我很在乎

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

如果最后她不中那一枪，天理何容。

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。

但凡马拉干的是别的勾当，我都会敬佩她无畏坚韧大胆机灵自律的一面，但她居然坑害没有监护人的老年人，而且还是个独立富有且有学识的女性（虽然是假身份）。

真的全程都气得不行，马拉的形象越是强大，我就越是觉得她可恶。

本来已经愤怒得不想再看了，看着剧情刻意营造出她特厉害的一面，她还总是一副意气风发的样子，她的妆造一直都属于很明艳干练的类型，而且养老院里也是阳光明媚的，我是真担心导演会给她一个好结局，但又觉得不太可能，总之是为了看她遭报应时候的下场，才揪着一颗心挺到了最后。

真的会不自觉把自己代入到那些老人身上，因为我现在就丝毫没有结婚成家的想法，那如果我就是一生都专注赚钱没有结婚，年纪大了就是无儿无女无亲人呢？

我不就可能成为那些老人中的一员吗？

辛苦大半辈子，吃了很多苦才存下了些钱，老了就想安安生生地过晚年，做点自己喜欢的事，拿着钱尽情享受生活，健身、旅游、社交、买衣服……把年轻时候没时间或者不敢做的都做个遍。

本来可以过足瘾不留遗憾，却突然被这帮歹徒中途截胡，失去了大半辈子的心血不说，还要被软禁在养老院，听由这帮冷酷的陌生人摆布，时不时还要被威胁恐吓，甚至在正常状态下被带到精神病院。

自由没了、钱没了、享受没了，只剩下被安排的无聊日程、狭小且满是规矩的小空间……真的好气！

8.6分 就是要给高分，尽管槽多无口。

这绝不是个完美的电影，但是有时候我们也需要这种不可思议的、极富戏剧张力的、并不完全符合逻辑甚至不现实的情节，它们精彩，无比精彩。

而沉浸在文艺的世界，沉浸在韦斯安德森绚丽的布景，斯皮尔伯格精妙的镜头调度和诺兰炫技般的结构设计中的我们，好像已经忽视了精彩才是电影的必修课。

而《我很在乎》，这样一部小众而荒诞的电影，却忽然点醒了过去追求逼格的我。

这2个小时给了我前所未有的观影体验。

女主的形象非常非常丰满，你可以说她不讨喜，但是你不能说她没立住。

裴淳华实力圈粉，当初看《消失的爱人》，她的熠熠光彩被更牛逼的剧本遮掩了，只能说是锦上添花；而这一次是她力挽狂澜了这个逻辑混乱，“三观崩坏”的剧情。

无数的特写镜头，怼脸炫演技，不管多扯多炸裂的剧情都能完美hold住，从眼神到举止，都无可挑剔的精准演绎。

目前的20年最佳女主角没有之一。

看了一些差评的评论说“不够爽”，说“恶人受得惩戒太少了”，说“导演抓错了爽点，应该多给女主一些教训”…我感觉很奇怪，于是重新审视了一下自己的三观……发现………我确实还挺变态的。

首先我严重同情弱势群体，严重到甚至有些滥情。

所以片头看到这样一个一辈子独立，坚强，成功的老太太无缘无故被marla盯上，又被迫送到“监护院”，断绝和外界的一切交流，被掠夺财产，余生一片荒芜时，我对marla产生了强烈的反感，和大多数观众同样等待着她报复的到来。

然而当剧情一步步推进，marla变成了浮萍一般的弱势群体，老太太背后有强大的黑帮靠山，他们可以随时闯入监护院，随时对marla和她的同僚进行攻击，这个时候我的阵营便开始动摇了，即使她做了无数伤天害理的事情，即使她是个自私的人渣，还是不可避免地希望她无恙。

