先扬一下，

中期一部分的剧集写的确实不错，然后OP还有其他的一些歌真的好听，爸爸妈妈的支线剧情写的很棒。门田广见这个角色在TV最后端出来的成品也很不错的，关于他我之前在DEAR GAGA里有详细写过了这里不再多说了。

然后就该抑了，

前面的单元回写的真的相当一般，尤其是前两个的高尔夫和青梅竹马回，人物的转变突兀的要命，可以看出木下半太真的没有写单元剧的那个水平，我也曾经一度以为他会把单元剧抡出来补后续，但事实证明他就是个写不明白单元剧的CJB。可能会有人觉得单元回都是用来带货的，何必这么在意，主线好看不就好了嘛。不好意思，我就觉得不管出于什么样的目的既然你觉得要写，就应该好好写，你写烂了就是写烂了骂他他就不应该还嘴。

中期问题就逐渐暴露了，也就是利维斯最大的问题——人物塑造戏份的分配不均，然后导致人物塑造和观感变得稀烂。

一辉和维斯的羁绊在中期可以说匀到了最多的戏份，但这里面很大的一部分都是无效的戏份，龙蛋你塑造的两人的深刻羁绊我会直接拍手叫好；火山又是两个人的羁绊了，我会觉得还行吧，羁绊又加深了一下；然后你告诉我劫持这个东西还是在写两个人的羁绊，我开始有点腻了；然后到了风雷你还在塑造羁绊，这次我真的受不了了，再好吃的饭一而再再而三地吃，人也是会吐的，而且到了后面维斯还是会被巴尔忽悠瘸腿然后开始怀疑自己和一辉是不是真的有羁绊，你说他被控住了暴走了我勉强还可以接受，但你告诉我是他自己不相信了，那你前面的塑造是在干什么呢，把前面的所有塑造全都变成了笑话，然后跟着一起共情的大伙也全都成了小丑。

中期一辉的大篇幅塑造，就极大地影响到了其他人物，大二和蜃楼的线都没有什么认真的描写，全是吃咖喱和蜃楼嘴臭大二，就导致中期两个人的决斗拍的像那么回事，但观众的情绪根本起不来，完全地尬住了；还有阿基蕾拉和小樱的对手戏，我一直不同意所谓的“木下一直写女同导致利维斯开始崩盘的说法”，恰恰相反，阿蕾和樱崩坏的原因反而是根本没有匀给她们足够的有效戏份来塑造，前期和中期两个人一见面不是打架就是嘴臭，根本没有任何有效戏份来表达了两个人关系之间的转变，这就会导致到后面两个人互诉衷肠的时候，观众们会觉得唐突，会根本没法共情。

而三兄妹到了后期呢，就完全崩坏了，

为了蜃楼这碗醋活生生把五十岚大二写成了人奸；五十岚樱随着蕾樱线和井本彩花崩坏的演技把自己彻底冲进了马桶，到了他真正觉悟的时候观众已经不在意她的成长了，观众只会骂她两句臭傻逼然后快进掉她的剧情；而我们的主角五十岚一辉甚至完全没有了可塑造的东西变成了纯纯的打手，你不告诉我我单看后期我根本不敢想他会是主角，整部戏下来一辉这个角色完全没有属于个人的成长，完全和维斯绑定在了一起，第一集和第五十集的人设可以说是没有一点的变化，整个角色完全是扁平的，作为主角可以说是完完全全的大失败。

演完了三兄妹，其他人的有效戏份就更加所剩无几，玉置豪喜提了全局最好的一次有效塑造，然后就变成了边缘舔狗，甚至一次次被编剧玩弄，就是不让你当正义的英雄还要一次次地在观众面前丢人现眼；还有全剧根本没有的任何的有效戏份的牛岛光，前期戏份加起来连个一分钟都没有中期稍微多了点戏份打了两拳踢了两脚稍微练习了一下就成了正义的英雄了，你就说，他凭什么啊？你如果真的想写一个默默无闻的小人物的觉悟就好好写，多给他点镜头，多给他一点塑造和戏份，而不是临时让他打两下拳练两下就能变成正义的伙伴了，这真的很让正义的伙伴掉价，会让人觉得什么人都能成为英雄，这给小孩子传递的价值观是完全不对的。

