我很在乎

【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.

美国电影《我很在乎》。可能是一个人对未来老去存有忧虑吧，这部电影从一开始就抓住了我的心，令人恐惧并感觉无解。标榜慈善、法制的社会里，通过关联的产业链：医院出具老人可能失去自理能力或其他健康风险的诊断书，监护机构提交法院决议获得老人监护权、将老人送去关联养老院，变卖老人家产存入监管账户，从此剥夺了老人的余生自由和毕生财富，这样的产业链做的无懈可击，老人没有机会去申诉改变，因为这些机构有足够的证据证明你需要他们的监管，而不至于令你“老无所养”。影片巧妙的设计了黑吃黑的情节，反派主角很有力量感，可也更令人毛骨悚然。我总感觉，未来会变成这样，资本的趋利性，必将榨干所有。

当我们老了，该如何去面对呢？

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。

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……

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。

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。

首先，很可怕的世界，居然在受害人未到场的情况下，法庭可以宣判剥夺一个人的自由，以及它拥有的一切都随着被抢占。

类似于“被神经病”。

如果我们经历这样的世界，该如何？但是想想好可怕。

我在想，如果世界到最后，可能真的会如同所有的电影一样，器官买卖，器官被强制切割，财产被强制剥夺，人身自由被限制被神经病 。。。。 妈呀。。。。 不敢想象。

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。