就怀着这样矛盾的情绪，电影来到高潮，医生被杀，marla和她的漂亮女朋友人心惶惶，准备逃离时，却被黑帮抓住。

该怎么说呢，此前的剧情中规中矩，难说有多精彩，但是仍在掌控之下。

此后的剧情是彻底的放飞自我，各种雷点纷涌而至。

marla被小矮子绑在椅子上，用塑料袋勒住脑袋时，我好像也感到一阵窒息，代入感强到可怕。

此刻裴淳华的演技爆表，瞬间让我对女主的感情产生了巨大变化。

我个人非常崇拜目标明确，用尽一切手段达成自己目的的人，为此我可以接受一定道德感的丧失。

女主和小矮子表达自己对死亡的态度，毫不避讳自己对金钱的渴望，毫不遮掩自己巨大的野心。

就连小矮子也为之震颤了一瞬。

而我则彻底被她征服了。

也许换一个人，但凡换成裴淳华之外任意一个演员，也许都做不到她这样澎湃的魅力表达。

她可恨，虚伪，但是她无比坚定，冷酷而强大的灵魂成为了她最犀利的武器。

什么叫无脑爽？

marla死里偷生，从水中逃命，随后一系列并不理智但成功完成的复仇计划叫无脑爽，这一段不评价，其实编剧的处理很低级，但是怎么办，我喜欢。

一颗永远不迷失的内心，即使是丑恶的，在我的眼里也是动人的。

还没看就被剧透了结尾有巨大转折，我大致猜到了是女主阴沟翻船，在片子最后十分钟还有些抗拒这一刻的到来，也许结束在她成功的一刻变圆满了。

但是我万万没有想到居然会是片头的那个“怂货”终结了marla传奇的一生，那一刻，我感觉她受到了应得的报应，死得其所。

换言之，也许只有这个人杀了她我才会觉得她是死得其所。

不得不让人惊叹于设计之巧妙。

尽管如此，这并不代表我不敬畏marla的一部分品质。

带着一点震撼，一点释然，一点感慨和无数惊喜，影片结束了。

这个题材选的太牛逼了，牛逼到即使它其实立不住，还是能让我投入其中。

我突然想到，如果要是找中国一些导演来拍这个题材，拍的不这么极端，添加更多的喜剧元素，也许它会大受欢迎，但是不复这样的震撼。

我喜欢这部电影就像现在所存在的样子。

I love《i care a lot》a lot.

看了一个片段解析觉得好棒好精彩，都没敢看完就赶紧来看电影了。

主角全是我的菜而且我很喜欢这种悬疑反转类的，觉得一定是惊心动魄快马加鞭的就看了。

前面的确挺不错，女主的确快把我气死了，而且詹尼佛阿姨演技真是棒那“你必死”“你马上就死翘翘”“我不吊你”的神态太爽了，前半段真是绝，我喜笑颜开的看着。

直到………女主和黑帮的蜜汁对话，蜜汁塑料袋子捂脸，都看到脸了猜到黑帮大佬是谁了，还能正经八百的谈钱？

牛批啊这心理素质。

刚下水就活了轻松跳车自救，四肢健全手脚灵活可是掉了颗牙？

潇洒换衣服吃吃喝喝一点也不着急打个的回家正好赶上救老婆？

而且老婆也问题不大，出门时间刚好走了就爆炸。

回首就将了大佬一军，那么大的头目就靠个车牌号就被轻而易举找到了？

这其实是个守法公民啊。

而且这么厉害的角色又轻易的在地下车库被抓走了，轻易的被扒光扔路边，轻易的被安了监护人。

一老太太丢了都被追杀呢，这么大的角色被安排成这样竟然就没人找上门来？？？

然后俩人竟然蜜汁合作了？？？

牛牛牛，我真是语言匮乏，属实是有点脑洞，两人心平气和，而我满脑子莫名其妙，吊吊吊，女主就是女主。

之后就插播了一段TED励志纪录片，讲述女性的成长与事业发展的心路历程。

我无语。

纯励志片。

纯。

就莫名出戏，我到底在看什么？

可能导演就是想要这种效果吧。

很棒，我真的被带入了。

虽然我知道她在说些狗屁。

最离奇的是，结局反转了铁子们！！

好离奇啊！

真是让人意想不到呢！

真是神反转！

莫名其妙！

各种神通的超神女主就这么随随便便被人一枪崩死了。

奥，就那么轻松的回头，然后轻易的被崩，距离和回头的角度都恰到好处，轻而易举的一枪毙命。

就特么离谱好吧。

那血泊里的大钻戒，我真是觉得我的时间就这么随着这毫无意义的血液毫无意义的流逝了。

我强行加深度想这说不定是大佬安排的，大佬不是不报时候未到，现在时候到了，这个开枪的男人是大佬的局等等等等……我踏马的…我说服不了自己，就算这是个局特么的这到底在折腾什么啊，难道这就是传说中的捧杀？？？

