The comeback 570 stupidly chose "a different sky ......" and sure enough, it became the focus of major newspapers and media the next day, and the group of reporters who attended the premiere immediately raised their eyebrows. As Hugo expected, the focus of the news is locked on Hugo, among which Hugo and Uma's shouting in the air has once again become the focus of hype, and the fact that both of them are about to appear in "vulgar" makes this topic very hot.

However, Paramount Pictures obviously has a wide range of connections, although the focus of the media has been misplaced, but almost all reports deliberately mention that Hugo specially attended the premiere to cheer for his friend Leonardo, and the exposure index of "Different Sky ......" soared and attracted the attention of many audiences.

At the same time, Miramax's pre-publicity was also in full swing, and the news that the "vulgar" crew was officially confirmed attracted a lot of attention.

There are many topics worth discussing about "vulgarity", and Hugo and Uma's first collaboration since "no longer dating" is obviously full of anticipatory tension, but due to the friendly signal released by Uma, the media is generally speculating about how likely it is that the two will reunite.

Quentin Tarantino has won a lot of acclaim since his debut film "Reservoir Dogs", and then he will shoot his second film, what level will he contribute. You must know that after the first shot, the success or failure of the second work often maintains the future development prospects of the director, whether it is short-lived or real, the second work can obviously give people a glimpse of many clues.

Bruce Willis can also be seen in the cast, and people will not forget the rivalry between Hugo and Bruce, and Hugo also had rumors of disagreement during his cooperation with Bruce's wife Demi Moore in "Heroes of the Righteous Sea", and now it is Hugo's turn to cooperate with Bruce, so what will be the situation?

However, compared to these interesting topics, a professional film review in the New York Times sparked a more heated discussion. As the largest daily newspaper in the United States, although the "New York Times" is not an industry media such as "Variety" and "Hollywood Reporter", its influence is unmatched by any media.

In the '40s and '60s, the New York Times' film reviews had an unparalleled impact on the whole of the United States. In his heyday, it was impossible for a film that did not make it to his top 10 list of the year to win an Oscar, and it was difficult for a foreign-language film to succeed at the box office in the United States without his approval, and in those days, newspapers in local cities other than Los Angeles and New York did not even dare to publish their own professional film reviews until they saw the reviews of the New York Times.

This shows the brilliance of the "New York Times" in those years.

However, Persri was too rigid and too old to change, and faced the "bonnie thief. and。 clyde)" such an epoch-making work, he was not able to accept such a change, and in the end he had to come to an abrupt end.

After that, Hollywood's emphasis on the first-week box office gradually rose, which also made the importance of film reviews that were slightly less time-sensitive gradually weakened, and in the seventies, the American film review industry entered a prosperous era, everyone can speak, the past hierarchical system is gone, except for the "New York Times", "Los Angeles Times" and other large daily newspapers, "Variety", "Hollywood Reporter" and other industry magazines have won the first time to write film reviews, and even take precedence over large daily newspapers, This also revolutionized the development of the entire film criticism industry.

Of course, even so, today's "New York Times" is still considered to be a media that has a decisive opinion on the box office and word-of-mouth of movies along with "Los Angeles Times", "Variety", and "Hollywood Reporter".

Unlike other newspapers, the New York Times, based in New York, represents the pride of the East Coast's cultural prowess, so they tend to have a more demanding eye for Hollywood productions, or strictly those with greater Los Angeles roots.

&ond。 Armund, who is now the chief film critic of the New York Times, continues the paper's New York lineage and East Coast cultural ancestry to continue the cultural debate between the East and West sides of the United States.

"This would be another wrong choice for Hugo Lancaster, not the same as the 'Hudson's Eagle' genre mistake, but a terrible mistake in all aspects, perhaps catastrophic and devastating.

After dedicating four masterpieces in a row, Lancaster has gradually become the most eye-catching representative of the baby boomer generation in Hollywood, and his appearance advantages have been vividly exerted in his acting skills, unlike Cruise who is constrained by his appearance, Lancaster has made full use of his appearance in "The Heroes of the Righteous Sea", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "Schindler's List", transforming the disadvantages of this vase image into amazing advantages, and then contributing amazing performances.

