我很在乎

短评写不下，所以写在这。

电影很有意思，提供了多个可展开思考的角度：1. 女主通过金钱和人际运作合法却不合道德地为一己私利迫害老人这件事，要多缺德有多缺德；2. 女主在靠近结尾处说的话「你要认清自己，知道自己是什么样的人；什么界限是你愿意突破的；你愿意付出怎样的代价」（印象中的大意）很有意思。

我们不妨静下来思考下自己的答案。

另外，我隐身想到一个话题：你认为，所谓「成功人士」是都遵循道德，严谨地在某个界限内行事吗？

还是你相信他人的「致富」之路也突破了某些道德底线，但是他们「交了好运」，没被发现呢？

对待2中所有问题的答案体现了我们作为不同个体的本质性差异。

3. 女主和女朋友确实是传统意义上的反面角色，i fucking hate them，but they're true to themselves。

两个人（女主更甚一些）对自己的欲望绝对坦诚，不会承认自己的错误，绝不接受失败，无论道德对错、前因后果，谁阻碍她达成目标就拼死与其搏斗——倒也是一种垃圾性的带有自知之明的英雄主义了。

4. 「你愿意付出怎样的代价？

」是一个有意思的话题。

女主在旁白中说到过，她要「保护自己爱的人」，我想她指的是保护女友Fran了，但是最终Fran看着她的生命在怀中渐渐流逝，在两人本以为生活大好，万事峥嵘时，一切破灭。

So, after all, karma is a bitch, right? 或许在女主表示对自己所爱之人的在意时，太轻而易举地忽略了，每个她迫害过的老人也是他人所爱之人。

所以， 当你愿意突破一些界限时，早就失去了对你将付出何种代价的选择权。

5. 我认为弱化罗曼一帮的战斗力是导演故意设计的，为了让我们觉得女主一直在交好运，也给她个偶然的机会把事业做大，特意让我们看到这位野心家能爬多高，摔多惨。

以上。

第一步：没有女性主要角色，比如《嗜血五人组》《芝加哥7个人》《迈阿密的一夜》此处可以罗列无止境的电影名单，没有女性角色，完全消除男女对立。

第二步：加一些无关紧要或者专门展现姿色的女性角色，你们看，女的就是花瓶《曼克》《好莱坞往事》《爱尔兰男人》此处可以罗列无止境的电影名单。

第三步：总有些头铁的制片人要拍女性主角的电影，那就给这些电影贴上限定标签，影片的质量有限，《隐藏任务》ZZZQ，《某种女人》女权主义自嗨，《卡罗尔》女同性恋电影，《小妇人》小妞电影《伯德小姐》小妞电影2，此处可以罗列无止境的电影名单。

第四步：把失败的电影归咎为女性，神奇女侠辣鸡，女导演拍超英果然不行，蝙蝠侠大战超人辣鸡，噢男导演啊，他虽然故事讲的一般，但滤镜用的好啊，他虽然节奏头重脚轻，但BGM选的好啊。

他虽然把蝙蝠侠拍砸了，但是超人帅啊。

那为什么救狗不救爹？

第五步：女性主角的电影，女主很正派，男性角色很出彩，故事题材宽泛的怎么办?尽可能忽略或者扭曲女主的存在感。

《疯狂的麦克斯》大女主电影，但是男导演噢，汤老师好帅。

《蓝调天后》黑豹黑豹黑豹《异形3》把女主角放到男子监狱，火火恶心死她《后翼弃兵》女子天才，不谈恋爱，心中只有象棋，但是她到底爱哪个男朋友啊，哪个男人对她最重要啊，哈利表哥好帅啊（其实很丑）托马斯娃娃脸没有变化啊，第108遍刷屏问她爸呢？

她爸去哪了？

第108遍刷屏我觉得最爱她的就是老校工（男）第108遍刷屏女人根本没有拿过世界第一象棋大师。

第六步：女性主角的电影，女性角色光芒万丈完全吊打所有人，剧情节奏流畅，摄影画面有个性，BGM每一首都是精品，而且没有和男人有一丁点感情戏，无法把焦点转移到男性身上，那怎么诋毁她？

说她这个角色有道德瑕疵？

电影角色有道德瑕疵能影响电影质量吗？

《猫鼠游戏》男主角一路骗到老的人生赢家 9分《香水》专门奸杀少女的变态男，艺术 8.5分《绝命毒师》他虽然贩毒但他是个顾家好男人啊 9.5分《沉默的羔羊》先杀后吃的天才，膜拜 8.5分《华尔街之狼》天台跳楼传送家，好帅哦8.0分但是《我很在乎》的女主角玛拉没有杀人啊，她还差点被杀，怎么诋毁她？

