In addition to Italy's "Daily Facts", there are also two media outlets, including Germany's "Time" and the British "Screen".

"Time" in Germany, "The film starts with a strange and cool tone that firmly captures the audience's attention. It is very attractive from the setting to the concept, and the cold mechanical performance is even more icing on the cake. But after entering the middle, it begins to lose. The director seems to be unable to determine his narrative center of attention. Not only does he lose the biggest core of black humor: 'humans transform into animals'; but also a swaying shift occurred on the theme of love, family, relationship and class, causing all the energy accumulated in the first half to disappear."

You can deeply feel the "suffering from iron to steel" between the lines. Later, the magazine also wrote an in-depth film review and analysis, from the entire story framework to the main clues to the branch layout, and then deeply analyze the beginning, inheritance and transition of the plot, expressing deep regret for the "chaotic" of the final product. They believe that "Oggs-Lancemos has the opportunity to shoot a classic masterpiece that has been famous in history."

At the same time, the article also emphasizes the excellence of the entire cast, not just Renly. Ben Wesshaw, Rachel Weisz and John C-Reilly and other actors all contributed wonderful performances. The seemingly dull but ingenious performance methods give the characters more connotations worth exploring, which is also the reason why the article believes that "there are countless possibilities for movies."

"The only character in the entire script or the entire movie with a clear and three-dimensional image is David played by Renly Hall.

The rise and fall of emotions and the step-by-step advancement of thoughts are complete and vivid, delicate and profound. Renli Hall gives the characters infinite possibilities in a limited space; unfortunately, this is the only complete character, and the lack of details of other characters makes the actors have no more room to play, and also limits the film's further development.

The final result is that David and other characters, David and the main plot are also slightly separated, because the true core idea formed by the interweaving of characters and plots cannot be clearly established, and the power gathered will also appear to be a state of collapse, which will affect the resonance of the audience."

Later, this article came into the sight of the "Lobster" crew. Lanli even took the initiative to share the views of the article with Ouges, and the two sides exchanged opinions.

During the film promotion period, Ouges also publicly expressed his gratitude, not only thanking the reporters of the German Times magazine, who learned a lot from it; but also mentioned the discussion between him and Renli before the filming of the film started. Obviously, they both realized the problem and tried to make adjustments.

"As they said, Lan Li's role is undoubtedly the most complete and clearest, because Lan Li knows what he is doing and where he should move forward. This movie can reach its current height, Lan Li's role is far greater than expected; unfortunately, we have not been able to spend enough time to polish all other characters, and the core ideas of the second half of the plot have not been able to be condensed, and the final product does have room for improvement.

I think that's why we need to keep learning and growing."

Ouges not only humbly accepted the opinions and completed the review; but also sincerely explained the small episode of Renly's pickyness at the beginning, making him truly realize the irreplaceable importance of an excellent actor to the entire movie.

Such a posture has won praise in North America and Europe. Not only did people not complain about "lobsters" because of this, but they also became more interested.

This also made the "lobster" win a good position during the awards season. Of course, this is already a story later.

Return to the Cannes Film Festival.

The last media to give a two-star rating is the British "screen".

"Indeed, 'Lobster' is a unique and deafening work. It presents the current situation of our life with a mirror shooting technique, allowing us to begin to reflect on our marriage relationship and social class, and the cold lines like scalpels outline the framework of the entire era. The control skills shown by Ouges Lansmos initially showed his master's style, but the gap between him and Stanley Kubrick lies in the humanistic care.

The theme core of the movie seems cold and alienated, and even a little proud and proud, just like the New York intellectual mocking other poets for pretending to care about the world. This is arrogant and arrogant and cannot resonate with the audience.

But we still cannot deny that Lance Moss did boldly challenge the sensitive nerves of some people; similarly, we cannot deny that Renly Hall's performance with Rachel Weisz has a keen and delicate touch, giving the movie some more profound content.

But we aren't sure what 'something' is."

The above are the ten media comments of the official Cannes magazine.

It is difficult to see too many clues simply from the ratings of the field magazine. No one can predict the prospects of "lobsters" in Cannes this year. Judging from the current mainstream trend, French media generally expressed a positive attitude, which is precisely a work that conforms to the aesthetic style of the Coen brothers. It is indeed very promising to win awards.