然后就是整条主线了，作为主线的恶魔，前面可能还会写写恶魔的暗，中后面就把恶魔这个东西扔了，完全变成了五十岚家的宝可梦，前期主要反派的欧陆特加塑造的还不错，到了中期接手的赤石，装的那么老谋深算像那么一回事，结果被基法德踢了一脚就变成了纯纯的小丑，接着是贯穿了全剧的基夫，全剧3/4的时间都在那里杵着，什么塑造都没有，除了吃人也什么能力也都没展示，结果一张嘴把自己前面的B格全搞没了，你怎么连“我们人类是需要恶魔的”这种逼话都不会反驳的。后期基夫的登场就根本就没什么压迫力，最后被踢死不知道以为我们踢烂了对面一栋防御塔呢；然后就是极其重量级的乔治?狩崎的莫名其妙的跳反，把这个角色完完全全写成了臭傻逼，前期科学狂人中期正义的伙伴后期又变成了魔怔人，然后就被“那不是支配，是爱”这种爆典一样的逼话给打成了纯傻逼，乔治?狩崎的人设跟个笑话一样，前期你以为他是个有什么阴谋的疯狂科学家，还对门田的生命不管不顾，结果门田下线以后一下子变成了五十岚家忠实的好伙伴，给道具给的那叫一个勤快，完全就是一副正义的伙伴的嘴脸，把他前面的塑造全都扔进了垃圾桶里，然后你告诉我就这样一个鞠躬尽瘁死而后已的正义的科学家伙伴，他会是最终的BOSS，我踏马的；最后的最后就是完全没活了在那硬写的失忆线，前期又是照片消失，又是维斯在那里冷笑，我以为会是很大的一个伏笔，结果一揭开就是个低配版的令和零诺斯，甚至格局上比零诺斯差了一大截，而且发现失忆的单元回写的也是个笑话，踢足球把好友踢废了然后被好友委托继承梦想，结果因为自己害怕了就润了，还把这件事忘了个干干净净，我......明明那么有爆点的剧情就这么被木下写成了一个纯纯的笑话。

最后蒙面超人这个系列现在还有一个最大的问题，那就是完全被商法所左右了，以前还可以是商法跟着剧情走，现在剧情被商法改的面目全非，这里要买玩具你要安排新角色变身，那里你还要塞个新东西，完全没有什么章法全都变成了跟着商法走，角色也完全变成了商法的工具，没榨干你的最后一滴价值之前你连死都死不了，一只脚迈进地狱的门都能给你拽回来，角色靠死亡完成的升华完全变成了一个笑话，蒙面超人再这个样子下去可能财报会越来越好看，但剧情只会越来越无聊甚至完全不会再有好剧情，彻底变成一个玩具的宣传片。

年少的时候学习历史知识，讲究的就是一个过度记忆，在拗口难背的知识点，读记个百十来遍也就烂熟于胸。到如今大大小小的考试统统过去，记忆竟也开始变得淡薄起来。秋收起义，四个字一出现，脑海中不自觉地浮现出来的只有日期：1927年9月9日。已经九十年了啊。九十年的沧桑岁月过渡，依旧是岁序迁流的难回难干涉。看湖南卫视当下正在热播的红色青春史诗剧《秋收起义》，怀念与热血等诸多莫名情感一齐涌上心头。

重大革命剧《秋收起义》讲述了毛泽东等老一辈中国共产党人，开辟农村包围城市道路，建设由党绝对领导的新型人民军队，点燃中国革命希望之火的革命史实。不同于一般近代历史作品的平铺直叙，这部剧通过生动还原史实，直击人心、诸多“爆破”的大场面、人物之间独特微妙的关系与众演员精湛的演技还原了革命先驱们雄姿英发的壮志豪情，自然流畅地连缀起一段意气风发、热血青春的革命片段。

犹记当年高中入学的时候，在语文课上学习的第一课，便是毛泽东的《沁园春·长沙》。当时年少并未解其意，只觉得阅读起来琅琅上口，分外熟悉，背诵起来自然也是得心应手。语文老师是温文尔雅的先生，平时都是一副温润而退让的好脾气，读到这首词的时候，情绪突然变得激动起来，声音也随之高亢起来，至今记忆犹新的是最后一句：曾记否，到中流击水，浪遏飞舟？尤其是那句“到中流击水”，有百转千回、引以为豪壮的况味。当时半开玩笑半认真地调笑模仿，如今蓦然回首，竟然也理解了书生意气，理解了激扬文字，理解了“忆往昔峥嵘岁月稠”背后的澎湃激情与蓬勃朝气。我看见一个心怀崇高理想的有为青年，在1925年的秋天，竭尽全部心力与青春热血，将脑力与年华凝固，撰写出最为慷慨壮烈的不死的英雄梦想。