她没有直接杀人，但可以夸大一点就说间接害死，她还骗取老人的财产，那不是法庭判的吗？

和法庭联手一起坑害老人，有证据吗？

没有，夸大一点就行了。

但这就算足以构成道德瑕疵，也不能打低分吧《寄生虫》里面穷人一家埋伏进富人一家，比这严重多了，也没影响电影评价啊？

上面提到的男主角都有重大犯罪记录，不影响电影评价啊没那么复杂，是女主角打低分就完事了。

第七步：电影结构完美，题材宏大（不是儿女情长，是战争存亡）风格硬朗，没有男女主角藕断丝连的电影来自凯瑟琳毕格罗。

女主角一身肌肉，徒手撕怪兽，全船都死了，她还活着，异形2，西格妮非佛。

没有诋毁角度的时候，该怎么办？

那就赞扬她，像男人一样厉害！

关于电影界如何围剿女性势力，如何一步步蚕食女性成果，是值得写一本书的事，我没有特别去查什么资料，只是随意回忆了看过的电影，不扯太远了回到本片。

男性嚣张，那是自信，女性嚣张，实属恶心，尤其是她绝对不是那种慈眉善目，低声下气的圣母，保姆，她也不是为了照顾别人的爹妈呕心沥血的穷逼。

她生活富裕，感情美满，长的漂亮，性格还很嚣张，这样的出场基本上刺痛了每一个无产阶级孝顺儿子的心，一个女人如此高高在上，居然是个刻版印象化的强者，不仅男人如坐针毡，连部分女德观众都感到彷徨和不适，她比我牛逼，使我的存在毫无价值，让我来骂她的这种心态在评论里比比皆是，女人越高兴越厉害越强悍，就越让男权女德感到刺眼扎心，自惭形秽，恨的牙痒痒，不知道的还以为是他们的养老纪录片。

但玛拉是个职业监护人，她的存在就是为了对付这些占据主流舆论不愿意给父母养老的孽子们。

电影一开始的法庭戏，言简意赅的交代了这个养老机构是怎么一回事，玛拉作为职业监护人，她不是无偿的，她有薪水（理所应当吧？

），并且她也明确指出了为什么需要法庭来判定老人要不要被监护，财产为什么由监护人来处理。

法庭上的那位儿子，他根本无力照顾生病的母亲，也不让他妈去医院接受治疗，在父母的财产交给机构打理用来支付她们的医疗费用和交给孩子打理，拒绝给父母治疗的两者之间，大部分观众都代入自己是孩子，选择了后者，但我们知道已经有越来越多的老人把财产留给可靠的人，而不是有血缘关系的亲人。

玛拉给每一位老人最好的服务，并且衷心希望他活的长寿，这当然不是出于共产主义式的理想，而是

谁想住进养老院的老人赶紧死掉，反正肯定不是玛拉，她比谁都想要大家的爸妈活下去。

接下来，是本片的真正反派主角珍尼佛彼得森和她的好大儿。

70年前盗取真正的珍尼佛彼得森的身份，贩卖妇女的俄罗斯黑帮，罪恶滔天，人人得而诛之。

时间对每个人都是公平的，年纪大了各种病就找上来，失忆，精神恍惚，此时能指望一年见一次，自身都难保的黑帮儿子吗？

他们是怎么对付玛拉的：俄罗斯黑帮杀了医生凯伦俄罗斯黑帮把玛拉连人带车推进河里俄罗斯黑帮把fran揍的半死，打开了煤气

即便如此，女主玛拉也没有直接杀死珍妮弗彼得森，虽然她死了，但她死有余辜，是这么多年的报应，绑架了黑帮好儿子，也仅仅是弄晕了扔在路上，后来还监护了他。

从头到尾玛拉做错了什么？

错在她没有女德吧。

本片的主旨是在挑战传统的养老格局，但显然挑战失败了，因为观众是那个一年见不了几次的儿子们是那个老人生病了也不愿意花钱治疗的儿子们是不能支配父母的财产的儿子们没有人会去观察电影里的养老院真的很高级，当出现外部闯入者的时候，保安护士的反应训练有素，这都无关紧要，反正不会让父母去住，因为真的太贵了！

