t properly cared for. So far so good, Marla seems reasonable.

When Feldstrom objects to Marla’s accusation by saying that her mother begged not to be taken to a care facility, Marla makes a clever distinction: “You can’t care for her by doing what she wants. You have to do what she needs. And that is why I can care better than a family member because I have no skin in the game. … yes, I oversaw the sale of some of her assets to finance [her bills in the care facility], and yes, I pay myself, too, because caring, sir, is my job. … All-day, every day, I care.”

You have to admire the concision in her speech, her dazzling use of differentiation, addressing counterargument, and appealing to ethos. And it makes sense. Kids surely want all the sugar they can get and more. But that’s not what they need. The same logic applies to those with dementia. Marla becomes less the greedy predator preying on the vulnerable, and more the strong-willed businesswoman who does what might seem ruthless but necessary.

She continues: “I care for those who are in need of protection. Protection from apathy, protection from their own pride, and quite often, protection from their own children. … offspring, who are willing to let their parents starve in squalor and struggle with pain rather than dip into what they see as their inheritance to pay for the necessary care.” By this point, we begin to suspect that Feldstrom is actually the greedy one.

At the same time, Marla’s argumentation is so tactical, the intonation so calculated, that it just lacks authenticity. You can’t be entirely sure: is Marla a good guy, or a bad guy? There, uncertainty over the main character — you have your second shot of dopamine. With questions like this, we keep watching.

Mind you, this is only less than seven minutes into the movie, and Feldstrom has gone from being the bad guy to the not so bad guy and then again the bad (in the sense of incompetent) guy, and the ruthless Marla with her problematic worldview becomes a respectable professional.

这么紧凑的人物翻转制造了「爽剧」的效果。不得不佩服好莱坞故事产业的成熟。

The next scene, we see Marla Grayson walking down the stairs outside the courthouse, with full-on badassery. Feldstrom comes after her. He is wearing a red cap again. Looks like he can be a Trump supporter. And he’s calling her “bitch.” He’s in a rage. Words are flushing out of his mouth: “I hope you get raped, and I hope you get murdered, and I hope you get killed!” And he spits on her face. His vulgarity is complete. But his anger also makes you think that he’s truly the victim. Feldstrom is surely an uncivilized, undereducated person for losing his cool like that, but … it could be you — you may have said something similar on social media, in response to some monster doing something flagrantly dehumanizing… Again, you are not sure whether Marla is the good guy or bad guy, and therefore you are not sure if Feldstrom’s outburst is justified.

And here comes the problematic part. Marla takes off her sunglasses and looks ferociously into Feldstrom’s eyes: “Does it sting more because I’m a woman? That you got so soundly beaten in there by someone with a vagina? Having a penis doesn’t automatically make you more scary to me, just the opposite. You may be a man, but if you ever threaten, touch or spit on me again… I will grab your dick and balls and I will rip them clean off, you understand? I’ll tell your mom you send your best.”

This is a calculated move to make the female audience feel so good, no? You had been belittled at least once, so indelibly, just because you are a girl/woman, and this is exactly what you wanted to say to the offender had you had the guts (which you didn’t). So hearing Marla say that so collectedly just makes you feel wonderful. If you feel that way, that’s due to something called mirror neurons, “brain cells that fire not only when we perform an action but when we observe someone else perform the same action.” 看节目主持人在享受美食的时候，自己也馋了，即使你的理性告诉你那不是真正的食物，而是像素构成的幻影。

But how are men reacting to the scene? Could be something totally different. It could frighten the male audience. When you feel threatened and stressed out, you also become more focused. Scientists have long discovered that even when we don’t face a direct physical threat, as long as we begin to imagine those threats, we get stressed out, and thus more focused. You can identify with Feldstrom and feel intimidated by Marla. Or you can feel frightened for Marla in anticipation of Feldstrom’s fightback.

Or, it can be that the masculine part of you feels threatened, and the feminine part of you feels elated. If you can simultaneously feel these two things, oh boy, you are getting the optimal experience. Cortisol is the attention hormone, and oxytocin the bonding hormone. Cortisol combined with oxytocin can give you the experience of transportation (“transport” in the sense of being overwhelmed “with a strong emotion, especially joy”).