当在湖南卫视看到《秋收起义》时，老一辈革命先驱的意气风发竟让我不自觉地回忆起我的语文老师，《沁园春·长沙》也不自觉地再次浮现于脑海。《秋收起义》是导演嘉娜·沙哈提和编剧黄晖继红色青春偶像剧《恰同学少年》十年之后联手打造的又一红色偶像剧，但是与《恰同学少年》相比，《秋收起义》更多了一种“成熟”的韵味。无独有偶，《秋收起义》中的毛泽东恰恰比《恰同学少年》时期年长10岁。十年后，毛泽东走出校门，走上了革命探索的道路，指点江山，挥斥方遒，；十年后，嘉娜·沙哈提导演用更成熟的手法打造更热血的青春故事。

一部优秀的电视剧能够让观众为之叫好，必然有它的过人之处，《秋收起义》能够在众多献礼剧中脱颖而出，可见其不凡的功力。首先，它故事很完整也很质朴，高度还原了历史真实，不浮夸，不做作。其次，剧中一帮年轻演员让人感到眼前一亮。实力派演员侯京健继《铁肩担道义》与《毛泽东》之后，第三次扮演伟人毛泽东。演绎同一个人物，最怕的就是形象的固化，但是侯京健没有，他三次饰演毛泽东，每次都有不一样的感觉。他对此坦言：“非常荣幸，但同时压力也很大。”为忠实还原革命伟人风采，侯京健不仅熟读剧本，也研究大量相关史实资料，以独到魅力进行人物的深刻诠释。

革命从来都不是风平浪静的，革命是要流血牺牲的。芦溪一站中，秋收起义总指挥卢德铭为掩护部队突围而壮烈牺牲。毛泽东说：“还我卢德铭，给我三个师也不换。”就是这样一位军事将领，心系革命，却倒在了黎明前的黑暗，牺牲时年仅22岁。而革命的道路上有太多这样的烈士，《秋收起义》展现的不仅是他们的青春，还有他们身上不屈的革命意志。正是有了他们的奋不顾身，工农革命军才不畏艰险，迎来了一个崭新的中国。

回顾历史，立足当下，展望未来，《秋收起义》通过重温革命先驱的热血青春，不仅展现了他们与党、国家和人民的患难真情，同时也彰显了与时俱进的时代气质。无论是热血、青春、激情、精神还是信仰，相信观众们都能从红色青春革命军《秋收起义》中有所收获。

我一星都不想给这部电视剧

看完简直三观震塌 整部电视剧乱七八糟的 上下承接 时间线虽然是正常的 我都不敢说流畅 只能是正常

然后剧情属于跳脱没有连续性的 有时候看着看着 就总是感觉是不是遗漏了 或者剪辑剪漏了什么 甚至怀疑自己是不是漏看了哪个情节 简直惊呆了

全剧 坏人过的是最舒坦的 空手套白狼能力最强的 正派'A男主角 朋友兄弟妻子儿子二哥三个大哥接连被杀 却是最能忍得

中国电视剧很多都铺设了男主人公大度包容原谅 知错就改善莫大焉 这部电视剧没有那种快感 看着看着就会让你恨男主恨主角

这个电视剧没有什么感情剧 唯一就是琦云追男主 有点太不要脸 老方去牢里追一片红 等待他出狱结婚 老方和一片红是最甜的了 也充分证明了 一个人喜欢一个人是什么样的 替她着想 想见你想见你只想见你 牢里也想见你

瞿世年真的是牛逼 全剧最坏的人 活到了最后 熬死了所有人 害死了那么多人 他活到了最后 然后死翘翘了

他阴谋诡计 无所不用其极 人不为己天诛地灭这句话被他诠释了淋漓尽致 简直惊呆 弹幕都开始怀疑编剧导演和瞿世年一家子的 甚至这电视剧可以改名叫 瞿世年风云记

原本以为瞿世年至少对碧玉是真爱 没想到到最后 也是利用 杀死 这什么魔鬼

而且一部电视剧 48集 从商业 实业 到袁世凯 慈禧 打仗 日本人侵略 都是几分钟可以略过 然后修铁路 支持抗日队伍什么的 更不会详细阐述 但是这时间线真的牛逼

分分钟能让你气死的电视剧 主角都是什么智商啊 而且枪都指着脑袋了 每次都不开枪 行吧 导演说了算

这电视剧从微博吸引我来的 就让我看了个这 简直醉了醉了 我真的是要吐槽的 大概只有自己看了 才知道多难看 看的??多气多憋屈

睡觉了 只能说终于看完了 简直累

clit2014, jan 2, 晚交了20天，我再也不想上gender studies了我要吐了，写这篇paper不知道经历了多少mental breakdown

