"This is definitely the new king of crime movies! Armond Camby took his position at the beginning of the review, not only overturning his own concerns at the end of last year, but also taking the film he once despised to new heights: "The joy of filming is breathtaking, and the surprise, humor and ingenuity throughout the film's incredible 154 minutes are sensational!" Best of 1994! ”

As the most high-profile comprehensive newspaper in the United States, the "New York Times" film reviews have always received a lot of attention, and often easily become a word-of-mouth vane for a movie. So, in general, the New York Times film reviews will be more cautious in their wording. But this time, Armond obviously did not intend to hide his surprise and admiration, and gave almost all the words of praise to "", first giving himself a slap in the face, and then willing to become a stepping stone for the film to become a classic.

This has almost become an abbreviation for the reaction of the entire film critics after the release of "".

Before that, the New York Times was the most admired by "", believing that the film was a groundbreaking epic and the best work so far this year. But now, Armond himself has rewritten this idea, and he has written a follow-up film review for it.

In this film review, Ammond believes that "" is a masterpiece of the American spirit, and the epic shooting technique is impressive, but overall, the film is still too motifty, flat and stable, there is no novelty in terms of technique, and it has not reached a new height in terms of ideological excavation, and the essence of this film is still the most classic American dream.

But "" is different, it can be said to be the pioneering work of a new type of film, perhaps in terms of ideological realm, this movie is not profound, at least slightly inferior to "", but the film reflects the history of American culture, film, and music, but it has left a deep American imprint. More importantly, the way of storytelling, the way of presenting images, and the means of creating conflict are all new innovations, which are enough to turn the entire film industry upside down.

Therefore, Armond believes that "" will occupy an unshakable place in the long history of film. Just by needing this movie, Quentin can go down in history.

At the end of the film review, Ammond also made a special mention of Hugo, "The selection of films is novel and unique, and people gradually see his ambition as an actor." What's even more commendable is that Lancaster has dedicated a smooth, profound and delicate performance this time, and has the courage to challenge himself again after ''', and the wonderful performance runs throughout, and the Cannes actor deserves his name. ”

At this point, the disagreement between the "New York Times" and Hugo because of "" was officially drawn, and Armond gave the film a perfect score of 100 points, and concluded with a sentence of "perfect", without any reservations, sending his highest praise.

Amond's views are strongly supported, and the famous top film critic has already praised "" as early as Cannes, and his detailed analysis of the film inside and out has been regarded as the bible by countless fans, and he himself has watched the film for the sixth time, but he is still not satisfied.

This time, "" was released in the United States, and Roger also came to cheer again, and he undoubtedly gave a perfect score of 100 in the "Chicago" review column, and gave a four-star recommendation, believing that it was an "almost insurmountable mountain for a film of the same genre".

In the film review, Roger said, "It's like", "It's like a movie that you can't remember the next plot even after watching it a dozen times, and the non-linear narrative coupled with the talent and violence is enough to call this movie a 'classic'!" ”

As one might expect, Roger compares "vulgar" to "vulgar", and he believes that "vulgar" is bound to have an immeasurably powerful impact on the film industry in later generations, just like the classic that came out in 1941, and may even give rise to an entirely new genre.

There are countless people who hold the same views as these two film critics, and the praise is endless.

"Think," it's a wonderful movie, from start to finish. It's like one of those movies that are so rare that when you start reading, you can't help but check how many pages are left, and then you want more, not less. "They also gave a perfect 100 points.

"Tarantino seems to have a wonderful ability to make all the casual and boring dialogues work together to achieve maximum comedic effect and unleash infinite charm." What's even more rare is that those action scenes are just like the literal meaning, which makes people's hearts! "The full score of 100 is still not stingy.

The Wall Street Journal commented, "This is the most creative and imaginative film since the 90s!" "The evaluation is still 100 out of 100.

According to The Globe and Mail, "''There are at least three films in one, and each one is eye-catching.'' "Out of 100, no exceptions.

"In this film, every scene progresses deeper and richer, and Tarantino has made an absolutely great work for all film lovers," which is undoubtedly the biggest surprise of the year. "They also gave a perfect score of 100.

The "" comment that has always been there, "''It's not fun, it's funny.'' "If you don't understand, you think it's a criticism, but when you see the full 100 points of evaluation, you know that it's a newspaper style.

Even the "", which had never been pretentious about Hugo's works before this, also gave an unprecedented one, "For a brutal film about the gangsters of Los Angeles, "blooms with a dazzling and wonderful light." ”

The Hollywood Reporter, the most authoritative professional magazine in the United States, wrote a film review, "This is the first masterpiece produced by postmodern pop culture, and every time you watch it, it will be wonderful, just like good rock music, you have to sing a little louder." Not only did they accurately grasp it, but they also infiltrated Hugo's cultural attributes, and with a full score of 100 reviews, you can clearly see the professional views of this magazine.

Variety, which is on a par with The Hollywood Reporter, is much stricter, but this time they haven't been able to keep it calm, "It's a movie full of countless flashes, the kind of movie that you look forward to watching again every time you watch it, or the kind of script that 'he never disappoints' and 'expectations are always underestimated.'" Tarantino made people see his talent, and Hugo made people witness his greatness. ”.