But the wind direction is just the wind direction, and the media cannot accurately predict the jury's preferences, which is no longer new to the three major European film festivals.

In the end, the official magazine was released in full swing, with two five stars, four three stars, three two stars, and one star. Finally, in the evaluation of the full four points, the "lobster" got two points.

If you look closely, you will find that first, the comments are relatively average; secondly, the positive reviews are greater than the negative reviews, the number of five stars is higher than the number of one star, and the number of three stars is higher than the number of two stars. In other words, overall, the comments of "lobsters" are still moving towards a positive trend amid debate and hot discussion.

The average score of two or seven points is the most direct reflection.

For the Cannes Film Festival, works with more than three points can be called "classic works", such as the "Drunk Country Folk Song" two years ago; but in history, there are only more than twenty works that can win more than three points in the Cannes Film Festival, and the number is very rare.

At 2:7, this is a very good review. So, where is the "lobster" in the main competition unit? The official magazine in your hand can be clearly seen at a glance.

Today is the sixth day of the Cannes Film Festival. The annual event has just passed halfway through. The main competition, director's biweekly, a kind of attention and other unit screening plans are steadily unfolding. Among them, the most popular main competition unit has screened eight works, and all the ratings are presented publicly:

"Haijie Diary", 2.5.

"Story of Story", 2.0.

"Son of Thor", 2.8.

"My Mother", 2.7.

"Aokihara Tree Sea", 0.6.

"My King", 1.4.

"Market Law", 2.3.

"Lobster", 2.7.

There is no need to analyze at all, and the overall layout of the main competition unit is very clear.

Gus Van Sant's "Aokihara Sea" landed in Cannes under the high expectations, but encountered unprecedented failures. This work starring Matthew McConaughey, facing a verbal condemnation, created the lowest score of Cannes in the 21st century, which was particularly tragic.

Hungarian director Laszlo-nemes' feature debut "Son of Sol" was rejected by the main competition unit of the Berlin Film Festival at the beginning of the year. Although it could be screened in the non-competition unit, the creative team decided to give up Berlin and come to Cannes, and finally ushered in a huge success. Currently, leading the highest score in the magazine at 2:8, and also won a lot of prizes at the premiere. The Coen brothers and Sienna Miller were in tears.

Then... Italian director Nanni-moretti's new work "My Mother" and Ouges Lansmos's "Lobster" also temporarily tied for second place at two points, which is even better than the evaluation of "Haijie Diary" by Japanese director Yukata Koreedo.

So, what does this mean?

The answer is: It doesn't mean anything.

A field magazine is a field magazine, a rating is a rating, and an award is another matter. The aesthetics of media reporters cannot represent the opinions and opinions of the jury.

But one of them is certain: "Lobster" is far from failing, and is not even as severe and harsh as the criticism he faced in the first place; Lan Li, who once again challenged the comedy performance after "I Against Cancer", unexpectedly refreshed the public's impression and brought a new performance again.

It can be said that Lan Li, who just won the second Oscar, has maintained his usual high standards.

This is enough.

What's more, even if it fails, Renli can still trigger a wave of discussion among reporters; therefore, this has no impact on reporters.

"So, how do you feel?" Waiting for Lanli to finish reading the magazine, Bradley threw out an introduction.

Lan Li pursed her lips, "I really want to see the two works of "Son of Thor" and "Aokihara Kishi". One is the highest score and the other is the lowest score.

Bradley couldn't help laughing.

Gavin asked curiously, "Why? Just because of good and bad reviews?"

"Part of the reason. I have to admit, what kind of work Gus filmed to get the media such a low score." Lanley glanced at the magazine again: Six stars, four media refused to comment. This was really bad. "If I remember correctly, when the Elephant was premiered in Cannes, there were so many controversies that there were even reporters fighting at the media conference. I guess, is the same for this work?"

In his previous life, Lan Li never watched the work "Aokihara Tree Sea" because he felt it was unnecessary, but now his perspective and ideas have changed, and he has indeed become curious.

"Previously, Christopher Nolan confirmed that the number one choice for Interstellar was Matthew McConaughey, but he finally chose you to star in it. After missing this work, Matthew's works in the past two years did not seem to be able to meet expectations, and it is generally considered the curse of the little golden man. This time, the Aokihara Kishi Sea faces such an encounter again. What do you think?"
Chapter completed!