Women’s Experience Matters: Redefining Feminist Cinema through Claire’s Camera

As Laura Mulvey points out in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, traditional narrative cinema largely relies upon the practice of a gendered “gaze”, specifically, male’s unconscious objectification of female as erotic spectacle from which visual pleasure is derived. Her account draws attention to the prevailing feminist-unfriendly phenomena in contemporary cinema, one that resides in the language of patriarchy, privileging man’s experience while making woman the passive object deprived of autonomy. Many feminist filmmakers and theorists including Mulvey herself urge a radical strategy that dismantles patriarchal practice and frees woman from the state of being suppressed by the male-centered cinematic language.To conceptualize a mode of cinema that speakswoman’s language, or authentic feminist cinema, this essay interrogates the validity of Mulvey’s destruction approach in pursuing a feminist aesthetic. By making reference to Hong Sang-soo’s film, Claire’s Camera, I argue that feminist cinema needs to be redefined by neither the immediate rejection of gender hierarchy nor the postmodern notion of fluidity, but by perspectives that transcend the gendered metanarrative of subject vs. object, and that primarily represent and serve woman’s experience on both sides of the Camera.

Earlier waves of feminism strived to call attention to, if not, eliminate the unbalanced power relation between men and women in the society, namely the dichotomy between domination and submission, superiority and inferiority, and self and other (Lauretis 115). Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir radically interrogated women’s rights in the political arena as well as women’s relative position to men in the society at large. However, the approaches of the earlier waves cannot prove themselves sufficient in pursuit of a female autonomy, owing to the fact that they are constantly caught in the power-oriented metalanguage which inherently privileges one over another. While it is argued that the objectification of the “second sex” is oppressive in nature, for example, the assertion already marks the subject-object dynamics between men and women by default. It fails to propose non-power based gender narratives, while obliquely acknowledging that the language spoken in this context is inevitably characterized by phallocentric symbols, ones that prioritize self over other, subject over object, male over female. In thisregard, rather than rendering a perspective that exposes and dismantles patriarchy, the outcome of earlier feminist approaches inclines towards “replicating male ideology” (Mackinnon 59), reifying the omnipresence of the patriarchal language and reproducing the effects of patriarchy.

A similar notion applies to defining feminist cinema. In terms of visual representation, feminist idealists encourage women to present their bodily spectacles, inviting interpretations free of erotic objectification. Despite the favorable receptions from the sex-positive side of the discourse, it is indiscernible as to whether these attempts truly free women from the dome of sex-negativism or reinforce the effect of the patriarchal language even more. This polarized debate, I believe, is due to the fact that the discourse is held captive by the language of patriarchy too powerful for one to extricate from, and that any rebellious gesture would appear to be an insufficient, passive rejection of the predominant ideology. To illustrate this point, Lauretis notes that Mulvey’s and other avant-garde filmmakers’ conceptualization of women’s cinema often associates with the prefix of “de-” with regards to “the destruction… of the very thing to be represented, …the deaestheticization of the female body, the desexualization of violence, the deoedipalization of narrative, and so forth” (175). The “de-” act does not necessarily configure a new set of attributes for feminist representation, but merely displays a negative reaction to a preexisting entity. It is important to be skeptical of its effectiveness in defining feminist cinema, as it implies certain extent of negotiation instead of spot-on confrontation with the previous value. A destructive feminist cinema can never provide a distinctive set of aesthetic attributes without having to seek to problematize and obscure the reality of a patriarchal cinema. In that regard, it is passive, dependent and depressed. More importantly, the question – how the destruction of visual and narrative pleasure immediately benefits women within the narrative and directly addresses female spectators – remains unanswered.