The second time watching this scene, though, I just rolled my eyes at Marla, because in the next eighteen minutes, the good-guy-bad-guy suspense is completely resolved. The next eighteen minutes show you how Marla capitalizes on the loopholes in the medical and legal system, how she takes advantage of the human weakness of automatically following orders and trusting authority figures, how she preys on those with insufficient legal resources, and what she claims as “care” is actually just grift.

As in Gone Girl, Pike once again plays the female villain character in I Care A Lot. Only this time, her character Marla is a lesbian, which frees her from the obligation of playing along with the modern, enlightened men’s fantasy about modern, enlightened women. Marla can express her contempt for men explicitly, whereas in Gone Girl the Cool Girl Amy has to convey her contempt through elaborate schemes.

It is really worth the while to revisit the famed Cool Girl passage in Gone Girl, for those too young to have watched or heard of the film:

That night at the Brooklyn party, I was playing the girl who was in style, the girl a man like Nick wants: the Cool Girl. Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl. Men actually think this girl exists. Maybe they’re fooled because so many women are willing to pretend to be this girl...Oh, and if you’re not a Cool Girl, I beg you not to believe that your man doesn’t want the Cool Girl. It may be a slightly different version—maybe he’s vegetarian, so Cool Girl loves seitan and is great with dogs; or maybe he’s a hipster artist, so Cool Girl is a tattooed, bespectacled nerd who loves comics. There are variations to the window dressing, but believe me, he wants Cool Girl, who is basically the girl who likes every f***ing thing he likes and doesn’t ever complain. (How do you know you’re not Cool Girl? Because he says things like “I like strong women.” If he says that to you, he will at some point f*** someone else. Because “I like strong women” is code for “I hate strong women.”

Gone Girl is invested in the plight of contemporary women, while I Care A Lot is not — the pseudo-feminist things Marla says only bring cheap gratification. Cool Girl Amy’s transgression consists of framing men for stalking, rape, and murder, of putting men to social death and behind bars. But Marla’s seeming transgression of heteronormative sexuality is only a masquerade for her real transgression: her subscription to a macho capitalist logic.

Let me quickly sum up the rest of I Care A Lot. Marla collides with a doctor to induce signs of dementia in a rich old lady. Then Marla becomes the legal guardian of that rich old lady, Jennifer Peterson. But Jennifer turns out to be the mother of a super rich and powerful Russian man, Roman, whose business includes human trafficking. Roman kills the doctor and makes it look like suicide, in an attempt to frighten Marla into forfeiting her guardianship on his mother. Marla remains undaunted. So Roman tries to kill Marla, and fails; he tries to kill Marla’s girlfriend Fran, and also fails. The two failed attempts are irritating, I know, because they just make the story implausible. And it gets more irritating. Set on go big or go home, Marla gets back at Roman, and succeeds: she miraculously becomes Roman’s legal guardian, and puts a $10 million price tag on Roman’s freedom.

Here comes another twist. Roman proposes an alternative to the $10 million: “Instead of me giving you $10 million… we become partners, go into business together. … I hate you… but, oh, the money we could make. You’re a rare person, Marla. Your determination is… Frankly, it’s scary. But this guardianship grift, it’s ripe, but right now it’s small potatoes. I propose we create a monster… a countrywide guardianship corporation, with you as CEO and co-owner. Use my money, use your… skills. Destroy the competition. Take control of the entire market.”

Yes, the two persons that for the most part of the movie try to kill each other become business partners at the end! Two absolutely depraved capitalists joining forces! 没有永远的敌人，不要跟钱过不去 — 这是整部电影的底层逻辑。The director/scriptwriter must have this twist, which veers the theme of the movie toward the triumph of capitalism, to sustain audience engagement and achieve its own capitalist, commercial success. Obscene!

And brace yourself for the most f**ked-up part of the movie. Marla accepts the partnership and achieves CEO of a publicly traded company level of success at the age of 39. She just finishes a TV interview and she’s walking to her car. Feldstrom walks up to her and fires gunshot at her heart. Feldstrom never gets to see his mom and his mom just died alone in the care facility. So he shoots Marla in the heart. This time, Marla completely fails to fire back with words. It is implied that she is killed on the spot.

