Somewhere in the remote region, the war ends. In the midst of ruined cities and houses in the streets, in rural hamlets, everywhere where people still live, are children who have lost their homes and parents. Abandoned, hungry, and in rags, defenseless and humiliated, they wander through the world. Hunger drives them. Little streams of orphans merge into a river which rushes forward and submerges everything in its path. The children do not know any feeling; they know only the world of their enemies. They fight, steal, struggle for a mouthful of food, and violence is merely a means to get it. A gang led by Cahoun finds a refuge in an abandoned castle and encounters an old composer who has voluntarily retired into solitude from a world of hatred, treason, and crime. How can they find a common ground, how can they become mutual friends? The castle becomes their hiding place but possibly it will also be their first home which they may organize and must defend. But even for this, the price will be very high.
To this simple story, the journalist, writer, poet, scriptwriter, movie director, and film theoretician Béla Balázs applied many years of experience. He and the director Géza Radványi created a work which opened a new postwar chapter in Hungarian film. Surprisingly, this film has not lost any of its impact over the years, especially on a profound philosophical level. That is to say, it is not merely a movie about war; it is not important in what location and in what period of time it takes place. It is a story outside of time about the joyless fate of children who pay dearly for the cruel war games of adults.
At the time it was premiered, the movie was enthusiastically received by the critics. The main roles were taken by streetwise boys of a children's group who created their roles improvisationally in close contact with a few professional actors, and in the children's acting their own fresh experience of war's turmoil appears to be reflected. At the same time, their performance fits admirably into the mosaic of a very complex movie language. Balázs's influence revealed itself, above all, in the introductory sequences: an air raid on an amusement park, seen in a montage of dramatic situations evoking the last spasms of war, where, undoubtedly, we discern the influence of classical Soviet cinematography. Shooting, the boy's escape, the locomotive's wheels, the shadows of soldiers with submachine guns, the sound of a whistle—the images are linked together in abrupt sequences in which varying shots and expressive sharp sounds are emphasized. A perfectly planned screenplay avoided all elements of sentimentality, time-worn stereotypes of wronged children, romanticism and cheap simplification. The authors succeeded in bridging the perilous dramatic abyss of the metamorphosis of a children's community. Their telling of the story (the scene of pillaging, the assault on the castle, etc) independently introduced some neorealist elements which, at that time, were being propagated in Italy by De Sica, Rossellini, and other film artists. The rebukes of contemporary critics, who called attention to "formalism for its own sake" have been forgotten. The masterly art of cameraman Barnabás Hegyi gives vitality to the poetic images. His angle shots of the children, his composition of scenes in the castle interior, are a living document of the times, and underline the atmosphere and the characters of the protagonists. The success of the picture was also enhanced by the musical art of composer Dénes Buday who, in tense situations, inserted the theme of the Marseilaise into the movie's structure, as a motive of community unification, as an expression of friendship and the possibility of understanding.
Valahol Europaban is the first significant postwar Hungarian film. It originated in a relaxed atmosphere, replete with joy and euphoria, and it includes these elements in order to demonstrate the strength of humanism, tolerance, and friendship. It represents a general condemnation of war anywhere in the world, in any form.