老人老了，去什么养老院，生老病死是人间常态，早死早超生。

全片最惨的两个人，被揍的鼻青脸肿

最美不过和你在一起

I can't say goodbye!!!最后奉上真实案例：1.中年女子68岁，按道理说年纪没有老到不能自理的地步，一年前因为一次摔倒有轻微中风的迹象，但没有得到及时治疗，现在基本已经不能自主行动，只能靠轮椅，说话口齿不清，基本缺乏正常交流。

她家人没有虐待她，只是靠近她的时候全身散发着几个月没洗澡的臭味，大冬天零下气温只穿一件单衣，手镯因为手腕肿胀已经嵌进肉里，没人发现。

按照影片的设定，她完全可以由政府变卖自己的财产，获得必要的护理，但实际上亲人养老就是不饿死你，其他都没了。

2.老年女子86岁，前几年也经历过一次摔倒，尾椎有骨裂的情况，医生建议手术，但她家人拒绝，理由是她年纪太大做手术太危险，一直靠强忍坚持下去，后来也终于无法动弹只能靠轮椅。

去年搬进一家高级养老院（和电影里的很像）医生每天都会来检查身体，开药挂水，一个月后被儿子带走了，因为嫌弃医生乱开药，费用太高，搬去了另外一家没有医生的养老院，我去看望的时候，她说之前医生给她开的药让她睡的很好，而且骨头都不疼了，挂水补充的营养让她精神很好，而现在什么都没有了，终于能躺在这边的养老院，自由的等死。

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

去死吧女主爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

去死吧女主爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

去死吧女主爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

爱生气的别看，什么几把玩意！

去死吧女主

【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.

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。

这部电影简直给les招黑。

看完我无语了半个小时，找qq哭诉无力，despeate.女主专门寻找身体情况欠佳同时又无依无靠的老年人下手，通过并不是那么合法的手段令自己成为他们的法定监护人，将他们送进疗养院，之后便可接手和变卖他们的财产和房产，再将所得据为己有。

有次绑票绑到黑社会老大的妈妈身上，然后就两方博弈了。

结果黑社会老大没干掉女主最后让反绑了。

哇裴淳华的演技真的让人很恨这个人，但是这个价值观真的很欺骗也很无厘头。

黑社会老大怎么可能处理不干净女主，甚至在女主家没有处理好女主的女朋友，女主一回到家女朋友就醒了，我：？？？？？？？？？？？？？？

整部片子都围绕着：这个社会公平竞争是不可能出人头地的，对于普通人就应该不走寻常路，抓住一切机会。

但如果这些机会是sin呢，无间道里说出来混迟早是要还的，哪有那么巧的事情什么都让你赚了，又没堕入无间地狱。

阶级的跨升必然经历着苦痛与艰难，没有什么是理所当然的，改变都需要努力，也并不那么容易。

没有必要因为没得到所以欺骗自己给自己编造理由，然后堕入这种爽文中，告诉自己，只有坏人才能赢，所以我没赢是因为我的良知。

这种无关痛痒的自我安慰，真的才是fucking low.如果你想要fucking rich,就必须fucking hard-working,到最后fucking painful win.