我吐了我不懂，也许是我太浅薄，真不懂导演的高深之处到底在哪里，我错了，是我不该看这么有深度的东西。

这个世界的真实运行规律不是公平竞争，公平竞争只是对多数老实温顺的绵羊大众来说的，社会金字塔顶端的精英们才是狮子。

影片为了表达这个主题，用了一个极度惊悚的案例。

一个外表靓丽内心凶残的女性格雷森，把年老体衰的有一定经济基础的老人当肥羊，先勾结老人的医生，由医生出具该老人需要专业护理的报告，然后由法院判决拥有专业养老院的格雷森获得老人监护权，然后老人被依法强制住进格雷森的养老院，最后，老人成为养老院的囚犯，老人财产被格雷森巧取豪夺。

只是这一次的肥羊老太太，有个黑帮毒贩大佬的儿子，故事由此展开……虽然故事情节有的地方有点生硬，比如格雷森和她的女友不但内心狠辣，而且也是犯罪高手。

比如小恶魔饰演的毒贩大佬过于弱鸡，完全不是养老院院长格雷森的对手。

但是故事确实曲折精彩，让人猜不到结局。

演员演技也完全在线。

令人惊悚的地方除了格雷森的恶毒凶残，我们注定是狮子眼中的绵羊。

个人感觉最惊悚的就是本片的养老模式，我们每个人都会面临养老问题，无论当年多风光，退休金多优厚，手上有几套房，我们都有脑子开始痴呆或者需要护理的那一天。

进养老院的那一天就是走向屠宰场的时候。

这个产业不但在美国有市场，在我们这里绝对是一大群狮子盯着的庞大的朝阳产业。

一切都是合理合法，而且政策扶持保护，以房养老已经在实施。

我们注定就是养老院的绵羊，差别只是养老院院长的凶残程度不同而已。

养老院虐待老人的新闻经常出现，养老院一床难求的新闻也经常出现。

在现在这样一个经济社会，绵羊注定会被吞噬，老绵羊更是毫无反抗能力，哪个成功的集团连锁式的养老院长不是格雷森？

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。

哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈，无儿无女的老人，就是待宰的猪，我三十岁就想到了这一点，哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈，我会留给子孙一点够用的自己的存款资本，然后剩下的必须自己挥霍一空！

如果不孝顺，那算我教育失败（任何投资都不是百分百成功的，你得承认这点，但我狼爸虎妈的教育方法我不信能教育出不肖子孙，我跟你们讲生孩子是自己的累赘负担观念不同。

我认为生儿育女本质，就是一种投资！

播种开花结果，最终哺育父母，也就是我自己，哈哈哈这才是终极奥义，你们不婚不育实际上丧失了最大最好的人生退路，我用一辈子跟你赌）我会不留一分钱给他们，全部自己挥霍，人都是怕死的，网上小年轻还老推崇安乐死，实际上自杀都是最懦弱最无能走投无路的人才会去做的，但凡有能活下去的方法，人，一定会想尽办法活下去，这就是人的本性！

自古以来，自杀的人都是少数，安乐死的人更是少之又少，谁也不愿意放弃享受生命的最后一刻，除非痛苦大过活着！

你们这群小屁孩竟然说老了失能了就安乐死，想的太简单了逗比，真到那时候，只要痛苦不大于活下去的精力，没人会想死的嘿嘿。

我都想干女主这行了，真真稳赚不赔

【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.

竟然这么长一部电影，节奏完全可以再快些。

看到一半觉得怎么还有一个小时后面怎么讲，看完了后悔没快进浪费时间。

逻辑漏洞太多了：女主到底什么手腕坚信自己不会输，大佬妈妈厉害人物怎么就还是从了去了养老院，大佬不是很厉害吗怎么手下的人办事如此不力永远处理不掉人，女主怎么习得的作案手法不是经济犯么，大佬怎么保镖只有一个，小女友工具人实锤，大佬和女主突然就合作了为了强行推女主到属于她的结局，法官仿佛如此愚蠢，还有斯巴鲁招你惹你了？！

女主设定也十分标签化，搞了个姬佬双女主并没有加入任何女性视角或者思维，把女主换成男的，小女友换成男geek，或者俩人都换成男的，对故事不会有任何影响。

用女主设定完全为了吸引眼球（女性题材，lgbt）。

用女性做主角感觉只是为了能叫她bitch。

看完了，没有意料之外，设计的痕迹太重，而且逻辑完全经不起推理。

结局好像还似曾相识，几乎是所有如此人设的主角的共同下场，都拍烂了……