TakingClaire’s Cameraas an example, the film destructs the notion of a gendered visual pleasure by presenting the camera as a reinvented gazing apparatus, one that differs from the gendered gaze, and instead brings novel perception into being. Normally, when characters are being photographed, mainstream filmmakers tend to introduce a viewpoint in alignment with the photographer’s position, enabling spectator’s identification; that is, the shot usually shifts to a first-person perspective so that spectators identify with the photographer gazing at the object who is in front of the camera. Claire’s Camera, however, abandons this first-person perspective while generating new meanings of the gaze. Claire ambiguously explains to So and Yanghye the abstract idea that taking photographs of people changes the photographer’s perception of the photographed object, and that the object is not the same person before their photograph was taken. The spectacle, although objectifiable in nature, is not so passive as being the object constructed upon, but rather constructs new signification upon the subject. The notion of the gaze is therefore re-presented with alternative insights.

That being said, as I argued earlier, the destructive approach is not so sufficient an attempt at defining feminist cinema, because the way it functions nevertheless indulges feminist ideology in the role of passivity, deprived of autonomy and always a discourse dependent on and relative to the prepotency of patriarchy. In the conversation scene between So and Manhee, So, who is almost the age of Manhee’s father, criticizes her for wearing revealing shorts and heavy makeup. In a typically phallocentric manner, he insists that she has insulted her beautiful face and soul by self-sexualizing and turning into men’s erotic object. Despite the fact that the preceding scenes have no intention to eroticize the female body or sexualize her acts such that the visual pleasure is deliberately unfulfilled and almost completely excluded from the diegesis, So inevitably finds Manhee’s physical features provocative and without a second thought, naturally assumes that her bodily spectacle primarily serves man’s interest. This scene demonstrates that regardless of feminists’ radical destruction of visual pleasure, practitioners of patriarchal beliefs will not be affected at all; if any, the femininity enunciation only intensifies the social effects of patriarchy. The conversation between the two characters embodies the self-reflexive style of Hong Sang-soo’s filmmaking, in a sense that it fosters debates within the theoretical framework upon which it is constructed, and constantly counters itself in search of a deeper meaning, contemplating questions such as do we believe in what we practice, whether it is patriarchy or its opposite? And is anti-patriarchy feminism determined enough to prove itself a destructive force against patriarchy rather than a sub-deviant of a predominant ideology? The scene proves the drawback of a destructive strategy, that the way it operates nonetheless subscribes to a patriarchal manner, and that in order to escape the secondary position with respect to the phallocentric subject, more needs to be done other than problematizing the subject.

To supplement the insufficiency of destruction, postmodern feminists such as Judith Butler proposes theoretical alternative to approach the discourse. Butler argues that gender is performative and fluid instead of a set of essential attributes. The notion of performativity indeed precludes the social effects of essentialism by introducing the idea of an identity continuum into gender politics, in ways that empower the socially perceived non-normative. On top of that, Butler believes that the categorization of sex “maintain[s] reproductive sexuality as a compulsory order”, and that the category of woman is an exclusive and oppressive “material violence” (17). Acknowledging the harms that essentialist perception of gender and sexuality entails, Butler bluntly negates the very categorization of woman. This radical negation, however, evades the reality that our whole understanding of the human race is based on gender categories, despite the corresponding inequalities generated from the instinctual categorization. In fact, it is when women as a collective community have come to the realization that the female gender is socially suppressed, that they start to strive for equality through the apparatus of feminism. Butler’s rejection of the gender categorization withdraws the sense of collectivism in the feminist community, which is “an important source of unity” for the marginalized (Digeser 668). Moreover, it deprives the feminist cinema of the necessity of delineating an authentic female representation, because within the notion of performativity there is no such thing as a fixed set of female representations but only distinctive individuals that conform to gender fluidity. Since identifying with a certain form of representation means to live up to a socially perceived norm from which one deviates, a performative cinema does not encourage spectator’s identification. The failed identification will not only drastically shift the spectator’s self-understanding but also cause more identity crises. Therefore, performativity is too ideal a theoretical concept to have actual real-life applications.

Whether it is her body or her social function, woman has become the commodity of patriarchy. As Lauretis puts it, “she is the economic machine that reproduces the human species, and she is the Mother, an equivalent more universal than money, the most abstract measure ever invented by patriarchal ideology” (158). Woman’s experience has been portrayed in the cinematic realm nothing more than being the (m)other and the provocative body. Historical debates have proved that articulating the problematic tendencies within gender differences only results in skepticism rather than new solutions. Thus, in order to negotiate a feminist cinema, filmmakers need to abandon the patriarchal meta-language completely, and reconstruct new texts that represent and treasure woman’s experience more than just being the other, that “[address] its spectator as a woman, regardless of the gender of the viewers” (Lauretis 161).

