Constantly on the hunt and suffering from hallucinations that drive his violent nature, an unnamed man is capturing women and savagely beating them to death. Meanwhile, a woman is luring men into a violent end, by way of her knife. Driven by the same force to make the opposite sex suffer, the killers’ fates intertwine. The two must face off in a battle to the death, in which they are forced to reveal the horrible truth behind their addiction to murder.
“Brutal” takes an interesting approach to its visuals, drawing heavy influence from Western “Grindhouse” films, using a filter to make the footage appear grainy, damaged, and with light and color fluctuations. Unfortunately, the visual styling ends up feeling misguided, as other than applying the filter it does not imitate any other aspects of the “Grindhouse” genre. Despite trying to dirty up the film, it is apparent it was shot on digital. The cinematography is also a step above most “Grindhouse” productions, with Takashi Hirose proving he has talent behind the camera. Exterior shots to those taking place in small spaces are all competently framed, lit, and transition well. The decision to add an effect on top of the work hurts the film’s imagery and even gives a sense of desperation to try to capture a certain type of nostalgia with the audience, instead of relying on its own strengths. It is unfortunate when one creative choice can hurt a production so much.
The story of “Brutal” is simple but effective, it does attempt some sort of social commentary about the violent nature of men and women, but it does not offer enough depth into the subject to justify the amount of violence on display. The film does end on a strong note with an interesting twist, with a reveal that is bound to gross some out, while giving others a chuckle. In spite of its simple nature, those who enjoy films that make them somewhat uncomfortable and enjoy the challenge of getting through some ultra-violence, “Brutal” poses a fun and entertaining challenge in that regard.
刻意的对比和符号表达，完全不如几场值得铭记的，女性导演视角下新奇，才华冲出屏幕的「性张力」时刻（那凸起的带油的马鞍！那粘在裸体上的泥土！那遮掩自慰的白布！那水中浮动的兽皮绳子！共同点就是：没有爱，只有性，特直接，女人好可怕，喜欢了）撼动人心——若没有这些，这片就太过平庸：类似去年的《最后的决斗》，好导演的生产性输出，mediocre，挺好，挺累，没意思。
好一出「犬山少年杀人事件」！初看昏昏欲睡，二刷脊背发凉。这个故事很有必要从彼得的视角重看一遍。影片在叙述上有个“陷阱”，简·坎皮恩塑造了菲尔这个妄自尊大、强横粗暴的男性形象，并让萝丝和彼得处在他的窥视与凌辱中，直到最后一刻彼得才峥嵘尽显。笼罩全片的凝视被打破，所谓的阳刚之力被瓦解。所有信息都隐藏在不经意的细节中。简·坎皮恩已有大师风范。
卷福演的真是好，抽烟喷烟那两下，真是绝了，还有那些眼神，太牛了。少年的梳子是在什么电影里看过吗，总觉得有印象，但是想不起来了。西部片演的这么回荡，真的是难得，
克斯汀迈向4字大关，芳华将逝。
对“有毒的男子气概”的一次阉割。欣喜的是，两位非美国籍的女性导演都拍出如此高水准的美国西部片，原本充斥白男视角的领域终于被冲淡了一些。
（豆瓣真空期补标9月末-12月）死亡的意味在影片伊始便悄然蔓延。
摄影可谓帧帧如画，调度和镜头堪称一绝，冷静而克制，故事细思极恐，讲了一个伪装者的悲剧。表面是探讨男子汉气概，事实上还是在讲人性。
本以为是讲...没想到其实是讲... 本尼拼了命去演，结果最后输给了小孩。镜头干净，情绪渐近，就是看到最后观众总觉得被耍了😜
爱比死更冷。
毫无疑问是佳作，但故事和剧作都了无新意，视听语言上缺乏创新，思想内核也没有可圈可点之处，按中国话来说就是“观赏性、艺术性和思想性”一头不头，这不会是奥斯卡历来青睐的那一型。相比之下，CODA在艺术上平淡无奇，却是非常能取悦观众的，传递的social message也很积极，说白了就是不掺杂陈腐价值观版本的《绿皮书》，冠军相很明显了。
镜头调度出色，导演控制力极佳。只可惜叙事凌乱缺乏张力，平淡得难以忍受。简坎皮恩又怎样？奥斯卡加持又怎样？该给差评还是差评。
千万别对后辈爹味十足，他正是暗中对着你吐信子的小毒蛇。
风吹草低，阳光斑驳掠过山谷，健硕奔腾的骏马，被辣手摧毁的干花，令人溃灭的琴瑟对抗，湖泊里涌动的肉身，被无情解剖的野兔，男性气质与女性气质的辩证，与绳索纠缠的血手，马厩里氤氲的烟气……从头至尾隐忍不发暗潮涌动，最后才汇成惊心动魄的惊涛骇浪。字字句句都美不胜收，字里行间又无处不在细腻地勾勒欲望，以及在欲望中令人窒息的溺毙。
01:59:50-02:00:07特写了钦定版圣经（King James Version of the Bible, KJV）中的《诗篇》Psalm 22:16/17/18/19/20，其中Psalm 22:20即“Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog”是本片唯一一次点题，Psalm 22:16即“For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”则清晰地解释了the dog即the wicked（恶人）。
用力过猛。全程铺垫暗示，节奏慢到睡着。Greenwood老师真的很适合做这种暗涌张力电影的配乐
好故事，好电影，好演员。但真不喜欢导演的这种叙事方式，太过藏着掖着了
以为是个西部版《海边的曼彻斯特》，结果是个荒野版《请以你的名字呼唤我》。
处处是设计，处处又不着痕迹，这就是功力吧
犹豫了一下还是想给出五星高分，缓慢，压抑，极其克制的叙事方式，看完却有种被锋利的手术刀精准切割不见血的阵阵刺痛。男性气质，阉割，孤单，抑郁症，隐秘的恋母情结，谋杀，表面看起来似乎什么都没有发生，一个令全家人都厌恶，退避三舍的人死了而已，就像山峦中的阴影，就算住在那里一生，很多人都不一定能看到就摆在面前的事实，阴影中有一个狂吠的狗。【立马去恶补原著】
简•康平的作品看得不多，但感觉她似乎总是用现代的眼光审视着身处前现代的人物。坦言讲我并不认为表演有多么出彩，但我看到了超越大部分同题作品的细腻，这是导演的心性。“犬之力”在我看来是一种少有人所具备的视角，心思肌理复杂到一定程度，定是非同凡响，无论善恶。特别想知道当彼得把带有病毒的牛皮递给菲尔时，他心里在想什么？对于这个由羞辱过他到逐渐接纳甚至教导他的男人是否理解大于复仇？倘若不再给出一定的指向，只是留下线索与结果，我想定是一部更值得反复咀嚼的作品！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