I have to admit that Lancaster already has the potential to achieve greatness, look at his rival actors: Pacino, Nillierson, obviously, Lancaster is on the way.

But now, Lancaster has clearly made the same old mistake as he did after the Dead Poets Society, and he has chosen a work that is not suitable for him in any way.

First of all, from the perspective of the actor himself, Quentin Tarantino is not a suitable director for Lancaster.

As can be seen from his debut film 'Reservoir Dogs', Tarantino is a very good director, but he is also a director with a very strong personal style. In Tarantino's works, personal style has overridden the actor's performance, and the success of 'Reservoir Dogs' is not how much role the actors play, but that Tarantino has given enough character to the story, and it can even be said that 'Reservoir Dogs' will not affect the success of the work even if a group of actors are changed, and the actors are just simple chess pieces in Tarantino's hands. From this point of view, Tarantino is an excellent director, but he is limited to the action of 'directing', but he cannot give more vitality to the actors.

In other words, Tarantino's work is really good at both directing and writing, and the actors have very little room to play.

Lancaster is a brilliant actor who is now constantly pushing himself through and is in a stage where his acting skills are rapidly improving, and a director like Tarantino is clearly not his partner. If this collaboration is put after last year's 'Yihai Heroes', or if it is postponed by a year, it may have achieved both Tarantino and Lancaster, but now, after the glory of 'Schindler's List', it will only drown out Lancaster's actor talent.

After a breakthrough in four productions, Lancaster is now at a critical juncture, and choosing 'vulgar' is clearly a stupid and bad choice. Acting breakthroughs aside, 'vulgar' as an ordinary film wouldn't be a qualifying choice for Lancaster.

As an actor who can get paid $10 million and can even hit the $15 million mark, Lancaster chooses an independent work with an investment of $8 million and only stars with a salary of $250,000, which is already considered a category of friendship starring, but is it really the right choice?

When Lancaster managed to rely on the accumulation of four films to put the negative impact of the Golden Raspberry Award behind him, and now chooses an independent film at a moment when there is hope to go further? Is this adventure worth it, is this adventure right, is this adventure sane?

Maybe Lancaster has lost himself in the world of rock and roll, and I wish he could come to his senses and put an end to this fatal and terrible mistake before it begins. ”

Amund analysed Hugo's choice from both a commercial and professional point of view, and it was clear that he completely disagreed with Hugo's choice, believing that it would be the beginning of another terrible cycle.

Indeed, in the eyes of many industry insiders, it is also incredible, Hugo can now choose to join the 10 million salary club, but he chose 300,000 US dollars, salary is not the core factor, just a measure, the point is that everyone thinks that Hugo is now at a rising point in his career, but he is not advancing but retreating, which is really puzzling.

If "vulgarity" fails, which is almost a certainty as an independent film, with a probability of more than 80%, then Hugo's previous momentum from four films will be in vain, perhaps no worse than after the Golden Raspberry Award, but it will be difficult to enter the 10 million salary club again.

It's really funny for a person to take a risk with his own career and make a choice that no one understands. Amund believes that if Hugo had chosen "vulgar" a little earlier or later, then there would be traces to follow, after all, independent films have often appeared well, but after "Schindler's List" won glory, it was really stunning.

After the New York Times review came out, it was recognized by nearly two-thirds of the media, although everyone had great expectations for Quentin's new work, but no one could agree with Hugo's choice, not only professional media, but also industry practitioners, including agents, who felt ridiculous about it. Many people agree with Armond's statement, thinking that Hugo is ruining his career with his own hands, which is really laughable, but at the same time, it also makes people look forward to the staging of this good show: watching an actor go to ruin Miè?

Joseph originally thought that he would applaud when he saw this review in the New York Times, because Armond had spoken his heart completely, but unexpectedly, instead of gloating, Joseph did not even have a little joy, but was occupied by a deep worry: Stupid choice, is this really the case?

Joseph couldn't help but let out a long breath, tried to make his mood light and happy, and then told himself that he believed in Hugo, believed in Hugo's choice, believed that Hugo would create another miracle again, and believed that Hugo would take practical actions to answer the questions and ridicule of the media...... ）

Early access to membership privileges