Similarly, what needs to be done in feminist cinema is more than just interrogating the gender difference between woman and man, but interpreting such difference in unconventional ways that liberate women from being compared to men and invite them to possibilities of having narratives dedicated to themselves. One of the ways, Lauretis suggests, is to regard woman as the site of differences (168). This signifies that the cinema needs to stop generalizing woman’s role based on her universal functions; rather, it needs to articulate her unique features, what makes her herself but not other women, from the way she looks to the trivial details of her daily life. In Claire’s Camera, the function of the camera conveniently transcends the diegetic space. In the narrative, it demarcatesthe “site of differences”, that is, how someone changes right after their photograph is taken, as well as how Manhee is presented differently each of the three times being photographed. The camera also magnifies her experience as a woman for spectator’s identification, mundane as it could be. In the last scene, the camera smoothly tracks Manhee organizing her belongings, packing box after box, casually talking to a colleague passing by, and so forth. Long takes like this fulfill what Lauretis would call “the ‘pre-aesthetic’ [that] isaestheticrather than aestheticized” in feminist cinema (159). Without commodifying or fetishizing woman and her acts, the film authentically represents a woman’s vision, her perception, her routines, and all the insignificant daily events which female spectators can immediately relate to. When a film no longer solely portrays woman as the “economic machine” that labors, entices men, and commits to social roles, it has confidently overwritten the patriarchal narrative with a female language. It fully addresses its spectator as a woman, appreciating and celebrating the female sex, not for what she does as a woman but for what she experiences.

In conclusion, the essay first challenges the destructive approach in feminist cinema regarding its sufficiency in pursuit of woman’s autonomy and its indestructible destiny to fall back into patriarchy. The essay then argues that the rejection of gender categorization in performativity theory frustrates the mission of defining a female representation. Hong Sang-soo’s self-reflexive film, Claire’s Camera, offers an apparatus to delve into the drawbacks of destructive feminist cinema and simultaneously renders a new feminist code, abandoning the patriarchal metanarrative and constructing a new narrative that truly prioritizes woman’s experience.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. “Contingent Foundations: Feminist and the Questions of ‘Postmodernism.’”Feminists Theorize the Political, edited by Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3–21.

Digeser, Peter. “Performativity Trouble: Postmodern Feminism and Essential Subjects.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, 1994, pp. 655-673.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Aesthetic and Feminist Theory: Rethinking Women's Cinema.”New German Critique, no. 34, 1985, pp. 154–175.

Lauretis, Teresa de. “Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness.”Feminist Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, 1990, pp. 115–150.

Mackinnon, Catherine A. “Desire and Power.”Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 46–62.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.”The Norton Anthology and Theory and Criticism, edited by Vincent B Leitch, W. W. Norton, 2001, pp. 2181–2192.

看了初恋50次后，老夫的少女心炸裂啊，剧情很甜、很温暖^0^。开头以许许多多的女孩炫耀她们的共同男友一一男主亨利，完美展现了亨利的花心。他让我立刻想到了吕子乔。是中国式的吕子乔吗?可越往下看，越被亨利对露西的暖心告白行动感动。当亨利第一次见到露西时，露西在安安静静地吃早点，此时露西似乎被一通光环绕，亨利一下子注意到并对路西产生好感。女主露西也被花心萝卜的亨利的搭讪吸引住了，可女主因一次车祸而不能记住车祸后的每个新的一天。因此，女主露西的父亲、哥哥都很悉心细腻地照顾她，叫她亲爱的小公主”。露西的头忆是不幸的，可她又有父亲、哥哥、亨利的及力保护又是最大的万幸。男主亨利专一爱上露西时，他的巨大转性让我惊叹爱情的力量，整部影片不管是背景音乐还是人物台词都充满了幽默诙谐色彩。亨利的一次又一次的很傻的套路，都只是让露西一次又一次地爱上目己。亨利曾是老司机类的人物，但遇到露西后他愿倾尽余生，不断唤起露西对爱情的鲜话感受，甜地让老夫又相信爱情这种东东了，或者有像亨利这样的一个人出现在我身边，我会跟他走的hiahiahia~

版权所有 禁止转载 禁止引用

Imitation 模仿

第八篇 晨星

【详细】

13635365