看到很多人吐槽毁三观，所以三观我就不多提了。

只能说是一部很邪恶的电影，所以看着很难受，全程都特别不舒服。

如果有人说这是爽片。。。

我们一定是两类人，因为完全get不到。

片头其实还算不错，成功吸引了观众。

女主立了一个挺有个性的flag，说自己是母狮子很带感。

出场就是女强人的样子，让我想起了Prada 里的那个女魔头（唉，人家至少没她那么邪恶啊）。

虽然看到女主这么邪恶，但是想到电影这么长，后面的剧情说不定女主会学到什么，有所改变。

看到老太太后，还以为她会改变女主。

现实是我马上就被打脸了，或许是我太高估编剧了。

剧情继续发展下去后，我终于明白了编剧想往哪走。

原来老太太是黑帮的人。

嗯，这个设定还挺有意思，那就是说有人会教训女主了？

开始有了点小期待。

现实是，我马上又被打脸了。

黑帮老大原来是贩卖人口的。

我对人口贩卖一直都很抵触，哪怕黑帮是做暗杀或是抢劫放火之类的我都能接受，还会站在他们那边。

可是编剧偏偏要把倆屎壳郎凑一起，臭味相投，都喜欢压榨别人的自由与生命来获取利益。

看到这里我已经很不爽了，只能勉强期待一下他们狗咬狗吧。

就，或许，编剧会让他们两败俱伤呢？

看恶斗恶也是别有一番风味吧。

但，我，又，一，次，被，打，脸，了。

看到这里我脸都已经被打肿了。

这个黑帮老大不只是低调这么简单了，他简直是憋屈啊，憋屈到从一个黑帮老大变成一个弱爆的穷老大。

说他穷，是因为他接个母亲才带三个人，多一个人就可以见到母亲了，还非得搞得自己像是见不着妈妈的小孩一样，眼睁睁看着离母亲几步远，却不能相认。

又不是苦情戏，搞什么啊？

（他的身高还特别符合这比喻。。。

）接着就是出门才一个保镖，那么强壮一个大个子一下子就被一个弱女子制服了。。。

不说他穷我都不知道怎么形容这样一个身边总共就六个手下的黑帮老大了（一律师，一开的士的，一个司机，两个打杂的，一个保镖）。

好吧，他不穷，他多得是钱，我知道，那他还输给女主这个钱又没他多，势力也没他大的人？

只能解释为他的智商完全不在线。

黑帮老大和女主两股恶势力达成共识的时候还真是可怕，后面的montage画面居然看着像恐怖片。

全程下来，女主是很厉害，我承认。

她会钻法律的空子，懂得死里逃生，也不轻易认输。

她的性子其实可以让观众很喜欢她的。

可是这里就是为什么这电影失败了。

我们那么关注黑帮老大就是希望他能打败女主。

而当一部电影的主角，不管他是好人还是坏人，得不到观众的支持与共鸣，反之，观众的看点只在于期望她得到报应，得到悲惨的下场时，这部电影作为一个故事已经失败了。

当观众坐在屏幕前，透过女主的眼睛看这个世界，感受她的情绪，与走进她的生活时，观众是与女主很近的。

哪怕是女主的伴侣，也不像我们，可以关注着她的一举一动。

所以，我们甚至可以说观众应该比女主的伴侣更了解她，更贴近她的内心与生活。

问题来了，我们为什么要与这个主角建立这么“亲密”的关系？

她值得吗？

她不值得。

所以观众愤怒。

我们这么了解女主，我们看着她的生活，看着她的一举一动，可我们越看越恨，越看，越憎恶面前这个披着人皮的恶魔。

所以我觉得这个故事是失败的。

这个故事只让我看到了一个贪得无厌，最终自食恶果的恶魔，而不是一个勇敢无畏的女英雄。

看着这个恶魔，我甚至觉得自己也变成了一个恶魔。

我会愤怒为什么女朋友没有被杀死？

为什么黑帮老大没有被杀死？

为什么那些为“疗养院”工作的人没有都得到报应？

看完电影后满腔怒火，愤恨这么多人没死的我，也被电影变成了魔鬼。

法律这种东西，果然是脆弱的。

有道德的人不需要它，没道德，没底线的人不会被它束缚，反而会利用它得到最大的利益。

多讽刺啊。

结尾还勉强算合理。

如果女主真的顺风顺水下半辈子，那这部电影就真的是一部完美的失败品了。

讽刺的黑色幽默结局淡淡地诉说着电影带给观众的，唯一的希望：踩着别人往上爬的人，终会在还没享受胜利的成果前摔下来。

这样的人，得不到满足，只会越爬越高。

她爬不到顶端的，因为从来就没有什么顶端。

所以她一定会摔下来。

那个开枪的勇士值得表扬，一星给他了。

（好在电影里还有一个人值得一星，要不多浪费这一星）最后，女主一开始说的话真的让我tm不爽。

一开始就对着观众来一句，“你以为你是好人，其实你不是”。

nm的，我再怎么不是好人，也不会是你这种人渣，你还没资格教训我。

你说你是狮子，那是侮辱狮子。

狮子不会不断地压榨它的猎物来满足无尽的欲望，狮子只会捕猎它需要生存的食物。

你不是狮子，你就是一个贪婪的魔鬼。

你没资格说自己是狮子。

自以为看懂就把自我解读当绝对，认知不接受就说是看不懂的垃圾，一个个是有阅读理解综合症吗世界就在那里，你是能计算出重力还是能看懂相对论知道你是人，豆瓣应该还不至于让AI来参与这么一部电影的讨论，没必要不知道是向谁赤胆忠心，宣告你有人性，问题，你知道你是人吗竟然要140个字！

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

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！