剑鱼行动

可以让我觉得震撼的片子不多，这就是其中一部。可能因为看这部片子的时候我很久没有看电影了或者很久没有看到过好的电影了。呵呵，很可能因为一直在看A片的关系。反正我记不清了。因为看这部片子的时候已经是好几年前了。给我第一个感觉就是震撼，当电影开始的那场爆炸发生时，我被震撼了，原来爆炸可以是这样的，可以这样拍摄。真的佩服现在科技进步，可以让一个爆炸的场面表现的如此震撼，如此身临其境。剧情也是跌宕起伏，这也是一部我无法预知下一个情节的电影。这部电影很现实或者说很真实，不光是因为它的拍摄画面，更因为它的剧情。它告诉我我们一个相对真实的世界。那就是这个世界什么都可能。废话一大堆，还是自己看吧，顺便说一句，这样的电影才值得买正版来收藏。

事实证明多米尼克.塞纳真是不会拍电影，再好的故事也不会拍的精彩。早年的那部《加州杀手》曾给我留下了很好的印象，只是印象而已，记忆已经模糊了，只记得朱丽叶特-刘易斯和皮特的个人魅力。《女巫季节》和《急速60秒》加上本片都很中庸，好故事驾驭的不好，本片给人留下的热议的焦点恐怕只是拜瑞的露点了，特拉沃尔塔的个人魅力也没为本片加分多少。

[Stanley is going to drive Gabriel's car during a shoot-out with the police]
Stanley: I can't drive this thing!
Gabriel: Learn!

Swordfish (2001) - Memorable quotes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244244/quotes

      值得推荐的动作片之一
      当年看这部片子的时候是大学放暑假的时候，那个时候还流行租VCD、DVD碟片。本来想去租一部《断剑》看的，但是去的时候碟片已经被别人租走了，老板为了招揽生意就给我推荐了这部影片，说是《断剑》的姐妹篇，我看碟片封面上确实印着《断剑》姐妹篇字样，心里老大不情愿的就租了。
      回到家以后观看这部影片，刚开始观看就被情节深深的吸引住了，特拉沃尔塔在开头的那段表演太精彩了，给我留下了非常深刻的印象。后面的故事情节也很紧凑，不失为一部好影片。
      很多观众说这部电影剧情老套，没有新意，本人不敢苟同。如果你只是把观影重点集中在哈利贝瑞裸露的胸部而不是去关注影片想表达的更深层次意思，那你只是一个看热闹的人。
      影片中加布利尔到底是好人还是坏人？他为了实现他所谓的爱国梦可以不择手段去抢银行，甚至可以牺牲一部分人的性命。他对待不利于美国国家利益的人采取的不是谈判而是以暴制暴。一个真实的人，不可能用简单的正或邪去判断。很多时候正邪就在一线之间。绝对的正义和绝对的邪恶在现实中是不存在的。
      例如，三国时期的诸葛亮，他是忠还是奸呢？他为了完成刘备统一中国的遗愿六出祁山，鞠躬尽瘁死而后已，算是蜀国最大的忠臣。但是从另一个角度去看他，他在蜀国穷兵黩武，不懂得休养生息，致使蜀国税务繁重，人民生活疾苦。长年征战，多少男儿血洒疆场，使得多少家庭支离破碎。即使在他死后，他也要设计杀害他看不顺眼的魏延，仅仅因为他认为魏延有“反骨”。要知道魏延可是汉中太守，镇守直接防卫曹魏的重镇汉中，虽然没有被评为五虎上将之一，肯定是得到刘备绝对信任的重臣之一，重要性不逊于镇守荆州的关羽。同时诸葛亮在这之前还斩杀了同为托孤重臣的李严，仅仅是因为他后勤工作不到位，运送粮草不及时。诸葛亮之后指定的接班人姜维也还是走他的老路，使得蜀国最终被灭，这能算是对蜀国尽忠吗？
      又例如宋朝秦桧和岳飞，在老百姓眼里秦桧是卖国求荣的奸臣，岳飞是为国为民的忠臣，但是在宋高宗赵构的眼里秦桧是忠君爱国的忠臣，而岳飞却是不听指挥的乱臣贼子。
      很多人和事都可以分正反两面去看的，正所谓成大事者不拘小节，举凡成大事者都是心坚如铁的，妇人之仁成不了大事。
      其实这部影片的编剧在剧情方面有很大创新的，已经不同于以往那些简单的个人英雄主义了。

You know the problem with Hollywood?
They make shit. Unbelievable,
unremarkable shit.
I'm not some wannabe filmmaker...
...searching for existentialism through
a haze of bong smoke.
No, it's easy to pick apart bad acting,
shortsighted directing...
...and a moronic stringing together
of words the studios term as prose.
No, I'm talking about
the lack of realism. Realism.
Not a pervasive element
in modern American cinematic vision.
Take Dog Day Afternoon, for example.
Arguably Pacino's best work.
Short of Scarface and
Godfather Part I, of course.
Masterpiece of directing,
easily Lumet's best.
The cinematography, the acting,
the screenplay, all topnotch. But...
...they didn't push the envelope.
What if, in Dog Day Sonny wanted to
get away with it? Really wanted that.
Now this is the tricky part. What if
he started killing hostages right away?
No mercy, no quarter.
"Meet our demands or the pretty blond
gets it in the head." Bam, splat.
What, still no bus? Come on.
How many innocent victims would it take
for the city...
...to reverse its policy
on hostages?
And this is 1976. There's no CNN.
There's no CNBC. There's no Internet.
Fast-forward to today.
Present time, same situation.
How quickly would the media
make a frenzy? In hours.
It would be the biggest story from
Boston to Budapest.
Ten hostages die.
Twenty, thirty.
Relentless. Bam, bim.
One after another.
All on hi-def, computer-enhanced.
You can almost taste the brain matter.
All for what? A bus, a plane?
A couple million dollars
that's federally insured?
I don't think so, but...
...just a thought.
I mean, it's not...
...within the realm of
conventional cinema, but...
...what if?
- There's a problem with that movie.
- Really?
- It wouldn't work.
- How come?
- Audiences love happy endings.
- Pacino escapes with the money.
Boyfriend gets a sex change.
Live happily ever after.
- No?
- No.
Homophobia.
Bad guy can't win.
It's a morality tale.
One way or the other,
he's gotta go down.
Well, life is stranger
than fiction sometimes.
You know, guys, I gotta go.
Gotta jet.
Thanks for the coffee.