I was screaming (in my head) at this point. A f**king greedy, immoral capitalist, empowered by another wealthy, immoral capitalist, unstopped by the court and the government, or rather, aided by the incompetent people in the legal system and corrupted doctors, only to be killed by an incel kind of guy? The only effective solution to ending injustice and capitalist avarice is pure gun violence in the most American style? As the closing credits music begins, I was yelling in my head: NO! That CAN’T be how the story ends! Movies are supposed to satisfy viewers’ deepest fantasies, and this one does not satisfy my fantasy that justice can be restored through nonviolent, rational means, through legal measures, and through investigative journalism. After all that shit that happened in 2022, after all those people that disappeared, this is the last movie I needed. I wanted movies to represent messy reality, not this kind of bullshit fairytale. I was so angry that I even began to suspect the director/scriptwriter is some sort of closeted Republican incel funded by far-right groups. I realized I needed Spotlight kind of movies.

After watching the movie, I spent an hour watching videos about Elizabeth Holmes.

带有资本主义成分的社会，始终是以强者的利益为终极目标的。而所谓的公平和法制，看上去为弱者提供了保障，但实际上它并不带来绝对意义上的好处。它们只是工具而已，效果的好与坏取决于公平的制造集团和法律的操纵集团。只要是被人创造出来的事物，就有被人利用操控的空间，尤其是在这个事实容易被捏造，而规则的执行者越来越依赖于条文和被捏造的事实的社会上。大多数人都喜欢做一个追随者，他们只需要根据社会公认的规则做出判断和行动就可以获得应有的报酬，但倘若打破砂锅问到底，焉知祸福？因为在资本的社会中，没人有会因你的善良、勇敢、正义本身让你衣食无忧。

捕食者和猎物的角色也会动态变化，没有人可以成为注定的、绝对的捕食者，剧中的被监护的老人们，在年轻时大多属于成功人士，但在失去力量后，也难免成为猎物。终其一生在这个弱肉强食的社会中苦心经营，即使运用不公的手段，但还是难逃被系统吞噬的悲剧命运。

和资本一样可怕的是擅于应用制度者，他甚至可以让资本都束手无策。最可怕的是资本和制度的联合，后果就是用资本的力量将制度的漏洞指数级放大。试问，现实生活中多少莽夫可以不顾法律地去杀人呢？所以电影的结局看似喜剧，其实还是悲剧。

当时看了预告，不信邪，觉得再怎么拍也不会太烂吧，演员没得说，网飞的执行肯定也差不了。

结果看完发现是scope出问题了。不过这个锅不能光让编剧和导演背，真就是美国现在意识形态的问题。

要么让一个平凡人对抗女魔头，一步步发现她背后产业链的丑陋与黑暗，发现无法用正常法律途径解决问题，只能按结局那样解决掉。彻底拍成令人窒息绝望的面对现实的片子。

要么就按预告里的思路彻底走娱乐路线，以恶制恶，好好用战斗民族的铁拳惩罚一下万恶的资本家。

既想要娱乐片的爽感，又想要写实和深度，结果就是既让观众不爽，又被观众批判肤浅、侮辱智商。

其实我估计编剧和导演也挺难的，在美国当今娱乐圈极左的氛围里，如果按传统思路让俄国黑帮灭掉女主是行不通的，女主的智商从政治正确的角度来说必须碾压所有人，但女主丧尽天良的行为从基本道德层面又不得不被惩罚，想讨好所有的观众，结果就成了这么别扭憋屈的剧本。

演员演得好，反而恶化了剧本的问题。

黑帮母亲演技爆炸，让人坚信也让人期待女主会死得很惨；

小恶魔演技爆炸，让人坚信惹恼了本恶魔后果很严重；

裴姐演技爆炸，让人坚信这女的不得好死；

就连一众配角也演技爆炸，把人的期待值拔高到200%，结果结局和他们都没关系，他们演了八十分钟的寂寞。

真白瞎了配置。ಥ_ಥ

前三分之二还是挺好看的，不忍心，又给加了一颗星。