毒液老兄依旧幽默，故事也依旧简单到脑残。相比第一部的惊艳，新鲜感褪去的第二部甚至没有一丝拿得出手的优点。
最后的CG大战比较提神，但看着三个演技派演员努力地为空洞符号化的人物注入深度并化为乌有，多少有点可惜。只能说剧情人设更卡通且嘴炮无底线，看完也不知道演了什么，剧情体量小到不值一提，更该是第一部后面花一点时间讲完的故事，而不是一部堂而皇之的完整续作该有容量，看完彩蛋，多少让人觉得，是为了蜘蛛侠的这点醋又包了盘饺子。
比起毒液1 ，毒液2是个更爆米花的爆米花片，他的目标观众群体巨大，上到99下到刚学会牵手都是他的范围，所以影片的基调就会变成一部让大多数人看得懂，看得有意思的合家欢电影，一方面片方把大家都喜欢看的元素都杂糅到了影片里，另一方面又在尽最大的努力扫清大家看影片的障碍，首先，剧情简单直白到连小学生都能复述，其次，正反派的人物标签非常明显和符号化，任何人在任何时候看到屏幕上的画面，都能一眼知道谁是好人谁是坏人，然后就是所有人喜闻乐见的幽默、动作还有大制作的特效，就像一个自助餐，每个人都能看到自己想看的内容，挺欢乐
guru导演不咋地…加入Woody大反派也救不了难看…咬一口就生了个儿子还强得一批是何道理…全场听着胖得不像样的Tom Hardy和Venom小两口拌嘴，比较不讨喜…
汤老师和毒液都好蠢萌！可爱的不行！就让靠谱的目。安妮和靠谱的丹在一起就挺好！！汤老师只配跟毒液基友CP绑绑牢啦！反派也好看！
1、剧本也太单薄了。作为周末的爆米花大电影，剧情简单易懂不是缺点甚至是优点，而我要说的剧情单薄在很多信息没有交代。比如看到“儿子”毒液是红色的为什么怂了？战斗力跟颜色有关？吃人脑是不是一定比吃鸡脑获得的能力更强还是差别不大？这些该交代的设定都不说，让反派索性死于宿主不合。心中充满疑惑却得不到解答，反而草草收尾，看得很不得劲儿。2、汤老师比印象中脸上褶多了些，演技愈发纯熟。这把年纪还演这个角色总有种杀鸡岂用牛刀的感觉，虽然驾轻就熟不在话下，但总觉得浪费了一个好演员。（好啦好啦我知道索尼给得实在太多、能进漫威宇宙就是全球曝光率多少演员求之不得）
或许就是这样撒欢儿胡搞才是这个系列的出路。
剧情敷衍，打斗也敷衍。人与人卖腐就算了，人与怪物之间也要卖腐这真是.....导演适合演怪物，不适合拍怪物
除了反派强行剧情杀之外，整体还是不错的，虽然有些絮叨。
也也也太好看了吧！
拍的是啥 感情线没了 且为什么杀人狂要和他做朋友？ 为了让carnage出来？
爆米花合格，精华笑点都在预告片里，打发时间看看还可以，个人真的，不喜欢彩蛋
整个好莱坞都面临故事问题 而不是特效 我们面临特效问题 还有故事
毒液2这种片子明显是把要素都堆在了动作设计和特效上了，演员当然也很关键，演员的表演对节奏和气氛地烘托也有着至关重要的作用，在主演们精湛的演技下，埃迪，尖叫女，克莱图斯这三个人之间的冲突和交流非常快的把观众也带进了故事中，观众和角色之间的情绪保持着高度的同步；然而这种片子从一开始就是需要沉浸式体验的，所以听别人口头说怎么样都没有感觉，还是得自己去看一场才能享受到这类片子带来的快感。
就，很无聊。吃巧克力不如吃鸡脑，吃鸡脑不如吃人脑。毒液长期吃巧克力变得十分弱智，与毒液共生的埃迪智商也下滑了，搞得这部电影前半部分就不是超英片，也不是怪兽片，而是“婚姻故事”。反派在被屠杀附身之前也还算正常，附身之后也变傻了。比较正常的只有前女友安，看来要成为普通人只能远离毒液的侵蚀。看了彩蛋的我一点也不激动，甚至希望这俩角色最好不要去祸害蜘蛛侠。
这续集拍得跟闹着玩的似的，故事都懒得编了，只有彩蛋可看，不如直接进漫威宇宙算了！
剧本烂得跟个屎一样
2.0。说是97分钟，其实正片也就是80分钟出头，在如今体量的超英电影里，看似不拖泥带水是优点，但所有情节都浮光掠影，反而因为重点全无导致像是看了集80分钟的肥皂剧，瑟金斯在催着观众收工一样。五句台词三句平淡两句弱智，就这一点即使不谈剧情也足够把《毒液2》扔进不及格电影堆堆里去了（话说这两三年除了《自杀小队：全员集结》真的没什么拿得出手的超英电影啊、pps：包括《复联4》、《正义联盟导演剪辑版》和《蜘蛛侠:英雄远征》，不是说不好，也就那样吧）。
屠杀挂了么？警察最后是什么鬼？最后彩蛋是啥意思？
这就是被大家批评为超级烂作的《毒液2》吗？
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
